[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Aepervius]

Also what I find funny is that you want to assign 1% the chance to be immortal, but something near zero the chance of you existing (*).

So in resumé : a huge chance of being immortal (yes 1% of something supernatural unproven like that is huge) but an infinitely low chance of you being born.

Did you ever try to discuss the insanity of those statement with anybody else ?

(*) which is actually 1.0 as was discussed before, and nowhere near zero.

 

[godless dave]

I agree with the posters who said "we can't rule it out" only in the sense that, from the standpoint of critical thinking, there is very little we can absolutely rule out.

I might express it as "we can essentially rule it out".

 

[Aepervius]

I agree with the posters who said "we can't rule it out" only in the sense that, from the standpoint of critical thinking, there is very little we can absolutely rule out.

I might express it as "we can essentially rule it out".

Did I tell you my theory that in reality brain are parasite, not the real source of intelligence, and if we killed our brain without killing ourself we would be mega intelligent being ? (*)

Personally in absence of contrary extraordinary evidence, I rule it out, in the same sense that I live my live without taking it into account. I mean on the formal side, sure there is also a chance that alien suddenly appear on earth, and they are santa claus, and give us magic, but it turn out they are at wars against the crabe people. The possibilities are actually infinite. But none of them enter the realm of the even remotely sensible.

So yes I wagger you can rule it out in absence of contrary evidence. We ARE 100% mortal and an emergent process of our brain. No question. That's the null. There is an infinity of other *unevidenced assertion*. Jabba is just having a pet unproven personal assertion. Any attempt to put a number to those fantastical assertion (including jabba's pet one) is doomed .

In absence of evidence, I contend that the explanation is that we are 100% mortal.
And tehre has not been presented any eviodence whichw as not better explained by being a quirk of the brain function. QED.


(*) just kidding I am being facetious.

 

[Jabba]

- Keep in mind that ~A is not that "we are immortal." It is anything other than "we exist for just one finite time at most."

 

[Loss Leader]

- Keep in mind that ~A is not that "we are immortal." It is anything other than "we exist for just one finite time at most."

I've kept that in mind. I think the chance of that is 1/∞.

 

[Humots]

- Does anyone here think that the prior probability of ~A is at least 1%?

Absolutely not.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- Keep in mind that ~A is not that "we are immortal." It is anything other than "we exist for just one finite time at most."

Good Evening, Mr. Savage!

Have you, then, given up on "essentially proving" immortality? Because if you have not, if you hope to sneak in that it is more likely that you will not face oblivion than that you will, then ~A must be thought to include "we ate 'immortal' ", or "the 'soul' exists independently of the neurosystem of which it is an emergent property".

 

[Loss Leader]

- 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/∞.

Of course you do. You need it to be 1/∞ because 1/∞ is zero. And you need to multiply one side of your equation by zero. So long as the other side is a finite number, that side will always be far, far greater.

But do your calculation backwards. What do you think is the chance that the universe came into being fully formed with your consciousness a necessary part of it that will remain a part of it forever? What's that chance of a universe of physical laws, where everything appears to die, containing an immortal being? I think it's 1/∞. What happens to your equation when you plug in that number?

 

[pakeha]

I'll go with Aepervius.

Did I tell you my theory that in reality brain are parasite, not the real source of intelligence, and if we killed our brain without killing ourself we would be mega intelligent being ? (*)

Personally in absence of contrary extraordinary evidence, I rule it out, in the same sense that I live my live without taking it into account. I mean on the formal side, sure there is also a chance that alien suddenly appear on earth, and they are santa claus, and give us magic, but it turn out they are at wars against the crabe people. The possibilities are actually infinite. But none of them enter the realm of the even remotely sensible.

So yes I wagger you can rule it out in absence of contrary evidence. We ARE 100% mortal and an emergent process of our brain. No question. That's the null. There is an infinity of other *unevidenced assertion*. Jabba is just having a pet unproven personal assertion. Any attempt to put a number to those fantastical assertion (including jabba's pet one) is doomed .

In absence of evidence, I contend that the explanation is that we are 100% mortal.
And tehre has not been presented any eviodence whichw as not better explained by being a quirk of the brain function. QED.


(*) just kidding I am being facetious.

 

[jsfisher]

- Keep in mind that ~A is not that "we are immortal." It is anything other than "we exist for just one finite time at most."

~A is the whole set of infinitely many possibilities that are not A. In infinitely many of those infinitely many possibilities, Jabba exists for just one finite time at most.

Even if immortality were above the infinitesimal in probability, the probability that Jabba be immortal is still even less likely.


You really, really aren't heading in the direct you think, Jabba.

 

[Giordano]

- 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%?[/QUOTE ]
No.
Please re-read what I wrote. You said most people here guess some probability to ~A not equal to zero. Some, I said, hesitate to say zero just to allow for the principle that anything might in theory be possible, however unlikely. I questioned if this was even most of the people here and ~A was clearly far below the probability of a unicorn. You even quote me when I state mortality is the reasonable conclusion as if I believe the opposite, that there is a reasonable doubt. You also leave out where I told you your math is wrong and your Bayesian statistics very wrong. Why is that?

I would assign ~A to be much, much, much less than 1%. Essentially 0, or as you say, 1/infinity.

 

[Giordano]

Jabba,

Are you trying to use some old debating techniques you were once taught?

Is there any possibly? Any? Is it as high as 1%. Do I hear anyone who says even 2%. I have 2%; do I hear 3%? ...

Truth is never an auction nor a vote. But even if it was, you would not win.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Frozenwolf150,
- Do you agree with Dave and (apparently) the rest?

I was going to say this, but godless dave beat me to it:

I agree with the posters who said "we can't rule it out" only in the sense that, from the standpoint of critical thinking, there is very little we can absolutely rule out.

It's a remote possibility, albeit one that doesn't concern me or constitute any part of my beliefs. If I were forced to answer, I'd have to say that I agree with the rest. Sure, there are endless possibilities, but without evidence, why bother?

ETA: Also, it doesn't really matter if I agree or not. I could be wrong. It's up to you to provide the evidence, not to win votes.

 

[abaddon]

- 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/∞.

You exist, therefore the probability of that is 1.

So what is the probability that "we exist for one finite time at most"?

Leaving aside the ambiguous question of what "at most" might imply, there is NO evidence of any sort that anyone can exist for more that one finite time. None at all. For you to suggest that the probability of existing once only cannot be 1/∞ given the lack of any evidence at all.

 

[Aepervius]

- Keep in mind that ~A is not that "we are immortal." It is anything other than "we exist for just one finite time at most."

Which makes it worst for you. Because in not-A also include the following possibilities :
* we are actually puppet program AI which did not have a real life to begin with. Only our alien master did. We are simply a gigantic AI experiment, and those with REAL life , the alien, wanted to check something
* Only one person in the word has immortality, it is morgan, an african american toolman, always wear white clothing. *You* are actually mortal.
* Actually there is 2 creatures which will reincarnate in the world world, condemned for eternity to fight each other and murder each other. One was originally named Remus the other romulus. They are actually wolf. They sometime reincarnate as human until one murder the other.
* All wrong cat have immortal soul. They are just using us as cattle slave. (that one is frankly far more probable than anything else). We are just a soul-shadow, a projection of the cat soul, but fragile and we end when our soul cat master lose tinterrest into us.

If you assign a single finite probability to ~A, 1%, then *WHAT* is the possibility split upon ? Please tell us jabba tell us what probability you assign to the above, compared to say, simple immortality (being born and "soul" never dying) and reincarnation (being born and "soul" reincanating).

Let me guess, your plan was to first try to have a P(~A) not infinitely near zero, then steop by step attempt to eliminate the possibilities in ~A ?

That is ridiculous on so many level, but since you have already told us you do not read our reply, well I guess carry on playing the deaf blind.

 

[Pixel42]

Yeah. I do have some doubt, and that's mostly because I can't understand why others haven't brought up this idea already.

The reason is that everyone else who has had the same thought about how unlikely was the string of events that led to their existence (and I suspect the thought occurs to the majority of people at some point, usually in their teens) quickly realised the flaw in the reasoning. Only you seem incapable of grasping what the flaw is no matter how many times it is explained to you.

 

[pakeha]

The reason is that everyone else who has had the same thought about how unlikely was the string of events that led to their existence (and I suspect the thought occurs to the majority of people at some point, usually in their teens) quickly realised the flaw in the reasoning. Only you seem incapable of grasping what the flaw is no matter how many times it is explained to you.

This post triggered a memory of a paper or book read long ago about the psychological underpinnings of King Arthur, Moses and similar infants-changed-at-birth tales.

Still, here we are, struggling to help Jabba define A and ~A.

 

[Jabba]

- OK. That takes care of two of my numerical entries -- not just P(~A), but also P(A). No one here thinks that it's legitimate to assign a real number to P(~A); and consequently, P(A) has to be 1.00.
- That leaves two to go; and, I think that only one of those is a real issue: P(me|A).

- Remember, I'm here to see what intelligent, well-educated skeptics have to offer by way of evidence and logic against my conclusion. So far, I think that given your arguments against assigning a real number to P(~A), most scientists would agree with me -- i.e., you guys are much to sure of yourselves.
- Consequently, I'm ready to move on to my numerical entry for P(me|A).

- I'll be back.

 

[haibut]

- OK. That takes care of two of my numerical entries -- not just P(~A), but also P(A). No one here thinks that it's legitimate to assign a real number to P(~A); and consequently, P(A) has to be 1.00.
- That leaves two to go; and, I think that only one of those is a real issue: P(me|A).

- Remember, I'm here to see what intelligent, well-educated skeptics have to offer by way of evidence and logic against my conclusion. So far, I think that given your arguments against assigning a real number to P(~A), most scientists would agree with me -- i.e., you guys are much to sure of yourselves.
- Consequently, I'm ready to move on to my numerical entry for P(me|A).

- I'll be back.

You exist. The probability of you existing is ONE. How many times do you need to be told this?

Your 1/infinity is, at BEST, the probability of you existing AGAIN. Next time you get born, we can talk.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Good morning, Mr. Savage! I hope your Sunday goes well for you. I will be canning today, as we are out of salsa.

- OK. That takes care of two of my numerical entries -- not just P(~A), but also P(A). No one here thinks that it's legitimate to assign a real number to P(~A); and consequently, P(A) has to be 1.00.
- That leaves two to go; and, I think that only one of those is a real issue: P(me|A).

It is not so much that it is not "legitimate: to assign a "real number" to your ~A. Rather, it is that, until your A has a valid, intelligible, meaningful definition, it is silly to pull a "real number" out of thin air and pretend that it represents any sort of analysis of the probability of ~A.

You're still bringing superstitions to a fact-fight.

Your declarations about the likelihood that your "self" is anything other than a (fairly transient) emergent property of your unique (fairly transient) neurosystem are simply blue-sky hot-stove assertions of your fear of oblivion, unless and until you deal with observed reality.

-it is demonstrable that trauma to a specific neurosystem affects the "self" that is an emergent property of that neurosytem (I really wish you would address traumatic aphasia).

-it is not demonstrable that a given newborn is really carrying, orexpressing, Tanta Balzora's "self"--that is that the emergent property of that newborn's neurosytem is the same "self" (minus memories, experiences, or any other thing that would demonstrate continuity of "self") as was Tanta Balleke's.

As I have said before, the place for you to begin demonstrating that you do not need to face oblivion is for you to provide tangible, empirical, practical, objective evidence of the existence of the "soul".

Without that, it doesn't matter what "real number" you pretend to assign to ~A.

- Remember, I'm here to see what intelligent, well-educated skeptics have to offer by way of evidence and logic against my conclusion.

After all this time, and all these threads, do you really thing shifting the burden of proof is the way to go?

Ignoring for the moment your boast that you could essentially prove" "immortality", you claim that reality is something other than the observable phenomenon that consciousness appears to be, and appears tofunction as if it were, an emergent property of a particular neurosystem, with no plausible way for a particular "self" to exist independent of the neurosystem of which it is an expression.

Having made that claim, it is up to you to provide evidence that it is so, not up to others to provide evidence that it is not.

I do not pretend to speak for "intelligent, well-educated skeptics", but as for me and my house, you have yet to provide anything that rises above a description of how you hope eternity works, so that you can comfort yourself that you do not have to fear the eternal dark.

Where is your evidence?

So far, I think that given your arguments against assigning a real number to P(~A), most scientists would agree with me -- i.e., you guys are much to sure of yourselves.

I would be fascinated for you to provide evidence that most scientists would agree with you--that is, that there is an immaterial, imperceptible, transcendent "thing" that represents the "self" as something other than an emergent property of a particular neurosystem.

That is not something you may simply claim by fiat--if you cannot demonstrate that most scientists agree with you, then you cannot in any pretense of honesty make that claim. Can you name one actual scientist who supports your position?

- Consequently, I'm ready to move on to my numerical entry for P(me|A).

Consequently, you are going to pretend that your bald assertion that most scientists agree with you means that you can pretend that it is proper for you to assume your desired consequent. How very sad.

- I'll be back.

Why?