[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[pakeha]

You're frighteningly good at that, Mojo.

 

[Jabba]

If that's the case, then it seems like there's no functional difference between immortality and mortality, and no reason for people to behave or live their lives any differently.

- I would say that the functional difference may be only for those of us who fear death. If you really don't fear death, I'm not sure that a belief in immortality would be functional for you.

I appreciate your honesty. Yes, human knowledge and understanding has its limits, and it's important to recognize them. This is why I think it's also important to realize that it's unlikely anyone would have found all the answers already, whether it's a religion, an ideology, or a hypothesis about immortality and reincarnation based on personal belief.

- Yeah. I do have some doubt, and that's mostly because I can't understand why others haven't brought up this idea already... But again, it isn't like I think that I have all the answers -- or anything like that. I think that I have found one little piece of a very LARGE puzzle.

 

[kedo1981]

Iron age.

The Bible was written in the "Iron age" the stories were made up way before that.

 

[trebor]

If your memories are gone, how is that any different from death?

...

“You have to begin to lose your memory, if only in bits and pieces, to realize that memory is what makes our lives. Life without memory is no life at all... Our memory is our coherence, our reason, our feeling, even our action. Without it we are nothing ... (I can only wait for the final amnesia, the one that can erase an entire life, as it did my mother's..)”

 

[Jabba]

These relationships don't apply to the workings of the physical brain or its emergent properties though. While there is much about the brain and consciousness that science doesn't yet understand, it's not going to find the answers by relegating everything to the realm of magical thinking.

- My claim is that this is "magical thinking" to reductionistic thinking...
- According to reductionistic thinking, if you believe in free will, you believe in magic. My claim is that reductionistic thinking comes up short in explaining reality. I suspect that holistic thinking has the answer.

I have no reason to believe otherwise. However, evidence is all it would take to change my mind.

- For now, I'm just arguing that we can't eliminate the possibility that A is not correct. I'm claiming that we have more than enough evidence (that stuff I referred to back in #3255)

- So anyway, I am currently trying to provide evidence and logic, supportive of my claim that we cannot eliminate ~A as a possibility. And as long as we can’t, and my other numbers are reasonable, A is very probably wrong. And, very probably, I will not have just one finite existence.

- Whatever, in my suggested formula I'm using a prior probability for ~A of only 1% -- and, sure seems like reasonable people have to accept that there is some possibility of ~A being the case. Would .1% be small enough? We can go as low as you want.

- And then,
- We have all sorts of anecdotal evidence of reincarnation, NDEs and OOBEs.
- Quantum mechanics seems to support a universal consciousness.
- All sorts of credible scientists do believe in a God.
- The ones who don't probably have a blind spot.
- Then, the reasons we think that our consciousness is ultimately hooked to our body don’t seem all that demanding – i.e., 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.

to limit A's "prior probability" to 99% -- which would mean that we cannot eliminate the possibility of ~A.
- And for the moment, that's all I'm trying to argue.

 

[jsfisher]

to limit A's "prior probability" to 99% -- which would mean that we cannot eliminate the possibility of ~A.
- And for the moment, that's all I'm trying to argue.

I can accept that both A and ~A have a probability greater than 0, but 99%/1% is just arbitrary on your part. Why not first settle on P(me) before we start subdividing the problem further?

What's your estimate for P(me)?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

It's a lovely morning in the High Desert. I hope you and yours are recovering from the snowstorms you had.

I must say that it disappoints me that you have gone back to pretending that I am not posting. You might ask yourself what it says about your approach to discussion that simply disagreeing with you is enough to put one back on the "unfriendly" list.

- My claim is that this is "magical thinking" to reductionistic thinking...

I would truly appreciate it if you would explain several things:
-what do you think this sentence means?
-what do you mean by "magical thinking" (and why is it in scare quotes)?
-what has magic to do with reality?
-what do you mean by "reductionistic" thinking?

Are you finally saying, at this late stage, that you believe the "soul" exists, and is "immortal", because magic? I had hoped for more.

- According to reductionistic thinking, if you believe in free will, you believe in magic.

What do you offer in support of this claim? is this an original opinion of your own, or can you direct me to where you found this idea?

My claim is that reductionistic thinking comes up short in explaining reality.

What do you offer in support of this claim? is this an original opinion of your own, or can you direct me to where you found this idea?

I suspect that holistic thinking has the answer.

Why? If "reductionistic" thinking explains consciousness as an emergent property of a neurosystem, what has "holistic thinking" to offer tha better explains what we observe?

- For now, I'm just arguing that we can't eliminate the possibility that A is not correct.

"Is not philosphically impossible" does not imply "is therefore likely". Did we not have this very same conversation in one or both of the Shroud threads?

I'm claiming that we have more than enough evidence (that stuff I referred to back in #3255)to limit A's "prior probability" to 99% -- which would mean that we cannot eliminate the possibility of ~A.
- And for the moment, that's all I'm trying to argue.

As has been pointed out to you, your "feelings", your fervent wishes, the anecdotes you relate, and your fear of oblivion are not evidence.

Custom-crafted percentage "estimates" chosen to front-load your assumed consequent are not evidence.

Have you any practical, empirical, objective evidence to offer?

Do you intend to continue to ignore the observed and recorded fact that trauma to the neurosystem affects the emergent properties of that neurosystem?

 

[Jabba]

- At this point, I'm thinking that most of you agree that we cannot totally eliminate the possibility that we don't live just one finite time at most.
- So far, I'm just claiming that if we can't totally eliminate that as a possibility, Bayesian statistics shows that we VERY probably do not live just one finite time at most -- because the posterior probability that we do, given our current existence, is 1/∞.

 

[Loss Leader]

- I'm claiming that we have more than enough evidence (that stuff I referred to back in #3255)to limit A's "prior probability" to 99% -- which would mean that we cannot eliminate the possibility of ~A.

So, once out of every hundred times we run the universe, you get to have something other than one mortal life? How did you determine that? How do you know how many itterations of the universe it would take to pull the immortality card?

At this point, we have absolutely no credible evidence that anything survives the body. Why are we suddenly giving it a 1 in 100 chance?

For that matter, the universe might be completely deterministic and we would necessarily get exactly the same results every time. How do you determine that there's a 1/100 chance that this isn't happening?

I think 1% is unconscionably high. If 1% of all people were immortal, there'd by 70,000,000 immortals walking among us. If 1% of all cancer deaths were from licking toads, then 5,857 Americans a year would die from toad licking.

It's a very poorly made-up number.

 

[Giordano]

- At this point, I'm thinking that most of you agree that we cannot totally eliminate the possibility that we don't live just one finite time at most.
- So far, I'm just claiming that if we can't totally eliminate that as a possibility, Bayesian statistics shows that we VERY probably do not live just one finite time at most -- because the posterior probability that we do, given our current existence, is 1/∞.

Some people here (certainly not sure it is most) think that there is a very small but highly unlikely possibility of immortality (based only on the principal of us not knowing everything, just as if you said there is a unicorn in your garden, I would probably look before saying there isn't). On this basis you conclude "I win!"? Did you read your OP?

It has been repeatedly shown here that your Bayesian statistics "proving" immortality are fatally flawed. You have simply ignored all attempts at correction. Your math is wrong. I just drew a poker hand of 2, 3, 4, 5 of hearts, and a Jack of clubs. The posterior probability of that is 1/52 *1/51*1/50*1/49*1/48, a very. very small number indeed. Must my card hand have been reincarnated from the "soul" of that improbable hand sequence that existed in a prior "life" and must the "soul" of that improbable card hand continue in an "afterlife" after I shuffle the deck?

So are you one of those who claims victory for convincing other people of your theory, when everyone else here disagrees? Does that delusion give you any pleasure?

There was a great U-tube video posted here showing that if you know very little about a topic (parking in this case), you don't understand the arguments against your theory and are more likely to declare victory when it isn't.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- At this point, I'm thinking that most of you agree that we cannot totally eliminate the possibility that we don't live just one finite time at most.

Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

The only way you can make this claim is by simply ignoring what has been posted. I, for one, do not agree with your statement for both grammatical and theoretical reasons.

-"just one finite time at most" is unclear, and ambiguous. Do you really mean that you would accept the example of one consciousness existing twice (and only twice) as "immortality"?

-your concept of sequential iterations of the same "self" that share no characteristics at all--not continuity of memory, nor experiences, nor any identifiable thing at all, utterly eviscerates your identification of them as the "same" self". How do those two completely unrelated "selves" represent multiple existences of an identity?

-you continue to blithely ignore that, for instance, we cannot totally eliminate the possibility that there is a teapot orbiting between Saturn and Jupiter that dispenses tea ("Earl Grey--hot") and advice to the lovelorn. Does that mean, to you, that all theories of cosmology must explain the teapot?

-you continue to ignore the fact that there is no evidence at all that the "soul" exists--much less is immortal. I have seen teapots--I have held them in my hand. I have tasted Earl Grey tea (and am very fond of it). I have read anonymous advice-to-the-lovelorn columns in even small-market newspapers (and online). I have never seen a single bit of empirical, practical, objective evidence for the existence of a "soul". By your lights, that means that the existence of the Teapot is more likely than the existence of the "immortal soul".

- So far, I'm just claiming that if we can't totally eliminate that as a possibility, Bayesian statistics shows that we VERY probably do not live just one finite time at most -- because the posterior probability that we do, given our current existence, is 1/∞.

As I have said before, this is exactly the line you took in both Shroud threads. Did you also take this line on the other thread where you were arguing for immortality?

Bayesian statistics, if used correctly, may, in fact, inform our understanding of how likely an advent may or may not be (or have been). The admitted weakness of the method is one it shares with the Drake equation--that is, when you are inventing all of your terms, you will, in fact, get an invented result. What Bayesian statistics does NOT do is demonstrate that if something cannot be theoretically eliminated as a possibility, it is therefore more likely than what is actually observed.

Let me say that again: "not theoretically impossible" does not mean "therefore more likely than not."

 

[Jabba]

Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

It's a lovely morning in the High Desert. I hope you and yours are recovering from the snowstorms you had.from the snowstorms you had.

Slowvehicle,
- Just barely...
- We're expecting another blast of frigidity tomorrow or the next day. I don't know about the snow.

I must say that it disappoints me that you have gone back to pretending that I am not posting. You might ask yourself what it says about your approach to discussion that simply disagreeing with you is enough to put one back on the "unfriendly" list.

- Do you realize how much I would like to say in response to that one paragraph?!
- Do you accept that
1) There are numerous participants in this thread that strongly disagree with me, and tend to post a great many responses (questions, suggestions, objections and comments in general) per day. (I would try to figure out the average per day, but who has the time to do that?)
2) Each post addressed to me tends to have multiple, if not numerous, responses (that need responses) within it.
3) A lot of what I want to say is difficult for me to convey effectively, and takes up a lot of time.
4) I only have 2 or 3 hours a day to devote to this stuff.
5) Doing so is my favorite hobby.
6) I simply don't understand a lot of the responses I get -- and, trying to understand them takes up time.
7) Many of the responses that I do understand are difficult to answer anyway, and take up a lot of time.
8) Many have already been answered somewhere back in the past.
9) Many have been answered indirectly back in the past.
10) While a lot of the responses are largely redundant, they tend to have nuances that are new.
11) A lot of the responses are brand new.

- Sorry about all of that, but what'r'ya'gonn'do?

- I'm running out of time, and will have to leave your other responses to a later date.

 

[jsfisher]

- At this point, I'm thinking that most of you agree that we cannot totally eliminate the possibility that we don't live just one finite time at most.
- So far, I'm just claiming that if we can't totally eliminate that as a possibility, Bayesian statistics shows that we VERY probably do not live just one finite time at most -- because the posterior probability that we do, given our current existence, is 1/∞.

This is wrong for so many, many reasons. You won't appreciate some of those reasons until you figure out what you know about the color of the Jabba marble.

 

[Humots]

- At this point, I'm thinking that most of you agree that we cannot totally eliminate the possibility that we don't live just one finite time at most.

I can't eliminate this possibility, in the same way that I can't eliminate the possibility that I am the only real thing in existence (I think, therefore at least I am) and everything I perceive is my imagination.

Or maybe I'm God. Either way, I don't spend time worrying about it.

- So far, I'm just claiming that if we can't totally eliminate that as a possibility, Bayesian statistics shows that we VERY probably do not live just one finite time at most -- because the posterior probability that we do, given our current existence, is 1/∞.

The use of the term 1/∞ does not speak well of your mathematical competence.

 

[Mojo]

-what do you mean by "reductionistic" thinking?

He probably means "normative" thinking.

 

[Mojo]

I only have 2 or 3 hours a day to devote to this stuff.

You started this thread in November 2012. That means that even if you have only had two or three hours per day to "devote to this stuff", you have been able to work on it for somewhere between about 900 and 1,400 hours.

You don't seem to be making much headway.

 

[Giordano]

Slowvehicle,
- Just barely...
- We're expecting another blast of frigidity tomorrow or the next day. I don't know about the snow.- Do you realize how much I would like to say in response to that one paragraph?!
- Do you accept that
1) There are numerous participants in this thread that strongly disagree with me, and tend to post a great many responses (questions, suggestions, objections and comments in general) per day. (I would try to figure out the average per day, but who has the time to do that?)
2) Each post addressed to me tends to have multiple, if not numerous, responses (that need responses) within it.
3) A lot of what I want to say is difficult for me to convey effectively, and takes up a lot of time.
4) I only have 2 or 3 hours a day to devote to this stuff.
5) Doing so is my favorite hobby.
6) I simply don't understand a lot of the responses I get -- and, trying to understand them takes up time.
7) Many of the responses that I do understand are difficult to answer anyway, and take up a lot of time.
8) Many have already been answered somewhere back in the past.
9) Many have been answered indirectly back in the past.
10) While a lot of the responses are largely redundant, they tend to have nuances that are new.
11) A lot of the responses are brand new.

- Sorry about all of that, but what'r'ya'gonn'do?

- I'm running out of time, and will have to leave your other responses to a later date.

I am sincerely glad you are well, but sorry you anticipate more cold weather.

So your solution to these problems is to simply ignore corrections and questions? Do you think that would work? There are not that many different questions really (perhaps less than 4) and many people here have urged you to answer the same question first. But you continue to ignore us. In fact your attempt at simplifying this exchange by a one on one approach was abandoned by you.

Notably I spend far less time here than you do (in fact I work for a living and have less time than you do for this as a hobby), yet I have no trouble with time constraints. Again perhaps you are the wrong person for this task if you cannot keep up, have trouble formulating responses, and have trouble understanding the questions. You could try a less ambitious OP, or follow other threads, if this is your favorite hobby.

How do you know "many" of these questions have been answered in the past? You have often pleaded memory problems and cannot find your own posts. How can you know that you answered these questions?

Again, there are only a few different questions and corrections- just answer them instead of spending the time posting that you intend to answer them in the future.

 

[Mojo]

So far, I'm just claiming that if we can't totally eliminate that as a possibility, Bayesian statistics shows that we VERY probably do not live just one finite time at most -- because the posterior probability that we do, given our current existence, is 1/∞.

Can you link to or repeat your working for that bit? I seem to have missed it.

 

[Slowvehicle]

He probably means "normative" thinking.

"Normativisticalist" thinking?

...and stop calling me Norma.

 

[Loss Leader]

- So far, I'm just claiming that if we can't totally eliminate that as a possibility, Bayesian statistics shows that we VERY probably do not live just one finite time at most -- because the posterior probability that we do, given our current existence, is 1/∞.

Not really. First of all, nobody has agreed that the probability of your current existence is 1/∞. I know you'd like it to be because 1/∞ is zero. So long as you choose a non-infinite number for the chance that you are incorrect, that number will always turn out to be greater than zero. In fact, it will be infinitely greater than zero.

Do you recognize that you are just pulling a little mathematical trick to get numbers you happen to like? You're multiplying by zero.

How about this compromise? I'll agree that the chance of our existence is 1/∞ if you admit that the chance of us having anything other than one mortal life is also 1/∞.

It doesn't work, does it? It's not enjoyable to be forced to multiply by zero just because someone repeats it for over a year.

Also, what happened to the reasonable doubt discussion?