[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Garrette]

Well, you've succeeded in asserting that my position does not make sense because you don't think it makes sense.

Yes. What would you have him do? Say that it makes sense when he finds it doesn't. Again, you're shaking the wrong dog toy. godless dave is quite capable of dishing it out when it comes to the type of feud you seem intent on making this, but in my experience he is usually slow to take that route and always starts with the assumption that the other side in the conversation is sincere and will respond to sincere questions, confusion, or misunderstanding.

 

[godless dave]

Toontown, your position is contradictory on its face. An outcome cannot simultaneously be possible and impossible.

 

[John Jones]

Imagine my sense of futility at the prospect of presenting such a claim, when so plain a statement, so plainly spoken, is spun as "a strange form of words".

No imagination or spin is necessary, sir. You do not express yourself well.

 

[Toontown]

That makes it relatively clear how you intended what you wrote to be interpreted. It does not make the case that your intended meaning was either the only or even the most likely interpretation. The point being that implications (and outright statements) regarding other's duplicity and/or ignorance are neither fruitful nor accurate, and may, in fact, be at least part of the reason you find your time on the JREF to be neither fruitful nor accurately received.

Demonstrably, the most likely interpretation, in this thread, is the most bogus one, the one which actually occurred and was doubled down on and supported: to claim that I made a claim that I didn't make, because I said you don't know what it would be if I made it, which I won't.

This doesn't happen in every thread. Because I'm not a heretic in every thread.

 

[John Jones]

Demonstrably, the most likely interpretation, in this thread, is the most bogus one, the one which actually occurred and was doubled down on and supported: to claim that I made a claim that I didn't make, because I said you don't know what it would be if I made it, which I won't.

[...]

Demonstrate away. I wish you would use less 'complex' sentence structure when doing so.

 

[Toontown]

Toontown, your position is contradictory on its face. An outcome cannot simultaneously be possible and impossible.

That's not my position. You know that's not my position. 1 in 400 trillion is not impossible. I posted the link that gave that probability, and conceded the probability.

 

[Toontown]

Demonstrate away. I wish you would use less 'complex' sentence structure when doing so.

It's already been demonstrated. That's what happened.

 

[godless dave]

That's not my position. You know that's not my position. 1 in 400 trillion is not impossible. I posted the link that gave those odds, and conceded the odds.

Then there's no reason to think the hypothesis that predicts that outcome is incorrect.

 

[Garrette]

Demonstrably, the most likely interpretation, in this thread, is the most bogus one, the one which actually occurred and was doubled down on and supported: to claim that I made a claim that I didn't make, because I said you don't know what it would be if I made it, which I won't.

Regardless if it is bogus, it is the interpretation made, and the one most likely to be made based not on ignorance or a on desire to pile-on-the-heretic but rather on the phrasings you chose. That's all.

This doesn't happen in every thread. Because I'm not a heretic in every thread.

To an extent, you have a point, but not to as great a one as you indicate, and the cause is, I think, less a matter of group think than a matter of self-think.

Let's say, for instance, that AnonymousPoster and I are the only ones involved in a disagreement. It is entirely possible that my tone will change throughout the course of the disagreement from one of pleasant discussion to one of more obvious peeve if I get the distinct and repeated impression that my debating partner has not read anything I have said nor responded to any points I have made.

Now assume someone else joins the discussion, and this someone happens also to disagree with AnonymousPoster but for reasons different from mine. It is possible that I may disagree with the newcomer's argument, but I am less likely to say anything than I am to continue my original discussion. Part of the reason for that is that I am in the thread specifically because of AnonymousPoster and his argument, and unless the newcomer's comments are sufficiently intriguing to override that initial discussion, I will simply ignore them because from my point of view they have no bearing on what I was discussing.

Last assumption: Someone else comes in the thread and agrees with AnonymousPoster, or disagrees with AnonymousPoster but also disagrees with my disagreement. I am likely to engage this newcomer because they have joined themselves to the reason for my being there.

Is there piling on here? Undoubtedly; we're human, but I think there is little evidence of it in this thread, and that its occurrence in the broader forum is less prevalent than you imply.

 

[John Jones]

It's already been demonstrated. That's what happened.

No. I mean you should demonstrate your position such that your intended audience understands what you're trying to demonstrate. You need to work on that kind of demonstration. You're not doing it very well. Also, you have flounced a bunch of times now already.

 

[Toontown]

Then there's no reason to think the hypothesis that predicts that outcome is incorrect.

That's your opinion. Perhaps you could design an empirical experiment to demonstrate the efficiency of the principle you're claiming.

Earlier in the thread I described an analogy which supports my position, showing that even an initially far more likely hypothesis can become extremely unlikely in light of a single, particular observation.

The analogy was promptly converted to a straw effigy, trashed, and subsequently ignored.

But I won't do that if you present something analogous to the issue at hand, which can actually be tested empirically, showing your viewpoint to be practically superior.

 

[godless dave]

That's your opinion. Perhaps you could design an empirical experiment to demonstrate the efficiency of the principle you're claiming.

It's not just my opinion. It's reality. The principle I'm claiming is not the least bit controversial.

 

[John Jones]

That's your opinion. Perhaps you could design an empirical experiment to demonstrate the efficiency of the principle you're claiming.

Earlier in the thread I described an analogy which supports my position, [...]

Link?

 

[Toontown]

No. I mean you should demonstrate your position such that your intended audience understands what you're trying to demonstrate. You need to work on that kind of demonstration. You're not doing it very well. Also, you have flounced a bunch of times now already.

So this was a general complaint, rather than specific to the post you quoted?

 

[John Jones]

So this was a general complaint, rather than specific to the post you quoted?

The two are not mutually contradictory.

 

[Toontown]

Link?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9665380#post9665380

To better understand how a single observation can render unlikely a hypothesis previously believed to be far more likely, simply change the probability that the "black" urn will be sampled to 0.99

 

[Garrette]

No. The urn analogy fails, though not due to the reasons (?) that abaddon and others gave at the time you made it.

With consciousnesses your argument has centered on the idea that a particular self is special and not arbitrary, i.e., that it is distinguishable from all other selves.

In the urn analogy, you have completely removed that tenet of your argument and replaced it with a situation in which any one of half of all the marbles will suffice, i.e., that any one white marble is arbitrary and will suffice.

Analogies do not have to be perfect to be valid, but they do have to remain consistent with the central point.

 

[godless dave]

Let's say you have an urn containing 400 trillion marbles, each a different color. If you pull a marble out of the urn at random, it will be exactly one of those colors.

The odds of pulling out any particular marble are 1 in 400 trillion.

 

[Toontown]

No. The urn analogy fails, though not due to the reasons (?) that abaddon and others gave at the time you made it.

With consciousnesses your argument has centered on the idea that a particular self is special and not arbitrary, i.e., that it is distinguishable from all other selves.

In the urn analogy, you have completely removed that tenet of your argument and replaced it with a situation in which any one of half of all the marbles will suffice, i.e., that any one white marble is arbitrary and will suffice.

Analogies do not have to be perfect to be valid, but they do have to remain consistent with the central point.

Obviously, no such analogy can demonstrate the fundamental nature of sentience. That is precisely the issue I will not discuss.

I'm using the analogy only to demonstrate that there are cases in which a hypothesis initially believed to be far more likely than it's alternative can become far less likely in light of a single, particular observation. This is the third time I've explained this in the last few posts.

.

To better understand how a single observation can render unlikely a hypothesis previously believed to be far more likely, simply change the probability that the "black" urn will be sampled to 0.99

 

[Toontown]

Let's say you have an urn containing 400 trillion marbles, each a different color. If you pull a marble out of the urn at random, it will be exactly one of those colors.

The odds of pulling out any particular marble are 1 in 400 trillion.

So? What are you trying to prove?

Do the colors mean anything? Is a particular marble required to make something specific happen? You're a 1 in 400 trillion shot under hypothesis A, but so is everyone else, so...what?