-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics
- Thread starter Jabba
- Start date
- Status
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
- I've been trying to put it all together in one post. This might do it.
- Could be that all you guys need to read are #s 14, 15, 25 & 26.
- My Argument – I had something of an “epiphany” when I was 14 that seems to have been the results of a holistic version of Bayesian statistics applied to my own interesting existence. I came to the “realization” (or at least, the conclusion) that I am immortal.
1. Almost all of us take our own existences for granted – never noticing the miracle of miracles that each of us is.
2. We never notice the astonishing implications of our own existences. We never see the forest for all the trees.
3. The truth seems to be in the recesses of our holistic hemisphere.
4. Given the “popular” analytic and scientific orientation, the probability of my own current existence is “zilch” – yet, here I am!
5. And, almost no one notices the miracle that I am -- or, that they are.
6. And, the power(?) of this miracle is almost impossible to communicate.
7. But, in the face of it, the popular analytic/scientific orientation mentioned above is surely wrong.
8. I’ll be trying to use the binary version of the Bayes Theorem to disprove the popular scientific hypothesis that individual consciousnesses (“selves”) can exist for only one finite time.
9. The formula: P(A|me) = P(me|A) P(A)/(P(me|A) P(A) + P(me|~A) P(~A))
10. Where
10.1. "A" is the hypothesis that each potential human “self” (or, each potential illusion of a human self) exists for one finite period of time, at most.
10.2. And, “me” is my current existence (or, my current illusion of existence).
11. The numbers I propose to insert (my premises):
11.1. P(me|A) = 1/∞
11.2. P(A) = .99
11.3. P(me|~A) = .50 (not sure that makes sense…)
11.4. P(~A) = .01
12. And, P(A|me) = (1/∞).99/((1/∞).99+(.50)(.1)) = 0
13. I think that my critical premises above are 4.1 and 4.2; i.e. that
13.1. The number of potential selves (or, illusions)
13.1.1. Is infinite, and
13.1.2. I am a special case.
13.2. There is reasonable doubt that A is correct.
14. #2 is based upon a lot of questionable evidence. 15. However, if I’m correct about #1, #2 requires very little in the way of evidence.
16. Many scientists in relevant fields have concluded that the sense of a lifetime-continuing self is an illusion.
17. But then, even if the continuing self is some kind of an illusion, it is something that I (and many other such illusions, I assume) wish to continue after death of the physical body.
18. And, according to popular science, even if the self is some kind of illusion,
18.1. The illusion never existed before the life of my physical body, and
18.2. It will never exist after the death of my physical body.
19. Neither did this sense of self have any “representation” (blueprint?) prior to its actual existence.
20. In other words, there was no limited pool of potential selves that it was taken from.
21. Consciousness is an emergent property of a certain type of physical state.
22. Its emergence inherently includes the sense of a specific self.
23. And, this sense of specific self is “brand new” -- again, it had no prior representation at all.
24. While the various “characteristics” of the self (intelligence, morality, physical strength, etc., etc.,) have been determined by specific DNA and experience/environment, such is not the case for the continuing and separate awareness (sense) of the self.
25. Having no kind of previous existence, or representation (not coming from any limited pool of potential selves) – being “brand new” in that sense – even if the matter, energy and/or time available is limited, there is no limit on what specific awarenesses of self will emerge. 26. In other words, the specific possibilities are unlimited – or, infinite. 27. And, given the popular scientific opinion above, your likelihood of a current existence is no better than 7,000,000,000/∞. (7 billion being a rough estimate of the current number of human selves.)
28. But then, I am also a special case – and, if you have the same sense of self-awareness as do I, you are a special case as well.
29. I (however) am the only “thing” that I know exists (one way, or the other). Everything else could be my imagination – but there necessarily is something here doing the imagining. Me.
30. Besides, if I didn’t exist, there “might as well” be nothing -- and according to the popular scientific hypothesis, that would have been the case for all the time before my existence and all the time after my existence…
31. And, if I never exist – which the popular scientific hypothesis should probably expect -- there might as well never be anything… See what I mean?
32. That is what makes me (and probably you) a special case – and the likelihood of my current existence, given the popular scientific position, must be just 1/∞ (zero).
33. In other words, the scientific hypothesis must be wrong.
34. And then, even if I can’t validly claim that I am a special case, 7,000,000,000/∞ is also zero.
- So -- ask, or complain, away. As always, I will try to deal with one question or complaint at a time -- the one I think is most important.
- Could be that all you guys need to read are #s 14, 15, 25 & 26.
- My Argument – I had something of an “epiphany” when I was 14 that seems to have been the results of a holistic version of Bayesian statistics applied to my own interesting existence. I came to the “realization” (or at least, the conclusion) that I am immortal.
1. Almost all of us take our own existences for granted – never noticing the miracle of miracles that each of us is.
2. We never notice the astonishing implications of our own existences. We never see the forest for all the trees.
3. The truth seems to be in the recesses of our holistic hemisphere.
4. Given the “popular” analytic and scientific orientation, the probability of my own current existence is “zilch” – yet, here I am!
5. And, almost no one notices the miracle that I am -- or, that they are.
6. And, the power(?) of this miracle is almost impossible to communicate.
7. But, in the face of it, the popular analytic/scientific orientation mentioned above is surely wrong.
8. I’ll be trying to use the binary version of the Bayes Theorem to disprove the popular scientific hypothesis that individual consciousnesses (“selves”) can exist for only one finite time.
9. The formula: P(A|me) = P(me|A) P(A)/(P(me|A) P(A) + P(me|~A) P(~A))
10. Where
10.1. "A" is the hypothesis that each potential human “self” (or, each potential illusion of a human self) exists for one finite period of time, at most.
10.2. And, “me” is my current existence (or, my current illusion of existence).
11. The numbers I propose to insert (my premises):
11.1. P(me|A) = 1/∞
11.2. P(A) = .99
11.3. P(me|~A) = .50 (not sure that makes sense…)
11.4. P(~A) = .01
12. And, P(A|me) = (1/∞).99/((1/∞).99+(.50)(.1)) = 0
13. I think that my critical premises above are 4.1 and 4.2; i.e. that
13.1. The number of potential selves (or, illusions)
13.1.1. Is infinite, and
13.1.2. I am a special case.
13.2. There is reasonable doubt that A is correct.
14. #2 is based upon a lot of questionable evidence. 15. However, if I’m correct about #1, #2 requires very little in the way of evidence.
16. Many scientists in relevant fields have concluded that the sense of a lifetime-continuing self is an illusion.
17. But then, even if the continuing self is some kind of an illusion, it is something that I (and many other such illusions, I assume) wish to continue after death of the physical body.
18. And, according to popular science, even if the self is some kind of illusion,
18.1. The illusion never existed before the life of my physical body, and
18.2. It will never exist after the death of my physical body.
19. Neither did this sense of self have any “representation” (blueprint?) prior to its actual existence.
20. In other words, there was no limited pool of potential selves that it was taken from.
21. Consciousness is an emergent property of a certain type of physical state.
22. Its emergence inherently includes the sense of a specific self.
23. And, this sense of specific self is “brand new” -- again, it had no prior representation at all.
24. While the various “characteristics” of the self (intelligence, morality, physical strength, etc., etc.,) have been determined by specific DNA and experience/environment, such is not the case for the continuing and separate awareness (sense) of the self.
25. Having no kind of previous existence, or representation (not coming from any limited pool of potential selves) – being “brand new” in that sense – even if the matter, energy and/or time available is limited, there is no limit on what specific awarenesses of self will emerge. 26. In other words, the specific possibilities are unlimited – or, infinite. 27. And, given the popular scientific opinion above, your likelihood of a current existence is no better than 7,000,000,000/∞. (7 billion being a rough estimate of the current number of human selves.)
28. But then, I am also a special case – and, if you have the same sense of self-awareness as do I, you are a special case as well.
29. I (however) am the only “thing” that I know exists (one way, or the other). Everything else could be my imagination – but there necessarily is something here doing the imagining. Me.
30. Besides, if I didn’t exist, there “might as well” be nothing -- and according to the popular scientific hypothesis, that would have been the case for all the time before my existence and all the time after my existence…
31. And, if I never exist – which the popular scientific hypothesis should probably expect -- there might as well never be anything… See what I mean?
32. That is what makes me (and probably you) a special case – and the likelihood of my current existence, given the popular scientific position, must be just 1/∞ (zero).
33. In other words, the scientific hypothesis must be wrong.
34. And then, even if I can’t validly claim that I am a special case, 7,000,000,000/∞ is also zero.
- So -- ask, or complain, away. As always, I will try to deal with one question or complaint at a time -- the one I think is most important.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
If, by "it", you mean the same garbage that was contained in your previous 717 posts then, yes, that will do it.
The only question that comes to mind is "Why do you think simply repeating yourself ad nauseum will make your ridiculous claim any more valid?"
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
How many time againw ere you told this is non sense ?
Also what is your #1 and #2 ? Because I might see a #11.1 but #1 and #2 are this :
Which are astonishingly vapid and lead to nothing whatsoever for your claim.
And if you meant #11.1 and #11.2
Yeah that one has been contested, and so far as I can see demolished.
Is this groundhog day ? have we gone back 21st November 2012, 09:29 PM and I missed it ?
Do you even take TIME to read what you were told ?
"Could be that all you guys need to read are #s 14, 15, 25 & 26."
Could it be that all you need is to read what was already told you.
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
Good Morning, Mr. Savage! I hope you are enjoying your Sunday in a way you find appropriate.
It is important tat you realize that all you have said is that you want to feel as if you are immortal, therefore it makes sense to you to feel as if you are immortal, no matter what the evidence of reality appears to indicate.
It would be difficult to produce a more clear example of assuming the consequent than your post #15.
BTW, it has always been rude of you to answer only one question, pretending that the others were not even posted; it is, however, exceptionally rude to excuse doing so by claiming that you will only answer the question you think is "most important"....
Did you ever repair, or at least apologize to "Roger" and to Dr. BLackmore for, the lies you told them?
Last edited:
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Why are you pretending that it was never explained to you that there's no such thing as a "holistic hemisphere"?
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
There it is. The fringe reset we've been expecting.
Last edited:
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 32,124
So, back to posting the same old crap all over again, just as if it had never been posted and discussed extensively before. God forbid this thread actually move forwards at any point. It's only been 149 pages and the best part of 2 years.
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
You have my sincere sympathy, if this thread has been "the best" of your last two years...
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
Are you really still labouring under the delusion that you are the only person who has ever had this epiphany? I had it when I was about eight. I imagine almost every even slightly thoughtful child has the "just think of all the things that had to happen for me to exist, what were the odds, I must be very special indeed" revelation. The difference is that almost all of them realise very quickly the logical error they are making. You seem unable to grasp it, no matter how many times it is explained to you.
^^^This!
You captured it all, alright, but without a single change in response to the actual facts that everyone else here has tried to tell you. It is just as wrong as before. Perhaps it is even more wrong than ever; an insistence on a falsehood in the light of truth is even more wrong than in the absence of truth. The unwillingness to respond to corrections is what makes this religion, not science.
Jabba,
Just a few questions about your theory:
Are there more people on Earth now than 10000 years ago? Yes or no?
If more, where did their new consciences come from?
If made de novo, why are some of us freshly made and others reincarnated?
Just a few questions about your theory:
Are there more people on Earth now than 10000 years ago? Yes or no?
If more, where did their new consciences come from?
If made de novo, why are some of us freshly made and others reincarnated?
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
There's really nothing to ask or complain about. You haven't said anything new. You've just restated all your old, debunked nonsense. You haven't even really pretended to change any of your terms. I hope you're enjoying Easter. This is a great day for family, and not necessarily the best day to earn the derision of anonymous internet posters.
Jabba,
You seem to have confused this Forum with a billboard. It is a discussion. You have refused to respond to criticisms either with corrections, or a discussion of why you were right after all. So, what is the point? You first stated you were here to prove immortality. Clearly you haven't. Not to anyone here as a participant or lurking. So, what is the point? Advertising.
You seem to have confused this Forum with a billboard. It is a discussion. You have refused to respond to criticisms either with corrections, or a discussion of why you were right after all. So, what is the point? You first stated you were here to prove immortality. Clearly you haven't. Not to anyone here as a participant or lurking. So, what is the point? Advertising.
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
Here's my guess. I'm not even sure I believe it myself:
Jabba has just recapped all his ineffective points these last 18 months or so into one post. He has done this in the hope that one of the PhD's he has contacted via email will read it and agree to the brilliance of his position.
Think of the time we might have saved had his most recent affront been in his OP, rather than 5900 posts in.
Last edited:
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
Honestly I have been expecting it earlier.
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
We've gotten it earlier, but in [Jabba's words] "baby steps".
Today we got the Grand Mal fringe reset.
jt512
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2011
- Messages
- 5,561
The one premise, above, can replace your whole argument. Everything else is obfuscation. Your argument is simply this: You believe your existence would be impossible unless you are immortal. But, you exist. Therefore, you are immortal. Bayes' Theorem adds nothing to your argument.
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
I believe I am immortal, because I believe my "soul" exists, and is "immortal".
Mojo
Mostly harmless
- Status