[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[PixyMisa]

- I just sent the following to Dr. Hoerl at Union.

Roger,

In trying to determine the “likelihood” of my current existence, given the scientifically popular worldview that each of us can exist for only one finite timespan, how do I justify using the likelihood of my specific current existence in the Bayesian formula – rather than the likelihood of someone/anyone’s current existence?
I accept that communicating my justification for such to thoughtful minds is difficult -- if not impossible -- but nevertheless, I do believe the usage to be entirely appropriate…
To do that, I need to show that I am somehow set apart from other potential “selves” -- and, in a way that allows for a reasonably possible worldview, about my existence, other than the currently popular one. If I can do that, I think I win.

Hopefully, that communicates.

What do you think?

If it’s OK with you, I’d like to take this one small step at a time. That way, though we may never get past the first page or two, we should be able to tell when we’re on the same page.

Thanks.
Rich

Jabba, this is truly pathetic.

Everyone understands you. Everyone has always understood you. There is no problem with "being on the same page". There never has been.

You're just wrong.

 

[Loss Leader]

- I just sent the following to Dr. Hoerl at Union.

Roger,

In trying to determine the “likelihood” of my current existence, given the scientifically popular worldview that each of us can exist for only one finite timespan, how do I justify using the likelihood of my specific current existence in the Bayesian formula – rather than the likelihood of someone/anyone’s current existence?
I accept that communicating my justification for such to thoughtful minds is difficult -- if not impossible -- but nevertheless, I do believe the usage to be entirely appropriate…
To do that, I need to show that I am somehow set apart from other potential “selves” -- and, in a way that allows for a reasonably possible worldview, about my existence, other than the currently popular one. If I can do that, I think I win.

Hopefully, that communicates.

What do you think?

If it’s OK with you, I’d like to take this one small step at a time. That way, though we may never get past the first page or two, we should be able to tell when we’re on the same page.

Thanks.
Rich

So now you're telling this guy what you're going to tell him instead of, you know, just telling him. Your email to him is complete gibberish.

 

[xtifr]

So now you're telling this guy what you're going to tell him instead of, you know, just telling him.

You expected Jabba to adopt a different MO when talking to someone else than he does when talking to us?

 

[Filippo Lippi]

When Roger gets tired of the nonsense, Jabba wins.

 

[AdMan]

When Roger gets tired of the nonsense, Jabba wins.

Jabba is now trying to export his brand of pseudo argumentation beyond the thread, pretending that by attempting to bring yet someone else in he'll somehow manage to advance the argument, while in reality he's just going back to his baseless OP. And we're apparently starting over yet again, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

 

[Agatha]

Poor Dr Hoerl.

Jabba, your communications with him, while undoubtedly fascinating to you, are not really advancing this thread at all - merely fringe resetting it back to the start.

Perhaps you could consider:

1. Asking Dr Hoerl to comment on your notion of intrinsic and extrinsic infinities, rather than engaging him on ideas which are outside his areas of expertise.
2. Being more courteous to the participants of this thread by participating in it, rather than merely dumping copypasta of your emails to Dr Hoerl.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I get how... sexy and romantic and appealing the "lone genius that has solved this esoteric problem and has to convince the close minded masses" fantasy role play is. Believe me I do. But that is very rarely how reality works.

 

[Jabba]

- I just sent the following.


Dr. Blackmore,

I suspect that you don’t have enough time to do all the important things in your life – so, I certainly can’t expect you to answer all your emails. But just in case…
I’m in a debate at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=248163 (I’m Jabba). Yesterday, following the advice of one of your fans, I watched a video in which you describe the “self” as an illusion. I must admit that your argument seems to make a lot of sense – but then, I have a lot of questions also.

We first came to you because I’ve been claiming that I can essentially prove the immortality of our selves by applying Bayesian statistics. My opponents don’t believe a word of it -- as they believe that a continuous lifetime self is an illusion anyway. Most of them do agree, however, that we do have the sense of a continuous lifetime self – that’s the illusion. Which, seems to be exactly what you’re saying.
My first question: Assuming that’s correct and that you believe that this personal illusion, 1) will not continue after death, 2) did not exist before life and 3) will never return -- can you say how many different potential such illusions of selves there would be? (Sorry about all of that.)
I should warn you that I claim that there should be an infinity of such potential illusionary selves.

Thanks.

Rich Savage

- As for Dr. Blackmore, she hasn't responded to my second message, but as she doesn't say anything personal in her first response, I can't believe that she would mind me sharing that response with you guys.

Endless reconstructions depending on what you're doing, mindfulness etc. A self is constructed as needed and then falls away again. The illusion is that it's the same self all through your life. I've written lots about this e.g. A very short introduction to consciousness
She won't be me. Conference on Science and Nonduality SAND, Doorn, Netherlands, June 2012. video (lousy video and they missed the beginning but you'll get the gist)
Blackmore, S. (2012) Turning on the light to see how the darkness looks. In Consciousness: Its Nature and Functions, Ed Shulamith Kreitler and Oded Maimon, NY, Nova pp 1-22
Or look at my section on zen or Blackmore, S 2011 Zen and the Art of Consciousness,
and much else. I hope that helps.
S

 

[Slowvehicle]

- As for Dr. Blackmore, she hasn't responded to my second message, but as she doesn't say anything personal in her first response, I can't believe that she would mind me sharing that response with you guys.

Endless reconstructions depending on what you're doing, mindfulness etc. A self is constructed as needed and then falls away again. The illusion is that it's the same self all through your life. I've written lots about this e.g. A very short introduction to consciousness
She won't be me. Conference on Science and Nonduality SAND, Doorn, Netherlands, June 2012. video (lousy video and they missed the beginning but you'll get the gist)
Blackmore, S. (2012) Turning on the light to see how the darkness looks. In Consciousness: Its Nature and Functions, Ed Shulamith Kreitler and Oded Maimon, NY, Nova pp 1-22
Or look at my section on zen or Blackmore, S 2011 Zen and the Art of Consciousness,
and much else. I hope that helps.
S

Good Morning,Mr. Savage!

Even though you are ignoring my posts again, I must confess that I am curious.

What do you think Dr. Blackmore is saying?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

What do you think Dr. Blackmore is saying?

I'll give my thoughts, but I'll spoiler them so Jabba can actually think about your question first.

I think it's threefold:

1) Exactly the same as everybody else has told Jabba.

2) "You've clearly not explored much of my work which will answer your questions, please go and do so."

3) "Leave me alone".

Only more politely.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I'll give my thoughts, but I'll spoiler them so Jabba can actually think about your question first.

I think it's threefold:

1) Exactly the same as everybody else has told Jabba.

2) "You've clearly not explored much of my work which will answer your questions, please go and do so."

3) "Leave me alone".

Only more politely.

I admire your optimism...

 

[Garrette]

I'll give my thoughts, but I'll spoiler them so Jabba can actually think about your question first.

I think it's threefold:

1) Exactly the same as everybody else has told Jabba.

2) "You've clearly not explored much of my work which will answer your questions, please go and do so."

3) "Leave me alone".

Only more politely.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for Rules 0 and 12.

 

[Jabba]

- Below are the links that Dr. Blackmore provided in her letter.

http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Books/VSI/vsi.htm
http://www.scienceandnonduality.com/
http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Chapters/2012 Kreitler.htm
http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Books/Tenzen/index.htm

- The second link begins with the following abstract of one of the presentations at the latest “SAND” conference.

Entanglement, Consciousness and Living
Entanglement is one of the strangest parts of quantum mechanics — so strange, in fact, that Albert Einstein famously referred to it as "spooky action at a distance." An entangled system shows a property that has been measured for the whole but not for parts. For instance, we may know that the sum of the spins of a pair of two particles is zero, but neither of them is in a definite state (a condition referred to as superposition), particle until one is measured, causing the other particle to assume the opposite state. The effect is instantaneous, even if the two particles reside on opposite ends of the universe.

Curiously, when science drills down into the core of even the most solid-looking object, separateness dissolves, and all that remain are relationships extending throughout, and possibly beyond, space and time, revealing a deeper reality which evokes what sages from all ages and traditions have been describing as one substance — call it consciousness, call it energy — comprising all the universe and giving rise to all appearances.

When we begin to explore the fabric of reality either through the lens of science or through the lens of spirituality, a deeper understanding and experience of what we call reality emerges as infinite, ever present, interconnected whole.

 

[Akhenaten]

- As for Dr. Blackmore, she hasn't responded to my second message, but as she doesn't say anything personal in her first response, I can't believe that she would mind me sharing that response with you guys.

You can't believe a lot of stuff. So what?

And you're not sharing anything with us. You're just trying to create the impression of having gained the interest of Someone Important™.

It won't end well.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- Below are the links that Dr. Blackmore provided in her letter.

http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Books/VSI/vsi.htm
http://www.scienceandnonduality.com/
http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Chapters/2012 Kreitler.htm
http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Books/Tenzen/index.htm

- The second link begins with the following abstract of one of the presentations at the latest “SAND” conference.

Entanglement, Consciousness and Living
Entanglement is one of the strangest parts of quantum mechanics — so strange, in fact, that Albert Einstein famously referred to it as "spooky action at a distance." An entangled system shows a property that has been measured for the whole but not for parts. For instance, we may know that the sum of the spins of a pair of two particles is zero, but neither of them is in a definite state (a condition referred to as superposition), particle until one is measured, causing the other particle to assume the opposite state. The effect is instantaneous, even if the two particles reside on opposite ends of the universe.

Curiously, when science drills down into the core of even the most solid-looking object, separateness dissolves, and all that remain are relationships extending throughout, and possibly beyond, space and time, revealing a deeper reality which evokes what sages from all ages and traditions have been describing as one substance — call it consciousness, call it energy — comprising all the universe and giving rise to all appearances.

When we begin to explore the fabric of reality either through the lens of science or through the lens of spirituality, a deeper understanding and experience of what we call reality emerges as infinite, ever present, interconnected whole.

Good Morning, Mr. Savage! What do you, personally, think that all means?

 

[Akhenaten]

- Below are the links that Dr. Blackmore provided in her letter.

<snip>

You're not trying to pretend those are Doctor Blackmore's words, are you? Or that they are reflective of her position on the matter?

Because that would be gross misrepresentation.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

- The second link begins with the following abstract of one of the presentations at the latest “SAND” conference.

So you're ignoring everything that's relevant and that you've actually been pointed to in favour of singling out something irrelevant that you feel you can twist to make support your position?

 

[Agatha]

Poor Dr Hoerl.

Jabba, your communications with him, while undoubtedly fascinating to you, are not really advancing this thread at all - merely fringe resetting it back to the start.

Perhaps you could consider:

1. Asking Dr Hoerl to comment on your notion of intrinsic and extrinsic infinities, rather than engaging him on ideas which are outside his areas of expertise.
2. Being more courteous to the participants of this thread by participating in it, rather than merely dumping copypasta of your emails to Dr Hoerl.

Further to the above.

Jabba, you are now doing exactly the same copypasta with your emails to Dr Blackmore (and with an email from her despite not receiving her permission to do so).

Politely, she's told you to do your own research and provided you with some suggestions as to where to find helpful resources.

If you are not prepared to engage with people here on this thread, then you might as well post the copypasta on your own site. This is a discussion forum, not your personal blogspot.

 

[pakeha]

- As for Dr. Blackmore, she hasn't responded to my second message, but as she doesn't say anything personal in her first response, I can't believe that she would mind me sharing that response with you guys. ...

Until you actually receive permission to do so, why not explore Dr. Blackmore's writings and see what she has to say on the subject of the illusion of self?
You have a golden opportunity to learn here, you know.

 

[Monza]

So Jabba is going down the road of "some areas of physics is not fully understood... exhibits strange counter-intuitive behavior... something something something... quantum... Immortality!"