Mojo
Mostly harmless
[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics
- Thread starter Jabba
- Start date
- Status
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
Good Morning, Mr. Savage:
It is not "us" who do not understand the techniques by which you are trying to force the "possible implications" of your false dichotomy.
It is, in fact, you who do not realize that any A/~A pair not constructed so as to be both mutually exclusive and exhaustive, does not encompass all possibilities.
Here is a link to a Wikipedia page:
\http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementary_event
The relevant part:
"The event A and its complement [not A] are mutually exclusive and exhaustive."
Here is a slightly more math-focused page:
http://www.emathzone.com/tutorials/b...ry-events.html
Again, I encourage you to consider simply dropping this fruitless line of approach, and presenting, instead, your practical, objective, empirical evidence that consciousness is anything other than an emergent property of the neurosystem in which it resides.
No. You are still defining your problem down to an ideal to ensure the outcome you want, just like the die-rolling scenario I outlined.
You have a choice of one of the two formulations below where S = Single, F = Finite, and J = Jabba:
Option 1:
P(SFJ|J) = 1 – P(~SFJ|J)
Where ~SFJ = (Everything ~S) + (Everything ~F) + (Everything ~J)
OR
Option 2:
P(SF|J) = 1 – P(~SF|J)
Where ~SF = (Everything ~S) + (Everthing ~F)
You cannot define your issue down to a portion of the universe and then claim your conclusion applies to the universe.
Last edited:
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Slowvehicle,
- Thanks.
- My wife is going through hell with a pinched nerve (apparently), and it's awful cold outside -- otherwise, things are good.
Slowvehicle,
- That's a difficult question.
- I've already outlined my non-Bayesian evidence, and no one was impressed.
- I do suspect that the consciousness that we remember, or know about, is an emergent property of a neurosystem. I just think that there is more to it than that -- and that the "self" that emerges is drawn from an infinitely divisible pot of universal consciousness. And then, my best guess is that many of us were Napoleon in previous lifetimes...
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
- I don't think that matters. Whatever I am, I exist.
- I dream -- therefore, I am.
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
Good Morning, Mr. Savage:
Please offer your wife my sympathies. It's hard to have something wrong and not be able to DO anything about it...
I must confess I do not remember you presenting objective, empirical, practical evidence for your scheme. At the risk of being accused of not paying enough attention, might I be so bold as to request that you reprise your presentation? Truly, even just a summary would be a place to start.
Failing that, might you provide a link to the post in which you evidence was presented?
Thanks!
Notice that none of the highlighted bits constitute evidence. Upon what do you build your suspicion? What informs your thought? What are the limiting criteria for your best guess?
Also, please notice that, as constructed, you last line describes either a logical impossibility, or another novel use of the term "self". Might you be so good as to clarify how "many of us" all could have been "Napoleon" in "previous lifetimes"?
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Asking someone who started off with an announcement of "essential proof" for evidence is only a difficult question when that someone doesn't actually have any evidence.
You don't have any non-Bayesian evidence. The best you've managed so far is telling us that we should believe in magic.
You suspect???
Back to the magic again, eh?
Your best guess is pretty much the ~A of proof.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Jabba,
I suggest you read this thread about a hypothetical situation which is, in reality, just a variation of your own claim. The key difference is that the question needs to be addressed to an outside observer rather than to the person being woken up (there are other differences, too, but that’s the key one as far as I can tell).
Note that everything hinges on prior information; prior information that we do not have regarding your claim. Without that prior information, the probability of Monday or Tuesday is unknowable. In y our immortality claim, there is likewise no prior information. There is, however, a load of posterior (am I using that term correctly?) information, including knowledge about consciousness as an emergent property (and a corresponding lack of credible evidence of it being anything else).
I suggest you read this thread about a hypothetical situation which is, in reality, just a variation of your own claim. The key difference is that the question needs to be addressed to an outside observer rather than to the person being woken up (there are other differences, too, but that’s the key one as far as I can tell).
Note that everything hinges on prior information; prior information that we do not have regarding your claim. Without that prior information, the probability of Monday or Tuesday is unknowable. In y our immortality claim, there is likewise no prior information. There is, however, a load of posterior (am I using that term correctly?) information, including knowledge about consciousness as an emergent property (and a corresponding lack of credible evidence of it being anything else).
The reason is that it was not impressive.
There is a contradiction here, or rather an admission that you have no evidence. What you are saying is this, paraphrased: What we know about is explained, but there's something that we don't know about.Jabba said:
If we don't know about it, then how can you possibly know about it? If there is evidence in support of it, then we know about it.
So a whole lot of unevidenced speculation that contradicts what we do know. It really isn't impressive.Jabba said:
Immortality & Bayesian Statistics
We've gone from Bayesian statistics to Jungian posh posh. So that's movement, of sorts. An infinitely- divisible pool of universal consciousnesses--where is that? Is there a curator? Surely there are parts of my country that could have cause for legal action for the consciousnesses that were grouped too closely together.
ETA -- the longer these things go, the more special the special pleading becomes. I'm in New York this week. Surely the pool of consciousnesses is here somewhere in mid town? At the Plaza Hotel, maybe? Under the UN?
We've gone from Bayesian statistics to Jungian posh posh. So that's movement, of sorts. An infinitely- divisible pool of universal consciousnesses--where is that? Is there a curator? Surely there are parts of my country that could have cause for legal action for the consciousnesses that were grouped too closely together.
ETA -- the longer these things go, the more special the special pleading becomes. I'm in New York this week. Surely the pool of consciousnesses is here somewhere in mid town? At the Plaza Hotel, maybe? Under the UN?
Last edited:
Perhaps Jabba has me on ignore (along with many others here), but I will repeat my question:
If there are now more people on Earth than ever before (documented by historical record) then where did all the present day consciousnesses in today's many more people come from? It must be one of three possibilities:
1. Many of our souls/consciousnesses must have previously resided in non-humans, like bugs and bacteria.
2. Our souls/consciousnesses must have been on another planet, or in a "heaven."
3. Multiple souls/consciousnesses must have previously resided in one human body (e.g. Napoleon).
Jabba, if you read this, which do you think is correct according to your theory?
If there are now more people on Earth than ever before (documented by historical record) then where did all the present day consciousnesses in today's many more people come from? It must be one of three possibilities:
1. Many of our souls/consciousnesses must have previously resided in non-humans, like bugs and bacteria.
2. Our souls/consciousnesses must have been on another planet, or in a "heaven."
3. Multiple souls/consciousnesses must have previously resided in one human body (e.g. Napoleon).
Jabba, if you read this, which do you think is correct according to your theory?
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
There are more people on earth now than have ever been on earth at one time before, but there are fewer people now than the total number of humans who ever existed. Although different methodologies come up with different numbers, about 107 billion people total have walked the earth.
Mathematically, until the total number of people ever to live hit 7 billion (today's population), each person born should have been a new soul. So there's a soul-creation process that somehow starts making souls, does it for a couple billion times, then calls it quits. Otherwise, as Jabba is now implying, there has to be some sort of soul-sharing program.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
That would explain why there tend to be multiple people claiming to be reincarnations of particular famous people.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
It's not just you. He didn't answer me either when I asked more-or-less the same question:
xtifr
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2012
- Messages
- 1,299
Gosh, you guys are picky arent you?
OK so here's what I think Jabba's argument is:
Axiom: We live an integral number of lives. (I don't think that's unreasonable)
Proposition A: We live one life (P) and it is finite in either direction (Q)
The negation (~A) = ~(P.Q) = ~P + ~Q
therefore the negation of proposition A is that EITHER we live multiple lives, OR we live for a infinite time (in one direction on another). Or both.
or something like that. Having structured Jabba's argument FOR him, to save us a year or two, perhaps he could SUPPORT the argument?
No, you've left out zero. And considering that at least one major world religion is based on the premise that life and self are illusions, that's an unforgivable oversight.
I see no reason to concede the axiom either. We're already discussing ridiculous ideas like immortality and multiple lives, so why not throw in the possibilities of imaginary or complex numbers of lifetimes. It may not be easy to see exactly what that means, but then, just a few centuries ago, people thought it was hard to see how imaginary or complex numbers could have any meaning, but today, EEs use them routinely to describe very real things.
Anyway, to quote someone I've forgotten: the universe may not only be stranger than we imagine--it may be stranger than we can imagine.
So I'm not throwing out any possibilities. Although my money's still on single, finite life.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
- Status