• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

Status
Not open for further replies.
You realize that Jabba only responds to what appears to be the least critical post, then still ignores the real concern in that post but tries to build a fake consensus around it?
[...]

I don't think there is any question about it.

Unless I'm mistaken, he strutted like a barnyard rooster in this very thread, claimed victory and offered to take the Million Dollar Challenge because his interlocutors had grown weary of arguing with a brick wall.

If I am wrong, I will admit my error, retract the above, and apologize to Jabba.
 
Indeed, you calculated the probability of drawing a unique 5-card permutation, but what you said you were calculating was the probability of drawing a unique poker hand. In poker, A♣K♣Q♣J♣10♣ and 10♣J♣Q♣K♣A♣ are the same hand.

Absolutely correct; thanks!
 
Last edited:
I thought I cleaned up the typo by editing my post, but there it still is!
It should be 1/52x1/51x1/50x1/49x1/48 all times 120. Sorry.
 
I thought I cleaned up the typo by editing my post, but there it still is!
It should be 1/52x1/51x1/50x1/49x1/48 all times 120. Sorry.

If from the beginning you had just written it as \frac{\Gamma (6)\Gamma (48)}{\Gamma (53)} you would have saved a lot of confusion.


:duck:
 
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but it really is "multiply."


You're right. I didn't notice that it was already inverted. Damn it, why can't I be right about math just once?
 
Last edited:
Jabba, why do you reject the definition of consciousness as an emergent property of a particular neurosystem?

Why make reference to DVD, re-incarnation and immortality?
 
- Unfortunately, I'm still not sure that you and I are talking about the same concept...


In the faint hope that it helps, here's the concept that we are talking about:


- I think that I can essentially prove immortality using Bayesian statistics.


Our position is one of disagreement with the above claim.

Unfortunately I can't present the concept that you are talking about, since I have no idea what it is.


- Some of you probably are -- but, I'm not sure. And, it's hard to move on with that doubt in mind...


It hasn't stopped you for the last 15 months. All appearances so far lead to a conclusion that you move on whenever your argument du jour becomes untenable so I'd say you're long overdue.



- I'll try, at least one more time, to clarify -- just what it is to which I'm referring by "self" -- with an analogy.
- The "self" I'm referring to is like a DVD recording a particular lifetime. Clearly, the DVD "changes" enormously over that lifetime, but it is still the same DVD. In that sense, I am the same self that I was when I was three.
- The difference between what you believe and what I believe is that I don't believe that the DVD exists only while the particular neurosystem exists.


That's an unbelievably bad analogy, not least because at the end you've completely negated it by saying that the DVD is something completely different in function to the neurosystem with which you initially analogised it.
 
Dave,
- Good.
- But, Proposition A is only the claim that we human selves exist for one finite time at most. That last sentence refers to proposition B. (I'm no longer trying to compare the posterior probabilities of A and ~A.)


Thoth, save me.

Proposition B??!!eleventeen!!??

I can only assume this means the next few weeks will be a morass of attempts to demonstrate that B = ~A and therefore A = ~B thus immortality!

Can I get in early and nominate April as "Proposition C Month"?
 
You realize that Jabba only responds to what appears to be the least critical post, then still ignores the real concern in that post but tries to build a fake consensus around it?


It's been the defining pattern of both this and the Tablecloth thread. The only reason that thread finally ground to a halt was that there were no posts being made that even Jabba could pretend were anything less than scathingly critical.
 
So, this DVD-self would exist for all life forms, then? You, an amoeba, a pink carnation, or is an explicit neurosystem required? A pet dog, then? What about semi-life forms like viruses? What about inanimate objects? Do billiard balls have this DVD-self of which you refer?


What about DVDs? Do they have DVDs of themselves?

Holy recursion, Batman!

In any case, according to the ancient Egyptians, all things possessed at least part of the self that Jabba is failing to describe. It was called the Ba and is something like what we might call a personality. Everything had a Ba, including inanimate objects.



Then there is the question of Jabba parts. Is it just Jabba in total that has this DVD-self, or would an amputated arm, say, have a separate DVD-self? What about toenail clippings? If not the arm nor clippings, just how much of Jabba is needed to have the part with the DVD-self?


Strangely enough (or not) you've touched again upon the way the ancient Egyptian regarded these things.

According to them, absolutely everything that made up the Khat, or physical body, had to be included in a sacred burial in order that the Akh, (meaning "effective one", as in "Akh-en-Aten") could be reassembled in the afterlife.

This meant that not only did the rituals ensure that the Ba (described above), the Ka (the "vital essence" or "life force" that only living things possess), the Ib (the heart, which the ancient Egyptians believed to have most of the functions that we now know to be performed by the brain) have to be included, but even the tiniest bit that fell off the body during the preparations (such as toenail clippings or loose teeth) had to be properly prepared and interred. This included any of the bandages, cloths and other paraphernalia used in the preparations.

Further, in the case of high ranking officials and Pharaohs, a box was prepared which had the ritual purpose of containing the Sheut (shadow) since it was thought that a person's shadow also contained something of his or her self.



ETA: It's funny, but reading that back makes me realise how much at home someone like Jabba would have been in ancient Egypt. No need for Bayes' theorem and weird definitions to essentially prove anything. Everyone already knew that immortality was a thing, as long as the right spells were cast and the appropriate offerings made.
 
Last edited:
<snip>

According to them, absolutely everything that made up the Khat, or physical body, had to be included in a sacred burial in order that the Akh, (meaning "effective one", as in "Akh-en-Aten") could be reassembled in the afterlife.

This meant that not only did the rituals ensure that the Ba (described above), the Ka (the "vital essence" or "life force" that only living things possess), the Ib (the heart, which the ancient Egyptians believed to have most of the functions that we now know to be performed by the brain) have to be included, but even the tiniest bit that fell off the body during the preparations (such as toenail clippings or loose teeth) had to be properly prepared and interred. This included any of the bandages, cloths and other paraphernalia used in the preparations.

Further, in the case of high ranking officials and Pharaohs, a box was prepared which had the ritual purpose of containing the Sheut (shadow) since it was thought that a person's shadow also contained something of his or her self.

This is the sort of post that keeps the E in JREF, and makes threads like these more than simply an exercise in beating one's head against a brick wall.
 
ETA: It's funny, but reading that back makes me realise how much at home someone like Jabba would have been in ancient Egypt. No need for Bayes' theorem and weird definitions to essentially prove anything. Everyone already knew that immortality was a thing, as long as the right spells were cast and the appropriate offerings made.


In honor of being back home with the Egyptians, I give you....

 
It's been the defining pattern of both this and the Tablecloth thread. The only reason that thread finally ground to a halt was that there were no posts being made that even Jabba could pretend were anything less than scathingly critical.

I suspect that he sees this as application of his "effective debating technique," whereby he concentrates on the sub-sub-sub.....sub-issues until an impasse (not agreement) is reached. Obviously, it's Jabba's rules, so he determines what to focus on and when an impasse is reached. Everything else, however pertinent to the discussion, is presumably white noise to be filtered out, especially if he finds it uncomfortable.

He's also not interested in reaching an answer, merely convincing the non-participating, un-biased audience that cheers him on from his imagination. So, the DVD analogy doesn't have to convince us (and won't do because we've proven our bias by disagreeing with Jabba), he only has to convince himself.

All this is explained over at "Messiah: hot or not?"
 
<polite snip>


He's also not interested in reaching an answer, merely convincing the non-participating, un-biased audience that cheers him on from his imagination.


I've wondered about this a few times. Since the audience that he's hoping to convince never participate in any of the discussions, how is he going to know whether he's succeeded or not?



So, the DVD analogy doesn't have to convince us (and won't do because we've proven our bias by disagreeing with Jabba), he only has to convince himself.


Tragically, he seems unable to even convince himself. He'll demonstrate this at some stage in the next few days at most by posting some new analogy that essentially contradicts the most recent one.



All this is explained over at "Messiah: hot or not?"


:D
 
I've wondered about this a few times. Since the audience that he's hoping to convince never participate in any of the discussions, how is he going to know whether he's succeeded or not?

It's like the Zen Rubick's Cube that is all one color--you know you have solved it when you find inner peace.

Mr, Savage just knows that, since he is"right", all non-biased, non-transcendent-blind neutral thinkers have to agree with him...

<snip>
 
- Unfortunately, I'm still not sure that you and I are talking about the same concept...
- Some of you probably are -- but, I'm not sure. And, it's hard to move on with that doubt in mind...

- I'll try, at least one more time, to clarify -- just what it is to which I'm referring by "self" -- with an analogy.
- The "self" I'm referring to is like a DVD recording a particular lifetime. Clearly, the DVD "changes" enormously over that lifetime, but it is still the same DVD. In that sense, I am the same self that I was when I was three.
- The difference between what you believe and what I believe is that I don't believe that the DVD exists only while the particular neurosystem exists.
In that case, we're mostly talking about the same self, except your last sentence means you are not talking about the scientific conception of the self, which means your proposition A is not the scientific explanation for consciousness.
Dave,
- Good.
- But, Proposition A is only the claim that we human selves exist for one finite time at most. That last sentence refers to proposition B. (I'm no longer trying to compare the posterior probabilities of A and ~A.)
I thought your math for proposition A depended on an infinite number of possible selves.
Dave,

- My math for the posterior probability of A, involves a likelihood of the current me, given A, where my current entry for the number of possible selves is infinite. (I say "my current entry" because if I can't convince anyone here that the number of possible selves, from a scientific viewpoint, is infinite, I'll switch over to an unimaginable number instead.)
- So proposition A very likely is the current consensus scientific "explanation" (theory) re the mortality of what I am calling the "self."

- That's a lot of words to parse. Sorry about that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom