[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Agatha]

Jay,
- Would you agree that if (somehow) there was an infinite number of potential selves¹, the likelihood of my current existence², given what I'm calling the "scientific model,"³ would be zero?

No.

1. The self/consciousness/observer (whatever you are currently calling it) is an emergent property of the brain of a living organism. It's a process, not an object. There are no potential selves hanging around waiting for a brain - in fact potential selves is a misnomer. The number of selves that will ever exist is physically limited by the amount of matter and time in the universe.

2. You do exist.

3. What you are calling the "scientific model" is not any kind of scientific model. Call it the Jabba model, or the Rich Savage model, or the fantasy model if you like, but for the sake of accuracy and truth, stop calling it the scientific model. It's confusing you as you try to force your unscientific notions into science, and it's frustrating for everyone else as we keep having to point out that your model is not scientific.

(Sorry if this sounds terse, but all these things have been repeatedly explained to you, and you are not even acknowledging the posts never mind addressing the points which have been made - which is really impolite of you. Also, I'm in a lot of pain today so am slightly less cheery than usual.)

 

[Loss Leader]

Would you agree that if (somehow) there was an infinite number of potential selves, the likelihood of my current existence, given what I'm calling the "scientific model," would be zero?

Would you agree that if somehow there were an infinite number of potential ice cream flavors, the likelihood of Ben & Jerry's producing one, given the manner they choose new flavors, would be zero?

Your question makes no sense because it ascribes to the scientific model the unscientific fantasy that there are an infinite number of people waiting to be born. If you want your question to make sense, you must either bring the facts into accord with known science or abandon the idea that you're talking about anything scientific.

But even worse is the damage you do to logic. You exist, so the chance of your existence is more than zero, so there cannot be a condition in which the chance of your existence was zero on either side of your equation. If there's an infinite number of potential souls, my existence is impossible under the scientific model, the anti-scientific model, the God model, the banana model and every other model.

How does stipulating that we cannot exist due to an infinite amount of souls in the scientific model get you any closer to your goal? Surely, if 1/inf. is zero for us, it is also zero for God. What will you do with your other side of the equation? How will you keep infinity out of that side?

 

[Giordano]

Jay,
- Would you agree that if (somehow) there was an infinite number of potential selves, the likelihood of my current existence, given what I'm calling the "scientific model," would be zero?

Do you ever read what you intend to post before you post it? So you are asking if the SM was wrong, wouldn't it be wrong? Well, if the SM said the gravitation attraction between two bodies were roughly inversely proportional to the 3rd of distance rather than the 2nd (ignoring Relativity for now), it would be wrong in predicting the orbit of Jupiter. But it does 't say that and it does predict the orbit of Jupiter quite well.

This is asking if my Aunt was a motorcycle, wouldn't she need oiling. It is just silly.

Oddly, even if your hypothetical was correct, your premise would still be wrong. If there was an infinity of potential "selves" then the chance of any one of them existing would be far more than zero. Nearly everyone born has a consciousness: likelihood close to 1.

Why not go for it all: "if the SM was wrong and we were immortal, then wouldn't you agree that we were immortal?"

 

[Giordano]

What you are calling the "scientific model" is not any kind of scientific model. Call it the Jabba model, or the Rich Savage model, or the fantasy model if you like, but for the sake of accuracy and truth, stop calling it the scientific model. It's confusing you as you try to force your unscientific notions into science, and it's frustrating for everyone else as we keep having to point out that your model is not scientific.

all these things have been repeatedly explained to you, and you are not even acknowledging the posts never mind addressing the points which have been made - which is really impolite.

^^^This.

 

[Mojo]

The number of selves that will ever exist is physically limited by the amount of matter and time in the universe.

And limited by the number of brains that will ever exist. Not all of the matter and time in the universe will be able to produce brains.

 

[Jabba]

- Unfortunately, I'm still not sure what "scare quotes" are. Is "..." a scare quote? Is '...' a scare quote? Or, what?

 

[PixyMisa]

- Unfortunately, I'm still not sure what "scare quotes" are. Is "..." a scare quote? Is '...' a scare quote? Or, what?

That's your only response when your argument is lying in pieces on the floor?

 

[Slowvehicle]

- Unfortunately, I'm still not sure what "scare quotes" are. Is "..." a scare quote? Is '...' a scare quote? Or, what?

Good morning, Mr. Savage.

I am going to indulge this derail, just a bit.

I frequently imply the convention of scare quotes; for instance, when I refer to the"soul" (a concept I maintain does not exist), putting the quotes around it indicates that I am nor accepting the common usage of the word as indicating some sort of immaterial extra-corporeal existence of a self-concept.

Think about the difference between:

"The senator and his wife checked into a sleazy motel."

and,

"The senator and his 'wife' checked into a sleazy motel."

The operative condition is not the number of diacritical marks, but their position, as ruled by other typographic conventions.

Using scare quotes (as the links I provided indicate--did you read them?) shows that the writer is casting aspersions upon the way the word is being used.

[/derail]

Now:

How about that evidence that the "soul" exists, and is "immortal"?

 

[Pixel42]

- Unfortunately, I'm still not sure what "scare quotes" are. Is "..." a scare quote? Is '...' a scare quote? Or, what?

Did you bother to read the wiki article you were directed to?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes#Formatting

Scare quotes (and other quotation marks used in a special sense) are usually given in the same style (single or double) as those used elsewhere in a work.[19]

So they can be either. It's how they're used, not whether they're single or double, that makes them scare quotes.

 

[Jabba]

- I have a sense of "self" that was with me when I entered first grade, was with me when I went on active duty and was still with me when I retired. Whether a process, or illusion or what, my sense is that this self, or this aspect of my self, has remained the same throughout my life and environment and personal changes. That's the self that I think is immortal.
- I had thought that at least many of you understood what I was referring to. But now, everyone seems to be denying the existence of this sense of continuation -- saying that there is no sense in which the self, or an aspect of the self, remains the same during a lifetime.
- Who, here, accepts that there is such a sense?

 

[Akhenaten]

Jay,
- Would you agree that if (somehow) there was an infinite number of potential selves, the likelihood of my current existence, given what I'm calling the "scientific model," would be zero?

1.0. Your understanding of you is borked.

1.1. Your understanding of agreement is borked.

1.2. Your understanding of (somehow) is as yet undefined, although the smart money is on it being borked.

2.0. Your concept of infinity is borked.

3.0. Your understanding of potential is borked.

7.8.3.5.2.1.0.0. Your understanding of selves changes daily. Nevertheless, it has yet to rise above the lofty heights of borked.

6.0. The odds of you probably understanding the concept of likelihood is 1/borked.

4.3. Your ideas about current existence are borked multiplied by the square root of chaos minus the first number you thought of.

5.0. None of what you refer to as given has ever, since the dawn of time, actually been considered as given.

42.8.5.3. You calling "something" "something else" doesn't make it so unless you're the captain of the Enterprise.

5.1. "Your" use of "scare quotes" when "referring" to what "you" "refer" to as the ""scientific model"" is "apparently" a "joke" that's gone "far" enough "over" your head that it's "achieved" escape "velocity".

8.∞. Would be? All manner of things """"would be"""" if the Universe was other than it is.

8.∞.1. I suspect that your understanding of zero is as borked as your understanding of infinity.

8.∞.1.1. something else.

8.∞.1.2. etcetera . . .

 

[Akhenaten]

Jabba,

A tip that you may feel free to ignore -- if you can't make your point without using parentheses, scare quotes or underlining, you probably don't have a point. Give it a try and see how it goes.

I've created a demo . . .

        
  
 
        
     
          
        

 

[jond]

- I have a sense of "self" that was with me when I entered first grade, was with me when I went on active duty and was still with me when I retired. Whether a process, or illusion or what, my sense is that this self, or this aspect of my self, has remained the same throughout my life and environment and personal changes. That's the self that I think is immortal.
- I had thought that at least many of you understood what I was referring to. But now, everyone seems to be denying the existence of this sense of continuation -- saying that there is no sense in which the self, or an aspect of the self, remains the same during a lifetime.
- Who, here, accepts that there is such a sense?

No one accepts that there is such a thing. We all know what you are talking about, and have explained in every conceivable way that you are, quite simply WRONG.

 

[Jabba]

- I did read some of what I was directed to, but must have misread what I did read -- and otherwise, didn't read enough. Sorry about that -- with my typical excuse that I only have so much time to use on my hobby, and was in a hurry...

 

[Giordano]

Jabba,

So, you have no debunked evidence or proof to post, as was repeatedly asked (indeed begged) of you, and in fact you yourself sincerely promised only recently. How clear to the lurkers (if any do indeed exist) that you have none.

 

[Akhenaten]

- Unfortunately, I'm still not sure what "scare quotes" are. Is "..." a scare quote? Is '...' a scare quote? Or, what?

That's your only response when your argument is lying in pieces on the floor?

Not at all.

"You've captured one of my forts but you haven't sunk my battleship yet!" is also acceptable, or so it seems.

 

[Giordano]

- I did read some of what I was directed to, but must have misread what I did read -- and otherwise, didn't read enough. Sorry about that -- with my typical excuse that I only have so much time to use on my hobby, and was in a hurry...

I could take up dance as a hobby, but I am hopelessly clumsy. So I don't. Perhaps this thread is not the best hobby for you, since you have so much trouble with it?

 

[godless dave]

- I have a sense of "self" that was with me when I entered first grade, was with me when I went on active duty and was still with me when I retired. Whether a process, or illusion or what, my sense is that this self, or this aspect of my self, has remained the same throughout my life and environment and personal changes. That's the self that I think is immortal.
- I had thought that at least many of you understood what I was referring to. But now, everyone seems to be denying the existence of this sense of continuation -- saying that there is no sense in which the self, or an aspect of the self, remains the same during a lifetime.
- Who, here, accepts that there is such a sense?

I accept that you sense such a thing. Do you understand that, to the extent that such a thing can even be said to exist, in the scientific model, it is part of your brain? Not attached to your brain, part of your brain.

 

[Akhenaten]

- I have a sense of "self" that was with me when I entered first grade, was with me when I went on active duty and was still with me when I retired. Whether a process, or illusion or what, my sense is that this self, or this aspect of my self, has remained the same throughout my life and environment and personal changes. That's the self that I think is immortal.

You can think what you like but until you report back with your findings after you're dead you remain, as always, demonstrably wrong.

- I had thought that at least many of you understood what I was referring to.

All of us understand what you're referring to.

What you fail to understand (or would, if you ever bothered to read the thread) is that everyone is in agreement that there's not a trace of evidence that the thing that you're referring to exists.

But now, everyone seems to be denying the existence of this sense of continuation -- saying that there is no sense in which the self, or an aspect of the self, remains the same during a lifetime.

Now???

- Who, here, accepts that there is such a sense?

Which bit of "nobody" is giving you the most trouble?

 

[PixyMisa]

- I have a sense of "self" that was with me when I entered first grade, was with me when I went on active duty and was still with me when I retired. Whether a process, or illusion or what, my sense is that this self, or this aspect of my self, has remained the same

In the sense of continuity. The tree in my back yard is fifteen feet tall. When I first moved in, it had been recently planted, and was only six feet tall.

Is it the same tree? Yes.

Is it the same? Obviously not.

throughout my life and environment and personal changes. That's the self that I think is immortal.

It changes too.

- I had thought that at least many of you understood what I was referring to.

Everyone understands you perfectly.

But now, everyone seems to be denying the existence of this sense of continuation -- saying that there is no sense in which the self, or an aspect of the self, remains the same during a lifetime.

Exactly. It has continuity. It does not remain the same in any way.

- Who, here, accepts that there is such a sense?

Apart from you? No-one.