[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Slowvehicle]

<respectful snip for space>
Technically, that occurs during Black History Month. My gradeschool-aged boys learn all sorts of stuff from slavery through today during February. And then they come home knowing the second verse to "We Shall Overcome" which is ... weird.

Which is, in itself, a whole other kettle of crawdads. My point is that I would rather a Rosa Parks day, or a Freedom Riders Day, or a "Rainbow of Civil Rights for EVERYONE ('Cause the Work's Not Done Yet) Day.

But I take your point.

Hey, man, give me a chance. I'm really good at using words when I write down thoughts and stuff.

You are fine, and your skills are legend--even now they clamour for your wisdom along the highways and the byways (...when the only tool you have is a clamour, every problem looks like a fan base...). It is not that I do not approve of you, or admire you, or respect you. It is, simply, that as awesome as you represent, you do not represent me.

Seriously--have you considered doing this in a private, moderated, read-only thread?

 

[Loss Leader]

In seriousness, LossLeader does not represent me, either, but I do not think he/she is pretending to do so. There is simply an apparent opportunity to possibly make the discussion progress, and LL is grabbing the opportunity. Whether I think it is a good idea or not is a bit beside the point as I do not represent LossLeader anymore than he/she represents me.

I'm a guy.

I have absolutely no pretension to any position of spokesman. My thoughts are mine and mine alone. I'm only doing this to help Jabba focus and move his debate forward.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I must point out that, by omission, I represent you.

You owe that guy over there fifty bucks. You made a bad call on the NFC Championships last night.


ETA: In seriousness, LossLeader does not represent me, either, but I do not think he/she is pretending to do so. There is simply an apparent opportunity to possibly make the discussion progress, and LL is grabbing the opportunity. Whether I think it is a good idea or not is a bit beside the point as I do not represent LossLeader anymore than he/she represents me.

Wait. Wut? A'n't you one of the "approximately 31,000", incorporated by reference in my post, above?

Loss Leader stands sans peur et sans reproche; OTH, it is clearly important that the point be made to Mr. Savage.

Nothing more to see here, on with your lives....

(I gave that guy over there your IOU for the $50, plus vig. Might want to consider not letting it go too long...)

 

[Slowvehicle]

I'm a guy.

I have absolutely no pretension to any position of spokesman. My thoughts are mine and mine alone. I'm only doing this to help Jabba focus and move his debate forward.

Truly, I wish you all the best.

 

[HighRiser]

I'm a guy.

I have absolutely no pretension to any position of spokesman. My thoughts are mine and mine alone. I'm only doing this to help Jabba focus and move his debate forward.

Best wishes, LL. And good luck.

 

[Garrette]

I'm a guy.

For $50 (plus vig), I shall address you as such in future.

 

[godless dave]

What happened to this?

We've come to the point in our discussion where we've agreed that in order to support this improbability claim, I need to show that you, and I, are "special."

- I've run out of time this morning -- but, I'll be back.

 

[Agatha]

I'm a guy.

I have absolutely no pretension to any position of spokesman. My thoughts are mine and mine alone. I'm only doing this to help Jabba focus and move his debate forward.

I wish you luck.

 

[dafydd]

Loss Leader,
- By applying Bayesian statistics, I think that I can essentially prove that I am (and, anyone else who is conscious is) immortal.

You may have missed the fact that we all die eventually. Or are graveyards full of immortal dead people? Perhaps somebody should tell them about your amazing discovery.

 

[Agatha]

LL does not represent me.

abaddon, Dread Angel though he is, does not represent me.

Agatha, for all her sagacity, does not represent me.

By Thoth's idiosyncratic drinking vessels, you, O Mighty One (may you post forever!) do not represent me.

I could make a list of approximately 31,000 posters who do not, with all respect due, represent me.

I do not represent you, jointly or severally.

This'll go well.

I am flattered.

And as much as I admire Loss Leader's intelligence and his capacity to organise his arguments, as much as I hang on to your every word, Slowvehicle (as indeed I do for the Pharaoh's every word), and as much as I have said in the past that zooterkin speaks for me on one particular subject , I represent only me and nobody represents me.

I know that LL knows this; I want to be sure that Jabba does too.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I wonder if Mr. Savage will ever deign to explain what he means by "essentially prove"?

Perhaps we should start a groundling's yard for ongoing commentary, so as not to clutter the "debate"?

 

[Akhenaten]

Loss Leader,
- By applying Bayesian statistics, I think that I can essentially prove that I am (and, anyone else who is conscious is) immortal.

Surely the corollary to this is that unconscious people are not immortal and since dead people are most definitely unconscious then dead people are not immortal.

QED (essentially)

 

[Agatha]

A peanut gallery thread, essentially.

 

[jsfisher]

- P(SM|me) = P(me|SM)*P(SM|k)/(P(me|SM)*P(SM|k)+P(me|NSM)*P(NSM|k))
...

Has Jabba ever explained how he derived the above from Bayes' Theorem?

 

[Slowvehicle]

A peanut gallery thread, essentially.

An effective peanut gallery. Essentially.

(Or, we could just keep this up...)

 

[dafydd]

A peanut gallery thread, essentially.

What would be the difference between me reading this thread and me essentially reading this thread? Jabba?

 

[jt512]

Why don't you just start wherever you think you need to in order to make your strongest case? I will read it as though nothing has come before.

Thread reset to December, 2011. Brill.

Loss Leader,
- By applying Bayesian statistics, I think that I can essentially prove that I am (and, anyone else who is conscious is) immortal.
- I’ll use my original terminology in the formula for now.

- P(SM|me) = P(me|SM)*P(SM|k)/(P(me|SM)*P(SM|k)+P(me|NSM)*P(NSM|k))
- SM stands for what I assume is the consensus scientific model about personal human consciousness – i.e., we each have only one finite time of existence -- at most.
- “me” is the current existence of my personal consciousness.
- “k” is existing knowledge.
- “NSM” is the complement to SM.

- My estimates:
- P(me|SM) either approaches zero, or is zero.
- For P(SM|k), I’m ALLOWING that given our existing knowledge, P equals 99%. (I don’t THINK that it’s nearly that much.)
- P(NSM|k) is simply what’s left of prior probability after subtracting P(SM|k) – or, 1%.

- Consequently:
- P(SM|me) = (~.0000…1)*(.99)/((~.0000…1)(.99)+(.9)(.01))
- P(SM|me) = ~.0000…1/(~.0000…1+.009)
- P(SM|me) = ~.0000…1/~.009
- P(SM|me) = ~.0000…1

 

[dafydd]

If Jabba's math is correct then where do all the human corpses come from? Inquiring minds wish to know.

 

[Loss Leader]

By permission of the Moderating Team, a dedicated moderated debate thread has been started here.

An unmoderated commentary thread may be found here.

Thank you.

Posted By: Loss Leader

 

[catsmate]

We weren't talking about abiogenesis, were we? That isn't what the puddle analogy is about either, really.

This thread is getting crazily off-topic; is there any chance of keeping it focussed on your claims about immortality?

Nope. Jabba's MO is to evade and dodge when his arguments ae shredded.

I can only speak for myself, but I cannot fathom how Jabba's muddle the puddle game can be anything other than intentional.

Agreed.

Jabba's not presenting a theory that essentially proves immortality. He keeps saying he's going to, and keeps posting tiny snippets of what he claims is such a theory, but he has yet to actually post his theory. Because doing so would not be effective debate, like this thread is.

- Would you guys accept the complementary hypothesis to you having but one short life to live, at most, if the complementary hypothesis had a prior probability of 50%?

Not from you, unless you support your conjectures with evidence