[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Slowvehicle]

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

"...an Immortal beetle?"
"No, just the regular kind. Why do you always do that?"

 

[Giordano]

"...an Immortal beetle?"
"No, just the regular kind. Why do you always do that?"

I thought it was a worm in a match box, unknown to Science. It drove me mad! In fact, this thread is driving me mad...

 

[Loss Leader]

- A moderator tried to do that, but he couldn't resist presenting numerous question/comments at once. And then, he gave up after several retorts.

A list of every question and answer in the debate thread:

Why don't you just start wherever you think you need to in order to make your strongest case?

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

I'd like to know what level of "proof" you are aiming for. What evidence causes you to think that the chance of your existence approaches zero? Do you have a testable hypothesis?

I'm hoping to essentially prove we're immortal

Will you be proving your ideas to a mathematical certainty, a scientific certainty, beyond a reasonable doubt, by a preponderance of the evidence, to a probable cause, to a historical certainty, or to some other level of proof. All you know is that you do now exist. How can anything be extrapolated from that? How do we know that the universe allows for any randomness at all? How do we know whether, given the exact same starting conditions, the universe would turn out the way it did? Granting you all of your presuppositions and agreeing that there was a near-infinitely small chance of your existence, how does that logically lead to any sort of conclusion about immortality?

<no answer>

Assuming you are correct that the probability of your existence is near infinitely small, how does this lead to the conclusion that you are immortal (or that the soul is, or however you care to phrase it)?

<No answer>

Assuming the probability of your existence is near infinitely small, how does this lead to the conclusion that you are immortal (or that the soul is, or however you care to phrase it)? Assuming the probability of your current existence is near infinitely small, how does that lead to the conclusion that you are immortal?

- My first claim is that the probability of my current existence is unimaginably small -- given, what I'm calling the Scientific Model.
- Next, I claim that there are other somewhat plausible models given which my current existence is likely. - If, I'm right about the above, according to Bayesian statistics, there is a very high probability that I am immortal.

So then the obvious question is why you think that your immortality is "somewhat plausible"? Why should we have confidence that Bob committed murder?

- It seems to me that there is all sorts of "evidence" for an "afterlife" -- it's the credibility of this evidence that's so questionable.
- Otherwise, there have been all sorts of claims of past lives, NDEs (Near Death Experiences) and OOBEs (Out Of Body Experiences). Not that the following means a whole lot, but on one plane ride I sat next to a somewhat "famous" neurosurgeon who had a patient with an NDE who was able to tell the surgeon what the surgeon had been doing in the next room. The surgeon wasn't a religious man, but he was impressed. - Then, there's what Quantum Mechanics suggests about consciousness. Google "consciousness quantum mechanics." - Then, there is what makes us think that our consciousness is ultimately hooked to our body -- 1) we think that nothing is non-physical, and 2) most of us don't know many people who have experienced an NDE or OOBE, or who 'remember' any past lives. - All in all, I'm not convinced that we can eliminate the possibility of an afterlife, and if we can't...

Can we now say with certainty that Tom was the only person in the race? Should we nominate Tom as the best runner of all time? We don't know. Can you explain why anything less than logical certainty should be accepted regarding a philosophical question?

<no answer>

<no question>

- According to Bayesian statistics, and the numbers I used, the SM is almost assuredly wrong, and the NSM is almost assuredly right -- i.e., my existence is almost assuredly not singular and finite.

[G]iven that your existence is "almost assuredly" immortal, why is that a sufficient level of proof for a philosophical argument?

My claim is that the preponderance of evidence supports my immortality.

What I'm now asking you for the third time is: why do you think that level of evidence is sufficient for a philosophical argument?

Philosophical arguments hardly ever involve anything so supportable.

Can you give examples of invalid philosophies, those whose conclusions do not follow from their premises? How can you overcome the lack of logical certainty in your conclusion?

- But, all I'm trying to show is that one hypothesis is much more likely than the other.

Why should people believe that you are immortal just because it's much more likely that you are immortal than not? Why would you believe that there's a cake and not a snake? So, for the fourth time, why should a we consider "near certain" to be "certain" in this case?

- I would believe that the box probably did contain a cake, because the prior probability that the box contained a cake was 99%...

SCan you rule out as impossible that the universe was formed half an hour ago? Can you rule out as impossible that we live in a deterministic universe? What can be ruled out? Can we tell if you were a random occurrence or a necessary one? Can we tell if the universe was fully formed as it is half an hour ago? Is immortality an impossible condition? Does the fact of your existence give us any reason to discard what we can testably verify about the universe?

- I don't really understand your p and ~p.

<no question>

<no question>

<18 hours later>

The forum servers are unable to keep up with the blistering pace of this thread, so it is being closed.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: zooterkin

 

[Frozenwolf150]

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.

It's actually up to you which one you want to answer first. Do you feel better prepared to answer the question of the false dichotomy? Or do you feel you have a stronger case for evidence of an immortal soul? Either would make for a good discussion, and others have laid out some fairly easy guidelines how you could go about providing those answers.

 

[Jabba]

It's actually up to you which one you want to answer first. Do you feel better prepared to answer the question of the false dichotomy? Or do you feel you have a stronger case for evidence of an immortal soul? Either would make for a good discussion, and others have laid out some fairly easy guidelines how you could go about providing those answers.

Frozenwolf,
- As a matter of fact, I had just decided to do that.
- I had basically figured I could do that all along, but it turns out that such isn't easy to do when one is being questioned on numerous heated fronts.
- Thanks.

 

[Mojo]

- As a matter of fact, I had just decided to do that.

Go on then.

 

[Jabba]

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...

Slowvehicle,

- Please keep in mind, that I'm trying to respond to only one issue here. I am not trying to respond to surrounding issues such as, "Why don't I respond to a different issue?"

- I had never realized how complicated the complementarity issue is.
- I need to make two more revisions to what I propose for the complementary hypothesis in our case. Also, for the sake of simplicity, I should probably drop back to "me" instead of "we."
- My new complementary hypothesis: Given that I do currently exist, I will exist infinitely, or more than once or (somehow) both. I think that this can be mathematically proven to cover all the bases.

 

[Mojo]

Go on then.

...and then, once you have decided which question to answer first, perhaps you could answer it.

 

[pakeha]

...- My new complementary hypothesis: Given that I do currently exist, I will exist infinitely, or more than once or (somehow) both. I think that this can be mathematically proven to cover all the bases.

No Jabba.
Remember what Slowvehicle wrote?
"If your A is "My existence if finite and singular", the only inclusive complement is "~[my existence is finite and singular]". "

 

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle,

- Please keep in mind, that I'm trying to respond to only one issue here. I am not trying to respond to surrounding issues such as, "Why don't I respond to a different issue?"

- I had never realized how complicated the complementarity issue is.
- I need to make two more revisions to what I propose for the complementary hypothesis in our case. Also, for the sake of simplicity, I should probably drop back to "me" instead of "we."
- My new complementary hypothesis: Given that I do currently exist, I will exist infinitely, or more than once or (somehow) both. I think that this can be mathematically proven to cover all the bases.

Good Morning, Mr. Savage. I will be delivering a care package to the Capitol this morning (my favorite intern has not been able to come home for a week, and needs clothes, meds, and homemade cookies), so I will be on and off this morning.

Your term, "complementary hypothesis", has me a bit puzzled. Do you mean that as a statement of the complement of your hypothesis? If so, I fear you are still making exactly the same error.

Follow:

If ~A ("Given that I do currently exist, I will exist infinitely, or more than once or (somehow) both") is the complement of your hypothesis;

The only proper A, the only A for which the union of A & ~A is the set of all possibilities, is "~[Given that I do currently exist, I will exist infinitely, or more than once or (somehow) both.]"

I am not sure how to explain this to you in a way that has not been done yet. You are still trying to define both A and ~A in terms of characteristics--you want to define ~A in terms of your desired result. Reality will not let you do that.

You may define your A as subtly, with as much complex nuance, as you have the time and the imagination to do. However (and this is the point where you do err) once you have defined A, you have hd your turn. You do net get to define ~A; reality does. Reality gets to say that ~A is anything and everything that is not A, and you do not get to limit that definition to your imagination.

This is why I have suggested you start at the other end--any attempt to limit both A and ~A will end up right back here.

 

[Jabba]

No Jabba.
Remember what Slowvehicle wrote?
"If your A is "My existence if finite and singular", the only inclusive complement is "~[my existence is finite and singular]". "

Pakeha,
- Sure, I remember what Slowvehicle wrote -- but so far, I disagree.

 

[Jabba]

Good Morning, Mr. Savage. I will be delivering a care package to the Capitol this morning (my favorite intern has not been able to come home for a week, and needs clothes, meds, and homemade cookies), so I will be on and off this morning.

Your term, "complementary hypothesis", has me a bit puzzled. Do you mean that as a statement of the complement of your hypothesis? If so, I fear you are still making exactly the same error.

Follow:

If ~A ("Given that I do currently exist, I will exist infinitely, or more than once or (somehow) both") is the complement of your hypothesis;

The only proper A, the only A for which the union of A & ~A is the set of all possibilities, is "~[Given that I do currently exist, I will exist infinitely, or more than once or (somehow) both.]"

I am not sure how to explain this to you in a way that has not been done yet. You are still trying to define both A and ~A in terms of characteristics--you want to define ~A in terms of your desired result. Reality will not let you do that.

You may define your A as subtly, with as much complex nuance, as you have the time and the imagination to do. However (and this is the point where you do err) once you have defined A, you have hd your turn. You do net get to define ~A; reality does. Reality gets to say that ~A is anything and everything that is not A, and you do not get to limit that definition to your imagination.

This is why I have suggested you start at the other end--any attempt to limit both A and ~A will end up right back here.

Slowvehicle,
- I think that I finally recognize your objection...
- I think that you're saying that in the complement, the conditional is also reversed. If that is what you're saying, I think you're wrong.
- I'm just saying that within a certain setting, these two hypotheses are complementary. The setting is not reversed in the complement.

 

[pakeha]

Pakeha,
- Sure, I remember what Slowvehicle wrote -- but so far, I disagree.

Could you explain why?

 

[Mojo]

No Jabba.
Remember what Slowvehicle wrote?
"If your A is "My existence if finite and singular", the only inclusive complement is "~[my existence is finite and singular]". "

Pakeha,
- Sure, I remember what Slowvehicle wrote -- but so far, I disagree.

How can your complement include everything else unless it includes everything else?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle,
- I think that I finally recognize your objection...
- I think that you're saying that in the complement, the conditional is also reversed. If that is what you're saying, I think you're wrong.
- I'm just saying that within a certain setting, these two hypotheses are complementary. The setting is not reversed in the complement.

Good morning, Mr. Savage.

Here is where free-range vocabulary becomes a problem.

1) to be the "complement" of a proposition, a statement must, by definition, include everything that is not that proposition (everything that is "~[proposition]")

2) a "conditional" is usually taken to be an "if/then" proposition.

3) you appear to be using "conditional" to mean, "a limiting condition placed upon a proposition"

4) if you place a "limiting condition" upon your A, then, by definition, by logic, and by-the-way-things-are-constructed, your complement must (not ought to, MUST) include anything and everything that is not the proposition-as-modified-by-the-condition. (Yes, I am taking liberties with the classical vocabulary--I do not want to try to correct your misuse of "condition", so we'll just use it. We can fix the words later)

5) this is what I keep calling "assuming your consequent". You want to be able to define your ~A in terms of the result you want, to be able to say that the result you want is the only logical conclusion--but you are trying to stack the deck.

It doesn't work that way.

Please seriously consider either:

*Constructing your A/~A dichotomy properly, so as to be inclusive; or,

*Starting at the other end, by presenting your evidence that consciousness is not an emergent property of a particular neurosystem.

(NB: it occurs to me that all of your evidence might, in fact, be that you do not want to feel mortal--which is fine. If that is the case, however, idiosyncratic partial application of some of the tools of symbolic logic will not "prove", or even "essentially prove", that your desire is correct. Like my conviction that my partner is the cleverest, most attractive, smartest, and generally-nice-person-est intern ever to proofread bills for the New Mexico legislature, your need not to "feel" mortal may not be subject to logical support.)

ETA: What Mojo Said.

 

[Jabba]

Good morning, Mr. Savage.

Here is where free-range vocabulary becomes a problem.

1) to be the "complement" of a proposition, a statement must, by definition, include everything that is not that proposition (everything that is "~[proposition]")

2) a "conditional" is usually taken to be an "if/then" proposition.

3) you appear to be using "conditional" to mean, "a limiting condition placed upon a proposition"

4) if you place a "limiting condition" upon your A, then, by definition, by logic, and by-the-way-things-are-constructed, your complement must (not ought to, MUST) include anything and everything that is not the proposition-as-modified-by-the-condition. (Yes, I am taking liberties with the classical vocabulary--I do not want to try to correct your misuse of "condition", so we'll just use it. We can fix the words later)

5) this is what I keep calling "assuming your consequent". You want to be able to define your ~A in terms of the result you want, to be able to say that the result you want is the only logical conclusion--but you are trying to stack the deck.

It doesn't work that way.

Please seriously consider either:

*Constructing your A/~A dichotomy properly, so as to be inclusive; or,

*Starting at the other end, by presenting your evidence that consciousness is not an emergent property of a particular neurosystem.

(NB: it occurs to me that all of your evidence might, in fact, be that you do not want to feel mortal--which is fine. If that is the case, however, idiosyncratic partial application of some of the tools of symbolic logic will not "prove", or even "essentially prove", that your desire is correct. Like my conviction that my partner is the cleverest, most attractive, smartest, and generally-nice-person-est intern ever to proofread bills for the New Mexico legislature, your need not to "feel" mortal may not be subject to logical support.)

ETA: What Mojo Said.

Slowvehicle,
- Unfortunately, your restriction doesn't seem necessary, or logical, to me. I see no reason why we can't reason about complementary hypotheses within a particular setting.
- I'm trying to find something on-line that directly addresses this issue, but so far with no luck. Perhaps, you could find something?

 

[Jabba]

Could you explain why?

Pakeha,
- I think that's what I've been trying to do.

 

[Mojo]

Pakeha,
- I think that's what I've been trying to do.

Can you either,
- Link to posts where you did it, or
- Do it again?

 

[Mojo]

- Unfortunately, your restriction doesn't seem necessary, or logical, to me. I see no reason why we can't reason about complementary hypotheses within a particular setting.
- I'm trying to find something on-line that directly addresses this issue, but so far with no luck. Perhaps, you could find something?

GRYTPYPE:
Thank you. As I was saying Moriarty, this clay tablet gives the exact location of the Emperors tomb. But as a precaution, I have had the entire inscription tattooed on the back of my false teeth. Just in case the tablet gets lost. By the way the man who did the tattooing was Doctor Fred FuManchu, Chinese tattooing artist.

MORIARTY:
Thank you for telling the listeners the entire plot. Talking of Doctor Fred Manchu the oriental tattooist, reminds me: As I was coming to the theatre tonight this parcel of the laundry just arrived from England.

GRYTPYPE:
Splendid Moriarty. Well I'm going to take a bath.

MORIARTY:
You English, you're so brave.

GRYTPYPE:
Yes. Now take this gun.

MORIARTY:
Yes.

GRYTPYPE:
And if the phone rings...

MORIARTY:
Yes.

GRYTPYPE:
Don't hesitate to answer it.

MORIARTY:
Sapristi brains! You think of everything.

GRYTPYPE:
Not everything, sometimes I don't think of Aardvarks.

MORIARTY:
You mustn't be so careless. After all Aardvarks never killed anybody.

GRYTPYPE:
I don't wish to know that. (pause) Neither do the audience.

Source

My emphasis.

Jabba, had you thought of aardvarks?

 

[Slowvehicle]

A

Slowvehicle,
- Unfortunately, your restriction doesn't seem necessary, or logical, to me. I see no reason why we can't reason about complementary hypotheses within a particular setting.
- I'm trying to find something on-line that directly addresses this issue, but so far with no luck. Perhaps, you could find something?

Good morning, Mr. Savage:

Part of the reason you are having a hard time finding something on-line that uses "conditional" in the way you are trying to is that the way you are trying to use it is not the way it is used in symbolic logic.

You can find multiple basic logic websites that will walk you through the proper use.

I would rather reason with what you have brought to the table. The problem is not that you are wrong. It is the WAY you are wrong. There is a golden age pulp Science Fiction short story about a human prisoner-of-war who is rescued by the Space Navy after being held by aliens in a replica of the lifepod in which the aliens found him. After a certain amount of "journey-to-a-small-planet" cultural shock (the scene where the protagonist is offered a beer, and is shocked that people are drinking it--when for all of his memory he has only known one foamy, yellowish liquid, is funny), the cruiser that picked him up is attacked and destroyed by the aliens. He escapes in a life pod (and here is my point) which he then makes into the only "safe" place he knows, by disabling the rescue beacon, disabling the food-synthesizer, and powering down the engines--he, in other words, returns to the "limited state" (the "conditional") that worked for him for most of his life--missing the point that his limited-conditional reality was not, in fact, reality, and only worked because the aliens fed him, kept him warm, supplied him with oxygen, and disposed of his wastes.

You may, of course, limit your A/~A pair in any way you choose, but if you define ~A as anything other than "anything and everything that is not A", your resulting conclusion will not reflect reality, but will only reflect how well you crafted your conditional to exclude everything but the consequent you assumed. Call it Texas Sharpshooter; call it the puddle problem; call it circular reasoning; the result is the same. You got the "logical conclusion" you wanted because you stacked the deck to include nothing other than that logical conclusion.