[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Giordano]

Jabba,

How can you use math, a standard model construct, to prove a non-standard model is correct?

Once you conclude that magic must be real, then you might as well state 2=3 in this magical world and no one can dispute it.

 

[carlitos]

- You're talking about actual selves. If there is no pool of (specific) potential selves that we are pulled from, there is no theoretical limit to the number of possible selves. Each new self is a brand new creation.

Third time asking - where is this pool of yours?

 

[Agatha]

Floating in the luminiferous aether?

 

[Jabba]

But isn't the creation of the awareness dependent on a new organism being produced?

My awareness only exists if my brain exists. There was a finite number of potential human fetuses that could have been produced in October, 1969.

Remember, A is the scientific model. And in the scientific model, the awareness, the self, and the brain are all the same thing.

- No. We've agreed that if we clone an animal, the clone won't have the same awareness as it's "mother."

 

[godless dave]

- No. We've agreed that if we clone an animal, the clone won't have the same awareness as it's "mother."

That doesn't conflict with what I'm saying. The cloned animal still needs to have a brain to have awareness. There are not an infinite number of possible clones, because there is finite material to create them with.

 

[Jabba]

I looked up likelihood function. If I understand what I read,

L(A|me) = P(me|A)

That is: the likelihood L(A|me) of Jabba existing for one finite time at most, given that he currently exists, is equal to the probability P(me|A) of Jabba's current existence, given that he will exist for one finite time at most.

If so, then it looks to me like Jabba has it backward. P(me|A) gives the value of the likelihood L(A|me) that Jabba exists for one finite time at most, given that he currently exists.

Then P(me|A) is not the likelihood of Jabba's current existence, given that he will exist for one finite time at most.

Also, likelihoods are not probability density functions. L(A|me) + L(~A|me) does not necessarily equal 1.0, as P(A|me) + P(~A|me) does.

Maybe I'm not getting this right. Any comments other than Jabba's usual?

- I don't think it means what you think it means...
- I think it's talking about the posterior probability of A, given me -- and, the likelihood of me, given A.

 

[Jabba]

That doesn't conflict with what I'm saying. The cloned animal still needs to have a brain to have awareness. There are not an infinite number of possible clones, because there is finite material to create them with.

- Hopefully, you agree with me now about the difficulty in effectively expressing the nuances of this stuff we're talking about.
- I gotta get back to my chores -- but, I'll be back with another attempt.

 

[godless dave]

- Hopefully, you agree with me now about the difficulty in effectively expressing the nuances of this stuff we're talking about.

Not really, no.

 

[Loss Leader]

- Hopefully, you agree with me now about the difficulty in effectively expressing the nuances of this stuff we're talking about.

The difficulty you're encountering is because you're trying to make a finite number infinite. If you drop the whole idea of infinity, you'll find yourself with a much easier problem.

 

[Giordano]

- No. We've agreed that if we clone an animal, the clone won't have the same awareness as it's "mother."

Do you think the brain of a cloned animal (or an identical twin) is physically identical to the original in all ways?

 

[Giordano]

- Hopefully, you agree with me now about the difficulty in effectively expressing the nuances of this stuff we're talking about.

No, I do it for a living. It is only difficult because you are don't know the theories you are talking about.

 

[Giordano]

Jabba,

Identical twins often think about things in similar ways (not always of course); did they happen to get similar souls? Was this by choice of the soul recycler, or do similar souls happen to be used by chance?

 

[Loss Leader]

- Hopefully, you agree with me now about the difficulty in effectively expressing the nuances of this stuff we're talking about.
- I gotta get back to my chores -- but, I'll be back with another attempt.

I'm not sure how any of this helps your immortality argument. If there are an infinite possible number of mortal souls, aren't there an infinite possible number of immortal souls?

Or are you arguing that all possible immortal souls actually exist?

 

[Humots]

- I don't think it means what you think it means...

You don't think what means what I think it means? Likelihood? Are you equating likelihood to probability?

According to Likelihood function
"The likelihood of a set of parameter values, θ, given outcomes x, is equal to the probability of those observed outcomes given those parameter values, that is L(θ | x) = P(x | θ)."

If we set

x = me (Jabba currently exists, the outcome)
θ = A (Jabba exists for one finite time at most, the parameter value)

We get:

"The likelihood of a set of parameter values, A, given outcomes me, is equal to the probability of those observed outcomes given those parameter values, that is L(A|me) = P(me|A)."

Then P(me|A) is the probability that Jabba currently exists, given that Jabba exists for one finite time at most

And L(A|me) is the likelihood that Jabba exists for one finite time at most, given that Jabba currently exists

But you said:

- P(me|A) is the "likelihood" of my current existence, given that I will exist for one finite time at most -- but, not given that I do currently exist. Sounds strange, but that's how the Bayesian statistics work.

likelihood instead of probability.

I don't think this is just me being picky. If you are speaking formally, there is a distinction between "likelihood" and "probability".

According to Likelihood function
"But in statistical usage, a distinction is made depending on the roles of the outcome or parameter. Probability is used when describing a function of the outcome given a fixed parameter value. For example, if a coin is flipped 10 times and it is a fair coin, what is the probability of it landing heads-up every time? Likelihood is used when describing a function of a parameter given an outcome. For example, if a coin is flipped 10 times and it has landed heads-up 10 times, what is the likelihood that the coin is fair?"

 

[Jabba]

That doesn't conflict with what I'm saying. The cloned animal still needs to have a brain to have awareness. There are not an infinite number of possible clones, because there is finite material to create them with.

- I'm sorry that you don't find your position difficult to express, cause I sure find mine that way...

- Try this. It isn't actually my primary reason for believing the 'number' of potential selves to be infinite, but it seems to work, so I'll try it this time.
- If you accepted that the universe, or universes, will never end, would you accept that there is an infinity of potential selves?
- Hope that doesn't take us off on tangents.

 

[godless dave]

- I'm sorry that you don't find your position difficult to express, cause I sure find mine that way...

- Try this. It isn't actually my primary reason for believing the 'number' of potential selves to be infinite, but it seems to work, so I'll try it this time.
- If you accepted that the universe, or universes, will never end, would you accept that there is an infinity of potential selves?

I already addressed that here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=9859704

Jabba, over the entirety of the existence of the universe, including the future, there may be an infinity of potential selves - if the universe lasts forever and life exists forever.

But, as I pointed out in that same post, each potential self depends on the existence of previous selves.

 

[Aepervius]

Jabba,

Identical twins often think about things in similar ways (not always of course); did they happen to get similar souls? Was this by choice of the soul recycler, or do similar souls happen to be used by chance?

Most probably due to nurture rather than identical brain development.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Most probably due to nurture rather than identical brain development.

Is that what the separated twin studies say?

 

[Akhenaten]

- I'm sorry that you don't find your position difficult to express, cause I sure find mine that way...

Such is the nature of defending the indefensible.

Guess who's to blame for you being in that position.

- Try this. It isn't actually my primary reason for believing the 'number' of potential selves to be infinite, but it seems to work, so I'll try it this time.

Speaking of trying things. Have you ever considered using the same form (or at least a similar form) of written English as everyone else?

Your posts are hard enough to fathom without all the weird formatting and random additional text attributes.

- If you accepted that the universe, or universes, will never end, would you accept that there is an infinity of potential selves?

If you accepted that nothing that exists is infinite would you accept that you should stop talking about infinity as though it was a real number?

- Hope that doesn't take us off on tangents.

Tangents are all that remains, Jabba. The purpose for which you created the thread no longer exists.

 

[Loss Leader]

- If you accepted that the universe, or universes, will never end, would you accept that there is an infinity of potential selves?

Is there anything you won't do to shoehorn in the concept of infinity?

Now you want to make your whole theory conditional upon a flat universe that neither expands nor contracts forever?

Should we ignore the fact that the universe is expanding? Even if the universe never ends, there will come a time when its atoms are too far apart to combine into anything. Sure, it will be a heck of a long time from now, but you know how much time it won't be? Infinity.