[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Toontown]

Yes, it is. And?

And this essentially proves immortality, does it?

It's not my job to prove anything, any more than it is yours. There are no special rules that only apply to me.

 

[godless dave]

I don't know or particularly care who this "we" you keep talking about is.

That's not what I observe. I experience probability 1 sentience. As opposed to the giganogargantuanly more probable nonexistence of a particular unique brain.

You don't observe that most of the matter of the universe is not in sentient brains?

 

[Toontown]

But what if we didn't? What if we didn't know what system the Mega Millions lottery uses? In my case, I haven't investigated, so I don't know.

Here we have a system that can produce hundreds of millions of possible outcomes, each one equally unlikely. According to the reasoning you have proposed in this thread, we should reject any hypothesis that attempts to explain this process, because the outcomes are so unlikely.

Outcome(s), far from being unlikely, are inevitable, given any system designed for the specific purpose of selecting lottery winners.

A specific outcome may be unlikely under a given hypothesis. And quite meaningful if it is weakly purported, by the hypthesis, to be the only possible outcome that can make you, specifically, see the light of day.

This tail has been chased before. It's the same tail you've always been chasing.

 

[godless dave]

Outcome(s), far from being unlikely, are inevitable, given any system designed to select lottery winners.

A specific outcome is unlikely.

Exactly.

So, contrary to what you have previously posted, a specific outcome being unlikely does not suggest that a hypothesis that predicts unlikely outcomes is unlikely to be true.

 

[Toontown]

You don't observe that most of the matter of the universe is not in sentient brains?

Yes, and I specifically observe that some of this matter is invested in the one and only, ludicrously unlikely, unique brain which is weakly purported to be the only way in monkey hell I, specifically, ever see anything.

You can't make a hypothesis-generated expectation and selection go away by observing that there is a lot of other stuff in the universe that does not have membership in your ludicrously unlikely little unique brain, which only makes it the more ludicrously unlikely. You're pushing a non-sequitur.

 

[Humots]

Humots,
By "scientific model," I'm referring to what I think is the consensus opinion amongst relevant scientists regarding mortality: i.e., each (potential) human "self" (consciousness) exists for one finite lifetime, at most.
- If you basically accept that opinion as the "scientific model," but were really referring to the "scientific method" involved (instead), I will be trying to show why the scientific method would result in a likelihood of one over infinity.

A Scientific Model is a “testable idea… created by the human mind that tells a story about what happens in nature.” Another definition is “a description of nature that can predict things about many similar situations.”

What scientific model states that " each (potential) human "self" (consciousness) exists for one finite lifetime, at most"?

A "consensus opinion amongst relevant scientists regarding mortality" is just that: an opinion. This opinion, as I understand it, is based on the reasoning that "humans are immortal" is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof. No such proof has been introduced, certainly not by you.

The Scientific Method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.

Where does the Scientific Method state "a likelihood of one over infinity" that you exist?

I think you are mixing up "scientific method" and "scientific model", and misusing both terms.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The force vectors applied to the coin are not fully understood and accounted for. Hence the probabilistic distribution of the coin's position after the toss. That is what probability is for.

What exactly do you believe isn't understood about the physics of a coin toss?

 

[Toontown]

Exactly.

So, contrary to what you have previously posted, a specific outcome being unlikely does not suggest that a hypothesis that predicts unlikely outcomes is unlikely to be true.

Edited to add:

"A specific outcome may be unlikely under a given hypothesis. And quite meaningful if it is weakly purported, by the hypthesis, to be the only possible outcome that can make you, specifically, see the light of day."

Before you posted.

Everything is unlikely. That does not invalidate probability. Probability is conditional.

This tail has also previously been chased. Repeatedly and to no avail.

 

[godless dave]

Yes, and I specifically observe that some of this matter is invested in the one and only, ludicrously unlikely, unique brain which is weakly purported to be the only way in monkey hell I, specifically, ever see anything.

You can't make a hypothesis-generated expectation and selection go away by observing that there is a lot of other stuff in the universe that does not have membership in your ludicrously unlikely little unique brain, which only makes it the more ludicrously unlikely.

The fact that most matter is not in sentient brains is in line with the expectation that sentient brains are unlikely. If they were likely, they would make up a much higher proportion of the matter in the universe. They're ludicrously unlikely, so they make up a ludicrously small portion of the matter in the universe.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

More to the point, what do you believe isn't understood about the physics of a coin toss that is understood about the physics of the ball-choosing machines used in the Lottery?

 

[godless dave]

Edited to add:

"A specific outcome may be unlikely under a given hypothesis. And quite meaningful if it is weakly purported, by the hypthesis, to be the only possible outcome that can make you, specifically, see the light of day."

Why is that meaningful?

Everything is unlikely. That does not invalidate probability. Probability is conditional.

Exactly. The existence of a particular brain is unlikely, just like the existence of everything else.

 

[Toontown]

What exactly do you believe isn't understood about the physics of a coin toss?

The precise magnitudes and directions of the force vectors. As I said.

At any rate, as I also said, you did not contrive to question the system by which the coin is tossed, so the only application of probability to the coin toss is the head/tails distribution of the outcome. You proposed no hypothesis that was being tested by the coin toss.

 

[Toontown]

Why is that meaningful?.

For the same reason it is meaningful that I once found a black-eyed fruit fly in a batch of offspring that shouldn't have any black-eyed members, It was there, and it shouldn't have been there, given the hypothetical phenological traits of the parents.

But hey. So a black-eyed fly was unlikely. Everything is unlikely, right? Don't mean nuthin.

Exactly. The existence of a particular brain is unlikely, just like the existence of everything else.

No. A brain, far from unlikely, is all but inevitable. My particular brain is ridiculously unlikely. Probability is conditional, and I'm a frog down here, because this is the perspective I can see something from. Because this is the perspective I, specifically should not be having, with a ridiculous degree of confidence, given the unique brain hypothesis.

What makes you think your blind-bird perspective is the only valid one? Remember the shell game analogy? Both the player's and the little girl's probability distributions were equally valid, but the little girl had the scoop on the pea's location, because of her conditional frog's eye perspective.

 

[godless dave]

For the same reason it is meaningful that I once found a black-eyed fruit fly in a batch of offspring that shouldn't have any black-eyed members, It was there, and it shouldn't have been there, given the hypothetical phenological traits of the parents.

What makes you think it shouldn't have been there? Was it unlikely, or impossible? If it was impossible, it shouldn't have been there. If it was unlikely, then there was a chance it would be there.

No. A brain, far from unlikely, is all but inevitable. My particular brain is ridiculously unlikely. Probability is conditional, and I'm a frog down here, because this is the perspective I can see something from. Because this is the perspective I, specifically should not be having, with a ridiculous degree of confidence, given the unique brain hypothesis.

So the fallacy of special pleading then. A brain isn't unlikely, but yours is unlikely, because you're somehow special and refuse to look at yourself objectively.

This statement:

A brain, far from unlikely, is all but inevitable.

contradicts this one:

... this is the perspective I, specifically should not be having, with a ridiculous degree of confidence, given the unique brain hypothesis.

 

[Ladewig]

Humots,
- By "scientific model," I'm don't mean "using probability in the accepted sense." By "scientific model," I'm referring to what I think is the consensus opinion amongst relevant scientists regarding mortality: i.e., each (potential) human "self" (consciousness) exists for one finite lifetime, at most.
- If you basically accept that opinion as the "scientific model," but were really referring to the "scientific method" involved (instead), I will be trying to show why the scientific method would result in a likelihood of one over infinity.

Jabba, for the sake of moving the thread forward, l am now convinced that the "scientific model" is incorrect and should be discarded immediately. Can you explain why that proves (or even makes more likely) immortality of the consciousness?

 

[abaddon]

No. A brain, far from unlikely, is all but inevitable. My particular brain is ridiculously unlikely.

Brains are inevitable but yours is unlikely? Really?

 

[godless dave]

Winning lottery tickets abound. How are you spending your lottery millions?

Oh, I forgot. You're more likely to be struck by lightning twice in the same day than you are to ever spend a dime of lottery money.

Once again, unlikely and impossible are not synonyms.

Someone in Georgia winning the Mega Millions: unlikely

Me winning the Mega Millions: equally unlikely

But according to Toontown, it's unremarkable if a stranger in Georgia wins the jackpot, but if I win the jackpot, I should suspect that something mysterious is going on.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The precise magnitudes and directions of the force vectors. As I said.

How's that different from lottery balls?

 

[godless dave]

It's a neverending task continuously correcting your repeated misrepresentations, Dave. Like herding a cat.

BTW, you've already chased that tail today, with similarly unsatisfying results.

It would help if you didn't keep changing your story.

Being a conscious, sentient person is like being one of the lottery winners - unlikely, but not impossible. It is nothing at all like winning the lottery every single drawing.

If you admit that someone who wins the jackpot should be surprised but not suspicious, then you have to say the same about someone who is sentient. There is - as you just said - nothing suspicious about an unlikely event happening rarely.

 

[Toontown]

How's that different from lottery balls?

It isn't. Nor was there any reason to ask that question, given my previous responses. Nor is there any alternate hypothesis as to how lottery winners are selected. We know how they're selected. We can watch the balls being drawn on TV.

BTW, your question informs me that you still don't get the whole hypothesis test thing.

I don't suppose I can blame you. I haven't proposed any alternative to the unique brain hypothesis, and don't intend to. Too confusing. Much more confusing than the difference between simply saying an observation is unlikely and saying an observation brings a particular assumption into question, because the assumption makes the observation ludicrously unlikely, and at once makes it impossible to observe anything at all unless the ludicrously unlikely observation occurs.