[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[dafydd]

Steen,
- Yeah. You just have amnesia.

You are putting the cart before the horse.

 

[Agatha]

Steen,
- Yeah. You just have amnesia.

Assuming you are not being facetious (emoticons are your friends if you are), I thought you had agreed earlier in this thread that a person's experiences and memories are an integral part of their 'self'. If this is the case, then a repeated 'self' with no memory of a previous life is not the same 'self' as they were before.

May I give you a small piece of advice? You are free, of course, to reject it.

Start with defining your new P: that is, that you are immortal in a sense that you will explain. Then, come up with a probability for this P that takes into account all of our knowledge and evidence about the world.

That way, you can be sure that 'everything else' is in ~P. If you try to define ~P, you will be unable to do so since it is only limited by people's imagination.

 

[Loss Leader]

Steen,
- Yeah. You just have amnesia.

Good gosh, don't spend time fantasizing about how you hope reincarnation works. Do the logical groundwork necessary to make your argument. Otherwise, just admit that this is a belief that you hold personally without evidence and we can all wish you good luck.

 

[dafydd]

Otherwise, just admit that this is a belief that you hold personally without evidence and we can all wish you good luck.

I'd be happy with that.

 

[carlitos]

- As for my definitions of p and ~p -- assuming that P is what I'm calling the "Scientific Model" -- specifically, this model holds that my self will exist for only one finite life at most. The complementary model is that my self will exist and it will exist continuously, or for multiple lifetimes.
- At this point, I have to admit that my model is not quite complementary. My model is that I am immortal -- that I will exist continuously or periodically ... forever.

The above is pathetic and embarrassing. No, your model is certainly not complementary. The opposite of p is [not p]. Your [not p] only has a couple of ill thought-out, ill-explained possibilities. Seriously, this is awful.

- I think that what I would like to do now is shift over to the real complementary model and see if I can establish that its posterior probability is unimaginably large (I had it backwards before) -- given my current existence. If I can do that, I'll come back to the immortality model and argue it.

- Questions?

Why don't you find a non-amnesiac reincarnated or immortal person to post here? They have to be all over the place, if your theory is correct.

 

[dafydd]

Does immortal mean ''been around since the Big Bang?

 

[Loss Leader]

Why don't you find a non-amnesiac reincarnated or immortal person to post here? They have to be all over the place, if your theory is correct.

Not really. In predicting the probability that he, Jabba, would exist, he accidentally excluded the probability that anybody else might exist. According to his numbers, if taken to mean what he says they mean, he and only he can be immortal.

Of course, this just points out how deficient his definitions of his proposition and its complement really are.

 

[Akhenaten]

Does immortal mean ''been around since the Big Bang?

So far it doesn't seem to mean anything earlier than "since Jabba was born".

It's all a bit underwhelming.

 

[dafydd]

So far it doesn't seem to mean anything earlier than "since Jabba was born".

It's all a bit underwhelming.

His god is supposedly immortal, he is getting ideas above his station.

 

[Akhenaten]

His god is supposedly immortal, he is getting ideas above his station.

The answer to that, I'm afraid, is shrouded in mystery.

Only the Whangers know, and they aren't talking.

 

[dafydd]

The answer to that, I'm afraid, is shrouded in mystery.

But will it leave a magic imprint on the shroud?

 

[Giordano]

Steen,
- Yeah. You just have amnesia.

So "you" don't have any memory, you don"t have any possessions, you don't look like you, you have a different body, and you have a different personality.

This is the "immortality" you are attempting to prove? What is immortal about it?

Also I would note that there are clearly more humans today than even a hundred years ago. So the immortality you are seeking to prove must "jump" species. So you must have been a bug in the past?

 

[Jabba]

Good morning, Mr. Savage!

At the risk of being accused of being "condescending", would you mind explaining, finally, what you mean by "essentially", in these and the rest of your contexts?

Slowvehicle,
- I mean it as "almost, but not quite." I started off with "essentially prove" cause I was using statistics, and statistics doesn't actually "prove" anything.

 

[dafydd]

Slowvehicle,
- I mean it as "almost, but not quite." I started off with "essentially prove" cause I was using statistics, and statistics doesn't actually "prove" anything.

We still don't know what ''essentially prove'' means, but I'm glad to see that you accept that immortality cannot be proven, mainly because it doesn't exist. You have a belief in an immortal soul. This discussion should be in the religion forum.

 

[xtifr]

I think that we can grant that Jabba exists, at least from his perspective. It is actually the only fact he can know for certain.

No, I'm absolutely not willing to grant that. If this were a scientific debate, sure, I'd freely give that point, but Jabba's trying to use statistics to disprove science, which means all bets are off, and no holds are barred.

The Buddhists say life is an illusion. There might be a butterfly somewhere, dreaming that it's Jabba. There is absolutely no reason (other than science) to actually believe or concede that Jabba exists, even in his own mind. "I think, therefore I am" is merely a hypothesis, and one that cannot be proved.

 

[Loss Leader]

No, I'm absolutely not willing to grant that. If this were a scientific debate, sure, I'd freely give that point, but Jabba's trying to use statistics to disprove science, which means all bets are off, and no holds are barred.

In fairness, he's trying to use statistics to do a whole range of things they can't actually do.

The Buddhists say life is an illusion. There might be a butterfly somewhere, dreaming that it's Jabba. There is absolutely no reason (other than science) to actually believe or concede that Jabba exists, even in his own mind. "I think, therefore I am" is merely a hypothesis, and one that cannot be proved.

Fundamentally, I disagree. If Jabba were a butterfly dreaming he was Jabba, he would still exist, just in butterfly form. The mind knows itself. "I think, therefore I am" is axiomatic. Whether anything can be derived from that knowledge, I doubt.

If he wants to posit his existence, I don't think we're conceding too much.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle,
- I mean it as "almost, but not quite." I started off with "essentially prove" cause I was using statistics, and statistics doesn't actually "prove" anything.

Good evening, Mr. Savage!

I do appreciate your response, and I hope you will not declare me condescending if I point out that there does not appear to be a significant difference between "almost, but not quite" proving something, and "not really 'proving' something at all".

Ah, well. Do carry on with a proper definition of p, so that you can formulate a proper definition of ~p...

 

[jsfisher]

Good evening, Mr. Savage!

I do appreciate your response, and I hope you will not declare me condescending if I point out that there does not appear to be a significant difference between "almost, but not quite" proving something, and "not really 'proving' something at all".

Ah, well. Do carry on with a proper definition of p, so that you can formulate a proper definition of ~p...

Why not start with P(me) [ = P(Jabba would exist) ]? If there is no agreement on that, there will never be an agreement on how it is apportioned between p and ~p.

P(me) = P(me|p)*P(p) + P(me|~p)*P(~p), so how about starting with the left-hand side?

 

[Jabba]

- Reviewing the last two pages, I found the following issues.
1. Deterministic universe? (My answer @ #2558.)
2. Why aren’t the rest of us special? (My answer @ #2540.)
3. False dichotomy. (My answer @ #2560.)
4. Why “at most”?
5. Validity of my numbers?
6. Other life forms?

- I’ll start by elaborating re #3.
- As for my definitions of p and ~p -- assuming that P is what I'm calling the "Scientific Model" -- specifically, this model holds that my self will exist for only one finite life at most. The complementary model is that my self will exist and it will exist continuously, or for multiple lifetimes.- At this point, I have to admit that my model is not quite complementary. My model is that I am immortal -- that I will exist continuously or periodically ... forever.

- I think that what I would like to do now is shift over to the real complementary model and see if I can establish that its posterior probability is unimaginably large (I had it backwards before) -- given my current existence. If I can do that, I'll come back to the immortality model and argue it.

- Questions?

As post numbers can change, it is better to provide links to the posts to which 3. 2560 In which you accept that you have set up a false dichotomy, as your models are not complementary...

Agatha,
- I accept that my alternative model to the SM model is not quite complementary. My claim, however, is that it is close enough to being complementary, that the difference doesn't really matter -- which, I'll try to show after I've said all I need to say about what I'm claiming to be the real complementary model.

 

[dafydd]

Agatha,
- I accept that my alternative model to the SM model is not quite complementary. My claim, however, is that it is close enough to being complementary, that the difference doesn't really matter -- which, I'll try to show after I've said all I need to say about what I'm claiming to be the real complementary model.

You are always going to do something. When are you actually going to do it? The real complementary model is not immortality, that has been explained to you.