[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Agatha]

Of course, Jabba's latest nonsense has been debunked before http://debate.atheist.net/showthread.php?t=3032&page=12

That is an.... enlightening read in many ways. Jabba's views on gender roles and relationships (and his insistence that the Universe cares about him) aside, all of our objections to his misunderstanding and misapplication of probability from which his argument stems were very well covered, and utterly ignored by Jabba (as he is doing here).

Jabba, there is nothing inherently wrong in wanting to believe that you will not be blotted out of existence when you die, if you find that comforting. There is nothing unusual in enjoying life and wanting to continue to do so - most of us do, and we wish that death is put off for as long as possible.

It is vital that you understand that the wish for immortality is not evidence for it. Reality simply does not work like that. This is real life, not a chapter of 'The Secret' or similar New-Agey bollocks. The universe is a vast, bleak, unknowing and uncaring place - what we on this tiny unimportant planet want and the things that some people believe bear little relation to actual reality.

Your Bayes calculation fails because firstly, you are calculating the probability of you existing after the fact of your existence (classic Texas Sharpshooter fallacy), secondly because you are not taking into account all of the background knowledge, thirdly because if one existing thing is unlikely does not make another unrelated thing any more likely, and lastly (but by no means exhaustively), the only evidence you have put forward in favour of immortality is not in the least bit credible.

Put down the outdated pop-psychology books/websites, they are not helping you at all. The brain does not work like you think it does, and it's insulting to suggest that those who disagree with you, and/or those who are atheist, are 'blinded' or have defective thought processes.

By the way, please stop repeating the lie that those who don't agree with you hold that 'nothing is non-physical'. You've been corrected on this so many times that I have to suspect you are deliberately promulgating a falsehood.

 

[Jabba]

Well, quantum means a required or allowed amount, so it could be that a soul is a quanta of the infinitely divisible pool of souls, broken off whenever a new life needs to be formed. What? Evidence? Who needs evidence?

Frozenwolf,

- Look up "quantum mechanics universal consciousness."
- Here's an example.
From http://guardianlv.com/2013/11/quant...on-universal-consciousness-and-the-afterlife/

Bruce Rosenblum, a Professor of Physics summarized the quantum world in a way that illustrates Einstein and Jordan’s frustrations when he said “relativity says strange things about time, space and energy. But quantum mechanics says unbelievable things about us, our consciousness, our free will, and the nature of our human involvement with physical reality.”

- Another example.
http://endgametime.wordpress.com/th...chanics-of-the-human-brain-and-consciousness/

 

[Loss Leader]

- All I'm trying to do, so far, is support my claim that to eliminate ~A as a possibility is not warranted.

Jabba,

If you pulled a straight flush in Vegas, would you refuse the prize because the game was probably rigged?

I know you would not because earlier in the thread you said you wouldn't. You said that we have good reason to know the game is not rigged in Vegas: First, it's all heavily regulated by the government. Second, if the casino owners were to rig the game, they certainly wouldn't do it in favor of you winning. Third, we've seen the game played many, many times and have seen all manner of hands.

Strangely, you then say that you think this game (this universe) is rigged. This is your mistake. You have no evidence of that.

1. You haven't seen multiple "hands." You've only seen one hand. You've seen this one universe run this one time. You don't know if the cards have been shuffled. For all you know, they are set in a predetermined order and you would always pull a straight flush.

2. You don't know the rules. Knowing how poker is played lets you calculate the odds. But you have no idea how this game is played. To the extent that you can observe the universe and pick up a couple rules, it appears that everything dies. It also appears that energy cannot exist without matter and that nothing about a person ever leaves the body. So, the rules that you can figure out don't support your conclusion that the game is rigged.

3. You don't even know whether you're holding a straight flush. You may feel very lucky, but you don't really know the value of any of your cards. You might have a busted straight or a pair of 3's. You can't see your cards and you certainly can't compare them to anyone else's.

4. You can't meet the casino owners. In Vegas, there are real people that are accountable for the running of the casino. In this game, there may be a casino owner (God), but he's certainly not accessible or accountable.

So, all mathematics aside, can you tell just by the hand you've been dealt that the game is rigged? You cannot know. You cannot assign probabilities. You cannot do anything with the one hand in the one game you're playing other than hope you have whatever the casino considers to be a good hand.

No playing with numbers will change that.

 

[Garrette]

You've been corrected on this so many times that I have to suspect you are deliberately promulgating a falsehood.

There are many falsehoods he promulgates despite repeated corrections. Deliberate or not, the conclusion is that he lacks either the desire or the capacity to learn.

 

[Mojo]

Anyway, Jabba, if you define your A as "I will have just one finite existence" (as you are doing in the first paragraph of this post from earlier today) then ~A includes you not existing at all. Since there are many ways for you not to exist but only way for you to exist then, if you just look at the prior probabilities, you can "essentially prove" that you don't exist.

Do you think there is a possibility that there is something fundamentally wrong with your approach?

 

[Jabba]

All ~A is is every possibility apart from whatever is defined as A. So, yes, eliminating ~A as a possibility is, for almost any defined A, not warranted. This doesn't get you any closer to your goal though.

Mojo,
- Would it make a difference by stating what the A I'm referring to says?

 

[Mojo]

Mojo,
- Would it make a difference by stating what the A I'm referring to says?

Go ahead and state it, and we'll see.

 

[godless dave]

Frozenwolf,

- Look up "quantum mechanics universal consciousness."
- Here's an example.
From http://guardianlv.com/2013/11/quant...on-universal-consciousness-and-the-afterlife/

Bruce Rosenblum, a Professor of Physics summarized the quantum world in a way that illustrates Einstein and Jordan’s frustrations when he said “relativity says strange things about time, space and energy. But quantum mechanics says unbelievable things about us, our consciousness, our free will, and the nature of our human involvement with physical reality.”

- Another example.
http://endgametime.wordpress.com/th...chanics-of-the-human-brain-and-consciousness/

You know both those articles are complete bunk, right? Quantum mechanics says absolutely nothing about consciousness. The "observer effect" has nothing to do with consciousness.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Mojo,
- Would it make a difference by stating what the A I'm referring to says?

No. And you've already done that, anyway.

 

[Jabba]

It's actually up to you which one you want to answer first. Do you feel better prepared to answer the question of the false dichotomy? Or do you feel you have a stronger case for evidence of an immortal soul? Either would make for a good discussion, and others have laid out some fairly easy guidelines how you could go about providing those answers.

Slowvehicle,
- Per usual, I need to narrow the focus.
- All I'm trying to do, so far, is support my claim that to eliminate ~A as a possibility is not warranted.
- Do you disagree?

Frozenwolf,
- Do you agree with me that elimination of ~A as a possibility is unwarranted? I thought you had made such a statement previously, but looking back, I couldn't find it.

 

[Garrette]

Frozenwolf,

- Look up "quantum mechanics universal consciousness."
- Here's an example.
From http://guardianlv.com/2013/11/quant...on-universal-consciousness-and-the-afterlife/

Bruce Rosenblum, a Professor of Physics summarized the quantum world in a way that illustrates Einstein and Jordan’s frustrations when he said “relativity says strange things about time, space and energy. But quantum mechanics says unbelievable things about us, our consciousness, our free will, and the nature of our human involvement with physical reality.”

Read your sources. Hint: A webpage summary isn't a source. When you look for an actual source supporting your claim, you find not one single paper by Rosenblum. Instead, you find a pop-psychology book that offers no science.

- Another example.
http://endgametime.wordpress.com/th...chanics-of-the-human-brain-and-consciousness/

Dr. Granville Dharmawardena is a chemist, not a physicist, and again, has exactly zero papers supporting anything related to your pet topic.

What is rampant on your side is speculation and unevidenced wish-seeking, but you don't have even the honesty to read the actual sources, instead relying on third-hand regurgitations from specious websites.

 

[Jabba]

Go ahead and state it, and we'll see.

Mojo,
- A = human "selves" exist for one finite time at most.
- Are we justified in eliminating the possibility of ~A in this case?

 

[Garrette]

Mojo,
- A = human "selves" exist for one finite time at most.
- Are we justified in eliminating the possibility of ~A in this case?

Of course not. Who said we are?

But as someone has said, both A and ~A include the possibility of not existing at all, so there is overlap. Which means that ~A isn't really ~A since it's only mostly ~A.

 

[Loss Leader]

- Are we justified in eliminating the possibility of ~A in this case?

Just because you can't eliminate ~A doesn't mean you can assign numbers to it. See my previous post.

 

[Mojo]

Mojo,
- A = human "selves" exist for one finite time at most.
- Are we justified in eliminating the possibility of ~A in this case?

No, but this isn't going to help you. There are possibilities that are included in your ~A that do not involve human selves being immortal.

ETA: Not eliminating the possibility of something =/= proving it.

And the thing you are trying to prove is not even your ~A; it is a subset of your ~A.

 

[Mojo]

Mojo,
- A = human "selves" exist for one finite time at most.
- Are we justified in eliminating the possibility of ~A in this case?

Let's look at a different A.

A = Human selves are immortal.
Are we justified in eliminating the possibility of ~A in this case?

 

[jsfisher]

Jabba,

- If I am holding a bag of 100 marbles and I tell you the marbles in the bag are all red, how many of the marbles would need to be blue to make my claim false?

- Let's say that each of the 100 marbles had someones name inscribed on it, including one labeled "Jabba". Now, if we know my claim the marbles are all red be false, what do we then know about the color of the marble labeled "Jabba"?

- Would you like to reconsider where you are going with your A/~A arc?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Were it up to me, the rate would be extremely high regarding HCCCWOC : USD. Plus a transaction fee.

Slowvehicle,
- Per usual, I need to narrow the focus.
- All I'm trying to do, so far, is support my claim that to eliminate ~A as a possibility is not warranted.
- Do you disagree?

Good morning,Mr. Savage:

This is exactly the same approach you tried in Shroud^TM and Shroud II: The Return of the Tablecloth. I must admit, I am just a touch disappointed, in that the problems of this approach have been pointed out to you in several threads, and on several fora.

Let's go back to the fair 6-sided dice problem. You (rightly) wanted to define "every possible outcome" as being limited to rolling a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6. There are good reasons to do so: for one thing, a die balancing on its edge is so very unlikely that it is reasonable to simplify the event space. Simplifying the event space does, in fact, ignore or omit vanishingly improbable formal possibilities; the remedy is not to pretend that the vanishingly small possibilities must be considered likely,or even functionally possible. That way, if, for instance, the die did in fact balance on a corner, on a flat tabletop, one's response is not, "that's impossible", but,"I wonder what made that happen. What evidence can be found to explain this inexpressably unlikely event?"

Formally, it can be said that the possibility that you are, in fact, something other then an emergent property of your neurosystem, and you will, in fact, once again be that something "other", but of a different neurosystem; and that those two "others", unrelated by any characteristic other than your insistence that they are, somehow, both Rich Savage, is so vanishingly unlikely that considering it eliminated does not, in any way, impede the pursuit of our understanding of observed reality.

Which brings us back to our request for practical, empirical, objective evidence. If you show me practical,empirical, objective evidence that consciousness is something other than an emergent property of a specific neurosystem, the fact that such a conclusion cannot, in fact, be formally excluded (but must be considered one of the vanishingly improbable iterations of the exclusivity in ~A means that I will honestly and dispassionately consider your evidence.

What it does not mean is that the "unutterable groanings" of your "transcendent self", and your need to protect yourself from the void of oblivion, and your sensitivity to "holistic" imaginings, are not evidence, but descriptions of your hopes.

I keep asking this question: If my "self" is something other than an emergent property of my neurosystem, why did severe trauma to my neurosystem demonstrably, and measurably, change my "self"?

 

[Giordano]

I am uncertain how to get Jabba's attention here, because he simply refuses to listen to anyone else here. In fact, he gives no indication that he considers and understands any posts other than his own.

But I will try again by begging Jabba to read the entire thread and learn from it. It shows how to do the math correctly and why his math is wrong. Moving on with his erroneous math means he will not be proving anything to anyone.

Two: as has been stated already in many different ways, even if Jabba can do the math correctly, he will only be showing that the chance of a new, future Jabba, identical in all ways to the current Jabba (for whom P=1) is very unlikely. Thus he will be proving the opposite of his goal: he will be proving the improbabilty of reincarnation.

Finally I see a shift in Jabba's goals, from proving reincarnation to essentially proving reincarnation, to proving reincarnation is not completely impossible. Doesn't this shift tell you something, Jabba? I wouldn't suggest unicorns are completely impossible, and there is a better chance of them than incarnation.

Please end this thread and transfer it to AAH; I have.

 

[John Jones]

- I should add http://messiahornot.com/Magic.php.
- Here, in summary, my claim is that

[...]
- There is more to say along these lines, but I’m having trouble with the wording, and want to leave you with something more to munch on before I drive my wife to a morning meeting.

Reported for spamming.