[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Slowvehicle]

- 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...)

Good Morning, Mr. Savage:

Do you, in fact, exist?

If you, in fact, exist, the probability of your existence, (given that you exist) is 1 (one).

If it could be demonstrated that the probability of your existence, before you, personally, were demonstrated to exist, was, in fact, "1/∞", congratulations would be in order, as you would have proved that there was no chance (not "virtually no chance", not "effectively no chance", not "a really really really really small chance") of your existing.

You're still trying to set up a situation where you can claim that observed reality is so unlikely that your assumed consequent must be more likely than observed reality.

Why not just present the practical, empirical, objective evidence you have that consciousness is something other than an emergent process, a side-effect, of a neurosystem?

- 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.

I thought you agreed there was no "pool" of potential selves. If the "self" (consciousness/soul/atman/πνεῦμα/נֶפֶשׁ/whatever-new-age-buzzword) is an emergent property of a neurosystem, then the number of potential selves is, in fact, limited and not infinite.

...unless you have evidence that you are referring to something other than an emergent property of a neurosystem.

 

[Monza]

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

Wow. Look at all those soles.

 

[Aepervius]

Wow. Look at all those soles.

Yes and akhenaten is solely responsible for that picture.

*cough*

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

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.

As you've studiously avoided providing references as to which scientists in particular you're talking about, let alone specific papers, let me ask you a much simpler question that will take you 2 seconds to answer, and which you therefore have no excuse not to answer - which field are you talking about? When you say "scientists in the field", what branch of science, specifically, do you mean?

 

[carlitos]

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?

- You're talking about actual selves. If there is no pool of (specific) potential selves that we are pulled from, there is no theoretical limit to the number of possible selves. Each new self is a brand new creation.

Third time asking - where is this pool of yours?

....


5) There is no pool of potential selves.

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.

Yup.

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?

Just as a reminder, this whole pool of souls was Jabba's creation.

- 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...

Which he special-pleaded by inventing "2 different kinds of infinity." Or rather 2 different "kinds" of infinity, if that means something else:

- This is the part that's so difficult for me to express effectively. This is where I need to make a distinction between two different "kinds" of infinity, for which I've never heard a distinction made. And then, this is where I need to show which one of them is appropriate for our purposes here... I tried to do that previously -- it didn't work. I'll have to try again.
- I'll be back.

And now, no pool:

- 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.

The problem isn't the vocabulary or the ability to explain it. It's that Jabba's logic is about as solid as jello nailed to a whoopie cushion.

 

[carlitos]

No pot and no pool. If this were a party in LA, it would suck.

 

[Garrette]

In an attempt to help Jabba move this along, I think there may be some mis-reading of his latest attempts vis-a-vis a pool of selves.

Jabba has agreed that there is no pool of selves, either infinite or finite. What he is relying on is an infinite number of potential selves, none of which are waiting to join up with a human form but all of which might attach themselves to a new human form if they beat all the others to the punch. It is this group of potential selves that Jabba is arguing for.

He ignores Loss Leader's excellent posts regarding the finite number of potential selves because Jabba rejects consciousness (or self) as an emergent property. According to Jabba's thinking, the self might develop and be affected by the specifics of the form it inhabits and by the experiences of that form, but it got its start separately and originated outside the body.

Yes, there are holes galore in that thought process, but that's where Jabba is. It is a mistake to keep attacking the idea that there are pools of souls; that's not Jabba's position [any longer].

 

[godless dave]

In an attempt to help Jabba move this along, I think there may be some mis-reading of his latest attempts vis-a-vis a pool of selves.

Jabba has agreed that there is no pool of selves, either infinite or finite. What he is relying on is an infinite number of potential selves, none of which are waiting to join up with a human form but all of which might attach themselves to a new human form if they beat all the others to the punch. It is this group of potential selves that Jabba is arguing for.

He ignores Loss Leader's excellent posts regarding the finite number of potential selves because Jabba rejects consciousness (or self) as an emergent property. According to Jabba's thinking, the self might develop and be affected by the specifics of the form it inhabits and by the experiences of that form, but it got its start separately and originated outside the body.

Yes, there are holes galore in that thought process, but that's where Jabba is. It is a mistake to keep attacking the idea that there are pools of souls; that's not Jabba's position [any longer].

I think you're right, but the problem with this is that Jabba has always said proposition A is the scientific explanation for the existence of consciousness, which is that consciousness is an emergent property, and did not originate outside the body.

 

[Garrette]

To try to put it in very rough graphic form:

Sometimes:

Coitus -------->Formation of embryo
-------------->Simultaneous creation and attachment of self, ex nihilo

Other Times:--------->Formation of embryo
----------------------->Simultaneous attachment of selves that used to be in Napoleon

 

[pakeha]

^
Quite right, Garrette, that's why I posted the following

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

 

[Garrette]

I think you're right, but the problem with this is that Jabba has always said proposition A is the scientific explanation for the existence of consciousness, which is that consciousness is an emergent property, and did not originate outside the body.

Well, I did say there are holes....

 

[Garrette]

^
Quite right, Garrette, that's why I posted the following

Geez, can't I be the genius around here just once?


Sulks...

 

[Monza]

- 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/∞.

Good morning, Jabba. I have been following this thread for a while and am trying to understand your position. From the above quote, I take it that you believe that it is impossible for your existence to be singular and finite (i.e. condition A) since 1/∞ is zero.

Is your stance that the likelihood of your current existence, given A, is impossible. Or rather, do you believe it is extremely unlikely? I just want to clarify the difference between zero and a really really small number.

Thank you.

 

[Akhenaten]

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

<snip>

You must find ignoring 99% of the thread very helpful with that.

 

[Mojo]

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?

The Anubus, of course. I believe the pharaoh may even have a picture of it.

 

[Akhenaten]

 

[Garrette]

How could I have forgotten? I am immortal after all!

 

[Garrette]

I think you're right, but the problem with this is that Jabba has always said proposition A is the scientific explanation for the existence of consciousness, which is that consciousness is an emergent property, and did not originate outside the body.

This comment has helped me grasp some earlier posts I did not fully follow. It might have been you who posted them, but I can't find them now.

Short version of those posts was that it appears that Jabba is actually proving he is less likely to be immortal than not, though Jabba does not realize that.

Short version of my equationification of that statement:

Premise 1: A = the Standard Model = finite potential selves
Premise 2: ~A = any other scenario = infinite potential selves

P(Jabba Existing | A) > P(Jabba Existing | ~A), simply by definition

(I wouldn't expect to pass a real stats course with the above, but you get my drift)

 

[pakeha]

Geez, can't I be the genius around here just once?


Sulks...

Garrette, you'll always be a genius to me.

 

[Garrette]

Garrette, you'll always be a genius to me. [qimg]http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/hello/hat-tip-smiley-emoticon.gif[/qimg]

Thank you. That helps a little. But what about all these other smarty-pants around here, huh? What about Slowvehicle and his sciencey degree-ification? What about Akhenaten and all his wisdom-of-the-ages and his Mad Computer Skilz? What about everybody else on this thread?

Do they acknowledge my geniusosity? Do they ever kow-tow or bow and scrape? Oh, no. I'm not gooood enough for the likes o' them.

Here I have it on highest authority (Jabba - best man in the fight) that I'm special, but not a one of those ingrates acknowledges it.

Harumph.