[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[dafydd]

You don't know where? You don't know where??? Try here:





















Now you have an easy reference where you can find exactly what logical mistake you are making.

It takes some going to ignore that lot. I suspect that Jabba doesn't read any of the answers.

 

[Akhenaten]

Squeegee,
- I assume that "this" refers to my highlighted claim above.

It's a continuing mystery that you needlessly assume all manner of things despite perfectly clear and concise explanations being posted for you on an almost hourly basis.

- If so, a proposed explanation for why it is utterly incorrect may have been given many times over -- but if it was, I'm not sure where.

And this is whose problem?

And whatever, it was never accepted.

You refuse to accept an explanation that you can't even locate?

Really?

 

[dafydd]

I strongly suspect that Jabba is not interested in a serious discussion and is merely amusing himself.

 

[jond]

Jabba: I wonder if it would help you to think of the self/soul/consciousness as a process instead of a thing. Because it really is a process, ongoing from birth to death. Your consciousness is different now from when you began reading this post. It's different from last night when you were sleeping, (maybe you had a dream that you remember). It's different from when you were a baby, and it will be different in another moment. Everything you experience in the way of input from your senses, everything you think, dream, every emotion you feel, all of it is what makes you who you are. It's what makes you unique, special. But there is no reason to imagine that it is anything other than the sum of those parts. No reason to imagine that it's in any way immortal. Forget Bayes, forget trying to "essentially prove immortality." It's a fool's errand. You are special, as is everyone else. But it's all because of what we each experience in the brief time we're here. Enjoy it for what it is, and stop trying to make it into something that it's not.

 

[Jabba]

A subset of the complementary model are the possibilities that we have no life at all, or the possibility that we have exactly two lives. Can you outline how you will show immortality to be so much more likely that we can practically ignore these two possibilities of the complementary model?

Steen,
- Unfortunately, I need to rephrase once again. My new so-called Scientific Model is now that if I (as a potential self) ever come to exist, I will live for one finite lifetime. The complementary model is that if I (as a potential self) ever come to exist, I will live either infinitely, or more than once.
- I think that those are real complements.
- I would like to apply that to all potential selves (instead of just me), but then the complement gets really tricky. So instead, I'll try to show that the most likely "more than once" is infinite and that both models apply to us all.

 

[dafydd]

So instead, I'll try to show that the most likely "more than once" is infinite and that both models apply to us all.

Will that be at some point in the infinite future? On ignore you go, I will no longer contribute to your amusement.

 

[Akhenaten]

Steen,

What's with this arbitrary abbreviation of everyone's screen names, Jab?

- Unfortunately, I need to rephrase once again.

What's unfortunate is that you're still years away from realising that this is no solution to what is, from the outset, a completely borked idea.

My new so-called Scientific Model is now that if I (as a potential self) ever come to exist, I will live for one finite lifetime.

At least this "new so-called Scientific Model" has a couple of things in common with reality. The less cynical amongst us might regard this as having made headway.

The complementary model is that if I (as a potential self) ever come to exist, I will live either infinitely, or more than once.

Or something else.

"Complementary" still appears to be escaping you, Jab.

- I think that those are real complements.

Of course you do.

It's a central tenet of your wrongevity.

- I would like to apply that to all potential selves (instead of just me), but then the complement gets really tricky.

Send him a PM.

So instead, I'll try to show that the most likely "more than once" is infinite and that both models apply to us all.

No, you won't. You'll just keep telling us that that's what you're going to do in the faint hope that the discussion will continue long enough that people are hoping they'll die just for the sake of demonstrating the idiocy of your contention.

 

[Giordano]

Steen,
- Unfortunately, I need to rephrase once again. My new so-called Scientific Model is now that if I (as a potential self) ever come to exist, I will live for one finite lifetime. The complementary model is that if I (as a potential self) ever come to exist, I will live either infinitely, or more than once.
- I think that those are real complements.
- I would like to apply that to all potential selves (instead of just me), but then the complement gets really tricky. So instead, I'll try to show that the most likely "more than once" is infinite and that both models apply to us all.

It is impressive that given a highly questionable claim that you have in addition so messed up the math as to render even the beginnings of your proof a disaster. You would do beat to simply ignore it and argue that in your personal belief you are immortal.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Steen,
- Unfortunately, I need to rephrase once again. My new so-called Scientific Model is now that if I (as a potential self) ever come to exist, I will live for one finite lifetime. The complementary model is that if I (as a potential self) ever come to exist, I will live either infinitely, or more than once.

That's not in any way new, that's exactly the same as you said previously.

- I think that those are real complements.

We know you do but you're wrong, for the reasons that have been patiently outlined to you a large number of times over the last 2 months or so that you've been endlessly posting the same thing over and over again.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Steen,
- Unfortunately, I need to rephrase once again. My new so-called Scientific Model is now that if I (as a potential self) ever come to exist, I will live for one finite lifetime. The complementary model is that if I (as a potential self) ever come to exist, I will live either infinitely, or more than once.
- I think that those are real complements.
- I would like to apply that to all potential selves (instead of just me), but then the complement gets really tricky. So instead, I'll try to show that the most likely "more than once" is infinite and that both models apply to us all.

Good morning, Mr. Savage!

(ought I to be addressing you as " 'ᗅᗺᗷᗅ"?)

Perhaps you might consider as your p (since you claim you mean it to represent "the scientific model") some semblance of a statement that actually approaches something suggested by current neuroscience, such as: "That which I am calling the 'self' (or the 'soul') is an emergent property of the human neurosystem, and, as such, does not exist apart form the neurosystem of which it is an emergent property."

 

[Slowvehicle]

<focus snip>

Of course you do.

It's a central tenet of your wrongevity.

<focus snip>

I see what you did, there...

 

[Loss Leader]

- Unfortunately, I need to rephrase once again. My new so-called Scientific Model is now that if I (as a potential self) ever come to exist, I will live for one finite lifetime. The complementary model is that if I (as a potential self) ever come to exist, I will live either infinitely, or more than once. - I think that those are real complements.

You haven't rephrased anything. That's exactly what you said before. However, once again, you ignore any advice about a complement.

If your proposition is that you will live a finite life in a non-deterministic universe, then you do not get to define the complement. The complement is "Anything other than that you will live a finite life in a non-deterministic universe." You cannot limit the complement to immortality or reincarnation or whatever you want to pretend. The complement is anything that isn't what you set out, so that your probability plus every other posible thing equals 1.

Does your complement account for the probability that the universe is deterministic? Does your complement account for the probability that someone will exist somewhere who isn't you? Does your complement account for the probability that the universe is only half an hour old?

If the answer to any of the above is no, then you have no proof. You have no logic. You cannot calculate anything, ever.

 

[Ladewig]

Squeegee,
- I assume that "this" refers to my highlighted claim above.
- If so, a proposed explanation for why it is utterly incorrect may have been given many times over -- but if it was, I'm not sure where. And whatever, it was never accepted.

I am embarrassed to admit that I somewhat admire the calm, succinct deftness in Jabba's parry. (although the "I'm not sure where" bit might be below the belt as it were)

I have also come to the conclusion that the let's-do-a-one-on-one-debate shtick was more of a feint than a goal. Jabba seems at his best when he has several opponents coming at him at once.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

- Unfortunately, I need to rephrase once again. My new so-called Scientific Model is now that if I (as a potential self) ever come to exist, I will live for one finite lifetime. The complementary model is that if I (as a potential self) ever come to exist, I will live either infinitely, or more than once.
- I think that those are real complements.

In order to avoid begging the question, you'll have to rule out all other possibilities for the complement. Why not start with the ones Loss Leader listed?

- I would like to apply that to all potential selves (instead of just me), but then the complement gets really tricky. So instead, I'll try to show that the most likely "more than once" is infinite and that both models apply to us all.

When?

 

[steenkh]

What's with this arbitrary abbreviation of everyone's screen names, Jab?

Well, it is part of my signature, and he knows me from another forum where he used exactly the same arguments as here. Needless to say that he experienced the same degree of success.

 

[Jabba]

...If your proposition is that you will live a finite life in a non-deterministic universe, then you do not get to define the complement.[/HILITE] The complement is "Anything other than that you will live a finite life in a non-deterministic universe." You cannot limit the complement to immortality or reincarnation or whatever you want to pretend. The complement is anything that isn't what you set out, so that your probability plus every other posible thing equals 1.

Does your complement account for the probability that the universe is deterministic?...

LL,
- That isn't my "proposition." My current proposition is that if I (as a potential self) ever come to exist, I will live for one finite lifetime. My complementary proposition is that if I (as a potential self) ever come to exist, I will live either infinitely, or more than once.
- These propositions apply equally to either a non-deterministic universe, or a deterministic universe. A deterministic universe wouldn't make any difference re the prior probabilities, as prior probabilities are based upon the information we have prior to the particular event. Consequently, whether our universe is deterministic or not, we still have to deal with probabilities -- as our relevant info is grossly lacking.

 

[jsfisher]

My complementary proposition is that if I (as a potential self) ever come to exist, I will live either infinitely, or more than once.

Great, except for the part where that's not the complement of your proposition.

 

[Tomboy]

LL,
- That isn't my "proposition." My current proposition is that if I (as a potential self) ever come to exist, I will live for one finite lifetime. My complementary proposition is that if I (as a potential self) ever come to exist, I will live either infinitely, or more than once .

Hi Jabba,

Above, you name two complementary scenarios to your current proposition. Why are these two more likely or valid than any of the other complementary scenarios that exist? As has been explained to you over and over, there are far more than just two complements to "one finite lifetime".

 

[Slowvehicle]

LL,
- That isn't my "proposition." My current proposition is that if I (as a potential self) ever come to exist, I will live for one finite lifetime. My complementary proposition is that if I (as a potential self) ever come to exist, I will live either infinitely, or more than once.
- These propositions apply equally to either a non-deterministic universe, or a deterministic universe. A deterministic universe wouldn't make any difference re the prior probabilities, as prior probabilities are based upon the information we have prior to the particular event. Consequently, whether our universe is deterministic or not, we still have to deal with probabilities -- as our relevant info is grossly lacking.

Good morning, Mr. Savage!

I hope your morning is going well...

Now, at the risk of being accused of being "unfriendly", I feel it is important to point out that your "proposition" is not a statement of what you have been calling the "scientific model", is not "supported by" what you have been calling the "scientific model", is not "similar to" what you have been calling the "scientific model".

You are still mired down in a false dichotomy. Further, your "proposition" does not speak to the fact that, apparently, consciousness is an emergent property of the brain.

Suppose I cut a green branch from a willow and make a whistle, and carefully trim the whistle so that it will sound a perfect A-445. Now suppose I blow that note, once, on that willow whistle, then strip off the bark to make painkiller tea, and cut the inner branch into pegs to pin together a cradle bench I am building. Two mornings later, I go out to a different willow, cut a different branch, carve and tune a different whistle, and blow a single A-445 before splitting the carved branch and using it to anchor the hinges of a swinging gate.

Would you call either of those A-445 notes "immortal"?

How would a "soul" in two different bodies, with no continuity (no memories, no holdover effects, no lingering personality signifiers, etc.) be the "same soul", much less "essentially immortal"?

 

[Giordano]

Jabba,

You have repeatedly shown in this thread that you do not understand Bayseian math. You have to be repeatedly corrected, even very recently, and you still don't get it. Please stop trying to use it to prove anything!