[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

- Unfortunately, your restriction doesn't seem necessary, or logical, to me. I see no reason why we can't reason about complementary hypotheses within a particular setting.

This particular setting is "the reality of the entire universe", no?

 

[Giordano]

Jabba,

Give up on the mathematic proof. It is hopeless. Why don't you change into the Religion and Philosophy threads and just tell people here why you believe you are immortal?

 

[Giordano]

Can you either,
- Link to posts where you did it, or
- Do it again?

Exactly^^^. I appear to be unable to find or remember your posts. Are they on this thread? Could you tell me where they are?

 

[Aepervius]

Jabba, I conccur with Giordana it is hopeless.

Furthermore, in the very end even if you get a probability very close to 1 (you would not for a variety of reason but EVEN if you did), it would not matter because it would not in the very end prove anything. You would have to formulate an hypothesis which is disprovable and propose an experiment to falsify it. If you cannot, then all you can do is the same kind of philosophical wanking "mind in a jar" or "universe is computed" people do.

ETA: to give you an example of what I mean , it would not matter if you found out a probability near 1 of big foot living on earth, so long as you don't catch one.

Reality is what's left even if you disbelieve it.

 

[Diogenes]

...If you cannot, then all you can do is the same kind of philosophical wanking "mind in a jar" or "universe is computed" people do....

Aristotelianism apparently never dies, at least, and is therefore immortal?

 

[AdMan]

Jabba,

Give up on the mathematical proof. It is hopeless. Why don't you change into the Religion and Philosophy threads and just tell people here why you believe you are immortal?

Yes. You have utterly failed in this, Jabba.

 

[Jabba]

Good morning, Mr. Savage:

Part of the reason you are having a hard time finding something on-line that uses "conditional" in the way you are trying to is that the way you are trying to use it is not the way it is used in symbolic logic.

You can find multiple basic logic websites that will walk you through the proper use.

I would rather reason with what you have brought to the table. The problem is not that you are wrong. It is the WAY you are wrong. There is a golden age pulp Science Fiction short story about a human prisoner-of-war who is rescued by the Space Navy after being held by aliens in a replica of the lifepod in which the aliens found him. After a certain amount of "journey-to-a-small-planet" cultural shock (the scene where the protagonist is offered a beer, and is shocked that people are drinking it--when for all of his memory he has only known one foamy, yellowish liquid, is funny), the cruiser that picked him up is attacked and destroyed by the aliens. He escapes in a life pod (and here is my point) which he then makes into the only "safe" place he knows, by disabling the rescue beacon, disabling the food-synthesizer, and powering down the engines--he, in other words, returns to the "limited state" (the "conditional") that worked for him for most of his life--missing the point that his limited-conditional reality was not, in fact, reality, and only worked because the aliens fed him, kept him warm, supplied him with oxygen, and disposed of his wastes.

You may, of course, limit your A/~A pair in any way you choose, but if you define ~A as anything other than "anything and everything that is not A", your resulting conclusion will not reflect reality, but will only reflect how well you crafted your conditional to exclude everything but the consequent you assumed. Call it Texas Sharpshooter; call it the puddle problem; call it circular reasoning; the result is the same. You got the "logical conclusion" you wanted because you stacked the deck to include nothing other than that logical conclusion.

Slowvehicle,
- I still think that we can mathematically show that we've covered all the bases in our specification of ~A.
- But maybe, I can get where I want to go by your route rather than mine. For the moment at least, I'll use "anything and everything that is not A" as my alternative hypothesis.
- Going that way, I find that given my current existence, A is most assuredly wrong. I'm sure that you disagree with my conclusion, and I think I know why, but how would you phrase your objection(s)?

 

[Mojo]

Slowvehicle,
- I still think that we can mathematically show that we've covered all the bases in our specification of ~A.

Does your specification of ~A include all the things you haven't thought of?

 

[zooterkin]

- I still think that we can mathematically show that we've covered all the bases in our specification of ~A.

What do you mean, "we", Kemo Sabe?

 

[Jabba]

Can you either,
- Link to posts where you did it, or
- Do it again?

Mojo,
- Going backwards, they start here.

Good morning, again, Mr. Savage.

At the risk of being accused of being "unfriendly", you cannot "move on", when your misstatement is so very fundamental. Anything built upon such a misconception will be inherently and irreparably incorrect--not just wrong, but wrong-in-concept. Can't-get-there-from-here wrong.

One more try:

If your A is "My existence if finite and singular", the only inclusive complement is "~[my existence is finite and singular]".

Arguendo, this would include:
-my existence is not finite
-my existence is not singular
-my existence is not finite and singular
-my existence is not finite or singular
and (and this is the important bit) each and every other possibility, including those of which you cannot conceive. Without that last, you have constructed an incomplete complement, inevitably producing a false dichotomy.

This is why I keep suggesting that you abandon this approach. You cannot make it work. You are too invested in assuming your consequent to let it work.

Instead, why not simply explain what evidence you have that supports your belief that consciousness if something other than an emergent property of a particular neurosystem? Forget trying to stack the logic deck so that you can palm that ace--just present your evidence.

Slowvehicle,

- Please keep in mind, that I'm trying to respond to only one issue here. I am not trying to respond to surrounding issues such as, "Why don't I respond to a different issue?"

- I had never realized how complicated the complementarity issue is.
- I need to make two more revisions to what I propose for the complementary hypothesis in our case. Also, for the sake of simplicity, I should probably drop back to "me" instead of "we."
- My new complementary hypothesis: Given that I do currently exist, I will exist infinitely, or more than once or (somehow) both. I think that this can be mathematically proven to cover all the bases.

 

[Mojo]

Mojo,
- Going backwards, they start here.

How is that a reason for disagreeing with Slowvehicle's point that "If your A is "My existence if finite and singular", the only inclusive complement is "~[my existence is finite and singular]""?

 

[Akhenaten]

What do you mean, "we", Kemo Sabe?

All of the Jabbas, past present and future.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Good Morning, Mr. Savage:

We just had a brief power surge, and I lost the response I was writing (even around auto-save), so I will be reconstructing this.

I do hope your Sunday morning is going well...

Slowvehicle,
- I still think that we can mathematically show that we've covered all the bases in our specification of ~A.

I invite you to do so. I look forward to it with mixed anticipation and trepidation. When do you expect that will happen?

- But maybe, I can get where I want to go by your route rather than mine. For the moment at least, I'll use "anything and everything that is not A" as my alternative hypothesis.

A minor quibble--this is not "my" route. This is the "route" demanded by the nature of an actual A/~A construction. It is not a failure of the imagination, or a mere bookkeeping flaw--it is a characteristic of the fundamental nature of logic. As long as you are defining ~A as anything other than "anything and everything that is not A" (which is what the construction, ~A, means), you are automatically excluding all of the possibilities of which you nave not conceived, including possibilities of which you may not be able to conceive.

The more you know, the larger the interface between what you know and what you do not know.

- Going that way, I find that given my current existence, A is most assuredly wrong.

Another quibble: The construction, "I find that...", strongly implies that you have discovered evidence to support whatever you are claiming to have "found". Since you have not presented evidence of what you say you have "found", a more appropriate phrase might be, "I am of the opinion that..."

You may have "found" A to be uncomforting, or inadequate; that is, in your experience A has not provided comfort, does not assuage your terror of oblivion; but you have not "found" it to be "wrong"--without presenting evidence

As I say, that is a quibble. Laying that aside, I do sincerely hope that you are now going to demonstrate how A is "most assuredly wrong", and how that demonstrates that the"soul" exists, and is "immortal".

I'm sure that you disagree with my conclusion, and I think I know why, but how would you phrase your objection(s)?

I am willing to beliedve that you are honestly not trying to be intentionally insulting, but I wonder if you have any idea how dismissively disrespectful this sounds.

Imprimis, You appear to simply be stating the same thing with which I have been disagreeing for more than a year. I would sincerely hope that you had noticed, and would not think that repeating a conclusion often enough would pacify my objections.

Segundus, I venture to advance the suggestion that you do not know "why" I object. If you did, I would expect you to address those objections.

Tertius, I would "phrase" my "objections" the same way I have been "phrasing" my objections all along. Consider actually reading my posts; the rainbow pride background of the avatar makes them easy to find.

Since I do not want this to deteriorate into another argument about who is being rude to whom (as I said, I believe your tone may not have been intentional), here are three of my objections:

1. I have never seen, or been presented with, evidence that the "soul" exists; that is, that consciousness is anything other than an emergent property of the specific neurosystem in which it is housed. Several demonstrable phenomena (e.g., traumatic aphasia) support the "emergent property" idea.

2, Your claim that sequential iterations of the "same" consciousness, sharing neither memory, experience, nor even identity, does not explain how those consciousnesses are the "same" entity, much less how they/it are "immortal".Your ideas of sequential reincarnation, or "looped" lives, or multiple personality iterations, do not appear to describe "immortality" in any way consonant with actual definitions of the concept.

3. Your claim of "immortality" either requires a rewriting of our concept of physics (how do you expect the"soul" to survive the entropic heat death of this universe?); or requires that the "immortality" of which you speak exist outside of physics--outside of reality.

I eagerly anticipate your continued responses.

 

[Mojo]

A minor quibble--this is not "my" route. This is the "route" demanded by the nature of an actual A/~A construction. It is not a failure of the imagination, or a mere bookkeeping flaw--it is a characteristic of the fundamental nature of logic. As long as you are defining ~A as anything other than "anything and everything that is not A" (which is what the construction, ~A means), you are automatically excluding all of the possibilities of which you nave not conceived, including possibilities of which you may not be able to conceive.

Perhaps someone should draw Jabba a Venn diagram or two.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Perhaps someone should draw Jabba a Venn diagram or two.

Good Morning, again, Mr. Savage!

Sorry this took so long--one of my photo sharing sites is having some issues.



Here is a correctly-constructed A/~A pair. Notice that the union of A and ~A includes everything-there-is; A is defined; ~A is "everything else" (everything that is not A).



Here is an incorrectly defined A/~A pair (a false dichotomy) Notice that the union of A and ~A does NOT include everything-there-is; A is defined, and ~A is defined; ~(A U ~A) is "everything else" (everything that is not A-and-~A). There are possibilities that exist outside the union of A and ~A, making the A/~A pair incomplete.

Does that help?

 

[Humots]

Jabba: here's an example of your problem with A vs. ~A employing your favorite argument style from the shroud thread: the courtroom.

Suppose a murder has been committed on a train in motion. The act is known from evidence to be premeditated murder. Things such as suicide or a robbery gone bad have been ruled out.

There were 8 people aboard the train at the time of the murder who are suspects. Each is known to have a grudge against the victim. Everyone else on the train has no connection with the victim.

In its investigation, the prosecution has determined that of the 8 suspects, 7 have airtight alibis. The 8th suspect has no alibi.

The prosecution reasons as follows:

Proposition A: one of suspects 1-7 committed the murder.

Proposition ~A: suspect 8 committed the murder.

Since proposition A is false, the prosecution reasons that ~A must be true, and brings a charge of murder against suspect 8 solely on that basis. They present no evidence otherwise. Simply put, "We contend that it is logically necessary that the 8th suspect committed the crime."

Jabba, if you were on the jury, would you agree with the prosecution and vote to convict? If not, why not?

 

[Aepervius]

A minor quibble--this is not "my" route. This is the "route" demanded by the nature of an actual A/~A construction. It is not a failure of the imagination, or a mere bookkeeping flaw--it is a characteristic of the fundamental nature of logic. As long as you are defining ~A as anything other than "anything and everything that is not A" (which is what the construction, ~A, means), you are automatically excluding all of the possibilities of which you nave not conceived, including possibilities of which you may not be able to conceive.

Yeah you are fully right, which is why it was fun to dig up many of the possibilities he forgot.

That said I was helped by the fact that too many of my AD&D player were greeedy for the "wish" spell, and ask for "immortality". I had a lot of fun finding a lot of way they did not image they would be immortal.

Hey Jabba, you are right, after we die we are immortal our soul continue. Now imagine that scenario: after you die you are then in a separate microcosm alone enclosed in a pocket universe, without noise, without sight, without touch, alone in your "mind". Never ever meeting somebody, and you continue and continue to endure, with only your own mind as company for ever and ever. And then one day, you hear a howl, a terrible creature lonely and screaming for company. You try to speak to it, call its attention, but then you realize : it is yourself only, your own howl into the horror of forever continuying without end, you pray for an end which never come, and your soul fall into maddness, until the remnant of humanity are shredded from you. And even then, it will continue in a forever loneliness, beyond the mountain of madness.

Your wish spell worked.

 

[Giordano]

Dear Mr. Savage (Jabba),

Please note that there are clearly more people on this planet every year. This is a historic fact. For your premise to be correct, that we had some form of conscienceness previously that only repeats with time, please realize that it must previously have resided in a bug or in a bacterium for many of us. Or as a spirit or on another planet. Do you agree?

 

[Giordano]

Again, since I never received a reply: what form of "reincarnation" does Jabba envision if our memories, thoughts, morals, awareness, physical appearance, and material goods do not repeat?

 

[sackett]

This particular setting is "the reality of the entire universe", no?

Well, but, see, it goes like this:

1. Jabba thinks he's immortal; thus,

2. Proof of his immortality exists; but,

3. This proof is never discernible; therefore,

4. IT'S WOVEN INVISIBLY INTO THE FABRIC OF GOD'S CREATION AND ALL YOU LOGIC AND SCIENCE GUYS ARE DELIBERATELY COVERING UP!