[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
- All in all, I'm not convinced that we can eliminate the possibility of an afterlife, and if we can't...
Click to expand...


I don't know if the highlighted bits represent an honest misunderstanding or a deliberate attempt at subterfuge, but at this late stage of the game it's incredibly hard not to assume the latter.

In any case, the answer to the observation, had it been legitimate, is that if you can't eliminate the possibility of an afterlife then you simply join the billions of others who share that particular disability. It's no big deal, really, and something that we horrid sceptics have learned not just to tolerate but to understand with a measure of sympathy.

Don't you dare, however, presume to think that you'll ever get away with fronting up in a place like this, claiming to have proof of your silly beliefs and expect to have the easy time of it that you've obviously become used to in your bleever forums.

That, Jabba, is disrespectful.
 
Last edited:
Akhenaten said:
I don't know if the highlighted bits represent an honest misunderstanding or a deliberate attempt at subterfuge, but at this late stage of the game it's incredibly hard not to assume the latter.

In any case, the answer to the observation, had it been legitimate, is that if you can't eliminate the possibility of an afterlife then you simply join the billions of others who share that particular disability. It's no big deal, really, and something that we horrid sceptics have learned not just to tolerate but to understand with a measure of sympathy.

Don't you dare, however, presume to think that you'll ever get away with fronting up in a place like this, claiming to have proof of your silly beliefs and expect to have the easy time of it that you've obviously become used to in your bleever forums.

That, Jabba, is disrespectful.
Click to expand...

+1

Now Jabba, I hope you overall have a good enough life, but please don't make you and I a we. We are not a we, just because you use the word we!!!
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
However, Loss Leader capitulated almost all of the argument straight away
Click to expand...


I resent this interpretation. I'd seen Jabba flounder around with the first parts of his idea for a long time in this thread. What I'd never seen him do was move down to face the philosophical emptiness of a worldview based on probability. So, my interest was exploring why an argument that results in a probability should be the basis of a philosophical position. He answered that he wasn't presenting a philosophy and that he would spend $10 on a 99% chance of getting cake.

Finally recognizing his inability to solve his validity problem, I turned to his largest logical error: his definition of ~p. In doing so, I pointed out that he still had a factual problem in that even the conditions he was allowing to satisfy ~p don't appear possible.

The thread was then closed.
 
Loss Leader said:
I'd seen Jabba flounder around with the first parts of his idea for a long time in this thread.
Click to expand...

You said at the outset that you were going to approach the conversation as if you'd never read any posts on the subject previously. Now it seems that you conceded points simply because you'd seen them made before.
 
Reposting this in case Jabba is reading.

Just to be clear, are we talking physical immortality or immortality of the soul? Are your memories maintained or do you lose them when you're reincarnated? What factors determine where and how you're reincarnated? Can you be reincarnated as multiple people or organisms? Can multiple people or organisms be reincarnated as a single person? Are some people immortal and some not? Are some life forms immortal and some not? If so, how do you distinguish between mortal and immortal life forms? Can you have a mix of moral and immortal souls in the same body? Can a single soul be split into mortal and immortal souls for the next reincarnation?

Most of all, where's any evidence of any of this?
 
A new dandelion has recently popped up in my yard. The probability of that dandelion ever existing, if its lifetime is finite, is infinitesimal. But if dandelions were immortal, the probability of its existence would be certain. The prior probability of dandelion mortality is .99, and of immortality, only .01. Thus, by Bayes' Theorem, the probability that dandelions are immortal is nearly 1.
 
jt512 said:
A new dandelion has recently popped up in my yard. The probability of that dandelion ever existing, if its lifetime is finite, is infinitesimal. But if dandelions were immortal, the probability of its existence would be certain. The prior probability of dandelion mortality is .99, and of immortality, only .01. Thus, by Bayes' Theorem, the probability that dandelions are immortal is nearly 1.
Click to expand...
I choose to anticipate Jabba's response by labeling it a dandelion whine.
 
Akhenaten said:
My sincere "apologies". I don't know what I was "thinking".
Click to expand...

Garrette said:
To be fair,

It's an affront to "critical" thinking.
Click to expand...


Garette,
- I'm not sure if I understand your question.
-Should I have rephrased it in respect of Q/R/S?

1. My
1.1. sincere
1.1.1. apologies
2.1. We . . .
2.1.1. Meaning "me"
2.1.1.1. other things
5. Whangers
3.2 I forgot the question
4.8 Therefore immortality

If nobody has a better idea I'll answer the question about the ducks first.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Jay,
- I only gave it a 1% prior probability. Why do you think that's a gross overstatement?




This and the next 4 posts moved from the "Immortality Debate: Commentary Thread", where they didn't belong
Posted By: zooterkin
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
theprestige,
- What do you think is wrong with my argument?
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
Tommy,
- What do you think is wrong with my argument?
Click to expand...

Akhenaten said:
Garette,
- I'm not sure if I understand your question.
-Should I have rephrased it in respect of Q/R/S?

1. My
1.1. sincere
1.1.1. apologies
2.1. We . . .
2.1.1. Meaning "me"
2.1.1.1. other things
5. Whangers
3.2 I forgot the question
4.8 Therefore immortality

If nobody has a better idea I'll answer the question about the ducks first.
Click to expand...

Why a Duck?
 
Akhenaten said:
Garette,
- I'm not sure if I understand your question.
-Should I have rephrased it in respect of Q/R/S?

1. My
1.1. sincere
1.1.1. apologies
2.1. We . . .
2.1.1. Meaning "me"
2.1.1.1. other things
5. Whangers
3.2 I forgot the question
4.8 Therefore immortality

If nobody has a better idea I'll answer the question about the ducks first.
Click to expand...
That was rude.

I win.
 
- It seems to me that this overall issue boils down to one basic sub-issue -- the validity of the numbers I've inserted into the Bayesian formula.
- This divides into two critical sub-sub-issues -- 1) the validity of the number I assign to the likelihood of my current existence given the "Scientific Model," and 2) the validity of the numbers I assign to the prior probabilities of the two models.
- Cutting back to the chase, I'll tackle #1 first -- unless a majority would like me to tackle #2 first.
- I'm telling you this just to let you know that I'm still around, and I'm working on my explanation for why I am (and, you guys are) special.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom