[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Slowvehicle]

- The main point I'm trying to argue right now is that your self had no prior "representation" -- i.e. it did not depend upon a specific sperm cell and a specific ovum. (I explained my usage of that paradigm(?) back in 5424.)
- That being the case, you came from nothing. You were a brand new pair of roller skates (or, a brand new key).

Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

(waves)

The point you are trying to finesse, or simply ignoring, is that your specific consciousness did, in fact, result from two specific gametes. Had two other gametes been involved, you would have been someone else.

This does not, in any way, imply (nor allow the interpretation) that "you" somehow existed, waiting for those two gametes to be joined. It merely recognizes that the inherited characteristics of a neurosystem are part of what influences the consciousness that emerges. Had the neurosystem different inherited characteristics, a different neurosystem would have formed.

 

[Jabba]

I didn't say you were. I said that if you think the probability of your "data" is 0 under the model, then the probability of that model is 0. So you're done. Why didn't you just say that two years ago? You've been arguing all this time to a foregone conclusion.

- The model I'm referring to is the "scientific model." Do you agree that the likelihood of your existence, given the scientific model, is 0?

 

[Jabba]

Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

(waves)

The point you are trying to finesses, or simply ignoring, is that your specific consciousness did, in fact, result from two specific gametes. Had two other gametes been involved, you would have been someone else...

Slowvehicle,
- I don't know whether that's true or not -- it could have been me with different characteristics, maybe.
- But what I do believe is that if we could now replicate that physical situation, I would not be looking out of two sets of eyes.

 

[godless dave]

Slowvehicle,
- I don't know whether that's true or not -- it could have been me with different characteristics, maybe.
- But what I do believe is that if we could now replicate that physical situation, I would not be looking out of two sets of eyes.

Of course not. One optic nerve can only connect to one brain. Do you still not understand that two different things can be identical?

 

[Slowvehicle]

- The model I'm referring to is the "scientific model." Do you agree that the likelihood of your existence, given the scientific model, is 0?

Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

Please provide a source for your claim that the "scientific model" holds that the likelihood of the existence of something that does, demonstrably, exist is, in fact, zero.

 

[Agatha]

- The model I'm referring to is the "scientific model." Do you agree that the likelihood of your existence, given the scientific model, is 0?

No, because some of the things you claim to be part of the scientific model are not, in fact, evidence-based or derived from science.

 

[Akhenaten]

- The model I'm referring to is the "scientific model."

You keep using the phrase "scientific model" but there's no way in the wide world that what you're referring to is the actual scientific model.

Do you agree that the likelihood of your existence, given the scientific model, is 0?

Congratulations! Stupidest question "EVER"

 

[jond]

- The model I'm referring to is the "scientific model." Do you agree that the likelihood of your existence, given the scientific model, is 0?

You are aware, surely (having been told an infinite number of times), that the scientific model does not accept your concept of a "self"?

 

[Agatha]

Slowvehicle,
- I don't know whether that's true or not -- it could have been me with different characteristics, maybe.

If it had different characteristics, it wouldn't be you.

- But what I do believe is that if we could now replicate that physical situation, I would not be looking out of two sets of eyes.

Nobody other than you has suggested that they would. If it were possible to make an exact copy of every aspect of you, this would result in two identical but separate selves. There is no suggestion that either of these entities could look through two sets of eyes. From the moment of creation, however, these two identical selves would start to become different selves because their experiences will differ. Even if the copy of you did everything you do, its position in space is different.

Identical and same have different shades of meaning. Sometimes they can be used synonymously, but not always.

 

[Akhenaten]

Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

(waves)

The point you are trying to finesses, or simply ignoring, is that your specific consciousness did, in fact, result from two specific gametes. Had two other gametes been involved, you would have been someone else...

Slowvehicle,
- I don't know whether that's true or not -- it could have been me with different characteristics, maybe.

Are you genuinely unable to grasp that someone with different characteristics to you isn't you at all?

- But what I do believe is that if we could now replicate that physical situation, I would not be looking out of two sets of eyes.

Goodness! That's actually in accordance with reality!

I must write a list!

Jabba's Mainstream Beliefs​

1. One self cannot occupy two brains.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle,
- I don't know whether that's true or not -- it could have been me with different characteristics, maybe.

Good Morning, again, Mr. Savage!

I appreciate your response.

However, I wonder how you can claim that "you (with different characteristics)" would still be "you"? Is not your sense of "self" bounded by, and dependent upon, your characteristics?

Claiming that "you (built of different materials)" would still be "you (as you are)" seems to be implying that you do, after all, think that there is some ur-"you", some universally unavoidable Rich Savage, that would have developed no matter which two gametes joined to produce you; this is not the "scientific model".

Had you been born color blind, would the "other you" have the same reaction to a rainbow that you do?

It seems to me that you now need to demonstrate how "you (having developed from different physical, inherited characteristics)" would still be "you".

- But what I do believe is that if we could now replicate that physical situation, I would not be looking out of two sets of eyes.

I am going to hope that "replicate that physical situation" is current shorthand for "produce a physically identical brain". I am glad that you see that the combination of inherited physical characteristics, and experiences, help to determine the nature of the emergent consciousness.

May I ask how that has anything to do with the existence of an "immortal soul"?

 

[Agatha]

- The model I'm referring to is the "scientific model." Do you agree that the likelihood of your existence, given the scientific model, is 0?

If the scientific model (with or without scare quotes) to which you refer is the one you outlined in post 5524 (clicky link), then you are not referring to the scientific model that has been arrived at by centuries of science, which is the one to which most people in this thread have been referencing.

Your understanding of the scientific model is, in short, wrong.

 

[pakeha]

- The main point I'm trying to argue right now is that your self had no prior "representation" -- i.e. it did not depend upon a specific sperm cell and a specific ovum. (I explained my usage of that paradigm(?) back in 5424.)
- That being the case, you came from nothing. You were a brand new pair of roller skates (or, a brand new key).

Jabba, of course my consciousness depends on a specific sperm cell and a specific.
Remember?
Consciousness is an emergent property of a viable neurosystem.

 

[Loss Leader]

- The model I'm referring to is the "scientific model." Do you agree that the likelihood of your existence, given the scientific model, is 0?

Do I believe that, given everything we know about the universe, my existence is impossible?

No, of course I don't believe that. I exist, thus my existence is possible. Is there anything in the universe which is incompatible with my existence? No.

This question is really one of the silliest that I have ever encountered.

If you believe that your existence is impossible based on purely scientific notions of the universe, then you have already concluded that there is some paranormal explanation for your life. If you've already concluded that, then there is nothing to prove - either by Bayesian statistics or any other means. Simply state that you believe that the lord God created the universe and be done with it.

 

[carlitos]

When are you likely to answer the question that's been asked of you many times - where do these selves go when the brains of which they are an emergent property no longer exist?

Where do the numbers go when the calculator is no longer turned on?

Where does Al Bundy go when you switch off the TV?

Where does the traffic jam go when traffic clears up?

 

[Giordano]

Jay,
- Here, I was just outlining a non-Bayesian argument for the use of infinity in the Bayes formula. I was not trying to use the Bayes Theorem to prove that infinity is an appropriate entry to use in this application of the Bayes Theorem.

Your non-Bayesian argument was wrong; you can't use infinity as an appropriate entry in the Bayes Theorem. And you have repeatedly used infinity in the Bayes formula as you presented it. You are wrong due to stastics. Further, neurobiology and the SM indicate that instead of 1/infinity, making the existence of a consciousness zero (which would mean you don't exist), the actual prediction of the SM is that every healthy human brain will develop a consciousness, with a probability close to 1, not zero.

 

[Giordano]

- The main point I'm trying to argue right now is that your self had no prior "representation" -- i.e. it did not depend upon a specific sperm cell and a specific ovum. (I explained my usage of that paradigm(?) back in 5424.)
- That being the case, you came from nothing. You were a brand new pair of roller skates (or, a brand new key).

Okay, prove it with evidence! in your very next post please!

You do realize that this is your non-SM model, and not the SD model? Please be certain to reflect the true SM model probabilities in your calculations.

Also, it is clear that our consciousness is formed by experiences as well as genetics. Both. It required and is part f a physical brain. But it does not arise by magic in any way, according to the SM.

Again, if you can't prove it, ask the moderators to shift the thread into Religion, because it is your belief, and not science. Thanks.

 

[Giordano]

He has a quick scan of the most recent post by the LCP™. Everything else is completely invisible, including most of his own posts.

I honestly don't know. I often think I am on ignore, only to get a surprise response by Jabba to one of my posts. My best guess: none of us are on formal ignore status, just that Jabba sees our posts, but choses to totally ignore us if we present problems with his proof. Interesting whether he sees this as a scientific discussion or as court case.

Have you ever heard of a defense attorney simply ignoring the damming evidence put forward by the prosecutor instead of trying to refute it or coming up with an alternative explanation?

 

[Giordano]

- The model I'm referring to is the "scientific model." Do you agree that the likelihood of your existence, given the scientific model, is 0?

How many different times do the people here need to correct you? The "scientific model," as explained to you, predicts that once you were fertilized and developed a healthy brain, the likelihood of your existence as a consciousness was close to 1, not zero. Do you mean the likelihood of a sperm fertilizing an ovum, and the zygote coming to term with a healthy brain? That is lower than one, but as long as couples have children, the likelihood of having a child is far more than 0 under the standard model. It is about 2.5% per intercourse for unprotected sex.

 

[Agatha]

Have you ever heard of a defense attorney simply ignoring the damming evidence put forward by the prosecutor instead of trying to refute it or coming up with an alternative explanation?

Lionel Hutz?

Jabba, you were asked for evidence for your assertions and responded with four points and three conclusions that arose from them which you claimed to represent the scientific model. These points did not represent the scientific model, and the conclusions were unsupported (and the correct spelling is tweaking, not tweeking). Sadly, you haven't responded to any of the criticisms of your post.

Could you please respond with evidence, as Giordano asks, for your assertion that you, or I or anyone, came from 'nothing'. Thank you in advance.