[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[tsig]

Every face on the die brings you?

Are you claiming to be a god?

Gozer?





Right. You don't think you're special. But you think every face on that die brings you.

Clue: if the die analogy means anything at all, it means only one face brings you. That does not make you special. The whole 'specialness' thing you've all been harping on all this time is a canard. You are not special, just prohibitively unlikely under hypothesis A.

Once again: being prohibitively unlikely under a given hypothesis does not make you special. The entire 'special snowflake' platitude is a meaningless canard.

I already know this is going to send you off on yet another wild goose chase of misunderstanding. No amount of explanation can prevent that.



Which universe? According to which obsolete model?

Inflation theory, the leading model, now supported observationally by gravity wave evidence ( there is a thread about it it here), practically demands an infinite multiverse. According to Alan Guth, it is difficult to formulate inflation in a way that does not result in an infinite multiverse.

Which you've already tried to nullify by ludicrously claiming it doesn't exist if you can't interact with it, obtusely failing to understand that you are interacting with it, because you are in it. So I know you know about it. Your attempt to sweep it under the rug is a dead giveaway.



That is meaninglessness squared.

Only those who exist can ask any question. And they can only ask valid questions about the existence of things that exist.

Let's go through that again, in a couple of different forms. I want to try to make sure you get this, futile though the attempt may be.

Those who do not exist cannot ask any questions at all. The existence of things that do not exist need not be questioned.

Those who do exist can ask questions. They can ask questions about the existence of things that exist.

Therefore, attempting to invalidate a question by pointing out that those who ask it exist, is absurd.

You have to chase a lot of wild geese if you want to catch one.

 

[tsig]

I still see no evidence that there is any part of Jabba's formula that you understand. You continue to consistently misrepresent and misapply it.

This is the fatal flaw in your argument. Under hypothesis A, Every possible outcome except 1 excludes Jabba from ever seeing anything. One unique brain had to occur at one time and one place, or there is no unique Jabba-brain, ever.

There is no reason to believe your claim that Jabba is astonished at his existence, or to think any feelings of 'astonishment' or 'specialness' are in any way relevant. Since Jabba doesn't believe hypothesis A explains his existence, he simply thinks the hypothesis is wrong.

The only thing you're right about is that Jabba's formula is meaningless to you when Jabba applies it to himself. Which only shows that you don't understand the application of the formula.

If you apply the formula, the (me) is (you). Not (someone), not (Jabba).

Your entire argument is straw.

The formula only works when one applies it to oneself?

 

[Toontown]

They don't. The contradiction comes in if you claim, as you did, that it is prohibitively unlikely that a 6 would come up, but not prohibitively unlikely that a 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 would come up.

So far so good. Now just increase the number of sides to a number that is practically prohibitive, but not quite totally prohibitive. Side #6 can still be your point. That's the best you can reasonably negotiate for.

Tell you what. I'll give you a very generous 1 in 400 trillion expectation. I'm just accepting the overly generous estimate presented in the link below, not agreeing with it. And I disavow any misuse by the author of the term 'probability' when 'expectation' is the correct term.

https://blogs.law.harvard.edu/abinazir/2011/06/15/what-are-chances-you-would-be-born/

When I first used the 'prohibitive' word you've fixated on, I said "barely possible but prohibitively unlikely." But I was talking in practical terms when I said 'prohibitively unlikely', which you don't do.

If you really want to get real about it, you have to admit that even generous odds like 1 in 400 trillion are pretty prohibitive.

 

[godless dave]

So far so good. Now just increase the number of sides to a number that is practically prohibitive, but not quite totally prohibitive. Side #6 can still be your point. That's the best you can reasonably negotiate for.

Tell you what. I'll give you a very generous 1 in 400 trillion expectation. I'm just accepting the overly generous estimate presented in the link below, not agreeing with it. And I disavow any misuse by the author of the term 'probability' when 'expectation' is the correct term.

https://blogs.law.harvard.edu/abinazir/2011/06/15/what-are-chances-you-would-be-born/

When I first used the 'prohibitive' word you've fixated on, I said "barely possible but prohibitively unlikely." But I was talking in practical terms when I said 'prohibitively unlikely', which you don't do.

If you really want to get real about it, you have to admit that even generous odds like 1 in 400 trillion are pretty prohibitive.

How does that make any difference? One of those 400 trillion numbers will come up.

 

[Toontown]

The formula only works when one applies it to oneself?

Yes. Isn't it obvious? Should have been obvious when Jabba first posted it many, many moons ago.

Of course, that doesn't prevent everyone from independently using the formula on themselves and arriving at the same conclusion.

And, contrary to PixyMisa's claim, the fact that everyone can independently apply the formula to themselves and arrive at the same conclusion does not make it wrong. That's how the scientific method works.

 

[Toontown]

How does that make any difference? One of those 400 trillion numbers will come up.

Back to square 1 again? OK. Accept that the sentience you're experiencing is a 400 trillion to 1 shot. I don't care. I only object to the bogus arguments, misinterpretations, and dodges.

I gather that's a tacit admission my statements weren't actually contradictory.

 

[godless dave]

Back to square 1 again? OK. Accept that the sentience you're experiencing is a 400 trillion to 1 shot.

At least.

I gather that's a tacit admission my statements weren't actually contradictory.

No, your statements were definitely contradictory. My sentience was equally improbable from all perspectives. That's how probability works - it doesn't matter who is doing the calculation.

 

[Jabba]

Jabba, are you going anywhere with this?

Dave,
- Yeah -- or at least, I'm tryin to. I'm taking one step at a time so I can trap you... But then, I think that going slow like this gives you a better chance to trap me as well. I'm just trying to establish exactly where our disagreement is.
- So far, I think that we would both agree that, in the sense of the observer that I'm talkin about, the consciousness to which the observer is attached is an emergent property of a certain type of physical situation. Yeah?

 

[godless dave]

- So far, I think that we would both agree that, in the sense of the observer that I'm talkin about, the consciousness to which the observer is attached is an emergent property of a certain type of physical situation.

Sure, you could put it that way. Except the observer isn't "attached" to the emergent property, it is one of the properties.

 

[jt512]

No, but I do realize the fact you think or pretend to think the two statements contradict each other increases my already significant suspicion that talking to you is a waste of time.

1. If a 6 sided die is rolled. some side will turn up.

2. The expectation that the side will have a 6 on it is 1/6.

Explain how these statements contradict each other. I would have asked you to explain how the two statements you referred to are contradictory, But I know you can't, and this leaves you less room for obfuscatory pseudo-explanation. And the principle is the same.

For some reason, upon your return to the thread you have begun to misuse the word "expectation." The thing you have started calling "expectation" is a probability. The probability that the side will have a 6 on it is 1/6.

 

[carlitos]

I'm taking one step at a time so I can trap you...

This is a helpful admission. Thanks.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Dave,
- Sorry for my forgetfulness, but it takes up less time to simply ask my questions than it does to search for the answers.

Less time for you more time for everybody else. "I know I'm being incredibly rude, but it's easier for me". So what? Your time is more valuable than everybody else's?

It's your thread. Take some notes. Get a pen and notepad and when you ask a question that you think is important, write down the answers. Or create a folder on your harddrive and every time you ask a question you think is important, open the Notepad application and save it under the file name of the question. Then, when you get an answer, open up that file and paste the answer in.

Come on, man, it's not like you didn't say you were going to start taking notes more than 2 years ago back in the Shroud thread.

 

[Garrette]

Dave,
- Yeah -- or at least, I'm tryin to. I'm taking one step at a time so I can trap you... But then, I think that going slow like this gives you a better chance to trap me as well. I'm just trying to establish exactly where our disagreement is.
- So far, I think that we would both agree that, in the sense of the observer that I'm talkin about, the consciousness to which the observer is attached is an emergent property of a certain type of physical situation. Yeah?

I would say definitely not, and I suspect godless dave would, too, if he thought for just a moment more to realize the deceitful trap you have lain here.

You have snuck in an observer as if it is a given and separate thing from consciousness. Neither godless dave nor any of the rest of us have granted that; it is your premise, and it requires proving before you can slip it into the left side of your equation.

ETA: I am the one who should have taken a moment more. godless dave clarified his agreement in the post I misread.

To put it another way, Jabba: You said that observer would be synonymous with self/soul/consciousness, but here you are trying to make it a separate thing. It is not.

 

[godless dave]

I would say definitely not, and I suspect godless dave would, too, if he thought for just a moment more to realize the deceitful trap you have lain here.

You have snuck in an observer as if it is a given and separate thing from consciousness. Neither godless dave nor any of the rest of us have granted that; it is your premise, and it requires proving before you can slip it into the left side of your equation.

ETA: I am the one who should have taken a moment more. godless dave clarified his agreement in the post I misread.

Because I caught the trick before the edit window ended on my post. You weren't wrong. This is why the vigilance Giordano urged is necessary.

 

[Toontown]

For some reason, upon your return to the thread you have begun to misuse the word "expectation." The thing you have started calling "expectation" is a probability. The probability that the side will have a 6 on it is 1/6.

Trying to differentiate between what I expect to see under hypothesis A and what I actually see. Because of all the "probability that I exist is 1" nonsense.

The related probability term is 'mathematical expectation' or 'expected value'. I know what it is. That's why I"ve been using simply 'expectation'.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Dave,
- Yeah -- or at least, I'm tryin to. I'm taking one step at a time so I can trap you... But then, I think that going slow like this gives you a better chance to trap me as well. I'm just trying to establish exactly where our disagreement is.
- So far, I think that we would both agree that, in the sense of the observer that I'm talkin about, the consciousness to which the observer is attached is an emergent property of a certain type of physical situation. Yeah?

Good Afternoon, Mr. Savage.

Given your hisotry in this and the Shroud^TM threads, it is, frankly, difficult to tell whether you are being duplicitous, mendacious, disingenuous, or simply fundamentally confused. Earlier today you said that, for you, "observer" was "synonymous" with "consciousness":

Good Morning, Mr. Savage:
Is the "observer" you are now postulating synonymous with the "self", or the "consciousness", or the "soul" you have previously postulated? If they are identical, why cavil at which word is used? if they are not identical, please explain what advantage you think is to be derived form using "observer" rather than one of the other terms.
Is it the "observer" that you propose is, in fact, "immortal"?

Slowvehicle,
- I use the terms synonymously -- but, I think that one captures the concept better than the other.

Now, here, in this post, you speak of an "observer" attached to a "consciousness", implying that the "observer" is one thing, and the "consciousness" is something else entirely.

Which is it?

 

[Jabba]

Sure, you could put it that way. Except the observer isn't "attached" to the emergent property, it is one of the properties.

- I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by "one of the properties." Are you saying that it's one of the properties of consciousness?

 

[Garrette]

Good Afternoon, Mr. Savage.

Given your hisotry in this and the Shroud^TM threads, it is, frankly, difficult to tell whether you are being duplicitous, mendacious, disingenuous, or simply fundamentally confused. Earlier today you said that, for you, "observer" was "synonymous" with "consciousness":



Now, here, in this post, you speak of an "observer" attached to a "consciousness", implying that the "observer" is one thing, and the "consciousness" is something else entirely.

Which is it?

I admit that my take on this changes. I think there is always some level of duplicity in that Jabba isn't trying to scientifcally prove anything but rather is trying to win a courtroom drama, but I think confusion does pop in at times.

 

[godless dave]

If my statements were contradictory, you certainly have not demonstrated how. I said nothing about anyone else calculating your specific probability any differently. You being a face in the crowd to me doesn't mean I would calculate your specific probability any differently, if it meant anything to me.

The probability I spoke of that converges on 1 is the net sum probability that sentient brains of some kind will exist somewhere in the universe. You are not the net sum of all sentient brains, Mr. Overmind.

No, I'm just one sentient brain, no more or less probably than any other. So if sentient brains are possible, then my brain is possible.

If my brain is prohibitively unlikely, then all brains are prohibitively unlikely.

 

[godless dave]

- I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by "one of the properties." Are you saying that it's one of the properties of consciousness?

It's one of the properties of the brain. It isn't "attached" to anything.