[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[godless dave]

Dave,
- I think that you accept that there is no limited pool of potential specific selves that we existing selves come from. Is that correct?

If you're going to look at our selves as coming from a pool, the pool is, at any given time, the number of organisms that can reproduce and the chemicals necessary for them to do so. That pool is finite.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Dave,
- I think that you accept that there is no limited pool of potential specific selves that we existing selves come from. Is that correct?

Good Evening, Mr. Savage!

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I find the idea of a "pool" of potential selves to be undescriptive of the process by which consciousness manifests itself as an emergent property of a specific neurosystem. It is not that a "soul" (or "self" or "consciousness") is assigned to a neurosystem once the neurosystem is complex enough to serve as a host; instead, under certain conditions, a neurosystem expresses a unique consciousness as an emergent property.

No pool.

 

[snoop_doxie]

Jabba,

I know this has been tried before with absolutely no effect on you, but I like the analogy and I will try again:

Imagine you buy a lottery ticket. Before you look, you have a posterior probability of holding a winning ticket of 1/1,000,000. Now you look down, and your ticket is a winner (number, 01, 03, 11, 28, 49). Your probability of winning the lottery is now one! Oddly still, you look down and see 01, 08, 12, 22, 44 on your lottery ticket. This is not the number of the winner; it is a loser. But the posterior probability of obtaining that number is also 1/1,000,000, and your probability of having that number right now is also one.

The same statistics are relevant to you! The probability of your existence, being you are here, is one. Posteriorly, becoming Jabba in particular is very rare (otherwise there might be two), but you are here, with a probability of one! Posteriorly, you could have been someone else (some other number): your sister, or brother, or one of many combinations of sperm and ovum that never happened or made it. Your probability of being someone, anyone, is quite high; you had to be someone- you happened to be Jabba ("winning") See?

I am not sure if Jabba is getting it, but I think I am finally getting it!

This one part about probability of my existence and the odds of my existence(as me, one of many combinations) are both one?

Sigh....maybe I don't get it after all.

I really am learning a lot here.
Thank you all, for your patient explanations and analogies.

Back to lurking.

 

[carlitos]

Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

If Jabba still insists on an infinitely-divisible pool of souls existing, would he be kind enough to name this pool's location? I think this is my fifth or sixth time asking this question.

If something exists, surely it must exist in a given place, no?

 

[pakeha]

Dave,
- I think that you accept that there is no limited pool of potential specific selves that we existing selves come from. Is that correct?

Good Evening, Mr. Savage!

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I find the idea of a "pool" of potential selves to be undescriptive of the process by which consciousness manifests itself as an emergent property of a specific neurosystem. It is not that a "soul" (or "self" or "consciousness") is assigned to a neurosystem once the neurosystem is complex enough to serve as a host; instead, under certain conditions, a neurosystem expresses a unique consciousness as an emergent property.

No pool.

Thanks, Slowvehicle!

Jabba, why bring up the concept of a "pool" of selves?
Are you arguing the "self" is other than 'an emergent property of a specific neurosystem?'

In any case, what has happened to the discussion defining A and non-A?

 

[Jabba]

Good Evening, Mr. Savage!

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I find the idea of a "pool" of potential selves to be undescriptive of the process by which consciousness manifests itself as an emergent property of a specific neurosystem. It is not that a "soul" (or "self" or "consciousness") is assigned to a neurosystem once the neurosystem is complex enough to serve as a host; instead, under certain conditions, a neurosystem expresses a unique consciousness as an emergent property.

No pool.

Slowvehicle,
- Agreed.

 

[Jabba]

If Jabba still insists on an infinitely-divisible pool of souls existing, would he be kind enough to name this pool's location? I think this is my fifth or sixth time asking this question.

If something exists, surely it must exist in a given place, no?

- I think that Slowvehicle had it right -- there is no pool of potential selves.
- I think that such is also what the scientists working in the field of consciousness would say. Specific selves are brand new creations -- they had no "definition" prior to their actual existence.

 

[Garrette]

- I think that Slowvehicle had it right -- there is no pool of potential selves.
- I think that such is also what the scientists working in the field of consciousness would say. Specific selves are brand new creations -- they had no "definition" prior to their actual existence.

So are you abandoning the idea of the same consciousness inhabiting different, sequential forms?

Also, I strongly suggest you stop going by what you "think" scientists would say. If you cannot give sources (real ones) then you are likely wrong as was shown with your recent fiasco regarding what most scientists say--an egregious misrepresentation you have yet to acknowledge, source, or retract.

 

[John Jones]

- I think that Slowvehicle had it right -- there is no pool of potential selves.
- I think that such is also what the scientists working in the field of consciousness would say. Specific selves are brand new creations -- they had no "definition" prior to their actual existence.

IIRC, you were the one who suggested this pool in the first place.

 

[pakeha]

- I think that Slowvehicle had it right -- there is no pool of potential selves.
- I think that such is also what the scientists working in the field of consciousness would say. Specific selves are brand new creations -- they had no "definition" prior to their actual existence.

I'm glad that's cleared up, then.

Now, about the definition of A and not-A?
Are we any closer to agreement there?

 

[Jabba]

Jabba,

I know this has been tried before with absolutely no effect on you, but I like the analogy and I will try again:

Imagine you buy a lottery ticket. Before you look, you have a posterior probability of holding a winning ticket of 1/1,000,000. Now you look down, and your ticket is a winner (number, 01, 03, 11, 28, 49). Your probability of winning the lottery is now one! Oddly still, you look down and see 01, 08, 12, 22, 44 on your lottery ticket. This is not the number of the winner; it is a loser. But the posterior probability of obtaining that number is also 1/1,000,000, and your probability of having that number right now is also one.

The same statistics are relevant to you! The probability of your existence, being you are here, is one. Posteriorly, becoming Jabba in particular is very rare (otherwise there might be two), but you are here, with a probability of one! Posteriorly, you could have been someone else (some other number): your sister, or brother, or one of many combinations of sperm and ovum that never happened or made it. Your probability of being someone, anyone, is quite high; you had to be someone- you happened to be Jabba ("winning") See?

Giordano,
- Bayesian statistics distinguishes between "prior probability, "posterior probability" and "likelihood" -- none of these is, "The probability of your existence, being you are here..."
- The probability of me being here, given A, is called the "likelihood" of me being here, given A.

 

[Garrette]

Giordano,
- Bayesian statistics distinguishes between "prior probability, "posterior probability" and "likelihood" -- none of these is, "The probability of your existence, being you are here..."
- The probability of me being here, given A, is called the "likelihood" of me being here, given A.

Let us assume you are correct. Why on earth would you choose to respond to this post and avoid the posts that address substantive issues regarding your position?

I have my own thoughts on why, but I would like to hear your version.

 

[Akhenaten]

 

[Slowvehicle]

[qimg]http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/PoolOf%20Soles.jpg[/qimg]​

"How many times have I toed you to warn me before you do that?" He said, archly...

 

[Akhenaten]

I feel like such a heel.

 

[Jabba]

Let us assume you are correct. Why on earth would you choose to respond to this post and avoid the posts that address substantive issues regarding your position?

I have my own thoughts on why, but I would like to hear your version.

- I'm trying to keep as narrow a focus as possible. Currently, I'm trying to show that the likelihood of my current existence, given A, is 1/∞. Even more narrowly, I'm trying to show why science would consider the amount of potential selves (the denominator in the function) to be infinite.
- Giordano, in my understanding of his point, was saying that such could not be the case since the probability of my current existence, given that I currently exist, is 1.00. I wanted to explain why such a fact has nothing to do with the logic of my claim.
(- I also figured that it was easier to address than what might be more substantive issues...)

- Your previous post (below) might have been more substantive, but the second part is much more difficult to effectively respond to than someone not using the appropriate facts in the logic. I will try to explain why it seems to me that scientists in the field would perceive potential selves to be infinite, but I doubt that I'll be able to find anyone addressing that issue.
- Though not to worry, that will be my next attempt.

So are you abandoning the idea of the same consciousness inhabiting different, sequential forms?

Also, I strongly suggest you stop going by what you "think" scientists would say. If you cannot give sources (real ones) then you are likely wrong as was shown with your recent fiasco regarding what most scientists say--an egregious misrepresentation you have yet to acknowledge, source, or retract.

 

[Garrette]

- I'm trying to keep as narrow a focus as possible.

No one is stopping you from that, but the focus you chose was one about a non-core issue.

Currently, I'm trying to show that the likelihood of my current existence, given A, is 1/∞.

1. Then my question stands: Why did you choose to speak to that tangential issue instead of this one?

2. This isn't what you are doing "currently." It is what you have claimed to be doing all along. It's nothing new. We all know it. We have known it. We understand this far, far better than you think we do. I dare say that most here understand it far, far better than you yourself do.

3. Again, that's my point: There are critiques of your reasoning which show why you are failing to do this, yet you choose not to address those points. Why?

Even more narrowly, I'm trying to show why science would consider the amount of potential selves (the denominator in the function) to be infinite.

This is obfuscation and flailing about. Don't show us "why science would" do anything. Show us what science there is that does support your position. You are still avoiding the issue about your fiasco with what most scientists say. I wonder why.

- Giordano, in my understanding of his point, was saying that such could not be the case since the probability of my current existence, given that I currently exist, is 1.00. I wanted to explain why such a fact has nothing to do with the logic of my claim.
(- I also figured that it was easier to address than what might be more substantive issues...)

That has nothing to do with what you addressed to him. You addressed the definition of "likelihood" in Bayesian statistics.

- Your previous post (below) might have been more substantive,

You tend not to respond to substantive posts. Natheless, it was substantive; it simply wasn't detailed. I will elaborate:

You concede that there is no pool of selves. Given that there is no pool of selves, there is nowhere for a self from a deceased body to reside while waiting for the next body. Even if we stipulate that the next body is immediately available (which is an assumption you would have to justify), the self would still need to travel to that body. How and through what does it travel?

All of which is beside the main points that have been raised before; it was merely one of many implications of you finally conceding that there is no pool, so do not take this as an invitation to focus elsewhere than on the main points.

but the second part is much more difficult to effectively respond to than someone not using the appropriate facts in the logic.

Poppycock. It is only difficult if you simply don't have the sources you imply.

I will try to explain why it seems to me that scientists in the field would perceive potential selves to be infinite, but I doubt that I'll be able to find anyone addressing that issue.

I don't care "why it seems to" you about what scientists support. If you can't provide evidence that they do support it, then it is not only an appeal to authority, it is a false appeal to authority.

- Though not to worry, that will be my next attempt.

Right.

 

[Loss Leader]

Currently, I'm trying to show that the likelihood of my current existence, given A, is 1/∞.

Rather than starting from your conclusion and looking for ways to support it, why don't you start from the known facts and see what conclusions they lead you to?

1. The human animal had a start date about 200,000 years ago.

2. From that moment, the total number of individuals that could possibly have been born is a finite number of about 20 per female.

3. At any given moment up to now, there are a finite number of individuals that could be born. If every woman now alive had 20 children, that would be about 70 billion individuals.

4. Any individual child is the product of 23 out of 46 chromasomes combining with 23 out of 46 chromasomes. Assuming all 92 chromasomes are different, that's 4²³ possibilities.

5. The universe is made up of a finite amount of matter and energy, the total sum of which cannot change. There are a finite number of ways that the matter in the universe could be arranged. That number is startlingly and depressingly huge but it is a finite number.

6. All finite numbers, when combined in any way, always lead to a finite number.

Thus: The system is and always will be finite. No infinite set of people can be created within the system.

 

[Garrette]

I will try to explain why it seems to me that scientists in the field would perceive potential selves to be infinite, but I doubt that I'll be able to find anyone addressing that issue.

The hubris in this post is astounding.

All of these scientists don't actually support your position; it is merely that they would support your position if they bothered to think about it like you have.

That is what you are saying. Not only does it presume to put words in the mouths of those for whom you have no business at all speaking, but it assumes that not a single one of them has ever thought of what you have thought of, or if they have they have simply fallen short of your tremendous insight or they haven't been interested enough in the fame and fortune that would be theirs if they pursued it.

Astounding.

 

[pakeha]

... I will try to explain why it seems to me that scientists in the field would perceive potential selves to be infinite, but I doubt that I'll be able to find anyone addressing that issue.
- Though not to worry, that will be my next attempt.

Wait, what?
Are you presupposing the existence of potential selves?