[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Jabba]

Hi Jabba,

Above, you name two complementary scenarios to your current proposition. Why are these two more likely or valid than any of the other complementary scenarios that exist? As has been explained to you over and over, there are far more than just two complements to "one finite lifetime".

Tomboy,
- I accept that my earlier efforts were not quite complementary, but I think the current one is. If the SM is that if I come to exist, I will exist for only one finite lifetime, the complement only needs to include 2 possibilities: i.e., that if I come to exist, I will exist 1) infinitely, or 2) more than once.
- The SM contains two modifiers. The compliment also has two modifiers, and as far as I can tell non-finite is infinite, and non-singular is multiple (given that zero lifetimes has been eliminated).

 

[Jabba]

Steen,
- Unfortunately, I need to rephrase once again. My new so-called Scientific Model is now that if I (as a potential self) ever come to exist, I will live for one finite lifetime. The complementary model is that if I (as a potential self) ever come to exist, I will live either infinitely, or more than once.
- I think that those are real complements.
- I would like to apply that to all potential selves (instead of just me), but then the complement gets really tricky. So instead, I'll try to show that the most likely "more than once" is infinite and that both models apply to us all.

...When?

Frozenwolf,
- As soon as I feel comfortable about leaving the decision to a neutral (or mixed) "jury."
- I doubt that I'll ever convince anyone here that my proposed complement IS a complement -- but, I do think that I should be able to convince the majority of a well-educated and neutral audience.
- When I feel like I've given it my best shot, I'll move on -- and hopefully, I'll not be sidetracked by something I think is more important.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Tomboy,
- I accept that my earlier efforts were not quite complementary, but I think the current one is. If the SM is that if I come to exist, I will exist for only one finite lifetime, the complement only needs to include 2 possibilities: i.e., that if I come to exist, I will exist 1) infinitely, or 2) more than once.
- The SM contains two modifiers. The compliment also has two modifiers, and as far as I can tell non-finite is infinite, and non-singular is multiple (given that zero lifetimes has been eliminated).

Good morning, Mr. Savage!

At the risk of being accused of "ridiculing" your "argument", there are three problems with your current position.

The most fundamental problem is that you are still misstating the relationship of p and ~p. One you state ap, you do not get to limit ~p; ~p is, by definition, anything (and everything) that is not p. If you state your p as, "if I come to exist, I will exist for only one finite lifetime", the your ~p is (as I say again) anything and everything else (not just two possibilities that seem to support your argument).

Another problem, as I pointed out above, is that "if I come to exist, I will exist for only one finite lifetime", is not a statement of the "scientific model". I invite you to demonstrate a single scientist who has ever held or defended your position as a result od scientific research.

Yet another problem, also mentioned above, is that you are continually ignoring the fact that two unconnected consciousnesses inhabiting two different bodies at two different times; sharing no memories, experiences, or characteristics; is not in any way a definition of "immortality". It is not "essentially" a definition of immortality. It is not a definition of "essentially" immortality.

If all you mean is that is comforts you to believe that you used to be somebody else (even though you cannot remember it) and you will, in fact, be somebody else again (even though you will not know it), than say so.

Adhering to that superstition is not, however, "essentially" proving "immortality" with (or without) bayesian statistics.

 

[Pixel42]

- I doubt that I'll ever convince anyone here that my proposed complement IS a complement -- but, I do think that I should be able to convince the majority of a well-educated and neutral audience.

Any well educated and neutral audience will spot and point out the same logical errors in your argument as the posters here. What you really need is an audience as uneducated and biased as you are; you'll have much less trouble convincing them.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Tomboy,
- I accept that my earlier efforts were not quite complementary, but I think the current one is.

We know you do. Why you are wrong about this has been explained to you many times.

 

[dafydd]

Tomboy,
- I accept that my earlier efforts were not quite complementary, but I think the current one is.

It isn't.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

- I doubt that I'll ever convince anyone here that my proposed complement IS a complement -- but, I do think that I should be able to convince the majority of a well-educated and neutral audience.

I don't think that insulting people is really your best course of action.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Frozenwolf,
- As soon as I feel comfortable about leaving the decision to a neutral (or mixed) "jury."
- I doubt that I'll ever convince anyone here that my proposed complement IS a complement -- but, I do think that I should be able to convince the majority of a well-educated and neutral audience.
- When I feel like I've given it my best shot, I'll move on -- and hopefully, I'll not be sidetracked by something I think is more important.

Good morning, Mr. Savage!

At the risk of being accused of being "unfriendly" and "condescending", the highlighted bit is a fairly unfriendly, and condescending, post.

When do you ever expect to have access to a better-educated audience? Have you any concept of the wealth of experience and education represented by the members of this forum? There is a "E" in JREF for a reason.

How do you expect a better-educated audience to be more patient with, and more neutral toward, your incompetent use of statistics, your attempts to control "the debate", your pretenses that your unsupported opinions are as valid as empirical evidence, or your frequent fringe resets?

If you truly feel that the multitude of posters who have patiently asked questions, and patiently pointed out your repeated and sequential errors, and patiently put up with your side issues and resets are not "educated enough" or "varied enough", or "neutral enough" to understand your position, perhaps you should, in fact, "move on"--but isn't this at least the second forum where you have presented these arguments in this way?

Perhaps it is time to consider that the problem may not be that your audience is not "well-educated" enough, or "neutral enough". Perhaps the problem lies, not with the audience, but with your arguments.

 

[Loss Leader]

- That isn't my "proposition." My current proposition is that if I (as a potential self) ever come to exist, I will live for one finite lifetime. My complementary proposition is that if I (as a potential self) ever come to exist, I will live either infinitely, or more than once.

- These propositions apply equally to either a non-deterministic universe, or a deterministic universe. A deterministic universe wouldn't make any difference re the prior probabilities, as prior probabilities are based upon the information we have prior to the particular event. Consequently, whether our universe is deterministic or not, we still have to deal with probabilities -- as our relevant info is grossly lacking.

This is entirely insufficient and you have not controlled for a deterministic universe. If your proposition is, "that if I (as a potential self) ever come to exist, I will live for one finite lifetime." The only appropriate complement is: "Anything other than that if I (as a potential self) ever come to exist, I will live for one finite lifetime."

You're still holding it down to just some version of immortality. However you calculate a nearly infinitely small chance that you would come to exist in a random universe. Not included in that chance (and thus included in the complement) is the chance that anybody else would ever come to exist. We know that chance to be a good one because 7 billion of us are already here (and something like 107 billion total human lives to date).

You claim that you have controlled for a deterministic universe, but you haven't. The odds of you coming into existence in a deterinistic universe are 1. You do exist, you were always going to exist. If God is playing with loaded dice, he is always going to roll craps. There is no other possibility.

So, if our universe is deterministic, you cannot determine a likelihood for your existence, nor can you pretend that such likelihood even has a complement (let alone that such complement is immortality).

- I accept that my earlier efforts were not quite complementary, but I think the current one is. If the SM is that if I come to exist, I will exist for only one finite lifetime, the complement only needs to include 2 possibilities: i.e., that if I come to exist, I will exist 1) infinitely, or 2) more than once.

Actually, you're being disingenuous here. Your proposition is not "I will exist for only one finite lifetime." It is, "I will exist for only one finite lifetime in a random universe." And, once again, you do not get to limit the complementary proposition. That complement can logically only be the anything other than your proposition, which includes a large range of options.

- The SM contains two modifiers. The compliment also has two modifiers, and as far as I can tell non-finite is infinite, and non-singular is multiple (given that zero lifetimes has been eliminated).

So, if my proposition is that "Willie McCovey played either shortstop or catcher for 15 years," is my complement "Willie McCovey either played left field or third base forever"? My complement has two modifiers. My complement is infinite, as opposed to finite. Have I covered all the possibilities for Willie McCovey?

No, I have not. I haven't even accidentally included the right answer - he played first base for 22 years.

Your model is wrong. Stop repeating it.

 

[Ladewig]

-- and hopefully, I'll not be sidetracked by something I think is more important.

All I can say to the other posters is that if you adopt the right attitude, this thread becomes addictively hilarious.

 

[Mojo]

My current proposition is that if I (as a potential self) ever come to exist...

Hasn't this already happened?

 

[Jabba]

- At various times, I've accepted and indicated that you guys are well-educated. I just don't accept that you're neutral.

 

[Ladewig]

- At various times, I've accepted and indicated that you guys are well-educated. I just don't accept that you're neutral.

Then why would one spend over a year in a place that is so partisan that one "doubts that [one]'ll ever convince anyone here that" one's argument is even partially correct?

Such an approach would make a one either a silly-billy of the highest order or a petty and base poopy-head whose only goal is to generate vexation and irksomeness.


ETA:
I apologize for letting my language get out of hand.
There is no reason we cannot discuss the issue rationally.

 

[carlitos]

- At various times, I've accepted and indicated that you guys are well-educated. I just don't accept that you're neutral.

The mathematical definition of "complement" is as neutral as can be. Stop mis-using it and all will improve. The complement of p is [not p]. Period, zip, done. That's it. It's not whatever crap you want to prove. It's just "not p." You are wrong. I don't need to be particularly well-educated or neutral to see this.

"Not p" in your scenario has an infinity of possibilities, and is not at all limited to your particular vague hobby horses. There are several religions that include various iterations of your non-p, so it's not like you can pretend not to know about those ideas.

 

[Akhenaten]

- At various times, I've accepted and indicated that you guys are well-educated. I just don't accept that you're neutral.

That's because your definition of neutral has it that all ideas need to be treated as equal, no matter how hare-brained they are.

 

[dafydd]

- At various times, I've accepted and indicated that you guys are well-educated. I just don't accept that you're neutral.

Do you expect us to put our brains in neutral? Are you trolling or do you genuinely not understand the points put to you about your complement?

 

[Slowvehicle]

- At various times, I've accepted and indicated that you guys are well-educated. I just don't accept that you're neutral.

Good afternoon, Mr. Savage!

I hope your day is progressing fabulously.

I wonder if you have any idea how insulting your post is?

This is the same kind of thing as your declaration that (for instance) Dr. Fleury-Lembert must be either incompetent or dishonest because she accepts the physical evidence that there is not, nor has there ever been, "some patching" in the tested corner of the medieval linen artifact.

You do not know my background, or my journey--but for you to imply that the only reason I have not declared you the "winner" of this "debate" is that I am not "neutral enough" to ignore your assumptions, gloss over your confusions (the p/~p errors, for instance), or pretend that you are not simply making a claim that you, personally, want to believe that "the soul" is "immortal", is, frankly, condescending, if not out-and-out rude.

Do you want to know how to overcome what you want to call a lack of "neutrality"? Provide evidence for your claims. Show me a "soul". Explain how serial consciousnesses unrelated in any way other than your declaration that they are "the same" consciousness comprise "immortality". Explain how the problem of increasing numbers of people (presumably with "souls") is to be dealt with.

Don't just accuse me of not being "neutral" enough to simply accept your assertions at face value.

I hope you have a pleasant evening.

 

[Giordano]

Frozenwolf,
- As soon as I feel comfortable about leaving the decision to a neutral (or mixed) "jury."
- I doubt that I'll ever convince anyone here that my proposed complement IS a complement -- but, I do think that I should be able to convince the majority of a well-educated and neutral audience.
- When I feel like I've given it my best shot, I'll move on -- and hopefully, I'll not be sidetracked by something I think is more important.

Dear Jabba,

This is a mathematical definition; it has nothing to do with your audience or neutrally. ~p is not what you think it is, nor cares how you chose to define it. In math, it means something different from how YOU defined it. It doesn't care what the majority on any "jury" thinks. You can't do the math without understanding the real definition of ~p; it doesn't matter what you or any one else believes it to be. This has been explained to you multiple times.

 

[Garrette]

It is not just that Jabba considers us not neutral, which by itself is not undesirable and is the basic nature if every human. After all, Jabba has repeatedly admitted, albeit indirectly in other threads, that he too is not neutral in that he wants the Shroud to be real and he wants to be immortal.

No. Jabba's real point is that we, and by extension all scientists, statisticians, and skeptics who agree with us are incapable of controlling for that non-neutrality to the point that we will either sub-consciously twist the truth or blatantly lie. All while Jabba himself, as "the better man," not only can but does overcome his biases to present objective truth.

To be clear, I am not posting tongue-in-cheek in the slightest. This is how Jabba sees it. We are trapped by our bias; he is not.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

- At various times, I've accepted and indicated that you guys are well-educated. I just don't accept that you're neutral.

I think you'll find that the majority here are entirely neutral, in the sense that they will accept what the evidence shows to be true. If, however, you're defining "neutral" as "are 50/50 on the question of whether or not I'm right", then you'd be right. But also abusing the term "neutral".

I'm entirely neutral, as if you can show me that you're right - hopefully with evidence or proof, but maybe even with good rhetoric - then I will accept that you're right. I am entirely open to changing my mind. I fully admit the possibility that you may be right and that my current viewpoint is wrong. That I disagree with you isn't an indicator of my being biased, it's an indicator that you have not, as yet, posted any even vaguely convincing arguments.

Look at it this way. Let's say that we're not talking about immortality, but something else. Say there's a bag and in that bag are 100,000 balls, all identical except for the fact that 999,999 of them are black and 1 of them is white. They've all been mixed up thoroughly. You say that you will reach in to the bag and, without looking, you will draw out the white ball on your first try.

I will believe that you won't. I will happily tell you that you won't, and I will explain to you where I believe your reasoning is wrong. But I will also admit the possibility that you might. And I won't believe you until you do.

I'm not biased against the idea of you drawing out the white ball. I'm neutral on the issue. But I also know what the probabilities are - what the facts are - and I'm basing my opinion on that.