[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Ladewig]

Then, I claim that essentially disproving that part of the model essentially proves immortality.

No.
You have made a logic error if you think disproving the first thing proves (or even increases the likelihood) of the second thing.

Please see posts #1835 and #1834 (and others) for an explanation.

 

[Jabba]

How can that be when the part of the scientific model you're addressing with your statistical analysis isn't the part that says an individual consciousness is finite?

Dave,
- It seems that everybody is passing me in the night. That should be telling me something, uh?
- Whatever, from my seat, the part of the SM that says an individual consciousness is finite is exactly what I'm addressing.

 

[Jabba]

Thank you.

Ladewig,
- You're welcome.

 

[Humots]

- Whatever, from my seat, the part of the SM that says an individual consciousness is finite is exactly what I'm addressing.

Humots,
- I don't need to call this a "scientific model" -- "consensus opinion" is good enough for me.

Get it straight, Jabba. SM (Scientific Model?) or consensus opinion?

It makes a difference to your so-called argument, although you don't seem to notice.

 

[Jabba]

But once we have eliminated the idea that a soul is limited to one human lifetime, we are still left with many possibilities other than immortality. Maybe souls reincarnate six times and then evaporate.

Why is your eternal hypothesis better than my six-times-and-vanish hypothesis?

Ladewig,
- Good question.
- Somewhere back in time I began to address that issue -- but so far, I haven't been able to find that post.
- I allow that more than once/but still finite, is part of the complement, I just claim that such is extremely unlikely. If you want, I'll try to explain why I think such a thing.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Agatha,
- Somehow, we keep passing in the night...
- I don't understand what you mean by "what you have used in your model is the likelihood of."
- The part of the "scientific model" I've been trying to essentially disprove, is that each (potential) individual consciousness has but one, finite life to live -- at most. Then, I claim that essentially disproving that part of the model essentially proves immortality.

Mr. Savage:

WHy is it that you continue to miss, overlook, or disrespectfully ignore the number of posters, myself included, who have pointed out to you that your construction, "One, finite life" vs "Essentially immortal", besides being semantically empty, is incorrect?

Suppose, just suppose, that you were able to demonstrate (not just hope or believe, but demonstrate) that each of us did not have one and only one finite existence. In that case,"Essentially Immortal" is still just one of myriad possibilities, including but not limited to:

-everyone has two, and only two, finite existences
-some have two and only two finite existences, others have something else
-everyone has three, and only three, finite existences
-some have thee and only three finite existences, others have something else
-and so on for every whole integer...

And that in itself does not begin to exhaust the possibilities.

As has been pointed out to you, you are trying to establish a false dichotomy in a non-dichotomous situation.

Do you ever intend to address this?

 

[godless dave]

And that brain is the temporary subjective reprieve from eternal nothingness because___________?

That's a meaningless question. A thing only exists while it exists. Before and after it exists, it doesn't exist. Why does something like that need an explanation?

So you agree, then, that a "you" is nothing more than an illusion conjured by the fundamental subjectiveness of sentient experience?

I don't see how it's an illusion.

And these brains are their own respective temporary reprieves from eternal nothingness because____________?

That's right, Dave. You have no answers.

It is true that I have no answers to nonsense questions.

 

[Akhenaten]

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

The 'somehow' being your total inability to see what everyone is saying to you.

- I don't understand what you mean by "what you have used in your model is the likelihood of."

It means that the only thing you've attempted to address so far is the likelihood of any particular conscience coming into being.

It seems that you are the only participant in the thread who is unable to see this glaringly obvious truth.

- The part of the "scientific model" I've been trying to essentially disprove, is that each (potential) individual consciousness has but one, finite life to live -- at most.

You haven't yet offered an explanation for the logic behind there being any connection between the odds of an individual conscience coming into being and that conscience having either a finite or infinite existence.

All you've been doing for more than a year is insisting that such a connection exists within a "scientific model" that itself only exists in your imagination.

As Agatha said, while you were apparently looking the other way:

It's simply not enough to say "scientific model=everything we understand about reality" and then make the assumption that if you essentially disprove one tiny part of it (which you have not), you have then essentially disproved the entire model.

Then, I claim that essentially disproving that part of the model essentially proves immortality.

You can claim whatever you bloody like, but everyone else can still see that you're posting complete nonsense.

 

[Jabba]

Then why have you been referring to a "scientific model" or "scientific method" all this time?

If it's merely an opinion, then I don't see how its truth or falsity gives it the leverage to let us decide whether or not humans are immortal.

Humots,
- I started out with "part of the scientific model" because that is how I thought of it. I continued using it because others seemed to know what I was talking about. When you questioned my usage, I figured you might be right, and I then figured that "scientific consensus" would be sufficient for my purposes.
- Otherwise, I don't see why proving an opinion wrong, wouldn't prove its complement right (whoever's opinion it was)-- and, that's all I'm trying to do (essentially).

 

[godless dave]

But, again, you haven't addressed the finite part or even the unique part, just the odds-of-existing part.

 

[Akhenaten]

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

Yes, but as always your desperation to cling to this stupid idea about immortality means you'll ignore it completely.

- Whatever, from my seat, the part of the SM that says an individual consciousness is finite is exactly what I'm addressing.

Jabba, in this entire thread you've only mentioned two aspects of this alleged scientific model:

1. the odds against an individual conscience coming into existence are extremely high, and
   
   
2. an individual consciousness is finite.

Is that the entirety of the scientific model that you're referring to? If so, who besides yourself subscribes to it? Just a few links to some of the leading proponents will do.

If there's more to it than just your two points then again might we please have some links so we can have a look at the whole thing?

 

[Akhenaten]

Humots,
- I started out with "part of the scientific model" because that is how I thought of it. I continued using it because others seemed to know what I was talking about .

What in the name of Thoth gave you that idea?

When you questioned my usage, I figured you might be right, and I then figured that "scientific consensus" would be sufficient for my purposes.

You keep jumping between "scientific model", "scientific consensus", and "scientific opinion" as though they were equivalent not only despite having been told that they are no such thing but also despite having yourself acknowledged this lack of equivalence.

Further, you have yet to show that any of the three different things actually exist, let alone that they say what you claim they say.

- Otherwise, I don't see why proving an opinion wrong, wouldn't prove its complement right (whoever's opinion it was)-- and, that's all I'm trying to do (essentially).

You can't disprove an opinion, Jabba. Especially one that you haven't shown to exist.


It looks as though your entire argument can essentially be boiled down to:

I've assigned an opinion about statistics that I disagree with to an imaginary group of people, therefore immortality.

​

 

[Ladewig]

Ladewig,
If you want, I'll try to explain why I think such a thing.

Thank you, that will not be necessary on my account.

One last question.
How do you think this thread will end.

Will people come around to your position one by one?
Will there be a sudden mass conversion to your position?
Will we be forever arguing the same points for years on end?
You might come around to our position?
Something else?
Planet X?

...............
follow up for the same question.
what evidence led you to that particular thread conclusion or probable thread conclusion?

 

[Agatha]

Jabba, remember this mess?

1. We’ll start with P(NR|me) = P(me|NR)P(NR)/(P(me|NR)P(NR)+P(me|R)P(R)).

2. Using "-->" for "approaches zero," and injecting my proposed numbers, I get, P(NR|me) = -->0*.99/(-->0*.99)+(.05*.01) = -->0/.0005; and, P(NR|me) = -->0.

3. So, I’m claiming that given the non-religious hypothesis (that we each have just one, short, life to live -- at most), the probability of my personal consciousness existing right now approaches zero. (Not necessarily “asymptotic,” but close.) I’m just claiming that the probability is so small, at best, that we can’t imagine the number of 0’s after the decimal and before the 1.

4. My explanation for this crazy number begins with the explanation I had given before (slightly revised)…
4.1. According to the typical non-religious hypothesis of personal existence, you are a random -- and one (at most), short-lived -- accident, and would never exist if your parents had never met.
4.2. The same would be true if your grandparents had never met – on either side of the family.
4.3. This can be traced back for … a long time -- say 100,000 generations , just to include Homo-habilis.
4.4. But why stop there?

4.5. And, note that as we go back, the number of grand-etc-parents involved doubles for awhile.
4.6. I assume that a lot of inbreeding ‘begins’ to take place, so maybe we could figure this doubling going on for say 10,000 generations.
4.7. And if just one of these chance meetings had not taken place, you would never exist.
4.8. So, just going back 200,000 years, the number of your grand-parents involved in that particular generation should be about 400,000; and the number involved 20 years later, or 199,980 years ago, would be about 399,960.
4.9. So, counting just 2 of those very early generations leading to you would require at least the meeting of almost 800,000 of your grand-etc-parents. I might be getting something wrong -- but whatever, by the time you come along, you’ve got a whole LOT of grand-etc-parents involved…

4.10. And then, it gets worse.
4.11. Not only did all your grand-etc-parents have to meet, but in each case, the two had to have sex, and the right sperm cell had to meet the right ovum. Otherwise, the results wouldn’t be you – it would be your brother or sister, or some ‘grand’-etc- cousin (I think I got that right).
4.12. And, as it turns out, your father probably produced a sextillion (no pun intended) sperm cells in his lifetime and your mother was born with several hundred ova.
4.13. Apparently, you happen to be the specific combination of just one of those sperm cells and just one of those ova – no other combination would do.
4.14. Which would be true for your 4 grandparents, and the rest of your ancestry…
4.15. And, just think of all those potential offspring from your Dad and Cleopatra -- they never had a chance!
4.16. Nor did any of those potential offspring from your dad and all other women of different generations

4.17. And then, don’t we really have to go back to the beginning of life – on, at least, this planet.
4.18. And what about the BIG Bang, or even a Singularity (or something)?
4.19. And then, the depression hit! (An old Joke from Phil Silvers and Sgt Bilko.)

4.20. And, it only gets worse.
4.21. Since you will only live for about 100 years, there is another, infinitesimally small, probability that has to be factored in – the probability that now would coincide with your particular existence. It is much more likely that now would be some other time altogether along this infinite(?) continuum of time…

4.22. So, what’s wrong with this picture?

4.23. And still, it gets worse.
4.24. Does your personal consciousness really depend upon a particular sperm cell and ovum becoming attached to each other – or, is consciousness an emergent property naturally produced when certain physical elements come together, and by definition involves some kind of new INDIVIDUAL “self” that is totally dependent upon a specific temporal event that by definition can never happen again?
4.25. If so, the number of potential selves is infinite, and you can thank your lucky stars that you were ever created, and that you happen to be existing right now.

5. Next, I'll try to explain why this crazy probability is not something that we can just chalk up to chance.

--- Jabba

All of your explanatory notes concentrate on the probability of lots of unlikely things happening in the past in order to produce your consciousness at this exact time. That's the only part of your understanding of the scientific model/opinion/consensus that you have brought in to your equation.

Side note: The estimated probability numbers you have used aren't reasonable, and your assumptions about how many people have to meet to produce 'you' are wildly wrong, but leave that to one side for now.

Where in your equation have you factored in anything at all to do with consciousness not being an emergent property of a living brain? Nowhere.

Where in your equation have you factored in anything at all to do with consciousness transcending death? Nowhere.

Where in your equation have you factored in anything to do with the fact that 'you' are just one of 7 billion conscious beings currently in the world, or that you are no more or less special than any other person? Nowhere.

All you have done is use some made up numbers to essentially propose that any one individual's chance of existing at any random point in time is very, very, very small. Congratulations, I think that was already common knowledge.'

Nothing in your equation, nor in the 'scientific model' that you yourself have used, addresses the issue of consciousness being separate to a particular brain at all.

 

[Agatha]

Humots,

- Otherwise, I don't see why proving an opinion wrong, wouldn't prove its complement right (whoever's opinion it was)-- and, that's all I'm trying to do (essentially).

Firstly, opinions are not facts, they aren't open to proof or disproof. They are points of view. Secondly, not every opinion has one exact opposite. Have you heard of the phrase "false dichotomy"?

We've explained before that the opinion "we all have at most one short finite life to live" doesn't only have the one complement "IMMORTALITY for ALL!1!!" The posts are easily accessibly by looking back through the thread.

 

[John Jones]

For the record:

This is another epic Jabba failure dragged-out over more than a year - much like the Shroud of Turin debacle.

I'm here to read the many intelligent, well-reasoned, and clever rejoinders.

*back to lurk mode*

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

- Otherwise, I don't see why proving an opinion wrong, wouldn't prove its complement right (whoever's opinion it was)-- and, that's all I'm trying to do (essentially).

I turn my computer off at night. I turn it back on in the morning. There are times when it is on, and times when it is off. If someone were of the opinion that my computer had only ever been on once and I demonstrated that it had been on more than once, would that prove that my computer was on for an infinite amount of time?

 

[Humots]

Humots,
- I started out with "part of the scientific model" because that is how I thought of it. I continued using it because others seemed to know what I was talking about.

What in the name of Thoth gave you that idea?

When you questioned my usage, I figured you might be right, and I then figured that "scientific consensus" would be sufficient for my purposes.

You keep jumping between "scientific model", "scientific consensus", and "scientific opinion" as though they were equivalent not only despite having been told that they are no such thing but also despite having yourself acknowledged this lack of equivalence.

Thank you Oh Pharaoh! Well said!

 

[Humots]

Humots,
- Otherwise, I don't see why proving an opinion wrong, wouldn't prove its complement right (whoever's opinion it was)-- and, that's all I'm trying to do (essentially).

Firstly, opinions are not facts, they aren't open to proof or disproof. They are points of view. Secondly, not every opinion has one exact opposite. Have you heard of the phrase "false dichotomy"?

We've explained before that the opinion "we all have at most one short finite life to live" doesn't only have the one complement "IMMORTALITY for ALL!1!!" The posts are easily accessibly by looking back through the thread.

Thank you as well, Oh Agatha!

 

[tsig]

I turn my computer off at night. I turn it back on in the morning. There are times when it is on, and times when it is off. If someone were of the opinion that my computer had only ever been on once and I demonstrated that it had been on more than once, would that prove that my computer was on for an infinite amount of time?

I think you just proved that computers have souls.