[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Giordano]

Jabba,

Where is B in your equation? I thought you gave up on A? Or was it you gave up on not A? I got confused.

 

[Giordano]

Jabba

You are still very wrong, for the reasons explained to you already in this thread. Would you like to be right? Then read this thread and respond appropriately. Or perhaps you don't care?

 

[Loss Leader]

- My Argument –

Just for the heck of it:

1. Almost all of us take our own existences for granted – never noticing the miracle of miracles that each of us is.

Irrelevant to any proof of any sort. Also, imprecise.

2. We never notice the astonishing implications of our own existences. We never see the forest for all the trees.

Just restating 1, really.

3. The truth seems to be in the recesses of our holistic hemisphere.

Evidence shows that there is no such thing as a "holistic" hemisphere. Also, irrelevant. Something is either true or not.

4. Given the “popular” analytic and scientific orientation, the probability of my own current existence is “zilch” – yet, here I am!

Completely wrong. Also illogically assumes the conclusion.

5. And, almost no one notices the miracle that I am -- or, that they are.

Just restating 1 and 2. You actually worked on this?

6. And, the power(?) of this miracle is almost impossible to communicate.

Irrelevant and imprecise. Also not true. Billions of people throughout history and on earth today believe that they are alive through miraculous intervention. Somehow, the idea got communicated to them just fine.

7. But, in the face of it, the popular analytic/scientific orientation mentioned above is surely wrong.

This is just your conclusion again. You haven't yet stated an argument.

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.

Thanks for telling us what you're going to tell us.

9. The formula: P(A|me) = P(me|A) P(A)/(P(me|A) P(A) + P(me|~A) P(~A))

~A? I thought you'd given that up for B.

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.

This is the first thing you've said that I agree with.

10.2. And, “me” is my current existence (or, my current illusion of existence).

This assumes a fact not in evidence. The fact is, according to the scientific understanding of the universe, there is no single core self. By phrasing it as though there is, you set up a false equivalency. On one side of your equation you use the word "self" to mean a constantly changing organism, and on the other side you use it to mean some core, unchanging being.

11. The numbers I propose to insert (my premises):
11.1. P(me|A) = 1/∞

Insane. No scientist agrees that life is impossible. All scientists in the relevant fields agree that the one thing we know for certain about the universe is that life IS possible. Also, as pointed out, this is your conclusion. Once you put zero on one side, you automatically win. It's like playing War against a person who has no cards.

11.2. P(A) = .99

Hardly matters as you intend to multiply it by zero.

11.3. P(me|~A) = .50 (not sure that makes sense…)

It doesn't.

11.4. P(~A) = .01

Hardly matters as you've multiplied the other side by zero.

12. And, P(A|me) = (1/∞).99/((1/∞).99+(.50)(.1)) = 0

Congratulations. You multiplied by zero.

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.

You're just restating stuff you just said. What's the point of that?

13.2. There is reasonable doubt that A is correct.

Oh, no there isn't. You gave the chance of A being correct as 99%. A 1% chance of being wrong is not reasonable doubt. Also, you've done extraordinary violence to the term "reasonable doubt." Reasonable Doubt is a standard of legal proof. It's not a standard of mathematical, scientific or logical proof. It has no bearing on anything you're talking about. Can you show that Reasonable Doubt is the correct standard of proof to use here? You cannot because, it is obvious, you don't know what the term means.

14. #2 is based upon a lot of questionable evidence.

It's actually logically impossible. It also assumes your conclusion. The chance of life cannot be zero when life exists.

15. However, if I’m correct about #1, #2 requires very little in the way of evidence.

And if you were right, I'd agree with you.

16. Many scientists in relevant fields have concluded that the sense of a lifetime-continuing self is an illusion.

Hooray for having heard somebody say something.

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.

Irrelevant. Wishing doesn't make something so. An argument is either true or false. Your desires have no bearing on anything.

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.

If by "popular science" you mean "all science," then yes.

19. Neither did this sense of self have any “representation” (blueprint?) prior to its actual existence.

Of course it did. Why are siblings similar? Why do children resemble their parents? There is a very precise blueprint for each individual, though the decor may change.

20. In other words, there was no limited pool of potential selves that it was taken from.

What about the limits imposed by genetics? Available womb space? Time? Energy? Matter?

But actually, I agree with you. There is no pool. Remember that: there is no pool.

21. Consciousness is an emergent property of a certain type of physical state.
22. Its emergence inherently includes the sense of a specific self.

I am deeply convinced you have no idea what these words mean.

23. And, this sense of specific self is “brand new” -- again, it had no prior representation at all.

Just restating something you said already.

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.

You imply a distinction where none exists. Yeah, I just quoted the damn Borg.

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.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. If there is no pool of potential selves, then the pool is not unlimited. It doesn't exist. It's a null set. You can't populate a null set with anything, let alone an infinite number of things.

26. In other words, the specific possibilities are unlimited – or, infinite.

Utter nonsense.

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.)

Makes no sense whatsoever. You might as well have just punched the keyboard with your fists.

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.

Nonsense. Imprecise to the point of meaninglessness. You clearly don't understand where the "special case" objection fits into your argument.

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.

All of those words just to arrive at some half-baked Cartesian restatement? You couldn't just have typed, "I agree with Descartes" and taken a nap?

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…

Only so far as you're concerned. If you didn't exist, most people would hardly notice. The stars certainly wouldn't. (By stars, I mean both the celestial type and Jennifer Aniston.)

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?

Nope. You're talking giberish. The only person to whom your existence is necessary is you. From any other perspective, you are close to irrelevant.

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).

Makes no sense. None of it follows from any of it. It's just a jumble of words.

33. In other words, the scientific hypothesis must be wrong.

You've alternately said that you would show your silly theory to be more likely statistically, to be essentially true, and to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. Now you're saying it must be true.

34. And then, even if I can’t validly claim that I am a special case, 7,000,000,000/∞ is also zero.

Hooray for math.

- 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.

Complete nonsense. Also, somewhere in there, you just yada-yada-ed the objection that ~A does not equal immortality.

 

[John Jones]

Jabba,

The following is not a rhetorical question. Have you read the rejoinders to your posts this one day? April 20, 2014?

I realize there is a 1/∞ chance of you making an honest attempt to reply, but there it is.

 

[xtifr]

11.1. P(me|A) = 1/∞

No, no, no! We've been over this countless times! (But not infinity times.)

A (the standard scientific model) does not allow an infinite number of arrangements of particles in the universe, so you cannot use infinity as your divisor here, no matter how much you really really want to. It's simply wrong, and invalidates everything else.

Worse yet.

11.3. P(me|~A) = .50 (not sure that makes sense…)

Not only does it not make sense, but since ~A is "everything that's not part of the standard scientific model", it actually is infinite in scope, so here is where you would insert a divisor of infinity!

P(me|A) = incredibly tiny but finite number.
P(me|~A) = 1/∞

So, now, which seems more likely again?

 

[Humots]

- 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.

What took you so long? I remember noticing my existence, and being astonished by it, at the age of 5. However, while I found my existence a surprise, I didn't consider myself special. I remember being able to summon that surprise for years, though I seem to have lost the knack in my old age.
And how does "I am immortal" follow from "I exist"?

4. Given the “popular” analytic and scientific orientation, the probability of my own current existence is “zilch” – yet, here I am!

As has been shown many times, that is not the valid way to view your existence. You are not "aces". You are not special. You are a face on a very large die that happened to come up.

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.

Many people have noticed this "miracle". Me, for instance. And it is not hard to communicate. Everyone here knows what you mean.

7. But, in the face of it, the popular analytic/scientific orientation mentioned above is surely wrong.

In the face of what, exactly? Your existence?

11.1. P(me|A) = 1/∞

Wrong in many ways, all of which have been explained to you. And you have ignored it.

11.2. P(A) = .99
11.3. P(me|~A) = .50 (not sure that makes sense…)
11.4. P(~A) = .01

11.2 Where do you get this value? Just out of the air?
11.3 No, it does not make sense. What reason supports P(me|~A)= .50? Why that number?
11.4 Syntactically correct. Big deal.

If A = "the hypothesis that each potential human “self” exists for one finite period of time, at most", then ~A is just that: NOT A. Which includes all of those alternatives that we have pointed out many times. It could be that P(me|~A) = 0.

13.2. There is reasonable doubt that A is correct.

Loss Leader has said it: "reasonable doubt" is a legal concept, not a mathematical or scientific one. You are playing the lawyer again, just as you did in the shroud thread. And playing just as poorly.

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.

Meaning your “epiphany”? Are you saying that only people who have had this "epiphany" are immortal? Actually, that's probably quite a lot of people.

-
[- 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.

How dismissive and insulting.

We are not complaining. We are pointing out flaws. And as always, you ignore us.

If this is what you are sending to Dr. Hoerl and Dr. Blackmore, I think they will be putting you on Ignore very soon.

I could go on, but it's late, and I'm sure that everyone is writing their own critiques. Go to it, guys.

 

[PixyMisa]

Your errors have been well-addressed by others already, but I'll jump in because you ignore almost everything said to you anyway.

- 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.

There's no holistic version of Bayesian statistics. All you have is a nonsensical belief and a deep need for justification.

1. Almost all of us take our own existences for granted – never noticing the miracle of miracles that each of us is.

We're not miracles. That's just your refusal to accept reality.

2. We never notice the astonishing implications of our own existences. We never see the forest for all the trees.

Again, no, that's just you.

3. The truth seems to be in the recesses of our holistic hemisphere.

There's no such thing.

4. Given the “popular” analytic and scientific orientation, the probability of my own current existence is “zilch” – yet, here I am!

No. No no no no no no no no no no no no no no no. This is complete and unmitigated garbage, as has been pointed out to you a hundred times already.

5. And, almost no one notices the miracle that I am -- or, that they are.

Because no-one believes that it is a miracle, because there is no reason to believe that it is a miracle.

6. And, the power(?) of this miracle is almost impossible to communicate.

This is a common property of nonsense.

7. But, in the face of it, the popular analytic/scientific orientation mentioned above is surely wrong.

Nonsense does not falsify sense. Nonsense is nonsense.

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.

Yes, we know that's what you believe you're trying to do.

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/∞

Which is entirely false.

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

It isn't. It can't be. We've been over this; your position is completely impossible.

13.1.2. I am a special case.

I'll just leave that right there.

13.2. There is reasonable doubt that A is correct.

Nope. Science works. Nonsense doesn't.

14. #2 is based upon a lot of questionable evidence.

No evidence at all. Just wilful ignorance and self-delusion.

15. However, if I’m correct about #1, #2 requires very little in the way of evidence.

That hardly matters, since they're the same completely unsupported handwavey garbage.

16. Many scientists in relevant fields have concluded that the sense of a lifetime-continuing self is an illusion.

Near enough.

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.

Completely irrelevant. No-on cares what you wish, least of all the Universe.

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.

Essentially correct. Except for your use of the word "popular".

19. Neither did this sense of self have any “representation” (blueprint?) prior to its actual existence.

Correct.

20. In other words, there was no limited pool of potential selves that it was taken from.

There's no pool. But the number of distinct potential selves is necessarily finite, since the brains that produce the selves are themselves finite.

21. Consciousness is an emergent property of a certain type of physical state.

No. Not state, process. Specifically, computational process; more specifically, brains.

22. Its emergence inherently includes the sense of a specific self.

Yes.

23. And, this sense of specific self is “brand new” -- again, it had no prior representation at all.

Yes.

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.

Your sense of self is brain function. You brain is coded for by your DNA, and adjusted by your environment.

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.

Absolutely and irretrievably wrong. If any one of matter, energy, or time are limited, that places a limit on what specific selves will emerge. In fact all three are limited, as is the nature of the self.

26. In other words, the specific possibilities are unlimited – or, infinite.

Completely untrue. (Since 25, is wrong, everything that follows from it is wrong.)

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.)

Completely untrue.

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.

Completely untrue.

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.

Irrelevant.

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…[/qupte]
Irrelevant.

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?

Irrelevant.

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).

Completely wrong.

3. In other words, the scientific hypothesis must be wrong.

No. You are wrong. Science is just fine.

34. And then, even if I can’t validly claim that I am a special case, 7,000,000,000/∞ is also zero.

Irrelevant.

- 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.

You have yet to deal with a single problem with your ideas, and there are so many, many problems for you to choose from.

 

[pakeha]

What is popular science?

 

[Mojo]

What is popular science?

A magazine, I think.

 

[pakeha]

Of course!
I KNEW I'd heard the phrase before.

 

[Mojo]

I expect Jabba has already emailed them to ask if they think the self is an illusion.

 

[Mojo]

There's no holistic version of Bayesian statistics.

Jabba is using the word "holistic" in the modern sense of "rubbish", as in "homeopathy is holistic medicine".

 

[pakeha]

I expect Jabba has already emailed them to ask if they think the self is an illusion.

Yet another keyboard ruined by coffee.

 

[godless dave]

There it is. The fringe reset we've been expecting.

Yep. As if none of us had posted anything over the last 18 months.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Yep. As if none of us had posted anything over the last 18 months.

Welcome to the background radiation of the Rich Savage Experience^TM...

 

[godless dave]

Just to reiterate once again, because I love repeating myself:

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.

The self consists of the characteristics of the self and nothing else. The characteristics of a thing are what make up that thing.

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.

You already know this isn't true in the scientific model. There is a limit on what specific awareness of self will emerge, because the awareness of self is one of the characteristics of the self. This limit is imposed by biology.

 

[Akhenaten]

There are no words pictures.

Help me out here, you guys.

 

[Loss Leader]

There are no words pictures.

Help me out here, you guys.

A Hutt eating its own tail?

 

[Akhenaten]

Working in background . . .

 

[Slowvehicle]

Working in background . . .

A Hutt rising from its own ashes?