[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Akhenaten]

- Unfortunately, That needs better expression. It isn't easy.

That's because it's nonsense and you're trying to present it as the result of some kind of logical process.

It's a bit like performing Shakespeare in Klingon, only not nearly as clever.

- 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/∞.

Yes, we know that's what you think.

What beggars belief, however, is your inability to understand why people are becoming frustrated at having to point out why you're wrong every time you post it.

At this point, however, I'm not trying to argue that belief -- I'll do that later.

No you won't. Not later, not ever.

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.

Why? Is it because you still believe that reality is determined by the vote of the majority, despite being told ∞/1 times that such is nothing like the case?

- My conclusion was that most of you agree with me.

Given that every single one of your arguments has attempted to work backwards from a foregone conclusion and failed dismally, how do you rate your chances of the same strategy working this time?

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.

Nah. It's only been happening for a year-and-a-half.

Why rush?

I'll be back as soon as possible (I'm babysitting).

Why don't you delay coming back until you have an argument and some supporting evidence?

This will have the added bonus that your grandchildren will, at the very least, be way beyond needing to be babysat.

 

[Akhenaten]

- 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.

This is the problem with your whole line of argumentation. You ascribe truth to things based on your belief and such things as evidence and critical thinking are of absolutely no significance to you.

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

They have, Jabba. Repeatedly.

You simply pretend we aren't here.

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.

You flatter yourself.

We live; we die. That's it.

It's not even remotely puzzling and yet you display no understanding of the matter at all. Not even the smallest aspect of it.

 

[Mojo]

Jabba, you have conceded that you cannot eliminate the possibility that human selves are not immortal. Your attempt to prove immortality has therefore failed.

 

[Akhenaten]

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

Which bit of 'reality disagrees with you' is giving you the most trouble?

 

[Loss Leader]

So far, I think that given your arguments against assigning a real number to P(~A), most scientists would agree with me -

Name 3.

 

[Akhenaten]

- 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."

The biggest difficulty with keeping that in mind is that you present a new variation on it every second time you post, and a complete new set of labels every few months or so.

How about instead of telling us to remain focussed you think about how far away from your own OP you now are?

According to what you've just posted above, "I think that I can essentially prove immortality using Bayesian statistics" has become "I think that I can demonstrate my belief that anything other than 'we exist for just one finite time at most' is true"

Tragic.

 

[Akhenaten]

- 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.

It actually takes care of your entire argument, as far as Bayes is concerned.

Pretending you can simply ignore that and carry on regardless is somewhat bizarre.

- That leaves two to go; and, I think that only one of those is a real issue: P(me|A).

Everyone else thinks you're wrong. I thought that kind of consensus was important to you.

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

What they say, overwhelmingly, is that your misunderstanding about the burden of evidence is embarrassing even to your opponents.

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.

Have you forgotten that the only reason you're now referring to this A and ~A nonsense is your vain hope that you could distance yourself from the even more nonsensical SM and NSM rubbish whereby you were claiming vast insights into what scientist do or do not believe?

Are you sure you want to re-excavate that particular hole?

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

Where "consequently" means "despite having the fundamental mistakes embedded in my assumptions pointed out to me hundreds of times".

- I'll be back.

You can't go back to a point from which you've never moved.

 

[pakeha]

- 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.

Wait, what?
Are you still having problems understanding why you can't assign a real number to both A and ~A, Jabba?
Even I get that.

Could you name some scientists who agree with you, please?

 

[jsfisher]

- That leaves two to go; and, I think that only one of those is a real issue: P(me|A).

Nonsense!!

P(me|~A) is a real issue as well.

 

[Jabba]

- Anyway, here's why I think that P(me|A) is 1/∞.

1) I think that scientifically speaking, when a bit of matter reaches a certain state, it produces life as an emergent property.
2) It could be that all life involves a bit of consciousness, but certainly a certain "level" of life does.
3) Consciousness intrinsically involves a "self."
4) Though, there are probably also "levels" of "selfhood." For instance, dogs are at a different level than are humans.

5) There is no pool of potential selves.
6) Each self is a brand new creation, and there is no theoretical limit to the number of different selves possible.
7) If we're ever able to clone humans, we'll find out that each new production does not reproduce the same self.
8) We can infer such from the animals we have cloned.

 

[Giordano]

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.

As well as the undefined value of this "number," 1/infinity, that is exactly what we have been trying to explain to Jabba for pages. He simply ignores it, and the fact that it invalidates his "proof."

I am not sure what Jabba's purpose here is. Clearly no one here will believe a proof that is invalid from the start So that must not be his purpose. He has a webpage and a way of getting his ideas to true believers, so simple communication of his "ideas" must not be his purpose here. Perhaps it is a martyr complex, but he appears wounded enough to fulfill the usual requirements.

In some way, he used to be amusing,in a "black knight Monty Python" sort of way where he would go on and on no matter the wounds. But for me, he has become quite boring. Zen question: is is a discussion where one side ignores what you say and just repeats his errors, over and over again?

 

[jsfisher]

- Anyway, here's why I think that P(me|A) is 1/∞.

1) I think that scientifically speaking, when a bit of matter reaches a certain state, it produces life as an emergent property.
2) It could be that all life involves a bit of consciousness, but certainly a certain "level" of life does.
3) Consciousness intrinsically involves a "self."
4) Though, there are probably also "levels" of "selfhood." For instance, dogs are at a different level than are humans.

5) There is no pool of potential selves.
6) Each self is a brand new creation, and there is no theoretical limit to the number of different selves possible.
7) If we're ever able to clone humans, we'll find out that each new production does not reproduce the same self.
8) We can infer such from the animals we have cloned.

So how does all this support your belief that P(me|A) is 1/∞?

What's your belief about P(me)?

 

[Giordano]

- Anyway, here's why I think that P(me|A) is 1/∞.

1) I think that scientifically speaking, when a bit of matter reaches a certain state, it produces life as an emergent property.
2) It could be that all life involves a bit of consciousness, but certainly a certain "level" of life does.
3) Consciousness intrinsically involves a "self."
4) Though, there are probably also "levels" of "selfhood." For instance, dogs are at a different level than are humans.

5) There is no pool of potential selves.
6) Each self is a brand new creation, and there is no theoretical limit to the number of different selves possible.
7) If we're ever able to clone humans, we'll find out that each new production does not reproduce the same self.
8) We can infer such from the animals we have cloned.

Oddly, none of the numbered points address your statement that P(me/A)=1/infinity. As has been pointed out numerous times, you are free to has your opinions, which the numbered points state. Some of which I disagree with. But none of your numbered points address your OP or your calculation of 1/infinty. These are your beliefs, not statistics or math.

 

[Akhenaten]

- Anyway, here's why I think that P(me|A) is 1/∞.

I'll bet it doesn't end up explaining any such thing.

1) I think that scientifically speaking, when a bit of matter reaches a certain state, it produces life as an emergent property.

Did your pet rock tell you that?

2) It could be that all life involves a bit of consciousness, but certainly a certain "level" of life does.

This came from the roses, did it?

How exactly does one determine what level of life a rose is at compared to, say, a jellyfish? Are lobsters higher or lower than salamanders?

3) Consciousness intrinsically involves a "self."

That seems arguable, depending on how one defines the two words.

I, for one, have no trust whatsoever in your personal definition of "self".

4) Though, there are probably also "levels" of "selfhood." For instance, dogs are at a different level than are humans.

Selfhood?

If you want to talk about self-awareness then perhaps you should just do that and stop making up new words for it.

5) There is no pool of potential selves.

You don't say.

6) Each self is a brand new creation, and there is no theoretical limit to the number of different selves possible.

Bzzzzzt!

7) If we're ever able to clone humans, we'll find out that each new production does not reproduce the same self.

We don't need cloning to understand that who we are is as much a product of our environment as who mummy and daddy are.

8) We can infer such from the animals we have cloned.

Ya think?



Congratulations, Jabba. Yet another totally meaningless list to add to the list of meaningless lists that you've posted.

 

[Akhenaten]

So how does all this support your belief that P(me|A) is 1/∞?

Oddly, none of the numbered points address your statement that P(me/A)=1/infinity. As has been pointed out numerous times, you are free to has your opinions, which the numbered points state. Some of which I disagree with. But none of your numbered points address your OP or your calculation of 1/infinty. These are your beliefs, not statistics or math.

I'll bet it doesn't end up explaining any such thing.

I don't think Jabba is even paying any attention to himself anymore.

 

[Agatha]

- Anyway, here's why I think that P(me|A) is 1/∞.

1) I think that scientifically speaking, when a bit of matter reaches a certain state, it produces life as an emergent property.
2) It could be that all life involves a bit of consciousness, but certainly a certain "level" of life does.
3) Consciousness intrinsically involves a "self."
4) Though, there are probably also "levels" of "selfhood." For instance, dogs are at a different level than are humans.

5) There is no pool of potential selves.
6) Each self is a brand new creation, and there is no theoretical limit to the number of different selves possible.
7) If we're ever able to clone humans, we'll find out that each new production does not reproduce the same self.
8) We can infer such from the animals we have cloned.

Even if all these were correct, which they are not, that would not imply that the probability of [you existing, given the assumption that we all live one finite life] is 1/∞.

 

[haibut]

Even if all these were correct, which they are not, that would not imply that the probability of [you existing, given the assumption that we all live one finite life] is 1/∞.

We could go on forever like this.

Jabba: I am immortal
Everyone: no you are not.
Jabba: The probability of me existing is low
Everyone: No, that's the probability of you existing AGAIN
Jabba: Anyway....

 

[Aepervius]

6) Each self is a brand new creation, and there is no theoretical limit to the number of different selves possible.

Firstly Dear wall,

But ONCE CREATED , the possibilities collapse to a *1*.

It is the lotto problem. Each possibilities are mind boggling low. But once the lotto has been
drawn that possibility is ONE.


Let me clarify you.

Imagine that every human can be characterised at birth by an enormous lotto ball draw , with trillion of 4 faced balls, let us call those balls A,T,G,C.

Before a specific human (ball draw) is born, that possibility is 10^-X very low near zero (but not infinitely near zero, as the number of possibilities for DNA isn't as far as I can tell infinite).

So if you are try to predict "the combination TAGCTACTTACTGCTAGCTGCAT.... will be born in the next child" it will be 10^-X very very low.

But YOU , your "me", is not a future drawing. It is *already* drawn. Therefore the probability of you existing , is 1.


Secondly
The event of anybody being born giving a universe with A or ~A is the same as the probability of ANYBODY being born. The event of anybody being born and A and ~A are independent. This is a major problem with your reasonning. The probability of somebody being born is not related to the death of their ancestor, it is related to the gene , the lotto balls they have given him. You could have a world where everybody never dies, that still does not make the probability of any particular individual being born differs if the balls/DNA draw is the same !

P(me,A)=P(me) because A and me are independent !


So do you hear that , wall ? what Jabba says makes no sense. Agreed wall ?

Ok I am getting a better response with the wall than with Jabba. The wall echoes my thought. (/joking)

 

[Jabba]

Even if all these were correct, which they are not, that would not imply that the probability of [you existing, given the assumption that we all live one finite life*] is 1/∞.

- You left out "at most."

 

[Giordano]

Given Jabba has had his error explained multiple ways without him correcting it, I vote to have the thread closed. Is this possible?