[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Garrette]

haibut,
- I do want to say more about A/~A, but for now...
- My belief in immortality does predate my attempt to apply Bayes theorem -- but only because I had never heard of Bayes theorem. It was 1956, I was 14 and I had a "Eurica Moment." I think of it as an epiphany or revelation... All of a sudden, I could see statistical implications in my own current existence. I could see that given the scientific position that we each exist for one finite time, the likelihood of my current existence was 1/∞ (or something similar), which meant that that scientific position was probably wrong, and the most likely explanation for my current existence was that I was somehow eternal. That's when I began to believe in immortality.

I think you will find very many teens have such faux revelations. I had my own which transformed into years of thinking about such things. Eventually, I learned that what I felt was right differed dramatically from reality. You seem unable to come to that realization despite reality causing all your hypotheses so far to crumble.

 

[dlorde]

...It was 1956, I was 14 and I had a "Eurica Moment." I think of it as an epiphany or revelation... All of a sudden, I could see statistical implications in my own current existence. I could see that given the scientific position that we each exist for one finite time, the likelihood of my current existence was 1/∞ (or something similar), which meant that that scientific position was probably wrong, and the most likely explanation for my current existence was that I was somehow eternal.

Alternatively (and far more likely) your intuitive epiphany was based on the well-known faulty heuristics of Type 1 thinking, particularly where probability is involved, and was thus entirely wrong.

Just because something comes to you in a flash of inspiration doesn't mean it's right; and when it is wrong, no amount of subsequent faulty logic can make it right.

E.T.A. Bah, ninja'd by Garrette

 

[Slowvehicle]

haibut,
- I do want to say more about A/~A, but for now...
- My belief in immortality does predate my attempt to apply Bayes theorem -- but only because I had never heard of Bayes theorem. It was 1956, I was 14 and I had a "Eurica Moment." I think of it as an epiphany or revelation... All of a sudden, I could see statistical implications in my own current existence. I could see that given the scientific position that we each exist for one finite time, the likelihood of my current existence was 1/∞ (or something similar), which meant that that scientific position was probably wrong, and the most likely explanation for my current existence was that I was somehow eternal. That's when I began to believe in immortality.

Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

I hope your inclement weather experience was not too unpleasant. We're having an odd, unexpected thaw here. Lovely, but puzzling.

Now, at the risk of being told I am being "unfriendly", may I point out that your moment of "enlightenment" is no more evidence of your version of immortality than Saul Tarsi's experience of being knocked off his donkey onto his keister is "evidence" for his version of Jesus?

Have you any actual evidence (practical, objective, empirical evidence) of any piece of your scheme beyond your firmly-held belief?

 

[Akhenaten]

haibut,
- I do want to say more about A/~A, but for now...
- My belief in immortality does predate my attempt to apply Bayes theorem -- but only because I had never heard of Bayes theorem. It was 1956, I was 14 and I had a "Eurica Moment." I think of it as an epiphany or revelation... All of a sudden, I could see statistical implications in my own current existence. I could see that given the scientific position that we each exist for one finite time, the likelihood of my current existence was 1/∞ (or something similar), which meant that that scientific position was probably wrong, and the most likely explanation for my current existence was that I was somehow eternal. That's when I began to believe in immortality.

In other words, you've never had anything even remotely resembling essential proof for your childlike fantasy and this entire thread, just like the Tablecloth of Turin™ thread, has been nothing more than a charade which you hoped could disguise the fact that your vapid proposition of Truly Effective Debate™ is simply a clumsy and futile attempt to force fit whatever befuddled explanation you can come up with to justify your ridiculously leapt-at conclusions.

How much credibility do you think remains in your "arguments", Jabba?

 

[Pixel42]

haibut,
- I do want to say more about A/~A, but for now...
- My belief in immortality does predate my attempt to apply Bayes theorem -- but only because I had never heard of Bayes theorem. It was 1956, I was 14 and I had a "Eurica Moment." I think of it as an epiphany or revelation... All of a sudden, I could see statistical implications in my own current existence. I could see that given the scientific position that we each exist for one finite time, the likelihood of my current existence was 1/∞ (or something similar), which meant that that scientific position was probably wrong, and the most likely explanation for my current existence was that I was somehow eternal. That's when I began to believe in immortality.

Most people have had that moment of "revelation", usually at about that age.

Most of them realise their error and what complete nonsense it is within a minute.

 

[Jabba]

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.

Slowvehicle,
- The following quote from Wikipedia seems to support my claim that we can express ~A by something more than "anything and everything that's not A."

In probability theory, the complement of any event A is the event [not A], i.e. the event that A does not occur.[1] The event A and its complement [not A] are mutually exclusive and exhaustive. Generally, there is only one event B such that A and B are both mutually exclusive and exhaustive; that event is the complement of A. The complement of an event A is usually denoted as A′, Ac or A.

For example, if a typical coin is tossed and one assumes that it cannot land on its edge, then it can either land showing "heads" or "tails." Because these two outcomes are mutually exclusive (i.e. the coin cannot simultaneously show both heads and tails) and collectively exhaustive (i.e. there are no other possible outcomes not represented between these two), they are therefore each other's complements. This means that [heads] is logically equivalent to [not tails], and [tails] is equivalent to [not heads].

- Just to elaborate a little -- we could also say that if A is heads, ~A is either "on it's side" or tails. The sample space has been defined in such a way as to allow us to be more specific than "anything and everything that is not A."

 

[godless dave]

But you're not talking about an event.

 

[Akhenaten]

Slowvehicle,
- The following quote from Wikipedia seems to support my claim that we can express ~A by something more than "anything and everything that's not A."

It seems to support your claim by saying the exact opposite?

Jabba, you seem to be unable to comprehend what you read.

 

[Garrette]

Slowvehicle,
- The following quote from Wikipedia seems to support my claim that we can express ~A by something more than "anything and everything that's not A."

In probability theory, the complement of any event A is the event [not A], i.e. the event that A does not occur.[1] The event A and its complement [not A] are mutually exclusive and exhaustive. Generally, there is only one event B such that A and B are both mutually exclusive and exhaustive; that event is the complement of A. The complement of an event A is usually denoted as A′, Ac or A.

For example, if a typical coin is tossed and one assumes that it cannot land on its edge, then it can either land showing "heads" or "tails." Because these two outcomes are mutually exclusive (i.e. the coin cannot simultaneously show both heads and tails) and collectively exhaustive (i.e. there are no other possible outcomes not represented between these two), they are therefore each other's complements. This means that [heads] is logically equivalent to [not tails], and [tails] is equivalent to [not heads].

- Just to elaborate a little -- we could also say that if A is heads, ~A is either "on it's side" or tails. The sample space has been defined in such a way as to allow us to be more specific than "anything and everything that is not A."

I note two things:

1. You ignore the part I highlighted. It is key.

2. You ignore my post discussing exactly this with the six-sided die scenario and how the assumptions are there and are inappropriate for your ~A.

What you are doing here, in addition to thinking that the uninformed mental meanderings of a 14 year old boy have bearing on reality, is attempting to define your problem so that you can exclude everything form ~A that detracts from your argument while simultaneously pretending that you have not done so.

 

[jsfisher]

Slowvehicle,
- The following quote from Wikipedia seems to support my claim that we can express ~A by something more than "anything and everything that's not A."
...<mercifully snipped>...

Jabba,
No one is denying that complements can be with respect to some background universe (or universal set). The example you cited for a heads versus tails outcome has a coin-toss event as the universe (and a universe in which landing on edge does not occur).

If you'd like to couch your A and ~A statements in some restricted universe, then you need to explicitly and completely state what that is. You have gone as far as suggesting that it is only about the existing you, but you were not very explicit and far, far from complete.

 

[Garrette]

Deleted for excessive snark.

 

[Garrette]

Jabba,
No one is denying that complements can be with respect to some background universe (or universal set). The example you cited for a heads versus tails outcome has a coin-toss event as the universe (and a universe in which landing on edge does not occur).

If you'd like to couch your A and ~A statements in some restricted universe, then you need to explicitly and completely state what that is. You have gone as far as suggesting that it is only about the existing you, but you were not very explicit and far, far from complete.

Precisely.

Jabba's box in the Venn Diagram is "Jabba as a one-lived entity and Jabba as one of several variations of an immortal entity."

Having drawn his box that way, it is a simple matter to draw a circle around "Jabba as a one-lived entity" and then point with triumph at the rest while crying "Proof!"

I can prove that I don't exist using exactly the same method.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

I appreciate your continuing to address my questions.

<respectful ship for space>

For example, if a typical coin is tossed and one assumes that it cannot land on its edge, then it can either land showing "heads" or "tails." Because these two outcomes are mutually exclusive (i.e. the coin cannot simultaneously show both heads and tails) and collectively exhaustive (i.e. there are no other possible outcomes not represented between these two), they are therefore each other's complements. This means that [heads] is logically equivalent to [not tails], and [tails] is equivalent to [not heads].[/U]

Garrette dealt with this very situation in his excellent post about the 6-sided die: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9830661#post9830661

Where you do err is in glossing over the fact that the act of assuming that one may simply eliminate results one would find inconvenient (assuming that the coin cannot land on its edge) absolutely and irreparably prevents one form claiming that what is left is either "exclusive" OR "exhaustive".

As silly as it may sound to you, your assumption eliminates things that could, in fact, happen:

-a coin with two faces, or no faces, could have been substituted for the fair coin
-the coin could be snatched from the air by a passing gull goose and swallowed
-the coin could have fallen down the sewer grating and been washed out to sea
-the coin could have been shattered by the well-placed bullet of an SASS devotee
-the coin could have fallen into a crucible of molten sodium and been vaporized

...and so on.

The concept to which you are resistant, and that you continue to avoid, is that, while a simplifying assumption (such as limiting the possibilities subsumed in {in fact, the very nature of}) ~A may, in fact, simplify calculations, or reflect common experience, they eliminate the possibility of the A/~A pair being exhaustive. Everything you assumed away becomes, in fact, the "red space"--the "~(A U ~A)".

It is an error to claim that your "simplified" universal set is still universal or exhaustive. It is the error to which you continue to cling.

- Just to elaborate a little -- we could also say that if A is heads, ~A is either "on it's side" or tails. The sample space has been defined in such a way as to allow us to be more specific than "anything and everything that is not A."

And, as such, it is, in fact, closer to being actually exhaustive than your original simplification. It is by no means actually exhaustive, as you are still assuming many (even infinite) possibilities away, in order to "force" your assumed consequent.

It is still the Texas Sharpshooter, just shooting at a smaller fence...

Might I again encourage you to present your evidence (practical, empirical, objective evidence) for your belief that the "soul" exists?

ETA: ninja-ed by Garrette, and jsfisher

 

[Loss Leader]

The best of Jabba: the rest of November 2013

That was #1.- Next move:

You've never needed help in communicating an idea?

- These paragraphs seem loaded with meaning I'm missing.

Trying to make sure that I'm reading you right..

Most of your answers seem way above my head. I don't think you answered my question -- but, I'm not sure.

I have all sorts of questions.

- I'm not sure the following will answer your question.

I agree that it is very unlikely that my argument will “win the day” in my lifetime, in any forum

Actually, I either have multiple possible answers – or, multiple parts to the possible answer. Whatever, I’ll present these to you, one at a time, one ‘move’ at a time.

- "Baby steps" is appropriate, and is a term that I often apply. Hopefully, this plan will eventually become coherent and useful. With my current move, I'm really ignoring the meat of your post, but one baby step at a time...

- Unfortunately, I'm not following you...

Hopefully, I can provide some effective answers.
- I'll be back.

We'll see.

It's hard to communicate this stuff

obviously, with all my excuses, I understand being too busy

That'll get me started.

As mentioned before, I find this stuff really difficult to convey effectively. I'll explain later. Whatever -- I'll leave it at that for now.

I think I lost you with "Hello." - I'll need to think about it more Later, I'll try to get to the second part of your objection.

That's a lot to say in one gulp. Hopefully, it doesn't just further confuse the issue.

Wow! I could never give a coherent response to your response in the time it took you to give a coherent response to my response... I seem to be at a decided disadvantage here..

Unfortunately, I don't really understand your second sentence...

If I haven't missed anything, I must have won!

I had meant to go back and address those, but forgot...

Can you point me to those objections?

- I couldn't find your last question.

- Gotta admit that I couldn't find any question addressed to me. What am I overlooking?

I'm olde and dense, but I don't really understand what you're saying. I'll need to ask one baby question at a time.

Whatever, I'd like to pose our challenge to the administration and see where they go with it...

As you probably know, I'm always in a rush

- I seem to be striking out. So far, I can't find
1) the instructions, or 2) the thread I started...

Is this thread the original?

I'' start with the easy ones. I'll have to get back to you re P(SM|me).

This stuff is difficult to convey. I'll need to think more about your explanation above.

Sorry I'm so slow... My excuses are numerous.

I'll see if I can find something more substantial.

Sorry about that. I think that I've given it my best shot. I'll try some more.

Per usual, I need to take this one baby step at a time. Mostly, I need to make sure that I understand what you're saying.

- If I can find the time, I'll try to describe the "further logic" in my choice.

I can't remember what I'm putting off answering otherwise, but if I can't find anything more pressing, I'll try to give it (the "math") my best shot next...

 

[carlitos]

The best of Jabba: the rest of November 2013

:

 

[abaddon]

haibut,
- I do want to say more about A/~A, but for now...

Astonishing, given your previous posts in this very thread outlining your failure to do anything you promised.

- My belief in immortality does predate my attempt to apply Bayes theorem -- but only because I had never heard of Bayes theorem. It was 1956, I was 14 and I had a "Eurica Moment." I think of it as an epiphany or revelation... All of a sudden, I could see statistical implications in my own current existence.

Statistically, on that basis, Santa clause is real. We have witnesses, the millions children who find unaccountable presents on christmas morning. We have the nibbled carrot by Rudolph. We have the consumed supper by Santa. We have the presents under the tree. All of these exist, and are taken as proof by millions of people. Do you believe it?

I could see that given the scientific position that we each exist for one finite time, the likelihood of my current existence was 1/∞ (or something similar), which meant that that scientific position was probably wrong, and the most likely explanation for my current existence was that I was somehow eternal. That's when I began to believe in immortality.

No. You wanted it to be wrong, therefore you decided it was wrong. Science did not come into it. It still doesn't.

 

[pakeha]

Oh, Loss Leader, that felt so good!

 

[haibut]

haibut,
- I do want to say more about A/~A, but for now...
- My belief in immortality does predate my attempt to apply Bayes theorem -- but only because I had never heard of Bayes theorem. It was 1956, I was 14 and I had a "Eurica Moment." I think of it as an epiphany or revelation... All of a sudden, I could see statistical implications in my own current existence. I could see that given the scientific position that we each exist for one finite time, the likelihood of my current existence was 1/∞ (or something similar), which meant that that scientific position was probably wrong, and the most likely explanation for my current existence was that I was somehow eternal. That's when I began to believe in immortality.

As a lot of 14-year-olds are when philosophising, you were just wrong (the probability that you exist, given that you DO, is 1).

 

[Garrette]

As a lot of 14-year-olds are when philosophising, you were just wrong (the probability that you exist, given that you DO, is 1).

My prediction is that of all the responses to his philosophizing and clarification so far, Jabba will latch on this one to provide him his out.

He will say that he knows that the probability of his existing is 1; it is the probability of him living one finite life about which he had his teenage revelation. In that sense, he is correct; he isn't questioning his existence (though as I said, I can use his methodology to prove that I don't exist); he is questioning the nature of his existence.

All fine and dandy until he tries to get to proof or even a facsimile of evidence.

 

[haibut]

My prediction is that of all the responses to his philosophizing and clarification so far, Jabba will latch on this one to provide him his out.

He will say that he knows that the probability of his existing is 1; it is the probability of him living one finite life about which he had his teenage revelation. In that sense, he is correct; he isn't questioning his existence (though as I said, I can use his methodology to prove that I don't exist); he is questioning the nature of his existence.

All fine and dandy until he tries to get to proof or even a facsimile of evidence.

It's not an out, I am trying to point out that prior probability doesn't enter into it once it's happened. The probability of any given ordering of a random deck of cards is pretty low; this doesn't mean you get to start thinking it's SPECIAL.