[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Mojo]

Jabba's proof is pretty straightforward. Reading from the beginning of the thread, I think I have a good handle on it.

He is saying that if his existence is a random event, it would be very, very unlikely for him to exist at this time. However, if he were immortal, his existence is guaranteed. He exists. Thus, it is more likely that he is immortal than not. Basically, he is equating the chance of him being immortal with the chance of him not having come to exist.

The problem is that we can apply the same argument to the existence of absolutely anything.

I am about to eat a piece of cake. It is very unlikely that this particular piece of cake exists at this time. However, if the piece of cake is eternal, its existence is guaranteed. It exists. Thus, it is more likely that the cake is eternal than not.

I really can eat my cake and have it too!

ETA: either that or Jabba has "essentially proved" that the cake cannot be eaten.

The piece of cake no longer exists. Jabba's proof fails.

 

[Agatha]

Of course it will be.

I fear you are (as always) right, O Pharaoh.

 

[Akhenaten]

I fear you are (as always) right, O Pharaoh.

And I fear that my cynicism is a poor counterpoint to your optimism, dear Lady.

 

[Garrette]

Jabba: Here is My Proof.

Skeptics: It has flaws A, B, C, and D, plus a bunch of others we don’t have time to go into.

Jabba: Here is a sub-part of My Proof.

Skeptics: That’s the part with flaws A and B plus a bunch of others we don’t have time to go into.

Jabba: I covered A in My Proof. I can talk about B if you like. Unless you want more on A.

Skeptics: You didn’t cover A in My Proof; that’s the point. You need to address A and B plus a bunch of others we don’t have time to go into.

Jabba: That’s as far as we can go on A so I’ll move on.

Skeptics: You haven’t gone anywhere at all with A, and you can’t move on; it’s a fundamental issue.

Jabba: I will momentarily concede that you have bested me rhetorically, but I’ll be back.

Skeptics: Great. When you do, please address, A, B, C, and D plus a bunch of others we don’t have time to go into.

Jabba: I’m back. Here’s My New Proof. I hope you guys can keep up with me because I’ve changed this drastically.

Skeptics: Since you have finally arrived where we told you that you needed to begin several months ago, it is hard to understand your concern about us keeping up with you. Moreover, My New Proof is precisely the same as My (Old) Proof except that A is partially addressed (and only partially). That still leaves B, C, and D plus a bunch of others we don’t have time to go into.

Jabba: The components of My New Proof are 1, 2, and 3.

Skeptics: Seriously? My New Proof is a list of quotations of your old posts that still have flaws A (partially addressed), B, C, and D plus a bunch of others we don’t have time to go into?

 

[Slowvehicle]

The problem is that we can apply the same argument to the existence of absolutely anything.

I am about to eat a piece of cake. It is very unlikely that this particular piece of cake exists at this time. However, if the piece of cake is eternal, its existence is guaranteed. It exists. Thus, it is more likely that the cake is eternal than not.

I really can eat my cake and have it too!

ETA: either that or Jabba has "essentially proved" that the cake cannot be eaten.

The cake is a lie?

 

[Agatha]

And I fear that my cynicism is a poor counterpoint to your optimism, dear Lady.

If we do not have the yin, we will not appreciate the yang.

Garrette, that was a masterful précis of the preceding 80-odd pages. If only pakeha was on this thread giving out cases of Dom Perignon.

 

[Aepervius]

- 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.

"Evidence" which are not credible get scarry quote because they are not evidence in anything but name.

- Personally, I believe that some of the evidence is at least somewhat credible. Many credible scholars do also.

No. Some believer do hope so, some scholar pretend to be so, but the bulk simply find them ridiculous because tehre are far more simpler explanation.

- Note that in the Bayesian formula, I've inserted only 1% as the prior probability of any "NSM" (Non-Scientific Model). So long as I'm right about the likelihood of my current existence given the SM, it hardly matters how small the prior probability of the NSM is.

only 1% ? 1% is *huge*.

- 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.

And yet tehre has been a lot of non religious explanation offered, and some aprt of OOBE reproduced with chemicals, or magnetic fields, a good indication that it is all brain works.

- Then, there's what Quantum Mechanics suggests about consciousness. Google "consciousness quantum mechanics."

Tegmark has long been debunked. He was speaking of stuff really where he has no expertise. There is many reason why QM does not apply at that macro level in a significant way.

- 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.

You forgot a gfew main point: we think consciousness is linked to the physical body, because physical* damage to the brain can alter consciousness , personality, and perceptions.

- All in all, I'm not convinced that we can eliminate the possibility of an afterlife, and if we can't...[/I]

Sure you are not convinced. You are a believer. So there will always be "faith" to retreat to. But the fact is that there is no evidence of afterlife, once you understand that all the above have much simpler neurological explanation.

So we are back to "Jabba believe and has no evidence" in other word : faith

 

[pakeha]

Always happy to indulge a lady's wishes.
Garrette, you lucky fellow, a case of Dom is floating towards you as I write.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to seeing the second part of Jabba's summary.

 

[Slowvehicle]

From #3210 (tiny revision)
- OK. How about this?
- A = human "selves" exist for one finite time at most.
- ~A = everything that is not A.
- I don't think that's quite how to say it, but I think everybody knows what I mean.
- My 'proof' of ~A is P(A|me) = P(me|A)*P(A)/(P((me|A)*P(A)+P(me|~A)*P(~A))


From 3225:
So, now to my “evidence.”
- Note that the evidence that I need to provide represents the support for the numbers that I stick in the formula: P(A|me) = P(me|A)*P(A)/(P((me|A)*P(A)+P(me|~A)*P(~A))
- IOW, P(A|me) = 1/∞*.99/((1/∞*.99)+(.5)*(.01)).
- I’ll start with P(~A).
- I’ve already provided an outline for this evidence. I’ll go back and look it up.

From #2510 (Here, “SM” is “A,” and NSM is “~A.”
Jay,

- Here's my effort, so far, to justify the prior probability of the NSM -- taken from #14 in the moderated thread. Can we really eliminate the possibility that we're immortal?

Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

I appreciate your re-posting what you are calling your "evidence" the the "soul" exists, and is "immortal". I hope that you do not find my response "condescending", or "unfriendly", so I will try to be as gentle as possible.

The highlighted phrase represents a classic attempt to shift the burden of proof. You have made the claim that there is something (whether you call it a "self" or a "soul") that exists independently of the neurosystem of which it is an emergent property, and that that "self" is "immortal". You cannot offer the fact that you say your claim cannot be disproved as a evidence of your claim.

Consider my claim that I had a maiden great-Aunt, named Balzora van Hoek, who was Dowager Empress of all the Romany, and an expert juggler of geese. (It's true. Geese were juggled.) Would you accept as evidence for my claim to the Romany throne the fact that you cannot eliminate the possibility that Tanta Balekke was, in fact, the Empress? Your are making the very error addressed by the idea of Russell's Teapot, or the Invisible Pink Dragon in Your Garage. You made that claim about the "immortal self"--the onus is on you to provide the evidence that supports that claim.

It is an easy error to make, because it feels so convincing to you. It is, naetheless, an error. Please consider avoiding the appearance of dishonesty by abandoning your presumption that the burden of proof can be handed off.

- 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.

With all due respect, this would have been a lovely place to present your practical, empirical, objective evidence of the existence of the "immortal soul".

- Personally, I believe that some of the evidence is at least somewhat credible. Many credible scholars do also.

An appeal to authority? Seriously? What I really hoped to start seeing was your evidence--the facts, physical phenomena, documented observations, reproducible tests, and all the trappings that go along with demonstrating a claim. Your unsupported claim that "many credible scholars" also believe that the "soul" exists, and is "immortal" raises more questions than it answers:

-Who are these "credible scholars"
-What makes them "credible" to you?
-What should make them "credible" to me? (Consdier the problem of Rogers' tests of the Shroud.)
Perhaps most important: what is the evidence that causes these "credible scholars" to believe that the "soul" exists,and is "immortal"?

- Note that in the Bayesian formula, I've inserted only 1% as the prior probability of any "NSM" (Non-Scientific Model). So long as I'm right about the likelihood of my current existence given the SM, it hardly matters how small the prior probability of the NSM is.

Mr. Savage, please understand that your attempts to manipulate Bayes' work to "prove" that the "immortal soul" is much, much more likely to exist than any of the observed alternatives is a non-starter. As I have pointed out before, the fact that you think yourself monumentally unlikely is meaningless--after the fact of your existence. What I keep hoping to see is your evidence that the "soul" exists, and is "immortal"; not your continued claim that what appears to exist is so unlikely that the "immortal soul" must, perforce, exist.

You have yet to consistently define either the "self" or "immortality"--you are still selling an undefined pig in an undemonstrated poke.

- 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.

Mr. Savage, I wonder if you realize why none of this is evidence?

Tanta Balekke used to claim that serving your beloved intended a tea in which the ashes of the shell of a black hen's first egg were steeped would make your intended be true to you. She even could name several people for whom it had worked (for some of them, it had worked on multiple beloved intendeds). Despite her anecdotal support, I was never persuaded by this claim of Balekke's.

Where are the controlled studies of NDE's that demonstrate them to be anything other than the neurosystem's response to anoxia?

Where are the controlled studies of OOBE's that demonstrate the astral self's abilities to see, or perceive, things the body could not have?

You are correct--the "somewhat famous neurosurgeon's" anecdote about an OOBE does not mean much at all--had it been, for instance, Linus Pauling, you might have "learned" many things about vitamin C--things that would have meant just as much as any claim of Balekke's ( my Tanta said a LOT of things that were, to put it kindly, unsupported).

- Then, there's what Quantum Mechanics suggests about consciousness. Google "consciousness quantum mechanics."

What, in your opinion, does Quantum Mechanics "suggest" about consciousness? What, in your opinion, has been done to test those suggestions?

- 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.

I disagree that "we" think that "nothing is non-physical". There are many demonstrable things that both exist, and are immaterial--reputation, honour, credibility--among others.

I have read about NDEs. What I used to tell my students, when they trod this very path, is that NDEs are not a taste of what it will be like to die, but a taste of what it is like to nearly die (The "N" in Nde). Are you aware that people subjected to heavy "g"-loads can be induced to experience NDEs?

I have read about OOBEs. To be frank, they seem to me to be, clearly, a concatenation of wish fulfillment, confirmation bias, and stress-related confusion. Astral projection is no more convincing that any other claim of Balekke's (can you tell that I am missing my Tanta this morning?).

There are several other indications that consciousness is an emergent property of the neurosystem in which it is housed. I have mentioned them, and you have not addressed them.

-How do you explain population growth? Are new "souls" being created to keep up with demand? How is one to go about distinguishing a "new" "soul" from a "reincarnated" one?

-If the second (or tenth, or second hundredth) iteration of a "soul" shares nothing with its previous iterations (not memory, not experiences, not perceptions, nada), how is that a continuation of the original identity? What distinguishes that from a series of unrelated consciousnesses as emergent propertied of the neurosystems in which each is housed?

-If the "self" exists independently of the neurosystem of which it is an emergent property, how do you explain traumatic aphasia?

- All in all, I'm not convinced that we can eliminate the possibility of an afterlife, and if we can't...[/I]

And here we are, back at your original attempt to shift the burden of proof. As baldly as possible, "we" do not have to "eliminate" the "possibility" of an "afterlife". It is you who must demonstrate the reality of an "afterlife"--that the "soul" exists,and is "immortal".

- I'll be back with one more piece for the summary.

Mr. Savage, I hope you will take this in a constructive manner. You may, in fact, feel as if you have listed the reasons why you believe (or want to believe) that the "soul" exists, and is "immortal". You are right to "believe" whatever comforts you. On the other hand, you have not presented a single reason why I, or anyone else, should believe in the "immortal soul". This is why I chant the mantra: "practical, empirical, objective evidence". When I ask you for your evidence of the existence of the "immortal soul", I am not asking you to tell me what I "should" believe. I am not asking you to tell me what I cannot disprove. I am asking you to demonstrate what is real. Without practical, empirical, objective evidence supporting testable, reproducible, demonstrable claims, your explanations of what you believe are no more convincing that any of Balekke's.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Always happy to indulge a lady's wishes.
Garrette, you lucky fellow, a case of Dom is floating towards you as I write.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to seeing the second part of Jabba's summary.

Champers without chockies?

What are we, Barbarians?

 

[Giordano]

My deep appreciation to other posters who have pointed out specific flaws in Jabba's equation set up, numbers, and repeated style of simply ignoring his flaws when they are expressly pointed out to him.

But I want to see if my understanding is correct: even if these problems were unlikely fixed by Jabba, isn't he calculating the probability of the existence of another future, exact Jabba (i. e. happening again), which we agreed is unlikely under the standard model (as he defines it), rather than calculating the probability of the existence of the current Jabba (which we know is 1). Isn't he trying to actually prove that reincarnation is very unlikely under "the standard model" and would therefore require "magic" (of which we have no evidence and no prior evidence) to occur?

In other words, isn't he seeking to prove the opposite mathematically than he claims; that reincarnation is actually very unlikely?

 

[Agatha]

Duplicate post, sorry

 

[Agatha]

Are the chocolates gluten free? If so, pass them this way.

I think Jabba's "essential" "proof" relies on the idea that "the scientific concept" holds that in order for a specific named person to be born, lots of coincidences must happen. This, in Jabba's mind, is so inherently unlikely as to be close to impossible¹. Therefore, all sorts of things that are thought to be impossible may well be possible², and one of those possible impossible things is immortality³.

And the evidence for immortality is memories of past lives⁴, NDEs⁵, OOBEs⁶ and a third hand anecdote reminiscent of the stories told by Dr Eben Alexander. Oh, and an attempt to reverse the burden of proof⁷.

1. Before it happens. After it has happened, the probability is 1. Since Jabba's A relies on humans (in particular, himself) existing, his P(me) is 1.

2. Holy non sequitur, Batman! If I have a 20 billion sided die, the chance of throwing any particular number is very small. If I throw a 27, that does not mean that the die may be about to turn into a butterfly, because one very small possibility (a 20 billion to 1 shot) occurring does not make the impossible any more likely.

3. At our current state of knowledge, consciousness cannot transcend the death of the brain. Consciousness is an emergent property of an individual brain.

4. In every fully investigated case, memories of 'past lives' can be traced to suppressed memories of something seen or heard in that person's lifetime. In one relatively famous case (which my google-fu cannot find atm) a quick, unconscious glance at a manuscript of a mediaeval song on a library table was enough for one person to construct a convincing narrative of a whole past life many years later.

A couple of years ago, a poster named Charles Boden made a thread all about his past life as Bonnie Prince Charlie. However, many of his 'memories' included things which were not of the correct time period such as particular songs, minstrels, buckled boots and the layout of a town. These anachronisms suggested that his memories did not come from his 'former self' in history, but rather from romantic fiction and the like.

5. Even if NDEs were something more than a dream-like response to the brain being starved of oxygen, they are unrelated to immortality. As the only people who report them are those who do NOT die, we have no reason to suspect that they signify something which happens after death. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-near-death-experience-isnt-proof-heaven/

6. OOBEs can be induced by stress, shock, pain and some drugs. I myself have had two OOBEs (both caused by shock and pethidine/Demerol) which I have posted about on the forum several times. There is no reason to think they are anything more than a hallucinatory response. Even if they are something more, there is no reason to suspect that they are related to immortality, since the only people who report them are alive, and no 'afterlife' is reported as part of them; merely an alteration of perspective.

7. Jabba's claim that immortality is possible, therefore it is his burden of proof. If no evidence is forthcoming, the null hypothesis stands. Should we rule out the invisible, incorporeal purple dragon in my garage if I don't provide any convincing evidence for it, Jabba?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Are the chocolates gluten free? If so, pass them this way.

I think Jabba's "essential" "proof" relies on the idea that "the scientific concept" holds that in order for a specific named person to be born, lots of coincidences must happen. This, in Jabba's mind, is so inherently unlikely as to be close to impossible¹. Therefore, all sorts of things that are thought to be impossible may well be possible², and one of those possible impossible things is immortality³.

And the evidence for immortality is memories of past lives⁴, NDEs⁵, OOBEs⁶ and a third hand anecdote reminiscent of the stories told by Dr Eben Alexander. Oh, and an attempt to reverse the burden of proof⁷.

1. Before it happens. After it has happened, the probability is 1. Since Jabba's A relies on humans (in particular, himself) existing, his P(me) is 1.

2. Holy non sequitur, Batman! If I have a 20 billion sided die, the chance of throwing any particular number is very small. If I throw a 27, that does not mean that the die may be about to turn into a butterfly, because one very small possibility (a 20 billion to 1 shot) occurring does not make the impossible any more likely.

3. At our current state of knowledge, consciousness cannot transcend the death of the brain. Consciousness is an emergent property of an individual brain.

4. In every fully investigated case, memories of 'past lives' can be traced to suppressed memories of something seen or heard in that person's lifetime. In one relatively famous case (which my google-fu cannot find atm) a quick, unconscious glance at a manuscript of a mediaeval song on a library table was enough for one person to construct a convincing narrative of a whole past life many years later.

A couple of years ago, a poster named Charles Boden made a thread all about his past life as Bonnie Prince Charlie. However, many of his 'memories' included things which were not of the correct time period such as particular songs, minstrels, buckled boots and the layout of a town. These anachronisms suggested that his memories did not come from his 'former self' in history, but rather from romantic fiction and the like.

5. Even if NDEs were something more than a dream-like response to the brain being starved of oxygen, they are unrelated to immortality. As the only people who report them are those who do NOT die, we have no reason to suspect that they signify something which happens after death. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-near-death-experience-isnt-proof-heaven/

6. OOBEs can be induced by stress, shock, pain and some drugs. I myself have had two OOBEs (both caused by shock and pethidine/Demerol) which I have posted about on the forum several times. There is no reason to think they are anything more than a hallucinatory response. Even if they are something more, there is no reason to suspect that they are related to immortality, since the only people who report them are alive, and no 'afterlife' is reported as part of them; merely an alteration of perspective.

7. Jabba's claim that immortality is possible, therefore it is his burden of proof. If no evidence is forthcoming, the null hypothesis stands. Should we rule out the invisible, incorporeal purple dragon in my garage if I don't provide any convincing evidence for it, Jabba?

Very well put, thank you.

The chockies with the stripes are gluten (and tree nut) free.
The ones with the tricolored stripes are also vegan.

...and I can always make more...

 

[xtifr]

If that is so, then that is another essential error. The universe is infinite, [...]

I do not believe that is actually the case. Furthermore, not only is the universe not infinite, but it is not (unlike a purely mathematical hypersolid of the same shape and size) infinitely divisible. You cannot say that there are an infinite number of possible arrangements of particles in our universe, because our universe is bound, at the small scale, by the Planck length. Distances shorter than that cannot be meaningfully said to exist at all.

This means that the total number of possible arrangements of all particles in the universe is very much finite. It may be a mind-croggling huge number, but it's still finite, and the difference between any actual finite number, no matter how huge, and infinity is...infinity.

Jabber wants to ignore this, so he can add 1/infinity in his equation.

(I didn't quote the rest of your comment because I don't disagree with the rest.)

 

[jsfisher]

I do not believe that is actually the case. Furthermore, not only is the universe not infinite, but it is not (unlike a purely mathematical hypersolid of the same shape and size) infinitely divisible. You cannot say that there are an infinite number of possible arrangements of particles in our universe, because our universe is bound, at the small scale, by the Planck length. Distances shorter than that cannot be meaningfully said to exist at all.

[aside]
There's one little detail I've never known about length. I understand Planck specifies the minimum, but what, if any restrictions are there for lengths greater than that? For example, must they be a multiple of Planck's constant, or is there a whole continuum of possibilities.
[/aside]

 

[Frozenwolf150]

I raise the question again. Why is immortality a desired state of existence? Even if one's memory is wiped in the next incarnation, Jabba has cited past-life memories as one of his evidences of an immortal soul. If I were to grant the validity of past-life memories for the sake of argument, it would imply that the system isn't perfect, and some memories do in fact slip through the cracks. Wouldn't this be a horrific experience, for all the reasons I and others have enumerated? Everyone you knew in your past life is dead or lost, and you can never go back to the ones you loved. Is that the way you want things to be for the rest of eternity? What if it turns out your past life wasn't as a famous or important person, and you died violently or inconsequentially?

I'm having trouble understanding why this is something you'd want to have happen, simply from a belief standpoint.

 

[jsfisher]

Jabba,

-+- Please, before you attempt to justify all the figures you'd like to plug into your formula would you please answer me this:

-+- What is the prior probability of your existence, i.e. P(me) ?

-+- Thanks.

 

[Giordano]

Jabba,

-+- Please, before you attempt to justify all the figures you'd like to plug into your formula would you please answer me this:

-+- What is the prior probability of your existence, i.e. P(me) ?

-+- Thanks.

Yes, what is P(me)?
Isn't your calculation asking about the probability of finding another Jabba, identical in all ways to you? Do you know of another Jabba, past or present?

 

[Loss Leader]

[aside]
There's one little detail I've never known about length. I understand Planck specifies the minimum, but what, if any restrictions are there for lengths greater than that? For example, must they be a multiple of Planck's constant, or is there a whole continuum of possibilities.
[/aside]

Everything has to be a multiple of a Planck length. Anything else would require such length to be divided and it's indivisible.

I find it's best not to think about Planck lengths. Certainly don't think about the universe hopping from Planck unit of time to Planck time with nothing in between. It literally makes me need to lie down and hug myself.