[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

Status
Not open for further replies.
You know what would cut down on the replies, Jabba? Stop repeating the same things over and over after posters have pointed out problems with your statements.
 
Jabba said:
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.
Click to expand...

I hope it's merely a local shortage.
 
Jabba said:
- 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.- 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)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.
Click to expand...

I don't follow that at all, Jabba.
 
Jabba said:
- 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/∞.
Click to expand...
The posterior probability that we have one finite life, given our current existence, is NOT 1/∞.

You asserted that the probability of 'you' occurring 'now' is 1/∞. That in itself, even if it was correct (it isn't) has nothing to do with the probability that 'you' will exist more than once, or for an infinite time.

You are asserting that the moon is yellow, and saying that your assertion means that the moon is made of English Cheddar. The two things are neither dependent on each other nor linked.
 
Jabba said:
- 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/∞.
Click to expand...
- Unfortunately, That needs better expression. It isn't easy.

- First, I do think that the "likelihood" of me currently existing -- given the hypothesis that we exist for just one finite time at most -- is 1/∞. At this point, however, I'm not trying to argue that belief -- I'll do that later. For now, I'm just trying to establish how many of you agree with me that we cannot totally eliminate the possibility that the hypothesis that we exist for just one finite time at most is incorrect.
- My conclusion was that most of you agree with me. Now, I think that I should go back and take note of specifically who has expressed an opinion about that, and what was the opinion they expressed. I'll be back as soon as possible (I'm babysitting).
 
Jabba said:
- Unfortunately, That needs better expression. It isn't easy.

- First, I do think that the "likelihood" of me currently existing -- given the hypothesis that we exist for just one finite time at most -- is 1/∞. At this point, however, I'm not trying to argue that belief -- I'll do that later. For now, I'm just trying to establish how many of you agree with me that we cannot totally eliminate the possibility that the hypothesis that we exist for just one finite time at most is incorrect.
- My conclusion was that most of you agree with me. Now, I think that I should go back and take note of specifically who has expressed an opinion about that, and what was the opinion they expressed. I'll be back as soon as possible (I'm babysitting).
Click to expand...

I and a lot of others here, have explained that your math and its application are wrong. Your calculation is wrong and we have repeatedly explained to you why.
You have not even bothered to reply why you think that you are right after all, or to make the corrections. Why again should I listen to you if you do not do the same to me? Why do you think your math will convince us if we all think your math is wrong?
 
Jabba said:
For now, I'm just trying to establish how many of you agree with me that we cannot totally eliminate the possibility that the hypothesis that we exist for just one finite time at most is incorrect.
- My conclusion was that most of you agree with me. Now, I think that I should go back and take note of specifically who has expressed an opinion about that, and what was the opinion they expressed. I'll be back as soon as possible (I'm babysitting).
Click to expand...
Let me state that it seems to me more likely that a smashed vase or egg will unsmash itself than we have continuity of consciousness beyond the biological lifetime of our bodies (technological advances excepted). For the former, there is a good theoretical basis, however unlikely the event might be. For the latter I know of no theoretical basis whatsoever, a mountain of circumstantial evidence against it, and all indications are that it would contradict known laws of physics.

So while I can't 'totally eliminate' the possibility that I'm a brain in a vat, or a simulation run on some vast cellular automaton, I find those more plausible than continuity of consciousness after death, immortal or otherwise...

If by 'existing more than one than one finite time' you don't mean continuity of consciousness, then please explain precisely what you mean, because beyond obviously pointless mystical ideas as moving some abstract 'spark of life' from one 'physical container' to another (like swapping phone batteries), I really don't know.
 
Jabba said:
- First, I do think that the "likelihood" of me currently existing -- given the hypothesis that we exist for just one finite time at most -- is 1/∞.
Click to expand...
No.

If you believe that, then you believe there is zero chance of us having only one life. Do you have any evidence for that whatever? Just one example of more than one life, perhaps?
 
Humots said:
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.
Click to expand...

Giordano said:
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).
Click to expand...

Loss Leader said:
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.
Click to expand...

jsfisher said:
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?
Click to expand...

Slowvehicle said:
Although I would prefer a mor prosaic construction, along the lines of, "Consciousness is an emergent property of a specific neurosytem", I will say, yes--I am convinced beyond any any reasonable doubt that a particular consciousness, or "self", exists for as long as the neurosystem of which it is an emergent property exists; and, according to observable reality, when that neurosystem ceases to function (due to trauma, say, or senescence) the consciousness ceases to be. All that "reasonable doubt" means is that, presented with evidence (practical, empirical, objective evidence) to the contrary, I would reconsider my position.

"Theoretically not impossible" does not in any way mean, "therefore probable".
Click to expand...

Giordano said:
Although not directed at me, let me answer your question: do you mean "reasonable doubt" as used by a court of law? If so, yes certainly.

If you mean reasonable doubt in a more conventional way ("is it reasonable to me") then yes I would still say yes.

Do you mean "beyond any doubt" I would say anything is possible, but many things are extremely unlikely. Might a flipped coin land and balance on edge, yes. Is reincarnation true? Far less likely than have a coin land and balance on edge.
Click to expand...

Loss Leader said:
I do, yes.
Click to expand...
- Going backwards over the last page and a half, the above is what I found.
- Does anyone here think that the prior probability of ~A is at least 1%?
 
Jabba said:
- Going backwards over the last page and a half, the above is what I found.
- Does anyone here think that the prior probability of ~A is at least 1%?
Click to expand...

I beleive I have made my position clear: you have provided no reason to consider the practical possibility that the "soul" exists, and is "immortal", to be anything other than "not impossible, but less likely than the existence of Loren, the Teapot."

"Not impossible" does not translate into "therefore, more probable than not".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom