[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Slowvehicle]

- Yeah. This is one of those distinctions that is especially hard to convey.
- Given that time &/or energy &/or matter are/is finite, the number of observers is limited and finite.
- But then, if there is no limited pool of different, potential, observers -- there being absolutely no preexistence of potential observers -- who actually comes is totally unlimited. In other words, the number of different, potential observers is unlimited.

- In the sense that you had absolutely no preexistence, you came from nothing -- which thought about, should take your breath away and show you that the likelihood of your current existence is, at best (remember the word "current"), one over infinity (given the hypothesis that each potential observer has but one, finite time to exist, at most).

- That, probably, will not give us closure -- but it should get us started.

Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

It is good to see you posting again.

I have decided to overlook the fundamental rudeness of your technique of ignoring all but a tiny minority of posts, and to continue to politely point out the places where, in my opinion, your argument falls short.

This conceit of yours, claiming a "difference" between the "number of potential 'observers' ("selves"/"souls"/"consciousnesses")", and the "number of different, potential 'observers' )"consciousnesses"/"selves"/"souls")" is the same kind of error as your invention of the supposed "difference" between "intrinsic finiteness" and "extrinsic finiteness"; that is, you are still trying to define your conclusion into existence because it is the conclusion you want to be able to assume.

Claiming that the "number of different, potential 'observers' ("souls"/"consciousnesses"/"selves") is "infinite", while the "number of potential 'observers' ("selves"/"souls"/"observers")" is "finite" is exactly backwards. If it were, indeed, significant to distinguish among "different, potential 'observers' ("consciousnesses"/"selves"/"souls"), and "potential 'observers' ("selves"/"consciousnesses"/"souls")"; then you have it exactly backwards: there would be, in fact, more "potential consciousnesses" than "different, potential consciousnesses".

Even so, this invention does not support your claim that the"soul" exists, and is "immortal".

Might you, instead, consider simply presenting evidence? This approach of trying to show that observed reality is so unlikely that an undemonstrated fantasy claim is more likely than reality is not, so far, working for you.

 

[Giordano]

I agree fully with most of the other posts here.

Jabba's problem is defining observer as a metaphysical "self." We saw through that.Clearly Godless Dave has stated that by making two brains we have 2 observers in the scientific sense: two entities that observe.

Godless Dave and everyone else here (except you) has also made clear that if somehow you physically duplicated a brain in exact minutia, the two brains would begin with the very same thoughts and consciousnesses, but begin to diverge with time as they experience different things. But even at time zero you would have two observers, each in a different spot. Thus, you would have two different observers, even if they at first have the same thoughts and memories to interpret their experiences. Because of observing (experiencing) different things from different perspectives, the two brain would begin to think differently. We made clear that we did not accept "observer" to be the same as your "self." This a cheating. You cannot privately redefine "green" as "red" and then fine people because they now "run" what you now call a "red" stoplight. Our definition of "observer" is very different from yours, and we have told you so.

Further, you have made very clear your strategy- pick the post that is not completely and carefully legally worded, misinterpret the post to fit your theory, and ignore all subsequent clarifications by that poster. Instead, build on that one mis-stated post. Also ignore all other posters here, no matter what they say. Perhaps you have all the rest of us all on ignore: then this thread must look amazingly empty to you.

But the rest of us, including the lurkers, see all the posts and all the flaws pointed out in your theory. So you should realize that you are trying to defend a court case without hearing the prosecutor's evidence. You step out of the room, instead of actively trying to deny it! This assures that your defendant will be found guilty. Even if, as I already posted, you know your defendant IS guilty, this is not the way to represent him/her.

Plus, your posts come off as increasing sad and despite; who are you trying to convince? Most people here, who you totally ignore? Godless Dave, who you ignore when we tells you a clarification that disagrees with what you want to hear? A band of hypothetical lurkers, who have repeatedly failed to response to direct requests to express their views? There is no evidence that they exist, just like there is no evidence of "selves" and reincarnation.

Perhaps you are trying to convince yourself, knowing that your math is wrong?

 

[Giordano]

I realize this thread has provided everyone with endless entertainment. But I am just fed up with almost everyone's posts being totally ignored by Jabba. It is extraordinarily rude of him, and this is clearly his way of creating a one-sided reduction of the conversation to the "man-to-man" approach he favors, despite the clear failure of that approach when he tried it recently. This is not what a Internet forum is designed to be: email would work just as well for a private person to person talk.

I don't know what to suggest so that Jabba responds to the others here. Perhaps if no one responded to any of Jabba's posts when he tries to make this a one-on-one conversation? I am happy if people post the errors in his "proof" and I understand the desire to correct his errors (both (in theory) for his education and as a matter of principle). But I am tired of trying to make certain in advance that my posts cannot be misconstructed, and thus serve as a foundation for Jabba's apologetics strategy. I plan to just say "Your wrong!" and cite my previous explanations by number if he brings up the same old topics again. I plan to ignore him if I somehow become the favored poster and he enters into a two way with me with the exclusion of everyone else.

 

[Mojo]

But I am just fed up with almost everyone's posts being totally ignored by Jabba. It is extraordinarily rude of him, and this is clearly his way of creating a one-sided reduction of the conversation to the "man-to-man" approach he favors, despite the clear failure of that approach when he tried it recently.

I suspect that it isn't so much that as an attempt to cherry-pick only those objections that he thinks he can deal with. That's why the "man-to-man" thread was such an abject failure; it didn't allow him to do this.

 

[carlitos]

- In the sense that you had absolutely no preexistence, you came from nothing -- which thought about, should take your breath away and show you that the likelihood of your current existence is, at best (remember the word "current"), one over infinity (given the hypothesis that each potential observer has but one, finite time to exist, at most).

- That, probably, will not give us closure -- but it should get us started.

Did your parents never have "the talk" with you? This might explain a lot. You see, When mommy and daddy like each other very much, they lay down together, and ...

The above is facetious, but it doesn't "come from nothing." Pretending that it does is silly.

Would it be too forward to ask if Mr. Savage is the product of Catholic schooling?

 

[carlitos]

- We also agree that these observers do not come from a limited pool of different, potential observers

Tenth time asking - where is this pool?

 

[Jabba]

I don't understand what you mean by special case. My example is the same as yours. The paradox comes from the use of infinity as a number. As someone here said the other day, it is not a number but it is a concept. A useful concept in certain situations, but not in the way you are attempting.

- I guess infinity is not a "number" -- but, as far as I can tell, it has to be an appropriate entry for some mathematical formulas...

- Should we be considering the likelihood of my current existence given hypothesis A, or should we be considering the probability of someone/anyone's current existence given hypothesis A.
- My claim is that it should be the likelihood of my current existence given hypothesis A that we be considering -- and here, my current existence is the special case.

 

[Giordano]

- I guess infinity is not a "number" -- but, as far as I can tell, it has to be an appropriate entry for some mathematical formulas...

- Should we be considering the likelihood of my current existence given hypothesis A, or should we be considering the probability of someone/anyone's current existence given hypothesis A.
- My claim is that it should be the likelihood of my current existence given hypothesis A that we be considering -- and here, my current existence is the special case.

Good try, but I have a better idea. Why don't you respond to the fatal errors others here have pointed out in your theories, and explain why instead your theories and calculations are indeed correct?

 

[Giordano]

- I guess infinity is not a "number" -- but, as far as I can tell, it has to be an appropriate entry for some mathematical formulas...

But not in your type of mathematical formula.

 

[Giordano]

Tenth time asking - where is this pool?

I am interested in the location. too. Do they allow skinny-dipping? Do they serve Mai-Tais?

 

[Giordano]

Did your parents never have "the talk" with you? This might explain a lot. You see, When mommy and daddy like each other very much, they lay down together, and ...

But where does the stork come in? Did I get it wrong!?!

 

[jond]

- I guess infinity is not a "number" -- but, as far as I can tell, it has to be an appropriate entry for some mathematical formulas...

- Should we be considering the likelihood of my current existence given hypothesis A, or should we be considering the probability of someone/anyone's current existence given hypothesis A.
- My claim is that it should be the likelihood of my current existence given hypothesis A that we be considering -- and here, my current existence is the special case.

When are you going to get your head around the concept that a "self" is a process, not a thing?

And why do you think your existence is any more special than anyone else?

 

[pakeha]

- Your brain may come from a limited pool of possible brains, but your brain does not determine "who" your observer is -- in that two exact matches in brains would not produce the same observer.

Wrong, Jabba.
So very, very wrong.
The brain does determine the consciousness.

 

[dlorde]

- Should we be considering the likelihood of my current existence given hypothesis A, or should we be considering the probability of someone/anyone's current existence given hypothesis A.

That depends on what you want to show; neither are useful or relevant to considerations of immortality.

My claim is that it should be the likelihood of my current existence given hypothesis A that we be considering..

On what grounds?

... here, my current existence is the special case.

It's only 'special' in that it's the particular instance under consideration. Any other instance we might consider would be 'special' in exactly the same way. In other words, it isn't special in any way relevant to the discussion or any calculation you wish to make about life, death, or immortality.

"I'm special because I'm me, therefore I'm statistically infinitely unlikely, therefore I'm immortal", is nonsense of the first water. It is a multiple non-sequitur reminiscent of homeopathy itself.

 

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by godless dave
Remember, in the scientific model, brains and observers are synonymous.

Originally Posted by Jabba
- Again, not quite.

Originally Posted by godless dave
How so?

Jabba, I think answering this question might shed some light on our misunderstanding:

Dave,
- But, you agree that identical brains would not produce the same observer. That's why brains and observers are not quite synonymous.

 

[xtifr]

Dave,
- We also agree that these observers do not come from a limited pool of different, potential observers -- which I'm saying means that who exactly will come is "brand new" -- and, as such, is absolutely unlimited. This is where we currently need closure.

I've highlighted the flaw--the completely out-of-the-blue leap to a wild and unsupported conclusion on your part. It's not absolutely unlimited. It's limited by the possible permutations of energy and matter in the universe. Thus it remains resolutely finite, no matter how much you might wish otherwise.

If your premise cannot survive this being false, you might as well give up now. Otherwise, just accept it and go on to the next step.

 

[Agatha]

Jabba, you are equivocating between 'same' and 'identical' again.

Two identical brains do not give rise to one consciousness - which is what you appear to mean by the "same observer".

Two identical brains would have the emergent properties of two identical consciousnesses at the moment of creation of the brain(s). However, since the two identical brains cannot occupy the same point in space, the brains (and therefore the two consciousnesses arising from them) would become non-identical as soon as they are created, because their experiences and memories would immediately differ.

 

[xtifr]

Jabba, you are equivocating between 'same' and 'identical' again.

The best way to sum this up might be: identical twins are not the same person, no matter how identical they are. But if they were truly identical down to the quantum level, they would have an identical "continuity of consciousness" up to the point of separation. But it still wouldn't be the same consciousness.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- But, you agree that identical brains would not produce the same observer. That's why brains and observers are not quite synonymous.

I don't see how that follows. It's precisely because brains and observers are synonymous that identical brains would not produce the same observer. Two brains means two observers.

 

[Giordano]

Originally Posted by godless dave
Remember, in the scientific model, brains and observers are synonymous.

Originally Posted by Jabba
- Again, not quite.

Originally Posted by godless dave
How so?

Dave,
- But, you agree that identical brains would not produce the same observer. That's why brains and observers are not quite synonymous.

You are wrong. As I just explained, Godless Dave does not agree with your definition of "observer" being the same as a non-physical "self" and has clearly stated that a physically identical brain would start out with identical thoughts.

Interestingly, you are not answering Dave's question, either. Have you decided not to answer questions at all? Is this how you see good debate?