[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Akhenaten]

Dafydd,

- Obviously, human bodies quit working, and then decompose. But then, we don't really know what happens to individual consciousness when the individual's body quits working.

It ceases to exist.

Could be that his/her consciousness is just no longer able to express itself in the material world.

Since the material world is the only one there is, an inability to interact with it is functionally the same as non-existence.

- My claim is that there is substantial reason for believing that individual consciousness is not limited to the single, finite existence through that body that just died...

"Wishful thinking" ≠ "substantial reason".

- Just to get us restarted.

Why didn't you just tell us your substantial reason and get things restarted that way?

Or are we going to have another epic thread where all you ever do is tell us what you're going to do?

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Yep, deliberately DOC-like. Disappears for a while and on his return thinks that all debates can be reset to the starting position.

Dafydd,

- Obviously, human bodies quit working, and then decompose. But then, we don't really know what happens to individual consciousness when the individual's body quits working. Could be that his/her consciousness is just no longer able to express itself in the material world.
- My claim is that there is substantial reason for believing that individual consciousness is not limited to the single, finite existence through that body that just died...

- Just to get us restarted.

How about sharing that "substantial reason?"

 

[Jabba]

No, you can't. Humans are not immortal. They die, you may not have noticed that, but they do.

Dafydd,
- Obviously, human bodies quit working, and then decompose. But then, we don't really know what happens to individual consciousness when the individual's body quits working. Could be that his/her consciousness is just no longer able to express itself in the material world.
- My claim is that there is substantial reason for believing that individual consciousness is not limited to the single, finite existence through that body that just died...

It ceases to exist.

Akhenaten,
-What’s your evidence?

Since the material world is the only one there is, an inability to interact with it is functionally the same as non-existence.

- Again, what’s your evidence -- that the material world is the only one there is?

"Wishful thinking" ≠ "substantial reason".

- Agreed.
- IMO, what I have is hopeful thinking plus solid logic.

Why didn't you just tell us your substantial reason and get things restarted that way?

- I did that upon starting this thread.

Or are we going to have another epic thread where all you ever do is tell us what you're going to do?

- I probably will keep telling you my plans, but by trying harder to keep my focus very narrow, and responding to only one question/comment at a time (not what I’m doing in this response) and making you guys mad at me for a growing pile of unanswered questions, I’ll finally finish a branch of the argument tree, and return to the pile for a new one.
- If it turns out that you, Filippo and I are the only discussants still interested (and, you guys probably aren't all that interested), things should move along pretty quickly.

 

[Akhenaten]

No, you can't. Humans are not immortal. They die, you may not have noticed that, but they do.

Dafydd,
- Obviously, human bodies quit working, and then decompose. But then, we don't really know what happens to individual consciousness when the individual's body quits working. Could be that his/her consciousness is just no longer able to express itself in the material world.
- My claim is that there is substantial reason for believing that individual consciousness is not limited to the single, finite existence through that body that just died...

It ceases to exist.

Akhenaten,
-What’s your evidence?

My position is the default and it's you who is required to provide evidence to overturn it.

In other words, you are the one claiming the existence of something for which there isn't a skerrick of evidence, so it's your burden, not mine.


cf. bigfeets, alien spaceships, Planet X, etcetera

Since the material world is the only one there is, an inability to interact with it is functionally the same as non-existence.

- Again, what’s your evidence -- that the material world is the only one there is?

I wrote it out on a piece of paper and placed it in Russell's Teapot. It's all there waiting for you.

"Wishful thinking" ≠ "substantial reason".

- Agreed.
- IMO, what I have is hopeful thinking plus solid logic.

Yes, well of course that's your opinion.

You should re-read the thread and maybe you'll see, as I do, that your opinion is at variance with the facts of the matter.

Why didn't you just tell us your substantial reason and get things restarted that way?

- I did that upon starting this thread.

Humour us with a link, would you?

Or are we going to have another epic thread where all you ever do is tell us what you're going to do?

- I probably will keep telling you my plans, but by trying harder to keep my focus very narrow, and responding to only one question/comment at a time (not what I’m doing in this response) and making you guys mad at me for a growing pile of unanswered questions, I’ll finally finish a branch of the argument tree, and return to the pile for a new one. Yes.

FTFY

- If it turns out that you, Filippo and I are the only discussants still interested (and, you guys probably aren't all that interested), things should move along pretty quickly.

Accroches-toi a ton reve.

 

[godless dave]

What's the difference between wishful thinking and hopeful thinking?

 

[Agatha]

Jabba, at the time I start typing this you have 69 (dude!) posts in this thread. I have read every one of them in the last half an hour, and I cannot see where you have explained what your "substantial reason" for suspecting that consciousness can survive physical death.

The only thing that comes close to a reason that you have posted is that you accept that improbable events happen. However, since improbable =/= impossible, and since our current knowledge suggests that consciousness is an emergent property of the human brain and is therefore dependent on a living brain, I am afraid I cannot see that "improbable events happen" is a substantial reason for believing in something which is apparently impossible.

The only other thing that has been discussed as a possible reason is that humans have evolved to be inherently pattern seeking, and ascribe more meaning to some patterns of ink on a piece of cardboard than other patterns of ink on other pieces of cardboard. However, there seems to be nothing that connects "humans are pattern seeking, and like some patterns more than others" with your belief in immortality.

If you have posted your "substantial reason", please could you link to the appropriate post because I am clearly not the only one who is wondering what it is.

 

[catsmate]

- My claim is that there is substantial reason for believing that individual consciousness is not limited to the single, finite existence through that body that just died...

State your "substantial reason". Clearly, concisely and without your usual evasions. Preferably supported with actual evidence not just god botherer ramblings.

 

[Brian-M]

- Obviously, human bodies quit working, and then decompose. But then, we don't really know what happens to individual consciousness when the individual's body quits working. Could be that his/her consciousness is just no longer able to express itself in the material world.

There's a vast amount of evidence that consciousness is exists as a process of brain function. It stands to reason that when the brain ceases to function, consciousness ceases to exist.

Claiming that "we don't really know what happens to individual consciousness when the individual's body quits working" is just as absurd as claiming that "we don't really know what happens to a flame when the candle quits burning"

If someone were to suggest to you that the flame of an extinguished candle still existed, only that it is "no longer able to express itself in the material world" you'd think that they're insane.

But you're doing pretty much the same thing.

My claim is that there is substantial reason for believing that individual consciousness is not limited to the single, finite existence through that body that just died...

We're all waiting to hear this "substantial reason".

- Again, what’s your evidence -- that the material world is the only one there is?

That's like asking someone for evidence that magical pixies that fart miniature sparkling rainbows don't exist. There's an unlimited amount of absurd nonsense that cannot be disproved.

In fact, there's vast numbers of actual supernatural claims which cannot be disproved, and yet none of them have ever been shown to be true.

Because of this, the only rational way to proceed is to assume that any supernatural claims are false unless shown to be true.

Show us that this is true, or we can only conclude that it is false.

 

[Jabba]

Evidence?

Dafydd,
…
- My claim is that there is substantial reason for believing that individual consciousness is not limited to the single, finite existence through that body that just died...

State your "substantial reason". Clearly, concisely and without your usual evasions. Preferably supported with actual evidence not just god botherer ramblings.

catsmate,
- The following is my basic claim (showing “sub-claims”).
1. I am conscious.
2. Our current, consensus scientific model holds that
--2.1. My particular consciousness is the result of totally specific physical events.
--2.2. My particular consciousness is limited to one finite lifetime at best.
3. Our math holds that
--3.1. The probability that my particular consciousness would ever exist is extremely small.
--3.2. The probability that it would exist right now is much smaller.
--3.3. Therefore, my present consciousness is evidence against (albeit of an indefinite amount) the current, consensus scientific model.

- I suspect that the above will still seem like evasion to you as I'm not providing evidence for any of my sub-claims. But then, the reason I'm not providing evidence is that my sub-claims 1 and 2 are obviously true, and my sub-claims under 3 are mathematical, cannot be dealt with in a hurry, and may be agreeable to you without any citations.

Humour us with a link, would you?

- 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

 

[abaddon]

3. Our math holds that
--3.1. The probability that my particular consciousness would ever exist is extremely small.
--3.2. The probability that it would exist right now is much smaller.
--3.3. Therefore, my present consciousness is evidence against (albeit of an indefinite amount) the current, consensus scientific model.

- I suspect that the above will still seem like evasion to you as I'm not providing evidence for any of my sub-claims. But then, the reason I'm not providing evidence is that my sub-claims 1 and 2 are obviously true, and my sub-claims under 3 are mathematical, cannot be dealt with in a hurry, and may be agreeable to you without any citations.

The probability that your consciousness would exist right now is 1. Because you exist. This has been explained ad nauseum.

No fringe reset for you.

 

[Agatha]

catsmate,
- The following is my basic claim (showing “sub-claims”).
1. I am conscious.
2. Our current, consensus scientific model holds that
--2.1. My particular consciousness is the result of totally specific physical events.
--2.2. My particular consciousness is limited to one finite lifetime at best.
3. Our math holds that
--3.1. The probability that my particular consciousness would ever exist is extremely small.
--3.2. The probability that it would exist right now is much smaller.
--3.3. Therefore, my present consciousness is evidence against (albeit of an indefinite amount) the current, consensus scientific model.

- I suspect that the above will still seem like evasion to you as I'm not providing evidence for any of my sub-claims. But then, the reason I'm not providing evidence is that my sub-claims 1 and 2 are obviously true, and my sub-claims under 3 are mathematical, cannot be dealt with in a hurry, and may be agreeable to you without any citations.

Your 3.3 does not follow from the points preceding it. A small probability of something happening, and then it happening, is not the same as evidence against it happening. You exist, therefore the chain of events which gave rise to you has already happened.

You continue to conflate the probability that 'you' would exist if someone calculated it thousands of years in the past (very small, but not impossible) with the certainty (p=1) that you exist right now.

Further, your anecdote about cards is nothing more than demonstrating that people ascribe more meanings to some patterns of ink on cards than they do to other patterns of ink on cards. But those meanings aren't actually real, they are just cultural notions. The probability of any particular set of four cards drawn from a fair pack when the card is replaced each time after choosing it remains at 1/52 *1/52*1/52*1/52, whether that hand is all aces or a jumble of low and high numbers.

 

[Brian-M]

Your 3.3 does not follow from the points preceding it.

You beat me to it. I was planning to say that point 3.3 was a non-sequitur.

 

[AdMan]

Déjà vu.

Didn't we discuss all this months ago? It's as if Jabba ignored a whole lot of posts.

Jabba ignoring a whole lot of posts is déjà vu too, now that I think about it.

 

[dafydd]

Déjà vu.

Didn't we discuss all this months ago? It's as if Jabba ignored a whole lot of posts.

Jabba ignoring a whole lot of posts is déjà vu too, now that I think about it.

Has Jabba ever taken notice of a post?

 

[Pixel42]

Some people really have trouble grasping that something which seems instinctively right to them may be provably wrong, don't they?

ETA: I'm the blade of grass the golf ball landed on. Using Jabba's reasoning I can argue that because the chances of it landing on me were so very very small, the fact that it did is evidence against the scientific consensus about the laws of motion.

Next step: to show that golf balls are actually guided onto a particular blade of grass by magic pixies. I might need your help with that one, Jabba.

 

[catsmate]

catsmate,
- The following is my basic claim (showing “sub-claims”).
1. I am conscious.
2. Our current, consensus scientific model holds that
--2.1. My particular consciousness is the result of totally specific physical events.
--2.2. My particular consciousness is limited to one finite lifetime at best.
3. Our math holds that
--3.1. The probability that my particular consciousness would ever exist is extremely small.
--3.2. The probability that it would exist right now is much smaller.
--3.3. Therefore, my present consciousness is evidence against (albeit of an indefinite amount) the current, consensus scientific model.

- I suspect that the above will still seem like evasion to you as I'm not providing evidence for any of my sub-claims. But then, the reason I'm not providing evidence is that my sub-claims 1 and 2 are obviously true, and my sub-claims under 3 are mathematical, cannot be dealt with in a hurry, and may be agreeable to you without any citations.

This is complete rubbish, as has been explained to you previously. I suggest you actually read the previous responses, study some actual logic and stop posting this crap.

 

[catsmate]

You beat me to it. I was planning to say that point 3.3 was a non-sequitur.

Here, use this.

 

[Akhenaten]

Humour us with a link, would you?

- 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:

<something about how to play solitaire>

You seem to have misunderstood.

What I wanted was a link to the post in this thread where you explained your "substantial reason" for believing in disembodied consciences.

Links to random gobbledygook I can find for myself, thank you.

 

[Jabba]

The probability that your consciousness would exist right now is 1. Because you exist. This has been explained ad nauseum.

No fringe reset for you.

Abaddon,

- This is a bit of math that is difficult (at least, for me) to explain.

- I'm trying to evaluate the part of our current, consensus scientific theory of reality that holds that 1) any particular, individual consciousness is the result of totally specific physical events; and that 2) any particular, individual consciousness is limited to one finite lifetime at best.

- The probability of a theory being true involves the probability of actually existing events existing -- given the theory...
- In other words, the "prior" probability of the event -- i.e., the probability of an event occurring, given the theory, before the event has actually occurred.
- I'm claiming that my prior probability is extremely small -- given the aforementioned part of our current, consensus scientific theory of reality.

- Unfortunately, there is a second necessary consideration. That's where the poker story comes in -- where a royal flush in spades is no less probable than any other poker hand. What makes its improbability special is that in that situation, there is at least one plausible explanation, other than chance, for getting that hand.

 

[dafydd]

Abaddon,

- This is a bit of math that is difficult (at least, for me) to explain.

Before you can explain it you would have to understand it and science.