[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Akhenaten]

Didn't we already try that?

- No.
- A moderator tried to do that, but he couldn't resist presenting numerous question/comments at once.

How dare you lie like this? Do you have no shame at all?

More importantly, are you so caught up in your own version of what's going on in this discussion that you actually believe that the people you're ignoring don't exist, or that they're not reading the thread?

- And then, he gave up after several retorts.

Ya think?

- If you guys can figure out a way to present one Q/C at a time, I will do my best to answer each one.

We've seen your best. It's pathetic.

 

[Akhenaten]

- Can someone direct me to my debate with Loss Leader?

My mistake.

"Pathetic" was far too lenient a judgement.

 

[Giordano]

Slowvehicle,
- I still don't understand. Can you point me to a link that backs up your claim?
- In my attempt at a complement, I merely try to specify what everything else includes (so as to give us a step towards addressing the immortality issue). If my specification is missing something, what is it?

Do you need any more proof you don't understand logic? Just having your error pointed out to you generally without an explicit explanation should have been enough for a logician. But you don't understand enough logic to see your error.

More so, others here have explicitly told you (read this thread) what you specification is missing and why your definition of a complement is not a mathematical complement. This has been explained to you multiple times in this thread in multiple ways. Do you not read others posts? Or do you not care if you are correct?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle,
- I still don't understand. Can you point me to a link that backs up your claim?
- In my attempt at a complement, I merely try to specify what everything else includes (so as to give us a step towards addressing the immortality issue). If my specification is missing something, what is it?

Good morning, again, Mr. Savage!

No, I will not "point to a link" about constructing complements, or negation, anymore than I would "point to a link" supporting the idea that, in general, in English, the "rule" is "I before E, except after C (or when sounding as A, as in 'neighbour', or 'weigh' {or in words of incomplete adoption, such as 'theist'})", because any elementary text in basic logic, or any basic logic site you search for yourself, would give you the same information, but would also open R'lyeh's door.

I would prefer for you to consider; to think, if you will.

I have offered you multiple different examples--some humorous, some not. Others have offered you multiple examples. I honestly do not know if you disagree, and are hoping by persistence to win a rhetorical point, or if you simply choose not to understand.

I shall try again:

(NB: to all readers--I am not going to use any formal notation, as I want the concept to be accessible.)

The union of A and ~A must encompass all possibilities (not just the ones you can think of, or the ones that seem to force your assumed conclusion), or they are not, in fact, proper complements. Since no imagination is infinite, any list of characteristics will, inevitably, omit a vast array of possibilities. The only way to avoid excluding possibilities (and looking as if you are trying to custom-craft a universe that inevitably results in your assumed conclusion) is to leave either A or ~A undefined, except as the proper complement of the other. You may define A however you choose. Having done so, the only accurate, honest, proper definition of ~A is "anything and everything else". If you presume to define ~A, then it is your A that must be "anything and everything else". If you define both A and ~A in terms of characteristics, they are not complements; the true complement would be "~(union [A, [~A)". The very fact that that results in an awkward and logically impossible construction demonstrates the problem.

This is why I keep suggesting that, instead of attempting to "prove" that your claim must be logically inevitable, you simply present the evidence that leads you to believe that consciousness is something other than an emergent property of a specific brain, and is immortal.

I encourage you to go back a few posts and read what I wrote about the ham sandwich.

 

[Akhenaten]

delete

If only.

 

[Akhenaten]

Slowvehicle,
- Without introducing the conditional issue, it seems to me that the complement to the hypothesis that my existence is finite and singular is that my existence is not finite and singular -- OR, said another way, my existence is either infinite or multiple. Apparently, you disagree that it can be correctly said this other way, but I don't know why.

Your inability to understand why "saying it another way" is actually saying something completely different is essentially the biggest problem facing you.

At this late stage I'd suggest that there's no way around it.

You quite simply will not understand.

 

[Jabba]

- I guess that I'm stuck re the false dichotomy issue.
- I still think that the hypothesis that "My existence is either infinite or multiple" is the complement to "My existence is finite and singular." But, I've given it my best shot (for now, at least), so I think I'll move on.

 

[Garrette]

- I guess that I'm stuck re the false dichotomy issue.
- I still think that the hypothesis that "My existence is either infinite or multiple" is the complement to "My existence is finite and singular." But, I've given it my best shot (for now, at least), so I think I'll move on.

There is no moving on without fixing the error. It is not a matter of subjective disagreement but of objective error. Moving on without fixing it would be like starting a mathematical proof with "2 + 3 = 6" and ignoring it when others point out the error.

 

[Garrette]

- I guess that I'm stuck re the false dichotomy issue.
- I still think that the hypothesis that "My existence is either infinite or multiple" is the complement to "My existence is finite and singular." But, I've given it my best shot (for now, at least), so I think I'll move on.

In addition, this wording is different in substance from your previous wording. I leave it to you (without hope) to figure out how.

 

[Giordano]

There is no moving on without fixing the error. It is not a matter of subjective disagreement but of objective error. Moving on without fixing it would be like starting a mathematical proof with "2 + 3 = 6" and ignoring it when others point out the error.

Exactly^^^. You cannot "move on" using math if your setup of a definition is incorrect in terms of math. Please stop here if you are sincere and fix it as others has told you. This is not an opinion but inherent to your correct use of the math in your "proof"

 

[Mojo]

Slowvehicle,
- I still don't understand. Can you point me to a link that backs up your claim?
- In my attempt at a complement, I merely try to specify what everything else includes (so as to give us a step towards addressing the immortality issue). If my specification is missing something, what is it?

All the things that you haven't specified.

A and ~A, between the two of them, have to include absolutely every possibility, including all the ones you haven't even thought of, otherwise there will be possibilities that are not included in either A or ~A, and you will have a false dichotomy because there are more than two possibilities (i.e. "A", "~A", and "everything else").

 

[carlitos]

This is really funny and really sad. I don't have a word to describe it. Whatever that word is, it resides in the complement of "astute."

 

[Jabba]

It was addressed to all participants in this discussion. In the interest of fairness, I think it best to ask Jabba to answer one question at a time. That way, there can be a clear focus and direction to the debate, and he won't have the excuse that people are demanding too much from him at once.

Frozenwolf,
- Sorry to put you on the spot, but if you're willing to ask the questions, I'll do my best to answer them.
- If you want to ask more than one at a time, just let me know which to answer first.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- I guess that I'm stuck re the false dichotomy issue.
- I still think that the hypothesis that "My existence is either infinite or multiple" is the complement to "My existence is finite and singular." But, I've given it my best shot (for now, at least), so I think I'll move on.

Good morning, again, Mr. Savage.

At the risk of being accused of being "unfriendly", you cannot "move on", when your misstatement is so very fundamental. Anything built upon such a misconception will be inherently and irreparably incorrect--not just wrong, but wrong-in-concept. Can't-get-there-from-here wrong.

One more try:

If your A is "My existence if finite and singular", the only inclusive complement is "~[my existence is finite and singular]".

Arguendo, this would include:
-my existence is not finite
-my existence is not singular
-my existence is not finite and singular
-my existence is not finite or singular
and (and this is the important bit) each and every other possibility, including those of which you cannot conceive. Without that last, you have constructed an incomplete complement, inevitably producing a false dichotomy.

This is why I keep suggesting that you abandon this approach. You cannot make it work. You are too invested in assuming your consequent to let it work.

Instead, why not simply explain what evidence you have that supports your belief that consciousness if something other than an emergent property of a particular neurosystem? Forget trying to stack the logic deck so that you can palm that ace--just present your evidence.

 

[Akhenaten]

The sad thing is, that would actually be counter-productive. If people stop posting in opposition to his nonsense, he can then run back to the people he runs back to (or the next message board he tries this on) and talk about how he managed to get an entire sceptic's forum to agree with him.

Funny you should say that. Someone else said more or less the same thing over a year and a half ago:

What I find particularly unsettling about the whole thing is the likelihood of those "reasonable doubts" being described as having arisen as a result of a prolonged and detailed examination of the available information with various experts at the JREF Forum.

 

[Garrette]

Good morning, again, Mr. Savage.

At the risk of being accused of being "unfriendly", you cannot "move on", when your misstatement is so very fundamental. Anything built upon such a misconception will be inherently and irreparably incorrect--not just wrong, but wrong-in-concept. Can't-get-there-from-here wrong.

One more try:

If your A is "My existence if finite and singular", the only inclusive complement is "~[my existence is finite and singular]".

Arguendo, this would include:
-my existence is not finite
-my existence is not singular
-my existence is not finite and singular
-my existence is not finite or singular
and (and this is the important bit) each and every other possibility, including those of which you cannot conceive. Without that last, you have constructed an incomplete complement, inevitably producing a false dichotomy.

This is why I keep suggesting that you abandon this approach. You cannot make it work. You are too invested in assuming your consequent to let it work.

Instead, why not simply explain what evidence you have that supports your belief that consciousness if something other than an emergent property of a particular neurosystem? Forget trying to stack the logic deck so that you can palm that ace--just present your evidence.

To put it another way:

If the hypothesis is: I am a gas-burning stove in the kitchen, the complement is not I am another major appliance in the kitchen, but instead would be Everything that is not a gas-burning stove in the kitchen.

A short list of what the latter includes but which the former does not follows:

A gas-burning stove in the living room
A refrigerator in the living room
A table in the kitchen
A gas-burning stove straddling the doorway between the kitchen and dining room
A gas-burning stove that was in the kitchen, was loaned to the neighbor, and will be returned tomorrow
A completely different gas-burning stove in the kitchen
An as yet undiscovered and unnamed species of beetle that crawled unbeknownst into the kitchen cupboard last winter

 

[Akhenaten]

- I guess that I'm stuck re the false dichotomy issue.

You were stuck long before that.

You started being stuck in the OP when you mentioned "essentially prove" and "immortality".

You've been creeping backwards ever since.

- I still think that the hypothesis that "My existence is either infinite or multiple" is the complement to "My existence is finite and singular."

No, you don't "think" that at all. You believe it and no amount of reason or logic will ever shake you from that belief.

It's good practice for us though, against the time that an honest debater shows up making claims similar to yours.

But, I've given it my best shot (for now, at least), so I think I'll move on.

Said Napoleon, as he departed Waterloo on the first available horse.

 

[Garrette]

Funny you should say that. Someone else said more or less the same thing over a year and a half ago:

​

If one is not careful, one might conclude that Jabba has presented exactly nothing in support of his argument over the course of that time span. Such a conclusion, of course, boggles too much to be seriously considered.

 

[Akhenaten]

Frozenwolf,
- Sorry to put you on the spot, but if you're willing to ask the questions, I'll do my best to answer them.

Ooh look! A new victim has fallen into the trap!

- If you want to ask more than one at a time, just let me know which to answer first.

This silly joke wasn't even remotely funny the first 500 times you posted it.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Frozenwolf,
- Sorry to put you on the spot, but if you're willing to ask the questions, I'll do my best to answer them. - If you want to ask more than one at a time, just let me know which to answer first.

Good morning, Mr. Savage.

I wonder why this does not seem "unfriendly" to you.

I have been asking one question, and making one suggestion, and responding to one question of yours, for at least two days now.

Frozenwolf150 does not need to be designated "representative" for you to be able to respond to one question at a time.

Look at your performance this morning. You asked for a link to the "debate". It was provided, in various degrees of vehemence, by several posters--including me. You have, simply, ignored that providence. Did you not see the link? Was it not to your liking?

Multiple posters--including me--have offered you various ways to understand the fundamental incorrectness of your dichotomy, in approaches running the gamut from shouts to whispers, form formal to casual, and encompassing a spectrum of nuances. You have, simply, ignored that providence. Did you not see the posts? Were they not to your liking?

I believe I understand, and have alluded to, the reason(s) you are so wedded, even welded, to the limitations you are trying to put on A/~A. Please hear me: you cannot make it work the way you want it to. You cannot construct an actual correct dichotomy that can only result in your assumed consequent.

This is why (again) I suggest you let this line lie for a bit. Take your hand from this plow. Consider, if you will, my suggestion that you start at the other end. I can almost guarantee that if you present objective, empirical, factual support for your idea that consciousness is something other than an emergent property of a specific neurosystem, multiple people will help you construct your syllogism. Without that evidence, you will only be practicing feng shui on a marked and burning deck as the waters inexorably rise.