[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[dafydd]

- Unfortunately, I'm still not sure that you and I are talking about the same concept...
- Some of you probably are -- but, I'm not sure. And, it's hard to move on with that doubt in mind...

- I'll try, at least one more time, to clarify -- just what it is to which I'm referring by "self" -- with an analogy.
- The "self" I'm referring to is like a DVD recording a particular lifetime. Clearly, the DVD "changes" enormously over that lifetime, but it is still the same DVD. In that sense, I am the same self that I was when I was three.
- The difference between what you believe and what I believe is that I don't believe that the DVD exists only while the particular neurosystem exists.

DVDs don't die. We do. Your 'self' will die with you. Bad analogy. Take this to the religion forum, it's about a god and an immortal soul and that has nothing to do with science.

 

[pakeha]

...- The "self" I'm referring to is like a DVD recording a particular lifetime. Clearly, the DVD "changes" enormously over that lifetime, but it is still the same DVD. In that sense, I am the same self that I was when I was three.
- The difference between what you believe and what I believe is that I don't believe that the DVD exists only while the particular neurosystem exists.

That's OK, Jabba. I think it's always better to put these things on the table so we know where we are.
Are you going to request the shift of this thread to R&P?

 

[Giordano]

- Unfortunately, I'm still not sure that you and I are talking about the same concept...
- Some of you probably are -- but, I'm not sure. And, it's hard to move on with that doubt in mind...

- I'll try, at least one more time, to clarify -- just what it is to which I'm referring by "self" -- with an analogy.
- The "self" I'm referring to is like a DVD recording a particular lifetime. Clearly, the DVD "changes" enormously over that lifetime, but it is still the same DVD. In that sense, I am the same self that I was when I was three.
- The difference between what you believe and what I believe is that I don't believe that the DVD exists only while the particular neurosystem exists.

That has to be the worst analogy I have ever seen! But lets go with it just for entertainment:
The DVD recording clearly requires the physical integrity of the plastic disk that we call the DVD and arises directly from the physical structure of the disk (dips and bumps). Similarly, our concept of consciousness ("self" by your definition) comes directly from the physical brain and arises from the physical activity of it. If the physical disk of a DVD sustains significant damage, the recording is damaged; if the physical DVD disk is too damaged, the recording is unavailable; it "dies." Same happens to the brain and to consciousness.

Call the self whatever you want; but don't call your definition part of the "scientific" model. It isn't and can't be used that way.

By the way, have you calculated the chance that a given Poker hand exists? I just drew a hand of 2c, 3c, 8d, 8h, and Jackc. The odds of that particular hand (1/52x1/51x1/50x1/49x1/48) are enormous! Must the hand be immortal after I shuffle it?

 

[Jabba]

In that case, we're mostly talking about the same self, except your last sentence means you are not talking about the scientific conception of the self, which means your proposition A is not the scientific explanation for consciousness.

Dave,
- Good.
- But, Proposition A is only the claim that we human selves exist for one finite time at most. That last sentence refers to proposition B. (I'm no longer trying to compare the posterior probabilities of A and ~A.)

 

[godless dave]

I thought your math for proposition A depended on an infinite number of possible selves.

 

[Humots]

- Unfortunately, I'm still not sure that you and I are talking about the same concept...
- Some of you probably are -- but, I'm not sure. And, it's hard to move on with that doubt in mind...

- I'll try, at least one more time, to clarify -- just what it is to which I'm referring by "self" -- with an analogy.
- The "self" I'm referring to is like a DVD recording a particular lifetime. Clearly, the DVD "changes" enormously over that lifetime, but it is still the same DVD. In that sense, I am the same self that I was when I was three.
- The difference between what you believe and what I believe is that I don't believe that the DVD exists only while the particular neurosystem exists.

Jabba: Your analogies are redundant.

I believe we all clearly understand what you are referring to by "self". In religious terms, it is commonly called a soul.

But you seem to be adamant that you have some kind of non-religious proof that the "self" you speak of exists.

What is your evidence that some "self" analogous to your neurosystem-independent DVD actually exists?

 

[Mojo]

- The "self" I'm referring to is like a DVD recording a particular lifetime. Clearly, the DVD "changes" enormously over that lifetime, but it is still the same DVD. In that sense, I am the same self that I was when I was three.
- The difference between what you believe and what I believe is that I don't believe that the DVD exists only while the particular neurosystem exists.

Do you have any evidence that it exists independently of "the particular neurosystem"?

 

[dafydd]

Do you have any evidence that it exists independently of "the particular neurosystem"?

My bet's on the bible.

 

[Giordano]

Dave,
- Good.
- But, Proposition A is only the claim that we human selves exist for one finite time at most. That last sentence refers to proposition B. (I'm no longer trying to compare the posterior probabilities of A and ~A.)

Haven't you asked if people here accept your definition of "self?" They overwhelmingly did not. So were you asking if, to begin with, people here accept your conclusion? Is that science? Is that proof? By the way, I don't see how A will determine B if B is not ~A. But my grasp of statistics is poor. Perhaps you can explain again?

By the way, have you finished calculating the posterior probabilities of me drawing the unique Poker hand I did (1/52x1/52x1/50x1/49x1/48)? Versus the current probability of me having it in front of me (=1). Or the chance of any one lottery ticket having a specific winning number (1/10 million) vs. a given lottery ticket having any unique, if non-winning, number on it (=1)? Or the very strong probability (close to 1) that someone will get the winning number? Please explain how these ideas (the rarity of the posterior probability of any one specific outcome versus the certainty of some sort of outcome) are any different from your "feeling" that the posterior probability of a Jabba is so small that your existence proves reincarnation?

Repeat of hint: there are many combinations of gametes possible between your mom and dad. Many of those combinations will produce some sort of person: Jabba, your sister, your brother, or a possible someone who never was born. You just happened to be Jabba, but you could have been one of many other people: your sister, your brother, or a possible someone who never was born.

Please explain the difference between your model and these models since your explanation is critical to your concept of a self and of reincarnation. Thanks.

 

[Giordano]

You realize that Jabba only responds to what appears to be the least critical post, then still ignores the real concern in that post but tries to build a fake consensus around it?

Godless Dave has enough serious concerns, but you also need to address everyone's concerns if you hope to convince us.

 

[jsfisher]

- Unfortunately, I'm still not sure that you and I are talking about the same concept...
- Some of you probably are -- but, I'm not sure. And, it's hard to move on with that doubt in mind...

- I'll try, at least one more time, to clarify -- just what it is to which I'm referring by "self" -- with an analogy.
- The "self" I'm referring to is like a DVD recording a particular lifetime. Clearly, the DVD "changes" enormously over that lifetime, but it is still the same DVD. In that sense, I am the same self that I was when I was three.
- The difference between what you believe and what I believe is that I don't believe that the DVD exists only while the particular neurosystem exists.

So, this DVD-self would exist for all life forms, then? You, an amoeba, a pink carnation, or is an explicit neurosystem required? A pet dog, then? What about semi-life forms like viruses? What about inanimate objects? Do billiard balls have this DVD-self of which you refer?

Then there is the question of Jabba parts. Is it just Jabba in total that has this DVD-self, or would an amputated arm, say, have a separate DVD-self? What about toenail clippings? If not the arm nor clippings, just how much of Jabba is needed to have the part with the DVD-self?

 

[Giordano]

Giordano,
- Bayesian statistics distinguishes between "prior probability, "posterior probability" and "likelihood" -- none of these is, "The probability of your existence, being you are here..."
- The probability of me being here, given A, is called the "likelihood" of me being here, given A.

Just to revisit this post- I don't care what you call it, right or wrong. You exist (=1). Are you then telling me that your proof, relying on Bayesian statistics (see the OP) can not be properly applied to your current existence (current probability =1)? I think that is exactly what we are trying to tell you here.

 

[Giordano]

Just curious: i have been unconscious before (either standard sleep or under anesthesia). Where has my consciousness been at those times?

 

[jt512]

By the way, have you finished calculating the posterior probabilities of me drawing the unique Poker hand I did (1/52x1/52x1/50x1/49x1/48)?

I don't know whether Jabba has finished the calculation, but I know you haven't. You need to clean a typo and multiply by 120.

 

[Loss Leader]

I don't know whether Jabba has finished the calculation, but I know you haven't. You need to clean a typo and multiply by 120.

Divide by 120.

I corrected a math thing! I'm so happy!

 

[Giordano]

I don't know whether Jabba has finished the calculation, but I know you haven't. You need to clean a typo and multiply by 120.

Thanks!

I cleaned up the typo (thank you!), but why the 120 as multiplier? I was calculating drawing any specific sequence of 5 cards from a 52 original card deck once.

 

[Mojo]

Just curious: i have been unconscious before (either standard sleep or under anesthesia). Where has my consciousness been at those times?

On the DVD.

 

[PixyMisa]

- Unfortunately, I'm still not sure that you and I are talking about the same concept...
- Some of you probably are -- but, I'm not sure. And, it's hard to move on with that doubt in mind...

We do understand what you are proposing. The problem is, what you are proposing is contradicted by all available evidence.

- The difference between what you believe and what I believe is that I don't believe that the DVD exists only while the particular neurosystem exists.

That's one difference. The other is that there is nothing like a DVD recording experience during life, let alone beyond it.

 

[jsfisher]

..never mind..

 

[jt512]

Thanks!

I cleaned up the typo (thank you!), but why the 120 as multiplier? I was calculating drawing any specific sequence of 5 cards from a 52 original card deck once.

Indeed, you calculated the probability of drawing a unique 5-card permutation, but what you said you were calculating was the probability of drawing a unique poker hand. In poker, A♣K♣Q♣J♣10♣ and 10♣J♣Q♣K♣A♣ are the same hand.

Divide by 120.

I corrected a math thing! I'm so happy!

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but it really is "multiply."