[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Akhenaten]

Humots,
- By "scientific model," I'm don't mean "using probability in the accepted sense." By "scientific model," I'm referring to what I think is the consensus opinion amongst relevant scientists regarding mortality: i.e., each (potential) human "self" (consciousness) exists for one finite lifetime, at most.

But (potential] human "selfs" (consciousnesses) don't exist at all so there is no consensus, scientific or otherwise, about their existence. Only (actual) "selfs" (consciousnesses) exist and no consensus of any kind is required to explain their fate. Reality shows us that they are an emergent property of a living (mortal) brain and as such are themselves mortal.

- If you basically accept that opinion as the "scientific model," but were really referring to the "scientific method" involved (instead), I will be trying to show why the scientific method would result in a likelihood of one over infinity.

Why are you so enamoured of the silly idea that the observation that humans grow old and die (as do all living things) is a "scientific model"

It's nothing of the sort.

You even seem to be tacitly acknowledging this yourself by enclosing the phrase in quotation marks.

 

[Akhenaten]

So, why do you keep arguing with Jabba's ludicrously unlikely hypothesis?

Because it's the topic of the thread.

 

[Akhenaten]

- By "scientific model," I'm don't mean "using probability in the accepted sense."

Says it all, really.

You're essentially trying to disprove a model that doesn't exist by using math that doesn't exist.

It's hardly a mystery that you're not getting anywhere, now is it?

 

[Toontown]

So, according to your reasoning, the Mega Millions lottery must be rigged.

Yeah, you've already chased that tail a couple of times.

That's your tail, BTW.

The last time you chased it, I explained that I would not apply probability to explaine why someone won the lottery, because probability does not apply to systems which are fully understood and accounted for.

On the other hand, if someone, say you for example, were to begin to win the lottery every week like clockwork, a deep suspicion would soon pervade my viewpoint on the matter.

Your ideology, however, would never allow you to reject the proposition that my weekly winnings of the lottery are strictly due to the vagaries of chance. By your own admission.

 

[Toontown]

Because it's the topic of the thread.

I'm just a bit mystified by an ideology that refuses to reject a proposal he finds ludicrously unlikely, yet compels him to spend inordinate amounts of time arguing against it.

 

[Toontown]

"Wow. You jumped on that like a half-starved hound dog on a ham bone. Do minor misspellings often have that effect on you?" My mistake. Thank you for the correction.


FTFY

Are you seriously implying that AdMans insulting nitpick "...don't you know the difference?" requires a grateful response?

 

[godless dave]

Yeah, you've already chased that tail a couple of times.

That's your tail, BTW.

The last time you chased it, I explained that I would not apply probability to explaine why someone won the lottery, because probability does not apply to systems which are fully understood and accounted for.

Which misses the point entirely. A lottery is a system where each possible outcome is very unlikely - just like the existence of an individual human consciousness. According to you, unlikely outcomes means the explanation for how the system works should be rejected in favor of an explanation where outcomes are likely.

On the other hand, if someone, say you for example, were to begin to win the lottery every week like clockwork, a deep suspicion would soon pervade my viewpoint on the matter.

But that is in no way analogous to human consciousness.

Your ideology, however, would never allow you to reject the proposition that my weekly winnings of the lottery are strictly due to the vagaries of chance. By your own admission.

Of course not, because "unlikely" and "impossible" are not synonyms.

 

[Akhenaten]

I'm just a bit mystified by an ideology that refuses to reject a proposal he finds ludicrously unlikely, yet compels him to spend inordinate amounts of time arguing against it.

 

[godless dave]

I'm just a bit mystified by an ideology that refuses to reject a proposal he finds ludicrously unlikely, yet compels him to spend inordinate amounts of time arguing against it.

Jabba hasn't even presented his hypothesis yet, so I can't argue against it or assess its likelihood of being correct.

 

[Akhenaten]

Are you seriously implying that AdMans insulting nitpick "...don't you know the difference?" requires a grateful response?

It looks that way.

And you left an apostrophe out of "AdMan's".


You're welcome.

 

[Toontown]

Which misses the point entirely. A lottery is a system where each possible outcome is very unlikely - just like the existence of an individual human consciousness.

Which misses the point entirely, immediately after I explained to you that the lottery system is fully understood and accounted for. There is no alternate possible system by which lottery winners may be selected, requiring a probabilistic approach to determining which system is more likely to be the source of an observed outcome.

But that is in no way analogous to human consciousness.

So why did you bring it up?

 

[Toontown]

It looks that way.

And you left an apostrophe out of "AdMan's".


You're welcome.

Oddly enough, I find myself completely ungrateful. And even less impressed by AdMans eager leap. And, if possible, even less impressed by your loyal defenses of AdMan and Godless Dave.

 

[godless dave]

Which misses the point entirely, immediately after I explained to you that the lottery system is fully understood and accounted for. There is no alternate possible system by which lottery winners may be selected, requiring a probabilistic approach to determining which system is more likely to be the source of an observed outcome.

Really? The lottery couldn't be rigged?

So why did you bring it up?

I didn't - you did. You brought up the example of outcomes occurring with more frequency than predicted:

On the other hand, if someone, say you for example, were to begin to win the lottery every week like clockwork, a deep suspicion would soon pervade my viewpoint on the matter.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The last time you chased it, I explained that I would not apply probability to explaine why someone won the lottery, because probability does not apply to systems which are fully understood and accounted for.

I think you must have phrased that badly, because what you've just said is patently untrue. The idea that a fair toss of a fair coin will have a 50% change of landing on heads is a statement of probability, even though everything about the process is fully understood and accounted for.

 

[Toontown]

But (potential] human "selfs" (consciousnesses) don't exist at all so there is no consensus, scientific or otherwise, about their existence. Only (actual) "selfs" (consciousnesses) exist and no consensus of any kind is required to explain their fate. Reality shows us that they are an emergent property of a living (mortal) brain and as such are themselves mortal.

Why are you so enamoured of the silly idea that the observation that humans grow old and die (as do all living things) is a "scientific model"

Which is roughly as meaningful as the objective observation that the various atoms of which your brain has been composed since your birth were once deep inside stars scattered about the galaxy - billions of years after they randomly emerged from a hot, dense quantum soup, billions of light years away.

A rudimentary, tautologous accounting of the various locations and states of various atoms at various times does not begin to explain our all-pervasive, all-conquering sentience. On the contrary, such a slavishly materialistic treatment only makes our sentient experience look ridiculously unlikely to have happened at all. Ever. Which is precisely what brings the tautologous non-explanation into question.

 

[godless dave]

Which is roughly as meaningful as the objective observation that the various atoms of which your brain has been composed since your birth were once deep inside stars scattered about the galaxy - billions of years after they randomly emerged from a hot, dense quantum soup, billions of light years away.

A rudimentary, tautologous accounting of the various locations and states of various atoms at various times does not begin to explain our all-pervasive, all-conquering sentience. On the contrary, such a slavishly materialistic treatment only makes our sentient experience look ridiculously unlikely to have happened at all. Ever.

And since the vast majority of the matter in the universe is not in brains that are conscious, that unlikelihood matches what we observe.

 

[Toontown]

I think you must have phrased that badly, because what you've just said is patently untrue. The idea that a fair toss of a fair coin will have a 50% change of landing on heads is a statement of probability, even though everything about the process is fully understood and accounted for.

No.

The force vectors applied to the coin are not fully understood and accounted for. Hence the probabilistic distribution of the coin's position after the toss. That is what probability is for.

Probability is not for determining by what system lottery balls are selected. We know that.

 

[Akhenaten]

Which is roughly as meaningful as the objective observation that the various atoms of which your brain has been composed since your birth were once deep inside stars scattered about the galaxy - billions of years after they randomly emerged from a hot, dense quantum soup, billions of light years away.

Yes, it is. And?

A rudimentary, tautologous accounting of the various locations and states of various atoms at various times does not begin to explain our all-pervasive, all-conquering sentience. On the contrary, such a slavishly materialistic treatment only makes our sentient experience look ridiculously unlikely to have happened at all. Ever. Which is precisely what brings the tautologous non-explanation into question.

And this essentially proves immortality, does it?

 

[Toontown]

And since the vast majority of the matter in the universe is not in brains that are conscious, that unlikelihood matches what we observe.

I don't know or particularly care who this "we" you keep talking about is.

That's not what I observe. I experience probability 1 sentience. As opposed to the giganogargantuanly more probable nonexistence of a particular unique brain.

 

[godless dave]

No.

The force vectors applied to the coin are not fully understood and accounted for. Hence the probabilistic distribution of the coin's position after the toss. That is what probability is for.

Probability is not for determining by what system lottery balls are selected. We know that.

But what if we didn't? What if we didn't know what system the Mega Millions lottery uses? In my case, I haven't investigated, so I don't know.

Here we have a system that can produce hundreds of millions of possible outcomes, each one equally unlikely. According to the reasoning you have proposed in this thread, we should reject any hypothesis that attempts to explain this process, because the outcomes are so unlikely.