[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Slowvehicle]

It's not an out, I am trying to point out that prior probability doesn't enter into it once it's happened. The probability of any given ordering of a random deck of cards is pretty low; this doesn't mean you get to start thinking it's SPECIAL.

You are, of course, correct.

This has been pointed out to Mr. Savage a vast myriad of times, in approaches ranging from the gently earnest and scholarly through the complex and pedantic, and on to the humorous and near-abusive.

It does not appear to have made an impression.

 

[haibut]

You are, of course, correct.

This has been pointed out to Mr. Savage a vast myriad of times, in approaches ranging from the gently earnest and scholarly through the complex and pedantic, and on to the humorous and near-abusive.

It does not appear to have made an impression.

At least he answered the question about how he came to think he's immortal; that's progress, of a sort. Evidence would be better, Jabba.

 

[Garrette]

It's not an out, I am trying to point out that prior probability doesn't enter into it once it's happened. The probability of any given ordering of a random deck of cards is pretty low; this doesn't mean you get to start thinking it's SPECIAL.

I agree it isn't an out, but that will likely not stop Jabba from acting as if it is. As Slowvehicle says, it has made no impression so far. Then again, as you say, he answered regarding the origin of his belief.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

It was 1956, I was 14 and I had a "Eurica Moment." I think of it as an epiphany or revelation...

Please tell me it didn't involve running down the streets naked.

All of a sudden, I could see statistical implications in my own current existence. I could see that given the scientific position that we each exist for one finite time, the likelihood of my current existence was 1/∞ (or something similar), which meant that that scientific position was probably wrong,

Based on what evidence? Science is always happy to accept new evidence. However, it's up to you to present it.

and the most likely explanation for my current existence was that I was somehow eternal. That's when I began to believe in immortality.

Somehow? Do you have a proposed mechanism for how this occurs? This factors into the evidence I mentioned.

 

[John Jones]

At least he answered the question about how he came to think he's immortal; that's progress, of a sort. Evidence would be better, Jabba.

Wait until his next fringe reset. He'll come back with his OP promising to "essentially" prove immortality as if nothing has transpired the last 15 months.

Just you wait.

 

[Loss Leader]

All I want for Christmas is Jabba: The best of December 2013

I'm not sure how exactly to use the term

- I've been away and busy.
- Here's how I see it, one baby step at a time. Please humor me -- I see this stuff as being especially difficult to communicate. Also, I want to show that I'm back -- and, trying to present the entire explanation at once would take much too much time.

Any questions, revisions or reservations?

- That IS a question that might still need answering I'm currently trying to show that such a probability really is one over infinity.
- Eventually, I probably will need to show either what sets me apart from other hypothetical selves, or with why one over infinity eliminates that need.

- I'll get to your #2 as soon as possible.

You may be right about the DNA, I'll try to track that down.

This is a big tripping point.

- I suspect that won't help, but it's worth a try.

I still claim that there is a real concept here -- it's just difficult to convey. A few years ago, I ran into a 3D Xmas tree on line. When you first see it, it looks like a bunch of little 2D trees. But, if you sort of re-focus, all of a sudden you see a big 3D tree. I think that, somehow, you need to sort of re-focus in order to recognize what I'm talking about... Though, it could be that we aren't really disagreeing about the concept itself, but rather semantics...

I'll try to get back to your first point next.

I also think that I haven't done a very good job of communicating what I mean by those words. I keep hoping that I can do better at it.

know[/U] that it exists... I'm going to try to move on to other parts of my argument for immortality.

I thought that I was focusing on what you believe are my flaws.

So far, my wording hasn't struck any chords with anyone, and my wife needs some help with something, so I don't have time now to try some different wording. I'll probably have some time later this evening to give it a try. Pray for me.

I'll be back.

Gotta go.

Certainly, I'm having great difficulty trying to communicate what I mean by the "self," "observer" or "individual consciousness." Whatever, now that I've probably done the best I can at communicating the concept, I'll go back to trying to show why I think it's immortal.

- You guys have wondered how my discussion so far addresses immortality.

- I'll have to think some more about this question. I can see some merit to it

My quick answer is that infinity is not a "number." But then, I'm not really sure of that answer.

I will be trying to show why the scientific method would result in a likelihood of one over infinity.

I'm happy to debate this sub-issue.

- I accept that I haven't (essentially) disproven anything so far.

- Somehow, we keep passing in the night...

- It seems that everybody is passing me in the night. That should be telling me something, uh?

- Somewhere back in time I began to address that issue -- but so far, I haven't been able to find that post.

- OK. I've come up with a list of unanswered, or insufficiently answered questions and objections. Hopefully, I can paraphrase them effectively. If I don't get any suggestions as to where to start, I'll start with #1 and work my way down. This should work...

I don't really understand that quote.

I don't really understand you're objection

I don't have a whole lot of data in my syllogism, and it has changed over time.

I'm thinking now, that keeping a list of unanswered, or insufficiently answered, questions and objections, is what I've been missing in making my baby step approach work.

Somehow, I still haven't effectively communicated what I mean by "self" or "consciousness."

Prior to your question, I probably never had actually considered that possibility. Now considering your question, I do believe that I could be wrong, but I do not believe that baby steps not working could be caused by being wrong. I honestly believe that taking baby steps is the best way to find out if I'm wrong -- and if I'm wrong, where and why I'm wrong.

- The following is my current list of questions and objections to answer -- and, i haven't yet read this morning's comments:

- Most of these Q/Os are not easily answered, and require significant time to answer (or, just TRY to answer). If you guys can somehow come up with some sort of consensus on what to answer next, I'll give it a try. Otherwise, I'll try to decide the most appropriate Q/O myself, and give THAT a try.

I haven't gotten anywhere... But, in my opinion, that's due to a lack of "discipline" on my part. After each baby step, I get new Q/Os to answer, and end up taking a lot of baby steps -- but in a lot of different directions. Hopefully, I can be more careful in the future and make sure that I continue one branch (direction) to its end before abandoning it.
- If you, or others, continue to be disappointed with my baby step strategy, maybe I should stick with that branch. Unfortunately, that would mean that we wouldn't be dealing with the real issue yet... Nothing's easy.

- I think that by taking baby steps to the end of a branch, we will be able to nail down (fully clarify) our basic disagreements

This stuff is hard to communicate effectively...- I can only hope that I've effectively conveyed what I mean...

- And clearly, I'm just confusing people with my terms...

- Are any of you guys still around?

I suspect you're right about getting anywhere with this -- sort of like the lottery. But as we say in NY re the lottery, "Hey -- you never know!"

 

[haibut]

Wait until his next fringe reset. He'll come back with his OP promising to "essentially" prove immortality as if nothing has transpired the last 15 months.

Just you wait.

Yeah, I've been reading it all along. I guess I thought that, due to the improbability of my birth, I was somehow "special" and might get some actual evidence or something.

 

[kid meatball]

haibut,
- I do want to say more about A/~A, but for now...
- My belief in immortality does predate my attempt to apply Bayes theorem -- but only because I had never heard of Bayes theorem. It was 1956, I was 14 and I had a "Eurica Moment." I think of it as an epiphany or revelation... All of a sudden, I could see statistical implications in my own current existence. I could see that given the scientific position that we each exist for one finite time, the likelihood of my current existence was 1/∞ (or something similar), which meant that that scientific position was probably wrong, and the most likely explanation for my current existence was that I was somehow eternal. That's when I began to believe in immortality.

There's your problem right there, you've totally buggered up the probability of your existence. Perhaps the combination of a kid named Jabba living in the 50's with a slicked up haircut and dreaming about driving his big brother's T-Bird is fairly unlikely, but how likely is a kid named Jubba who covets his sister's Corvette? Its about the same. Every human (or proto human if you want to skew the numbers my way) are unlikely to exist at any given time if you get specific enough. What is not unlikely is more humans will be born. Given enough iterations of the mom/dad horizontal gene splice, every possible human will be produced. Despite the prudence of the 50's in America, there had been an awful lot of insert part A into slot B over the years to manufacture all sorts of variants of the human. In this case, you have to look at all humans over all time, and that includes past Jabbas with designs on his brother's appaloosa and future Jabbas who want to drive their brother's HoverBird.

I'd say you've got the probability backwards. It's practically a sure thing that you will exist. Given the fact that you do might amount to confirmation bias, but I stand by my logic.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Slowvehicle, I have been greatly admiring your standout work in this thread while learning in your classroom. You are a credit to the place.

 

[AdMan]

All I want for Christmas is Jabba: The best of December 2013

<snip>

It's like some bizarre, maddening performance art.

 

[Mojo]

All I want for Christmas is Jabba: The best of December 2013

In that last one he's so close to the reason his entire approach is invalid.

 

[Aepervius]

For example, if a typical coin is tossed and one assumes that it cannot land on its edge, then it can either land showing "heads" or "tails."

There is another hidden assumption that you do not get. It assume the normal physic law applies. That is why it is only speaking of landing on head, tail, and the side.

But in your case you pretend to prove something which is beyond what normal biology ever evidenced. That is the equivalent for the coin thingy, that a tossed coin can disappear and go into a parallel universe or other stuff.

And therein lies the problem you are giving us example where the sets are known and contained, and then try to introduce new factors "immortality" and fail tterly to udnerstand this transform your set into open ended infinite possibilities. And in such a case, any attempt to define your ~A is doomed as you fixed A , and the possibilities are endless.

I have more for you that you did not take into account in Not A .

 

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle, I have been greatly admiring your standout work in this thread while learning in your classroom. You are a credit to the place.

Thank you for your kind words--I'm just trying to live up to the "E" in JREF!

 

[Loss Leader]

January is Jabba-uary: the best of Jabba in January 2014

One good step towards avoiding the risk of being accused of being condescending would be to start calling me "Rich" (or Jabba) instead of Mr. Savage.

"Rich," by itself, is not condescending; "Oh Rich" is. I wasn't complaining about "Rich"; I was complaining about "Oh Rich."

Please refresh my memory -- one or two issues would be enough to get me started.

I currently have about 50 unanswered or insufficiently answered specific questions and objections to answer. I'll start with providing my evidence and logic for #1 unless someone wants me to start elsewhere.

I can't find a good description of the "special snowflake" argument...

I'll try to cut to the chase. I believe that the other live issues are the result of ineffective communication. Please bear with me. I think that clearly identifying our basic disagreements is the real key to effective debate.

As I now see the discussion, a lot of you have... I think that while I was trying to be "methodical," you guys had cut to the chase, and I just didn't realize what was happening until now... We'll see.
If I'm currently right about this, I'm sorry for my tardiness.

I need to organize my argument, but I wanted to let you know that I think I finally discovered an important point that I had been missing all along...

I expected some to say that they didn't understand the way I said it

My grand kids have been sick.
- But also, I've been trying to put it all together at once, and have just now given up on that idea...

Give me a link.

Any of you guys still around?

- Otherwise, to the extent that I can really understand the rebuttals given, I just don't see the wreckage that you guys do. Can one of you put one of the arguments against the AP in your own words?

I don't understand what you're saying.

Oops.

I'll get back to #2.

That's because you are always insulting.

Then, what IS it about?

Do you really need to add this? I already know that you don't think much of my intelligence.

I basically never respond to some of our participants, because in my opinion, they only insult and never offer anything constructive -- and also because I don't have nearly enough time to answer every question/objection aimed at me.

Do intelligent people struggle with the concept of an analogy?

If you want, I'll try to explain again, but note how by trying to deal with each response, and each Question or objection within the response, the pile I want to respond to grows bigger and bigger...
- Lately, I've been hoping that if I go ahead and try to answer the criticisms that I think might be constructive, after awhile the pile will start to diminish...

- So, if you want me to try to explain how my answer to what you said made sense, that's what I'll do. But keep in mind thatthen, as one ventures deeper and deeper into a discipline (math for instance), the logic becomes more and more difficult, and time consuming, to effectively communicate.

Pixel,
- In my opinion (of course), I'm not the one struggling with the logic -- it's you guys who are struggling with the logic.

Stipulated: my memory ain't what it used to be (not by a long shot), but my honest (albeit obviously biased) opinion is that while my logic does suffer to some extent from the memory loss, it's still damned good...

I hope that I don't have to defend that position...

You seem to be saying that in this forum, as long as you're being honest about them, it's OK to express your negative opinions of your opponents.

I do appreciate your attempts (past and present) to help me convey my opinions.

Interesting how complicated things are.

I didn't say "probability of"; I said "likelihood of."

I have to go pick up my grand kids from daycare in a few minutes, or I'd tell you why I think the potential number is infinite...

Gotta say, this is really neat. I don't have to read anyone's responses but yours!

- I thought for sure that I had already posted the following message.

- 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.

- I think that what I would like to do now is shift over to the real complementary model and see if I can establish that its posterior probability is unimaginably small -- given my current existence. If I can do that, I'll come back to the immortality model and argue it.

- I think that what I would like to do now is shift over to the real complementary model and see if I can establish that its posterior probability is unimaginably large (I had it backwards before) -- given my current existence. If I can do that, I'll come back to the immortality model and argue it.[/i]

I had been trying to show that immortality was "essentially" the complement of one finite existence, before I showed why the complement "essentially" had to be true -- but, that was surely a mistake.

I'll get back to this.

I'll try to show after I've said all I need to say about what I'm claiming to be the real complementary model.

- If so, a proposed explanation for why it is utterly incorrect may have been given many times over -- but if it was, I'm not sure where.

Unfortunately, I need to rephrase once again.

- When I feel like I've given it my best shot, I'll move on -- and hopefully, I'll not be sidetracked by something I think is more important.

- At various times, I've accepted and indicated that you guys are well-educated. I just don't accept that you're neutral.

 

[Jabba]

Slowvehicle

- I think the basic claim against my dichotomy is that except for "~A being anything and everything that is not A," I can never define ~A well enough to know that I have included all possible inclusions.

- This is war, and you may have superior forces on this particular hill...
- Consequently, I'm going to withdraw my forces, concede this hill to you guys (for now) and see if I can take your basecamp instead -- your 'basecamp' (A) being, "given my current existence I will exist for only one finite time." I'll try to show that your basecamp is extremely improbable.

- For now, my basecamp is, "anything and everything other than that I will exist for only one finite time."
- Which is what you, and your fellows have been urging me to do all along...

- Whatever -- I'll be back.

 

[Akhenaten]

Slowvehicle

<childish nonsense>

- Whatever -- I'll be back.

You can't see Loss Leader's posts at all anymore, can you?

 

[jsfisher]

Slowvehicle

- I think the basic claim against my dichotomy is that except for "~A being anything and everything that is not A," I can never define ~A well enough to know that I have included all possible inclusions.

- This is war, and you may have superior forces on this particular hill...
- Consequently, I'm going to withdraw my forces, concede this hill to you guys (for now) and see if I can take your basecamp instead -- your 'basecamp' (A) being, "given my current existence I will exist for only one finite time." I'll try to show that your basecamp is extremely improbable.

- For now, my basecamp is, "anything and everything other than that I will exist for only one finite time." - Which is what you, and your fellows have been urging me to do all along...

- Whatever -- I'll be back.

No, not quite. The base statement is "given my [=Jabba's] current existence I will exist for only one finite time." Let's not get all sloppy and be leaving parts out, now.

The complement of that is "anything and everything other than given my [=Jabba's] current existence I will exist for only one finite time."

 

[Giordano]

Slowvehicle

- I think the basic claim against my dichotomy is that except for "~A being anything and everything that is not A," I can never define ~A well enough to know that I have included all possible inclusions.

- This is war, and you may have superior forces on this particular hill...
- Consequently, I'm going to withdraw my forces, concede this hill to you guys (for now) and see if I can take your basecamp instead -- your 'basecamp' (A) being, "given my current existence I will exist for only one finite time." I'll try to show that your basecamp is extremely improbable.

- For now, my basecamp is, "anything and everything other than that I will exist for only one finite time."
- Which is what you, and your fellows have been urging me to do all along...

- Whatever -- I'll be back.

No Jabba, it is not war, it is math. Math is why you cannot define ~A in the way you have, as other people here have told you, just as when people disagree with me making the statement that 2=3 does not mean people are against me.

I honestly look forward to your "essential" proof. Please be careful not to prove that you yourself are highly unlikely; much of the specifics of the world (snowflakes, rocks, specific card hands in poker, me, etc.) seem highly unlikely to me. But I put up with it!

 

[Akhenaten]

I honestly look forward to your "essential" proof. Please be careful not to prove that you yourself are highly unlikely; much of the specifics of the world (snowflakes, rocks, specific card hands in poker, me, etc.) seem highly unlikely to me. But I put up with it!

A likely story!

 

[Mojo]

Slowvehicle

- I think the basic claim against my dichotomy is that except for "~A being anything and everything that is not A," I can never define ~A well enough to know that I have included all possible inclusions.

- This is war, and you may have superior forces on this particular hill...
- Consequently, I'm going to withdraw my forces, concede this hill to you guys (for now) and see if I can take your basecamp instead -- your 'basecamp' (A) being, "given my current existence I will exist for only one finite time." I'll try to show that your basecamp is extremely improbable.

- For now, my basecamp is, "anything and everything other than that I will exist for only one finite time."
- Which is what you, and your fellows have been urging me to do all along...

- Whatever -- I'll be back.

Actually, I've noticed Slowvehicle repeatedly urging you to present your evidence that the "soul" exists, or for any other part of your immortality.

I've got another idea: if you want to silence all those objections that you are using a false dichotomy, you should define A as the proposition that you are actually trying to prove ("Jabba is immortal"), and leave everything else as ~A. That'll show 'em!