[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Garrette]

Back in Wales humongous squared was "mulgies".

Unlikely. The consonant to vowel ratio is off.

 

[carlitos]

- How about "bigger than humungous"?

When I read this, I had to scroll up and double check, because it reads very much like sarcasm coming from one of the various non-Jabba's participating in this thread.

"Indistinguishable from parody" is not a compliment, Mr. Jabba.

 

[John Jones]

I've never done this before, so I appreciate someone stopping me from making a serious faux pas.

Shall I report this thread, and request that it be moved to Religion and Philosophy?

There hasn't been any Science, Mathematics, Medicine, or Technology from the OP in 15 freaking months.

Thanks.

 

[jsfisher]

I've never done this before, so I appreciate someone stopping me from making a serious faux pas.

Shall I report this thread, and request that it be moved to Religion and Philosophy?

There hasn't been any Science, Mathematics, Medicine, or Technology from the OP in 15 freaking months.

Thanks.

What are you saying?? I posted a delta just a couple of posts up. A DELTA. You can't get more sciency and mathematicified than a delta.

 

[PixyMisa]

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

You can't, because it's not.

I'll switch over to an unimaginable number instead.

You have a slight problem here, because that term doesn't mean anything.

- At that point, I'll get back to trying to provide a scientific case for infinity.

You have a slight problem here. Self is brain function. Brains are finite. Therefore the number of possible selves is finite. The end. You can't provide a scientific case for infinity. You're welcome to try, but you will fail.

- How about "bigger than humungous"?

How about no?

Is it finite or infinite?

- If I can't convince any of you guys that the 'number' is best understood as infinite, I'll move on towards a better description of what "unimaginable" is.

Is it finite or infinite?

If it's finite, your argument fails, because you require an infinite number for it to work.
If it's infinite, your argument fails, because your assertion is contradicted by all available evidence.

You're not going to convince anyone either way, you're just going to select one particular failure mode.

Godless Dave,

I disagree about Jabba's definition of self, but I want to be clear about "self" as Jabba defines it. Sorry to ask, but do you believe:

1. that there a self that essentially doesn't change from birth to death?

2. that it is independent of the brain (the physical neural system)?

- Though you didn't really address your question to me, I'll assume that it was meant for me.
1) Yes. Like it's still the same non-physical DVD -- what it contains has changed.
2) Yes -- ultimately.

So you are talking about souls. You have a slight problem here, in that your proof of immortality rests on the assumption of immortality.

And when I say "slight problem" I mean "abject and irredeemable failure".

 

[PixyMisa]

I've never done this before, so I appreciate someone stopping me from making a serious faux pas.

Shall I report this thread, and request that it be moved to Religion and Philosophy?

Yes.

 

[Slowvehicle]

<respectful snip>
You're not going to convince anyone either way, you're just going to select one particular failure mode.

So you are talking about souls. You have a slight problem here, in that your proof of immortality rests on the assumption of immortality.

And when I say "slight problem" I mean "abject and irredeemable failure".

Thread-in-a-nutshell.

 

[Slowvehicle]

What are you saying?? I posted a delta just a couple of posts up. A DELTA. You can't get more sciency and mathematicified than a delta.

Is that what it was?

I thought you were just in...

De-Nile!

 

[Loss Leader]

Shall I report this thread, and request that it be moved to Religion and Philosophy?

There hasn't been any Science, Mathematics, Medicine, or Technology from the OP in 15 freaking months.

Seeing as at least one moderator is fairly involved in the thread, I would assume that the mod has considered this issue when it has been brought up and chosen not to pursue the matter.

However, moderators do not participate in decisions regarding threads in which they are involved. Thus, you may report a post in the thread and ask that the thread be moved.

Don't be surprised, though, if the request does not result in action.

 

[George]

- How about "bigger than humungous"?
- If I can't convince any of you guys that the 'number' is best understood as infinite, I'll move on towards a better description of what "unimaginable" is.

Graham's number http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham's_numberis a humungously larger number than other well-known large numbers such as a 147 break in snooker or a three dart finish. But then it is even smaller than your credibility rating. You are a good one Jabba but you will never be a great one.
Why? Because you are boring. You've had are having a good run though.
The poster 'American' on the other hand was entertaining to the last. Now put your diamonds on the table mister and let's see what you've got.

 

[Jabba]

- I don't know that I really care which forum this thread is in, but it does seem to me that its best fit is mathematics. I'm claiming that Bayesian statistics supports a belief in immortality.
- Currently, we are stuck trying to define the self and immortality, but if I can reach a point where I think we have done just about all we can do towards nailing down these terms, I'll go back to the numbers that I propose fit into the equation.

 

[Sideroxylon]

If you make your own internally incoherent rules up is it still mathematics?

 

[Garrette]

No, Jabba, "we" are not stuck. We know exactly what you are saying, but you refuse to accept that (a) we are competent to understand your transcendent grasp of reality and (b) you are misusing both logic and Bayes in your repeated attempts to define both a soul and immortality into the scientific model.

You are the one who is stuck, and it is because your argument is hollow.

I see without surprise that you fail to answer the question about whether you think it is even possible that you are wrong.

 

[PixyMisa]

- I don't know that I really care which forum this thread is in, but it does seem to me that its best fit is mathematics. I'm claiming that Bayesian statistics supports a belief in immortality.

Yes, you are claiming that. But in over a year that is the only thing you have done.

- Currently, we are stuck trying to define the self and immortality

Nope. We're fine on the definitions. But your version of self simply does not exist. We can't help you there, and nothing you do with your numbers will help either.

 

[Garrette]

Yes, you are claiming that. But in over a year that is the only thing you have done.

This needs emphasizing.

Jabba has looked at this issue since he was 14. He has worked on the math for, one assumes, many years. He has pondered this a great deal and worked out an argument and a line of reasoning which prove to his satisfaction that we have a soul and we are immortal.

Yet despite all this mental toil and all the years of effort, when he presents his argument, he can't get past the first definition.

His response is not that of an honest explorer of truth: Hmmm.... Where did I go wrong?

No. His response is You people are too limited to understand.


It was exactly the same in the Shroud of Turin threads. He insisted he had been researching the issue for years upon years, but he could never present the research, and whenever he was shown that his reasoning was flawed at the most fundamental level, his response was You guys and the scientists are biased.


I'm not sure if narcissistic is the right word. Maybe solipsistic. It is certainly a staggering display of unwarranted hubris accompanied with a generous helping of Dunning-Kruger.


Notice that among the questions he refuses to answer is the very simple and fundamental one: Do you think it is even possible you are wrong?

I don't think he thinks it is possible.

Sorry, Jabba. I will likely still participate in the thread as it is in its own way quite fascinating and educational, but it has been some time since I adopted Akhenaten's position in not taking you seriously. There is nothing to take seriously at all in regard to your argument. It's a joke.

 

[godless dave]

- Currently, we are stuck trying to define the self and immortality, but if I can reach a point where I think we have done just about all we can do towards nailing down these terms, I'll go back to the numbers that I propose fit into the equation.

I thought we had already reached agreement on the scientific definition of the self.

 

[jsfisher]

I thought we had already reached agreement on the scientific definition of the self.

I'd thought so, too, but then didn't Jabba get all confused about complements again and so backed up over his previous work?

 

[Aepervius]

it has been some time since I adopted Akhenaten's position in not taking you seriously. There is nothing to take seriously at all in regard to your argument. It's a joke.

Welcome to the club. Would you like a gin tonic to sip while waiting for the next post/thread from Jabba ?

 

[Garrette]

Welcome to the club. Would you like a gin tonic to sip while waiting for the next post/thread from Jabba ?

Some bourbon, please, iced. And a good Honduran to go with.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Welcome to the club. Would you like a gin tonic to sip while waiting for the next post/thread from Jabba ?

Yes, please.

Even though I refuse to quit trying, not giving up is thirsty work.