[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Aepervius]

You gonna eat all those sammiches yourself?

I knew some thread could make me angry, but I never knew one could also make me hungry.

 

[Mojo]

- Coming from nothing in the sense that there is no set of possible selves to come from. That being the case, there should be no intrinsic limit on the possible number of selves. Any limit would come from other factors.

OK, let's say that the number of potential "selves" is infinite. That means that the probability of a particular "self" existing is one over infinity, or zero. To get the probability of any self existing we need to add all the probabilities of each particular self existing together. This gives a total probability of zero. So if the number of potential "selves" is infinite then "selves" don't exist.

 

[Jabba]

- One basic problem here is that most of you are still not referring to the same sense of "self" as I am.
- "You" would agree that you change continuously over a lifetime -- but note that there is a single you that is existing through a lifetime in your agreement.
- In one sense, you change continuously. But in another sense, you are still "you." That latter sense is the one I'm talking about.

 

[Mojo]

- One basic problem here is that most of you are still not referring to the same sense of "self" as I am.

It doesn't matter: according to your own premises, "selves" don't exist.

 

[Jabba]

OK, let's say that the number of potential "selves" is infinite. That means that the probability of a particular "self" existing is one over infinity, or zero. To get the probability of any self existing we need to add all the probabilities of each particular self existing together. This gives a total probability fo zero. So if the number of potential "selves" is infinite then "selves" don't exist.

- Yeah. Given A, none of us should exist. That's why B is so "attractive."

 

[Mojo]

- Yeah. Given A, none of us should exist. That's why B is so "attractive."

You're trying to build your desired conclusion into your premises (and still failing). If the number of potential "selves" is, as you claim, infinite, then "selves" don't exist.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- So anyway, the "self" to which I'm referring is the self (real or imagined) that people who fear death want to continue after death -- and also, the self that Squeegee described above.

What does what a person fears have to do with what exists? Are you claiming that enough desperate terror of the dark will, in fact, call the monsters under your bed and in your closet into existence?

They call it "reality" because it "really is".

Why not deal with that?

- It would appear that 1) most of you guys not only think that a self cannot continue after death and that there is no such self before death anyway...

I venture to surmise that I am not alone in the opinion that this is supported by the pervasive lack of the first glimmer of any reasonable evidence that the "soul" exists, and is "immortal".

...but that 2) most of you are not referring to the same self as I am, anyway.

You are referring to, making a claim about, a thing that I say does not exist.

I know what you are describing; I simply deny its existence. I deny the possibility of its existence, given what I know about physics and biology. This is your chance to convince me why I am wrong, by offering practical, empirical, objective evidence.

- A lot of "anyways," but there it is, as best I can tell -- and, probably time to move on.

- That being "cleared up," I'll now try to show that the self that I'm talking about is real and will in fact continue after bodily death. I will begin my argument with trying to show that there should be an infinity of potential such selves.

I have said this before. I get the sisyphean feeling that I will have to say it again, more than once.

Don't worry about trying to explain what "ought" to be (unless you want to move this thread to Religion & Philosophy). The task facing you is to demonstrate what actually is.

Go.

- At least most of you guys think that my arguments are stupid...

I take a bit of umbrage at this. I have not said that your argument is "stupid".

I have said that you are claiming the existence of a thing that has not been demonstrated to exists.

I have said that you approach of assuming you consequent is incorrect, and unproductive.

I have said that I disagree with you.

I have not said that your argument is "stupid"

...so I'm not sure why you're hanging in there... You should be able to find better, and more enjoyable, mind experiments elsewhere.

I do not pretend to speak for others, but as for me and my house, I continue in the thread because the last time I, and others, stopped correcting you, you actually declared "victory" and suggested you should apply to the MDC.

And who knows? The horse might sing.

 

[Garrette]

- One basic problem here is that most of you are still not referring to the same sense of "self" as I am.
- "You" would agree that you change continuously over a lifetime -- but note that there is a single you that is existing through a lifetime in your agreement.
- In one sense, you change continuously. But in another sense, you are still "you." That latter sense is the one I'm talking about.

No. The basic problem is that you are not paying attention to what is written.

The Scientific Model in reality: No infinite pool of selves, regardless how you define them.

The Scientific Model as you want to pretend it is: A potential pool of inconsistently defined selves.

It's as simple as that.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Great, please prove these things!

Just to be clear at the onset, no one here (except for you), currently accepts that:

1. A "self" exists unchanged from our birth to our death.
2. That this "self" is immortal and survives multiple physical lives (am I correct that you would, if thus proved, call that a "soul")?
3. That there are an infinity of potential selves.

If anyone here disagrees with my summary, my apologies and please post your thoughts on this thread.

But if Jabba wants to prove these things, I would be happy to change my mind, so please, do what so many people have urged, please go ahead and prove these points.

As to why we persist: we are hoping to educate you and to correct your errors and misunderstandings. I would appreciate such corrections so I can learn. Do you propose to publish enormous flaws and not have other people try to correct them? Perhaps you therefore may wish to consider a rural billboard, instead of a discussion forum.

+1

 

[Giordano]

Dave,
- If there is no preexisting pool of potential selves, each new self is brand new -- coming from nothing -- and, how can we put a limit on the number of things that can come from nothing?

Jabba,

I must first congratulate you on recognizing that you had a serious problem with demonstrating that your "proof" of self reincarnation must also prove that lottery tickets and card hands must also be reincarnated! Now, lottery tickets and card hands were cited for a different reason relating to previlous vs present probabilities, not immortality, and your idea of intrinsic vs extrinsic finite vs infinite was shown to be completely wrong, but congratulations for seeing one of your problems!

As I already said, no one here other than you accepts you premise that selves do not depend on the physical brain. You yourself said that you would prove that your concept of selves exist. Yet here we are with not only you using it as a given, but further indicating that we must accept that selves come from nothing! This violates physics! So if you intend to prove immortality to us, prove first that there are selves unlinked to the physical brain and they come from nothing. Please. Or at last place this in the Religion threads.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Well now, Jabba, that may be the crux of your problem: You have no idea what you think that you think.

To illustrate: You said, somewhere up this muddy stream, that you fear oblivion. Have you considered, that is, have you thought about how impossible that is? Oblivion means the annihilation of consciousness; it's not a state you can experience; there's nothing to feel fear or anything else when you're oblivious.

Children may imagine themselves being dead and somehow still conscious, and that makes them fearful. It's a scary feeling, but it's not a rational dread. Most of us grow out of it pretty early in childhood.

I conclude from the evidence of your posts* that you feel negative things about the cessation of your consciousness. You don't like that feeling and, confusing emotion with rationality, you type prolonged, circular, confused, unpersuasive, and futile posts to try to make yourself feel better.

Others here will differ from me, but I find incoherent arguments boring. So will you, old-timer,** when once their incoherence and triviality become plain to you. And when that day comes, I predict -- I promise -- that you'll feel better!

* "I conclude from the evidence" is a way of saying "I think." How I feel about my conclusion is another matter, and at the present time it's impossible to communicate it directly.

** I get to call you "old-timer" because I'm 71. You 'n me, we have but a short time to be here, and a long time to be gone.

QFT.

Beautifully said.

 

[Giordano]

- Yeah. Given A, none of us should exist. That's why B is so "attractive."

Why B, and not C or D?

 

[Giordano]

- One basic problem here is that most of you are still not referring to the same sense of "self" as I am.
- "You" would agree that you change continuously over a lifetime -- but note that there is a single you that is existing through a lifetime in your agreement.
- In one sense, you change continuously. But in another sense, you are still "you." That latter sense is the one I'm talking about.

Then why did you define the "self" as unchanging in your posts?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Sackett,
- If you're like me, you feel naturally friendly towards other "old" people, so I'm glad to hear that you're still around (in general, but also specifically), so far...
- I fear oblivion because I want, very much, to stay around. But also, surely, I fear oblivion because I, and most other animals, must have a natural survival instinct.

Mr. Savage:

I am fairly certain that the 28-pound Queensland Blue Heeler-Border Collie mix hogging the couch does not fear oblivion, nor does the 27-pound Labrador Retriever-Sptiz mix curled up at my feet, nor do the individual finches in the cloud of birds at my feeder. Nor do I.

Care to demonstrate otherwise?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Little Orphan Jabbie

Arf! Arf!

 

[Slowvehicle]

Unless and until you can demonstrate that immaterial souls actually exist, the number of potential souls is ZERO.

Most ideas are stupid. Weeding out stupid ideas is humanity's noblest endeavour.

I may need to change my sig...

 

[Slowvehicle]

Quota? Bah! Jabba blows his nose on your piteous quotas! Jabba is infinite! He can underline the whole universe if he chooses! For as long as he likes or as long as it takes him, whichever becomes infinite first!

Have you forgotten that he's a certified statistician?

"Do I underline myself? I am large, I underline multitudes."

 

[abaddon]

- At least most of you guys think that my arguments are stupid, so I'm not sure why you're hanging in there... You should be able to find better, and more enjoyable, mind experiments elsewhere.

Jabba take a moment to think about your statement quoted above.

What you are stating is that anyone who disagrees with you shall be dismissed with prejudice and has no business on this thread and should not participate in it. Furthermore, you claim that any such participants who choose to do so should be "elsewhere" and not in this thread at all. How can you not see that this is your desire to have no disagreement in the tinpot dictatorship of your own personal echo chamber? Shall all dissenting opinions be consigned to the oblivion of things which do not impinge on the Jabbaverse? Shall all members be banned until it is just you left here talking to yourself?

 

[Slowvehicle]

- As to my argument for there being an infinite ‘number’ of potential selves (it will be largely what you've read before, but now we should be able to judge each assertion, by itself, one at a time):

1. There are two different "kinds" of “finiteness” – extrinsic and intrinsic.

Source?

2. Potential poker hands and potential combinations of numbers on a lottery ticket are intrinsically finite.
2.1. Each grouping has a preexisting “pool” of possible combinations. The pool of possible poker hands is much smaller than the pool of possible combinations on a lottery ticket.

3. Potential Volkswagens are only extrinsically finite.
3.1. There is no preexisting pool of potential Volkswagens. Any limit on the number of Volkswagens possible would be due to extraneous variables only.

4. And, what is extrinsically finite can be intrinsically infinite.
4.1. If we had infinite matter, energy and time, we could produce new Volkswagens forever.

Since time, and energy, and matter, and space, all four, seem to demonstrate the characteristics of being finite, it is corect to say that the number of "potential VWs" is, in fact, finite.

5. Potential selves may be extrinsically finite -- but even if they are, they are intrinsically infinite.

Evidence? As you have said, can you direct me to a website that supports this claim?

5.1. There is no preexisting pool of potential selves. Any limit on the number of selves possible would be due to extraneous variables.

6. The appropriate ‘number’ of potential selves to be inserted into our Bayes formula is the intrinsic number.
6.1. There not being a preexisting pool of potential selves, each new self would be “brand“ new – with no limit on “who” exactly it would be…

- I had best leave it there for now.

Still trying to pretend that claiming that your scheme is more likely that what is observed is somehow license for you to continue to assume your consequent.

 

[tsig]

Dave,
- If there is no preexisting pool of potential selves, each new self is brand new -- coming from nothing -- and, how can we put a limit on the number of things that can come from nothing?

Humans don't poof into existence.