[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Giordano]

- I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by "one of the properties." Are you saying that it's one of the properties of consciousness?

I (not asked) would say that it (an "observer") is one of the properties of a heathy physical human brain. Since I think "consciousness" is also a property of a heathy physical human brain (abet turned off in some levels of sleep and at other times), then I would also say the an "observer" is one of the properties that is closely linked to human consciousness. I am not saying that other animals are not "conscious;" I just don't think it would help to discuss that in this thread.

 

[Giordano]

I see this thread has changed into a long discussion of philosophy and religion, not the mathematical proof of reincarnation promised by Jabba so many pages ago. Once again, why isn't this thread reposted in the correct classification, Religion and Philosophy? Our even why aren't large swatches sent to AHH because they are off topic? It is clearly not science or math.

It would be far more interesting to discuss which animals have a self-awareness other than people, even though most of that is also speculation and not science.

 

[Loss Leader]

- I think that the specific words we use matters. From what you've said previously, you must also believe that it's the same observer -- just that some of his/her characteristics have changed. Correct?

Jabba -

What you are doing is ridiculously and insultingly obvious. You previously attempted to argue that the self or soul was a single thing, with some core that remained unchanged at least from birth to death. You need an unchanging core creature to exist because you think that you get reincarnated or live on after death and, if the self is just a trick played by the brain, then you cannot be correct.

Having been roundly rebuffed, you changed the word self to observer. You are now trying to pretend that the observer remains the same over time. The word "observer" carries with it a feeling of one, unblinking person.

But switching words and hoping for a pleasant connotation is of no use. Everyone here will let you use the word observer but no one here will let you pretend that observer is, for these purposes, the same as the self.

An observer changes through his lifetime in ways so great that the 70 year old observer has little in common with the 7 year old. The observer can suffer a traumatic brain injury that changes or resets in completely. And the observer is an emergent property of the brain that arises from the brain's physical nature and dies with it.

I'm just trying to establish exactly where our disagreement is.

It hasn't changed in two dozen pages.

So far, I think that we would both agree that, in the sense of the observer that I'm talkin about, the consciousness to which the observer is attached is an emergent property of a certain type of physical situation. Yeah?

This, as nearly as I can discern, is nonsense. Type of physical situation?

- I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by "one of the properties." Are you saying that it's one of the properties of consciousness?

It's not a good sign when you're confused by your own ideas.

 

[Toontown]

No, I'm just one sentient brain, no more or less probably than any other. So if sentient brains are possible, then my brain is possible.

If my brain is prohibitively unlikely, then all brains are prohibitively unlikely.

So it's just semantics then. You've latched on to a literalist interpretation of 'prohibitively unlikely', knowing full well I did not mean it to be taken as 'impossible'. I have no illusions as to why you chose to do that.

I didn't question your starry-eyed acceptance of the 400-trillion-to-1 odds offered by the link I provided. That's p > 0. You know it's p > 0, and you know I know it's p > 0. Therefore, since you have chosen this line of argument, I must conclude that you are trolling.

 

[godless dave]

So it's just semantics then. You've latched on to a literalist interpretation of 'prohibitively unlikely', knowing full well I did not mean it to be taken as 'impossible'. I have no illusions as to why you chose to do that.

Because I'm trying to get at an exact meaning of terms so we can have a discussion.

If it's not actually prohibitively unlikely, then there is no issue. There is no "I shouldn't be here".

I didn't question your starry-eyed acceptance of the 400-trillion-to-1 odds offered by the link I provided. That's > 0. You know it's > 0, and you know I know it's > 0. Therefore, since you have chosen this line of argument, I must conclude that you are trolling.

The fact that it's greater than 0 means there is nothing wrong with the hypothesis.

My mother's egg could have been hit by a different one of my father's sperm, resulting in a different person, not me. She could have chosen to mate with a different person entirely, resulting in a different person, not me. They could have chose not to reproduce at all, meaning no me. Their parents could have reproduced with different people, meaning no Godless Dave's mom and dad, meaning no me.

Things could have gone a myriad of different ways. Each outcome would thus be very unlikely. One of those unlikely outcomes happened, the rest didn't, and I was born.

 

[Garrette]

No, I'm just one sentient brain, no more or less probably than any other. So if sentient brains are possible, then my brain is possible.

If my brain is prohibitively unlikely, then all brains are prohibitively unlikely.

So it's just semantics then. You've latched on to a literalist interpretation of 'prohibitively unlikely', knowing full well I did not mean it to be taken as 'impossible'. I have no illusions as to why you chose to do that.

I didn't question your starry-eyed acceptance of the 400-trillion-to-1 odds offered by the link I provided. That's > 0. You know it's > 0, and you know I know it's > 0. Therefore, since you have chosen this line of argument, I must conclude that you are trolling.

That would be a mistake (to conclude that godless dave is trolling).

You use "prohibitively" one way; he has accepted that and uses it the same way. That is not the core of your disagreement.

Allow me to coin the term "Godds," meaning "against Giganogargantuan ODDS." (And, yes, I find the homonymous nature of the term humorous, but don't hold that against me).

You (Toontown, godless dave, and presumably others here) and I agree that some number must come up when the 400 trillion-sided die is rolled, yes?

And we agree that were we to predict, before rolling, that the number 6 were to show up, it would have to beat Godds to actually show up.

Where we disagree is that, without a prediction, the number that happened to show up on the die can be used as justification to use Godds in the attempted Bayesian proof.

If I have summarized incorrectly, my apologies to all, but I think I'm at least close.

 

[jt512]

And I disavow any misuse by the author of the term 'probability' when 'expectation' is the correct term.

Except that the correct word is "probability."

If you really want to get real about it, you have to admit that even generous odds like 1 in 400 trillion are pretty prohibitive.

And you're back to calling it a relative probability (odds) in the very same post.

 

[PixyMisa]

No, I'm just one sentient brain, no more or less probably than any other. So if sentient brains are possible, then my brain is possible.

If my brain is prohibitively unlikely, then all brains are prohibitively unlikely.

Yep. As noted, Toontown is rolling a billion-faced die (or 400 trillion faced, or whatever) and being astonished at the outcome, no matter what the outcome is, when P(outcome) = 1.

He's a stuck record at this point.

 

[PixyMisa]

Toontown, here's another bet for you. I'll even give you better odds this time. Say 10:1 in your favour.

Here's how it works: We both place our bets, then we use a computer to generate a random number between 1 and 400 trillion. If the result is any number between 1 and 400 trillion, I win. If not, you win.

You should jump at that, because you claim it is prohibitively unlikely for me to win.

 

[Garrette]

Toontown, here's another bet for you. I'll even give you better odds this time. Say 10:1 in your favour.

Here's how it works: We both place our bets, then we use a computer to generate a random number between 1 and 400 trillion. If the result is any number between 1 and 400 trillion, I win. If not, you win.

You should jump at that, because you claim it is prohibitively unlikely for me to win.

I almost never use smilies. Here's a smiley.

 

[pakeha]

Dave,
- Sorry for my forgetfulness, but it takes up less time to simply ask my questions than it does to search for the answers.
- Can we switch to "observer" rather than "self"? I think that "observer" makes for a better indicator of the concept I'm trying to discuss.

Jabba, of course it's a better indicator of the concept you're trying to discuss. You want to discuss the existence of an immortal soul.

Please take this to R and P. Your efforts to hammer a definition of consciousness into an admission of the existence of a soul will never be accepted here, you know. The post I've quoted is as clear and obvious an example of "bait and switch" as I've seen at JREF for some time.

 

[tsig]

Trying to differentiate between what I expect to see under hypothesis A and what I actually see. Because of all the "probability that I exist is 1" nonsense. The related probability term is 'mathematical expectation' or 'expected value'. I know what it is. That's why I"ve been using simply 'expectation'.

You don't exist?

 

[Mojo]

Toontown, here's another bet for you. I'll even give you better odds this time. Say 10:1 in your favour.

Here's how it works: We both place our bets, then we use a computer to generate a random number between 1 and 400 trillion. If the result is any number between 1 and 400 trillion, I win. If not, you win.

You should jump at that, because you claim it is prohibitively unlikely for me to win.

The bet that you should offer him is on the flip of a coin, with you calling the result after the flip. If you offer him odds better than 2:1 he can't possibly refuse.

 

[PixyMisa]

Dave,
- Yeah -- or at least, I'm tryin to. I'm taking one step at a time so I can trap you... But then, I think that going slow like this gives you a better chance to trap me as well. I'm just trying to establish exactly where our disagreement is.

Disagreements

1. That there is an infinite number of possible selves.
2. That the self or any aspect of the self is unchanging.
3. That it matters to your formula how many different possible selves there are.
4. That any part of your argument is valid.

In other words: The number of potential distinct selves is finite, selves are ephemeral processes, and none of that matters because your haven't justified the use of P(me) in your argument in the first place, and even if you could justify it, it still wouldn't justify your conclusion.

- So far, I think that we would both agree that, in the sense of the observer that I'm talkin about, the consciousness to which the observer is attached is an emergent property of a certain type of physical situation. Yeah?

Absolutely not. Consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. The observer IS that consciousness.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

It didn't take many posts to go from "the 'self' is the consciousness is the 'observer'" to "the observer is something separate from the consciousness" did it? Once more trying to will what you'd like to be true into existence through word games.

 

[dlorde]

Back to square 1 again? OK. Accept that the sentience you're experiencing is a 400 trillion to 1 shot.

At least.

It's impossible to even estimate without setting explicit limits; how far do we go back - to the start of life on Earth? formation of the solar system? the galaxy? the universe? You'd be better trying to calculate the length of a coastline or a Hilbert curve.

 

[dlorde]

That would be a mistake (to conclude that godless dave is trolling).
...
Allow me to coin the term "Godds," meaning "against Giganogargantuan ODDS." (And, yes, I find the homonymous nature of the term humorous, but don't hold that against me).

You (Toontown, godless dave, and presumably others here) and I agree that some number must come up when the 400 trillion-sided die is rolled, yes?

And we agree that were we to predict, before rolling, that the number 6 were to show up, it would have to beat Godds to actually show up.

Where we disagree is that, without a prediction, the number that happened to show up on the die can be used as justification to use Godds in the attempted Bayesian proof.

If I have summarized incorrectly, my apologies to all, but I think I'm at least close.

That's the way I see it... I thought we'd been through all this really thoroughly at the beginning of the thread?

 

[PixyMisa]

That's the way I see it... I thought we'd been through all this really thoroughly at the beginning of the thread?

Yep. Jabba tripped over his own feet, statistically speaking, in post 82. His failings were addressed starting with post 83. 16 months and 5000 posts later, he still hasn't recognised his error.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Posts 82 and 83 (whilst I was there...)

- Anyway, you can find my whole story over at http://messiahornot.com/ACT2Scene1.php, and http://messiahornot.com/Act2Scene2.php -- but not to worry, I'll present it right here one step at a time.

Scene 1:

Say that you find a deck of cards in the closet and decide to play some solitaire or something.

You sit down at the table and turn over the first card. It's an ace of spades. You place the ace back in the deck, shuffle the cards and once again, turn over the first card. This time, it's the ace of diamonds. Hmm. So, you try the same thing again. This time, you get the ace of spades again.

'Wait a minute…' You do it one more time, and this time, you get the ace of hearts.

If you’re paying attention, you’re growing suspicious about this deck you found in the closet. You’re starting to suspect that you don’t have the ordinary deck that you had assumed. But, why is that? Why are you suspicious?

You’re suspicious because the probability of drawing that 'hand' is so small if the deck is a normal deck.

Let’s try that again. But, this time, the first card you draw is a 3 of diamonds, the second is a
Jack of spades, the third is a 9 of clubs and the fourth is a 9 of hearts. In this case, you probably are not suspicious.

But, of course you realize that the prrobability of drawing that hand, given a normal deck, is just as small as the probability of drawing that previous hand…

So, what’s the problem here? Why are you not suspicious of this deck, when you were suspicious of the first one?

It turns out that there are two factors causing you to be suspicious of that first deck -- and one is missing in regard to the second deck. There is nothing about the second hand that sets it apart in such a way as to suggest another plausible hypothesis… If there were, you’d be suspicious of that second deck as well. It’s as simple as that…

--- Jabba

People ascribe more meaning to some patterns (such as four aces) than they do to other patterns (such as a three, a jack and two nines). This is neither surprising nor new.

What does it have to do with immortality?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Good morning, Mr. Savage:

Might this be the point where you finally introduce your evidence that this thing you call the "soul" exists, and is immortal?