[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[godless dave]

So? What are you trying to prove?

Do the colors mean anything? Is a particular marble required to make something happen?

No. They're all pretty much the same, except for each one having a unique color.

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

 

[Garrette]

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

I thought the highlighted part might be your response, but I was hoping not. I get that; I am reasonably sure that godless dave and John Jones get that, but there are two reasons I was hoping you weren't going to bring it up as your reasoning here:

1. That observation does nothing to counter the arguments you don't care for and does nothing to advance your own, and

2. John Jones' request for a link was in response to your comment which both he and I interpreted to mean that you had brought up an analogy to demonstrate your specific point about specialness/arbitrariness here.

No worries. If the urn is meant to demonstrate the general case of observations having the potential to change the unlikely to the likely (and vice versa), then I agree.

 

[Toontown]

I thought the highlighted part might be your response, but I was hoping not. I get that; I am reasonably sure that godless dave and John Jones get that, but there are two reasons I was hoping you weren't going to bring it up as your reasoning here:

1. That observation does nothing to counter the arguments you don't care for and does nothing to advance your own, and

2. John Jones' request for a link was in response to your comment which both he and I interpreted to mean that you had brought up an analogy to demonstrate your specific point about specialness/arbitrariness here.

No worries. If the urn is meant to demonstrate the general case of observations having the potential to change the unlikely to the likely (and vice versa), then I agree.

Well, there have been numerous assertions that a single data point is meaningless, so I suppose your agreement with me on that point is progress, of a sort. But this kind of 'progress' I can do without. I think we're done here.

I"m not promising anything, flounce-counters.

I am equally unsatisfied with your response. You seem to take the individual marbles as representing different things. They do not. The marbles, collectively, represent probabilities.

 

[Garrette]

Unsure if I agree with your disagreement (dissatisfaction), but this part of the discussion has at least been pointed in the right direction, even if the steps taken were small.

Cheers

 

[zooterkin]

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

Is that the post you meant to link to?

Huh?

 

[Garrette]

He meant Post 1424, one above the linked post.

 

[PixyMisa]

Nonalogy, n: 1. A story in nine volumes.
2. A hypothetical that is intended to shed light on a situation, but is in fact completely unrelated.

 

[Jabba]

1. I've been trying to develop a syllogism from the different premises upon which Dave and I agree. Here's where I am so far. I’ve included numbers so as to make reference easier.

2. CONSCIOUSNESS is an emergent property of a certain type of physical occurrence or situation.
3. This “type” of physical situation may be that of a living brain. (Dave says that it is that of a living brain.)

4. Each consciousness involves a DIFFERENT “self” -- or, different “observer ” – than do the rest of consciousnesses.

5. You are one of those observers.

6. You have been that observer for a number of years, despite all your experiences during that time.
7. So, in that sense, you have been the same observer for all those years.

8. This difference (or, separation) between lifetime observers is not the result of specific physical situations. (Two brains that were exactly alike would not produce the same observer.)
9. In that sense, the number of lifetime observers possible is not limited by physics, chemistry or biology.

10. The only physical limitation to the number of lifetime observers would be in the amount of time, energy or matter available.
11. Barring a finite amount of time, energy or matter, the amount of potential lifetime observers is infinite.
12. If any of these is finite, the number of observers possible would seem to be finite...

13. You, however, were NOT drawn from any preexisting limited pool of potential observers.
14. You are a BRAND NEW observer, having no preexistence of any kind; and in other words, there is absolutely no limit on who the next observer will be...
15. That is the sense in which the 'number' of potential observers is infinite, and why the likelihood of YOUR current existence -- given the hypothesis of one finite life at most -- is 1/∞.

 

[Mojo]

That is the sense in which the 'number' of potential observers is infinite, and why the likelihood of YOUR current existence -- given the hypothesis of one finite life at most -- is 1/∞.

If your argument here is valid, then the likelyhood of YOUR current existence, whatever hypothesis you have for the number or length of lives -- is 1/∞, because there hasn't been an infinite amount of time.

 

[Akhenaten]

All that carp just to try to Rredefine infinite and you're still no closer to succeeding.

You really do need to find a better hobby than compiling pointless lists.

 

[jsfisher]

1. I've been trying to develop a syllogism from the different premises upon which Dave and I agree. Here's where I am so far. I’ve included numbers so as to make reference easier.

2. CONSCIOUSNESS is an emergent property of a certain type of physical occurrence or situation.
3. This “type” of physical situation may be that of a living brain. (Dave says that it is that of a living brain.)

4. Each consciousness involves a DIFFERENT “self” -- or, different “observer ” – than do the rest of consciousnesses.

5. You are one of those observers.

6. You have been that observer for a number of years, despite all your experiences during that time.
7. So, in that sense, you have been the same observer for all those years.

8. This difference (or, separation) between lifetime observers is not the result of specific physical situations. (Two brains that were exactly alike would not produce the same observer.)

I'll let Dave decide if he agrees with you.

9. In that sense, the number of lifetime observers possible is not limited by physics, chemistry or biology.

Of course they are.

10. The only physical limitation to the number of lifetime observers would be in the amount of time, energy or matter available.

Sure, and doesn't physics and chemistry and biology all have something to say about those limitations?

11. Barring a finite amount of time, energy or matter, the amount of potential lifetime observers is infinite.

Do you mean distinct observers or just observers? Either way, time, energy, and matter are all limited, so your question is moot.

12. If any of these is finite, the number of observers possible would seem to be finite...

And since those things are in fact all finite, the consequent is confirmed.

13. You, however, were NOT drawn from any preexisting limited pool of potential observers.
14. You are a BRAND NEW observer, having no preexistence of any kind; and in other words, there is absolutely no limit on who the next observer will be...

Of course there is a limit. It's comes from those whole limited time, energy, and matter things.

15. That is the sense in which the 'number' of potential observers is infinite, and why the likelihood of YOUR current existence -- given the hypothesis of one finite life at most -- is 1/∞.

No.

 

[Garrette]

1. I've been trying to develop a syllogism from the different premises upon which Dave and I agree. Here's where I am so far. I’ve included numbers so as to make reference easier.

You should not have numbered your intro as you did here.

2. CONSCIOUSNESS is an emergent property of a certain type of physical occurrence or situation.

It is an emergent property of the physical brain.

3. This “type” of physical situation may be that of a living brain. (Dave says that it is that of a living brain.)

Not only godless dave but science as well. Hence that is what you must use in the Scientific Model portion of your equation.

4. Each consciousness involves a DIFFERENT “self” -- or, different “observer ” – than do the rest of consciousnesses.

No. Your are deceitfully trying to sneak a soul in there again. The consciousness does not “involve” a self or observer. In the scientific model, the consciousness is the same as the self is the same as the observer.

5. You are one of those observers.

Three cheers and a tiger for me.

6. You have been that observer for a number of years, despite all your experiences during that time.
7. So, in that sense, you have been the same observer for all those years.

I will do these two together, and I will offer a bit of help. In defining the emergent property that is consciousness/self/observer, why not say something along the lines of For purposes of this argument, a consciousness is considered both unique and continuous insofar as it is the only consciousness that recalls, from its perspective, its past experiences.

Now, that gets you to where you think you want to go in that it gets at what you are trying to elucidate as continuity. However, it does not get you where you need to go if you want your argument to proceed. As others have pointed out, memory – along with personality – is malleable, fragile, inaccurate, and subject to complete loss.

8. This difference (or, separation) between lifetime observers is not the result of specific physical situations. (Two brains that were exactly alike would not produce the same observer.)

This is a misunderstanding of what has been said. The difference is entirely due to physicality, but that physicality includes not only the physical make up of the brain but also the physical experiences of that brain. Differences between two physically identical brains are attributable not to some amorphous soul but to the different perceptions of the physical world the brains will have and the different physical changes within those brains because of them.

9. In that sense, the number of lifetime observers possible is not limited by physics, chemistry or biology.

Utterly incorrect, and it ignores what has been repeatedly said.

10. The only physical limitation to the number of lifetime observers would be in the amount of time, energy or matter available.

Which are all finite.

11. Barring a finite amount of time, energy or matter, the amount of potential lifetime observers is infinite.

They aren’t barred. Time, energy, and matter are finite.

12. If any of these is finite, the number of observers possible would seem to be finite...

Not only “seem to be,” but actually are. As is the case.

13. You, however, were NOT drawn from any preexisting limited pool of potential observers.

True.

14. You are a BRAND NEW observer, having no preexistence of any kind; and in other words, there is absolutely no limit on who the next observer will be...

Not true.

15. That is the sense in which the 'number' of potential observers is infinite, and why the likelihood of YOUR current existence -- given the hypothesis of one finite life at most -- is 1/∞.

Your sense is wrong, for exactly the same reasons that have been repeatedly pointed out. Numberng the list doesn’t help. Trying – again – to sneak a soul in as something different from consciousness doesn’t help.

It’s a fail, Jabba, as before. You have said absolutely nothing new here. You have explained nothing any differently than you have explained before. You have presented no issue that has not already been dealt with numerous times.

It. Is. A. Fail.

 

[godless dave]

8. This difference (or, separation) between lifetime observers is not the result of specific physical situations. (Two brains that were exactly alike would not produce the same observer.)
9. In that sense, the number of lifetime observers possible is not limited by physics, chemistry or biology.

10. The only physical limitation to the number of lifetime observers would be in the amount of time, energy or matter available.

As Garrette pointed out, time, energy, and matter available are part of the biological, chemical, and physical limitations.

And you left off a limitation: situations that produce new "observers". There are only so many possible mating combinations of human beings.

Also, you are completely neglecting time and causality. Even if the universe is infinite and we could expect humanity to be around forever, at any given time there are a finite number of new "observers" that can be created, because each new observer depends on the existence of two previous observers, each of whose existence depends on the existence of two previous observers.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

8. This difference (or, separation) between lifetime observers is not the result of specific physical situations. (Two brains that were exactly alike would not produce the same observer.)
9. In that sense, the number of lifetime observers possible is not limited by physics, chemistry or biology.

No, they're limited by the biology and chemistry of the brains and the physics of the world around them.

There are a limited number of experiences a brain can have.

 

[Olowkow]

Infinity is not an integer, it is a concept. The set of integers is infinite. The set of real numbers is infinite. The latter set is larger than the former, but both are infinite. To write "1/∞" is tantamount to writing "1/honesty". Nonsense.

 

[Loss Leader]

1. I've been trying to develop a syllogism from the different premises upon which Dave and I agree. Here's where I am so far. I’ve included numbers so as to make reference easier.

You're just repackaging the same things in slightly different words, and burying some of your concepts in multiple steps so as to obscure them. You have not solved a single one of your logical or factual problems.

2. CONSCIOUSNESS is an emergent property of a certain type of physical occurrence or situation.
3. This “type” of physical situation may be that of a living brain. (Dave says that it is that of a living brain.)

Absolutely the only evidence we have is that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. Can you give one example of any consciousness unconnected to a living brain? If not, your statement that the situation "may be" that of a brain is a bit of an understatement. It's like saying the Yankees may be a type of sports team.

4. Each consciousness involves a DIFFERENT “self” -- or, different “observer ” – than do the rest of consciousnesses.

You've slipped in the word "observer" because that word focuses on the thing observed and lets slide the idea that an observer may not be a continuous thing. However, the concept you're still talking about is consciousness, self or soul. Observation has nothing to do with it (and you have never predicated any of your ideas on the notion that the universe needs to be observed).

5. You are one of those observers.

Thanks.

6. You have been that observer for a number of years, despite all your experiences during that time.

No, no no. You want to try to slip this in? Absolutely not. Consciousness changes during the lifetime, may be drastically changed by head injury, and may experience discontinuities. Do you have any evidence at all as to what this unchanging "core" might be composed of? Can you test for it? You've never presented any evidence other than your bald assertions.

7. So, in that sense, you have been the same observer for all those years.

Using weasel words to attempt to shoehorn in your concept is: a) obvious; b) pathetic; and c) rejected.

8. This difference (or, separation) between lifetime observers is not the result of specific physical situations. (Two brains that were exactly alike would not produce the same observer.)

You just contradicted yourself. It is the result of specific physical situations. Two brains are physically different. Even if they were structurally alike, they'd be composed of different atoms and in different places.

9. In that sense, the number of lifetime observers possible is not limited by physics, chemistry or biology.

Utter nonsense. This is literally nonsense. It has no meaning.

10. The only physical limitation to the number of lifetime observers would be in the amount of time, energy or matter available.

Okay.

11. Barring a finite amount of time, energy or matter, the amount of potential lifetime observers is infinite.

Sure. Just to be sociable, I'll agree with this

.

12. If any of these is finite, the number of observers possible would seem to be finite...

If by "seem to be" you mean "actually be," I agree with you.

13. You, however, were NOT drawn from any preexisting limited pool of potential observers.

Okay, there is no pool.

14. You are a BRAND NEW observer, having no preexistence of any kind;

Sure.

and in other words, there is absolutely no limit on who the next observer will be...

No. Absolutely not. If there is nothing countable, it cannot be unlimited. Either a thing exists and you can, at least theoretically, talk about it being infinite or a thing doesn't exist. You just said that I am a brand new observer, not having existed before. Not existing is zero. Zero. Zero is not unlimited. Zero is very specifically limited to zero.

Actually, it's less than zero. You've defined the pool of potential selves as a null set. It doesn't even exist as a concept to have zero of. It's not an empty set; by your definition it's a nonexistent set. A null set can't be infinite.

There are no such thing as potential unicorns. Therefore, are there an infinite amount of potential unicorns? No.

15. That is the sense in which the 'number' of potential observers is infinite, and why the likelihood of YOUR current existence -- given the hypothesis of one finite life at most -- is 1/∞.

Not even vaguely logical. First of all, 1/inf. is zero. If the likelihood of my existence is zero, I do not exist. If the likelihood of my existence is 1/inf., I do not exist. But I do exist, so the likelihood is something other than 1/inf. It must be a real number of some sort.

Second, according to you, there is no pool of potential selves. Thus, there is no unlimited pool of potential selves.

Third, you've presented no evidence that there even is such a thing as an unchanging observer. You've just plain declared it. The evidence indicates that consciousness is a property of the healthy brain. The evidence further indicates that the feeling of continuity of consciousness is an illusion created by the brain.

I would be shocked to the absolute core if godless dave were to give your restatement any more credit than I have.

 

[godless dave]

I agree with Loss Leader's objections to points 6, 7, and 8 .

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Not even vaguely logical. First of all, 1/inf. is zero. If the likelihood of my existence is zero, I do not exist. If the likelihood of my existence is 1/inf., I do not exist. But I do exist, so the likelihood is something other than 1/inf. It must be a real number of some sort.

No, that's his point. The likelihood of your existence under the current scientific model is a very low number. So low that he can call it zero. Then, as you point out, that means that you can't possibly exist under the current scientific model. You do exist. Therefore the current scientific model must be wrong. Therefore immortality.

 

[Garrette]

No, that's his point. The likelihood of your existence under the current scientific model is a very low number. So low that he can call it zero. Then, as you point out, that means that you can't possibly exist under the current scientific model. You do exist. Therefore the current scientific model must be wrong. Therefore immortality.

Precisely. Sometimes we forget this when dealing with specific fallacies.

 

[jond]

No, that's his point. The likelihood of your existence under the current scientific model is a very low number. So low that he can call it zero. Then, as you point out, that means that you can't possibly exist under the current scientific model. You do exist. Therefore the current scientific model must be wrong. Therefore immortality.

Except that the reality of the scientific model is that once the mother and father have done their thing and the egg has been fertilized the likelihood of a "self"'s existence is exactly 1. It's not at all unlikely. Because a "self" is nothing more than the particular combination of genes and experiences that a person has. A person simply cannot be anything other than who they are, therefore there really is no such thing as a potential self.

If there is no infinite pool of selves waiting to be born (and there isn't, even Jabba has agreed to this), then this whole 1/infinity thing is total nonsense.