[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

Status
Not open for further replies.
Slowvehicle said:
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.
Click to expand...

I would if you asked nicely :D
 
Sorry if I repeated this statement elsewere: I just want to re-iterate with others that Loss Leader (although a good person) does not represent me and I do not agree with the "one on one" terms of the debate thread that has been arranged. I think that Jabba"s threads up to now have been slow motion train wrecks that have been hard to ignore, yet a new thread that ignores my input, and agrees to Jabba's approach of "taking it slow and dealing with one issue at a time" will be particularly boring and unhelpful. Please be assured that I will not read it at all- I have far better things to do. Jabba can debate with his closet rod for all I care...
 
dafydd said:
If Jabba's math is correct then where do all the human corpses come from? Inquiring minds wish to know.
Click to expand...

Jabba is not asserting that our bodies are immortal, Jabba is asserting that our individual consciousnesses are immortal - or, more precisely, these consciousnesses are reincarnated countless times thus making us immortal in one sense of the word.
 
Ladewig said:
Jabba is not asserting that our bodies are immortal, Jabba is asserting that our individual consciousnesses are immortal - or, more precisely, these consciousnesses are reincarnated countless times thus making us immortal in one sense of the word.
Click to expand...

He seems to be asserting that he is so unlikely to have existed in the first place that everything in the cosmos from the Big Bang to the present was set in place just so that he could exist. Somehow, this means he is immortal. Or maybe just "essentially" immortal, whatever that means.

There's some math involved, but it looks like he plugged some made-up numbers into a formula and invited everyone to agree with him because sometimes he throws a bone and includes "us humans" in with his hypothesis about how special he is.

That's my nutshell understanding of the situation.
 
Which of the three threads on this topic am I supposed to post in if I think Jabba's assertions are a joke?
 
Alleyprowler said:
He seems to be asserting that he is so unlikely to have existed in the first place that everything in the cosmos from the Big Bang to the present was set in place just so that he could exist. Somehow, this means he is immortal. Or maybe just "essentially" immortal, whatever that means.

There's some math involved, but it looks like he plugged some made-up numbers into a formula and invited everyone to agree with him because sometimes he throws a bone and includes "us humans" in with his hypothesis about how special he is.

That's my nutshell understanding of the situation.
Click to expand...

Well, you have left out a step: because the odds of Jabba existing are so astronomically small, Jabba urges us to reject the scientific perspective that we all have a single finite life during which our consciousness exists. Under Jabba's reasoning, once we reject the one life per person theory, the. The only other option is infinite lives per person; so, essentially, we are immortal.

As has been pointed out many times, every assertion , every deduction , and every conclusion in this argument is profoundly incorrect. The hastily constructed hypothesis is inherently flawed, but Jabba is very insistent about repeating each step untold times.
 
Last edited:
Ladewig said:
Jabba is not asserting that our bodies are immortal, Jabba is asserting that our individual consciousnesses are immortal - or, more precisely, these consciousnesses are reincarnated countless times thus making us immortal in one sense of the word.
Click to expand...

Still wrong then. Understood. Thank you. Gleaning information from Jabba's posts is a difficult task.
 
- I thought for sure that I had already posted the following message.

Loss Leader said:
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...
Click to expand...
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
 
You do realise, Jabba, that your requests have been met and there is a moderated thread about immortality and Bayes' Theorem in R&P in which only you and Loss Leader can post?

As you have said that you will not be responding to anyone else in this thread (so much for friendliness!), you may well want to concentrate your attention on the thread which has been set up at your request. The post above is already in that thread, here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=272394 and Loss Leader has replied to it. The ball is currently in your court.
 
Agatha said:
You do realise, Jabba, that your requests have been met and there is a moderated thread about immortality and Bayes' Theorem in R&P in which only you and Loss Leader can post?
Click to expand...


It's hard to believe that he doesn't realise that such is the case, given that the post of Loss Leader's that he's responded to above is actually in that new thread.


Agatha said:
As you have said that you will not be responding to anyone else in this thread (so much for friendliness!), you may well want to concentrate your attention on the thread which has been set up at your request. The post above is already in that thread, here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=272394 and Loss Leader has replied to it. The ball is currently in your court.
Click to expand...


As I've mentioned above, I don't understand how Jabba could have quoted a post of Loss Leader's from that thread and yet failed to notice that not only is his post above already in there but so is LL's response to it.
 
Jabba said:
...
- P(me|SM) either approaches zero, or is zero.
...
- P(SM|me) = (~.0000…1)*(.99)/((~.0000…1)(.99)+(.9)(.01))
Click to expand...


If P(me|SM) is arbitrarily close to zero, why is P(me|NSM) = 0.9? For that matter, isn't P(me) = ~0.009 a bit odd, too?
 
Akhenaten said:
It's hard to believe that he doesn't realise that such is the case, given that the post of Loss Leader's that he's responded to above is actually in that new thread.





As I've mentioned above, I don't understand how Jabba could have quoted a post of Loss Leader's from that thread and yet failed to notice that not only is his post above already in there but so is LL's response to it.
Click to expand...

My guess is it is a C&P job from a prepared list of arguments.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom