[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[godless dave]

Dave,
- I've plugged numbers into four parts of the equation: 1) the likelihood of me, given the scientific model; 2) the prior probability of the scientific model; 3) the prior probability of the complementary model; 4) the likelihood of me, given the complementary model. I provided what I think is justification for each of them in post #1172 on page 30. Please let me know what isn't clear or isn't convincing.

#1, #2 , #3, and #4.

 

[Akhenaten]

#1, #2 , #3, and #4.

Apart from that, however, it's as clear as mud.

 

[dafydd]

Dave,
- I've plugged numbers into four parts of the equation: 1) the likelihood of me, given the scientific model; 2) the prior probability of the scientific model; 3) the prior probability of the complementary model; 4) the likelihood of me, given the complementary model. I provided what I think is justification for each of them in post #1172 on page 30. Please let me know what isn't clear or isn't convincing.

All of it. What does that gibberish have to do with immortality?

 

[Toontown]

That's pretty much a word salad. "Probability of chance" is redundant..

All right, then, the "P-value".

http://www.stat.yale.edu/Courses/1997-98/101/chisq.htm

"The P-value for the chi-square test is P( >X²), the probability of observing a value at least as extreme as the test statistic for a chi-square distribution with (r-1)(c-1) degrees of freedom."

Which is, descriptively, the probability that chance adequately accounts for the observation, or the "probability of chance".

This is flat out untrue..

What is flat out untrue?

That the hypothesis is true at the 0.0000000......1 level?

That the hypothesis should be rejected at the 0.0000000.......1 level?

 

[godless dave]

All right, then, the "P-value".

http://www.stat.yale.edu/Courses/1997-98/101/chisq.htm

"The P-value for the chi-square test is P( >X²), the probability of observing a value at least as extreme as the test statistic for a chi-square distribution with (r-1)(c-1) degrees of freedom."

Which is, descriptively, the probability that chance adequately accounts for the observation, or the "probability of chance".

And in this case, the probability that chance adequately accounts for the observation is greater than 0.

What is flat out untrue?

This:

The result predicted by the hypothesis is nothing forever, with a certainty approaching 1

 

[Toontown]

My question is, why are you arguing about conditional probabilities that depend on something as lame and unscientific as this so-called "unique brain hypothesis"?

If you have something better, I'm sure everyone would be fascinated.

Either your unique brain is the only brain that could ever light up your jungle, or it's not the only brain that could ever light up your jungle, loosely speaking. There is no excluded middle, and there is no precise verbal definition of what "light up your jungle" means. It's what you are experiencing.

 

[Jabba]

Missing the point, as does Mr. Savage, that the issue is not predicting that "a" personality (or brain, or whatever) will exist, but predicting that "the personality that is Rich Savage" will exist.

And explaining how multiple "Rich Savages" is the same thing as "immortality".

Slowvehicle,
- Multiple me's isn't quite the same as immortality, but once you start thinking about it, where do you stop? How many me's would be the limit? If I can be repeated once, why not twice? Etc.
- And certainly the various theories about reincarnation assume some sort of immortality, and actually include a continuity of existence between physical lifetimes.

 

[zooterkin]

If you have something better, I'm sure everyone would be fascinated.

Either your unique brain is the only brain that could ever light up your jungle, or it's not the only brain that could ever light up your jungle, loosely speaking. There is no excluded middle, and there is no precise verbal definition of what "light up your jungle" means. It's what you are experiencing.

Still don't see how this is relevant to the topic of the thread. Even if two different brains experienced the same sensations and were, if there was any way to determine that, the same, how does that affect the probability of existence, or, in particular, immortality?

 

[Jabba]

#1, #2 , #3, and #4.

Dave,
- Sorry about that. I think that I've given it my best shot.
- If you can say what it is that doesn't compute about any of those attempted explanations, I'll try some more.

 

[Akhenaten]

If you have something better, I'm sure everyone would be fascinated.

Please see:

The rest of everything.​

I have a feeling that your personal investment in whatever the hell this thread is about has coloured your judgement of what matters and what doesn't.

Either your unique brain is the only brain that could ever light up your jungle, or it's not the only brain that could ever light up your jungle, loosely speaking. There is no excluded middle, and there is no precise verbal definition of what "light up your jungle" means.

So?

It's what you are experiencing.

What we're experiencing is a slow-motion train wreck. It's far better than anything on the telly.

 

[godless dave]

Jabba, I'll repeat the objection I posted on the very same page:

No, I really don't. You could say that about absolutely any object in the universe. I don't see why it's significant.

You keep making the mistake that highly unlikely is equivalent to impossible. It isn't.

 

[Toontown]

Still don't see how this is relevant to the topic of the thread. Even if two different brains experienced the same sensations and were, if there was any way to determine that, the same, how does that affect the probability of existence, or, in particular, immortality?

Sorry. I could explain, but having just been informed of the actual purpose of this discussion forum, I've completely lost interest.

 

[Akhenaten]

Slowvehicle,
- Multiple me's isn't quite the same as immortality, but once you start thinking about it, where do you stop?

Before you started would have been wise. Alas!

How many me's would be the limit?

My vote is one.

If I can be repeated once, why not twice? Etc.

Theoretically, no reason at all, but that's just cloning, not immortality.

Which actually brings up a whole new fly in the can of worms, doesn't it?

- And certainly the various theories about reincarnation assume some sort of immortality, and actually include a continuity of existence between physical lifetimes.

Those aren't theories, Jabba. They're religious beliefs at best and desperate fear of death at worst. (probably the same thing, when all's said and done)

 

[Toontown]

You keep making the mistake that highly unlikely is equivalent to impossible. It isn't.

And you keep making the mistake that the miniscule difference somehow reprieves the hypothesis in question. It doesn't.

 

[Toontown]

How about answering the relevant ones, like the one I just posted?

That was totally irrelevant. Unless you see some need to test some hypothesis about powerball selection. But I'm pretty sure we can see how that works by watching them draw the balls.

 

[Toontown]

Please see:

The rest of everything.​

Utter gibberish, apparently pretended to vaguely allude to a vast understanding of everything, which you do not, of course, possess.

 

[godless dave]

And you keep making the mistake that the miniscule difference somehow reprieves the hypothesis in question. It doesn't.

You really think there's a miniscule difference between unlikely and impossible?

Is winning a lottery impossible?

 

[godless dave]

That was totally irrelevant. Unless you see some need to test some hypothesis about powerball selection.

Do you understand how analogies work?

But I'm pretty sure we can see how that works by watching them draw the balls.

According to the random ball hypothesis, there is a very small chance that the numbers on the balls drawn will match the numbers on my ticket. According to you and Jabba, that means that an alternative hypothesis for how the winning number is generated is more likely to be true.

 

[Toontown]

You really think there's a miniscule difference between unlikely and impossible?

Is winning a lottery impossible?

Yeah, come to think of it, I have about one chance in 500 lifetimes, if the lottery lasts that long.

Wow. I had no idea how different that was from impossible.

Did you know I'm giving you the 0.00000....1 chance, just so you'll have a leg to stand on? I could make a case for 1/infinity. Don't make me take your leg, Dave.

Now don't y'all get all tore up. This is just some fun for the clowns.

 

[Toontown]

What we're experiencing is a slow-motion train wreck. It's far better than anything on the telly.

That's not my fault.

But thanks for the insight. Now I see what you like. You love it when people lose, don't you. Dog help you, you do love it so...