[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Garrette]

That's the way I see it... I thought we'd been through all this really thoroughly at the beginning of the thread?

Yes, and not just with Jabba but Toontown, too. From my non-statistician POV, it seemed the basic disagreement was getting lost in the shuffle, so I restated it, partly to make sure I had not lost the thread.

 

[Garrette]

Good morning, Mr. Savage:

Might this be the point where you finally introduce your evidence that this thing you call the "soul" exists, and is immortal?

During the buildup to the First Gulf War, Saddam Hussein launched a raid on the Saudi town of Khafji. I was in Military Intelligence at the time (not deployed there, though), and within that community we kept wondering why Saddam did not launch a major spoiling attack. When the war was over it became apparent that Khafji was his major spoiling attack. (I would link to the wiki entry but I am on my phone in an airport and that skill is beyond me).

So it is with Jabba. The story of his epiphany as a 14 year old boy was his evidence. Everything else is just packaging, but he has failed to recognize that his army of assumptions lies destroyed on the debating Highway of Death.

 

[Giordano]

Slowvehicle,
- I use the terms synonymously -- but, I think that one captures the concept better than the other.

If by "observer" you mean the same as "self" (or possibly, eventually, even "soul") then I disagree with your use of the term "observer" for the same reason I disagree with your use of "self." The definition of "observer" that I agreed to appears not to be your definition of "observer." So, no go.

I would also echo the feelings of other people here that this is a very dishonest attempt to simply change the word to get apparent agreement, when in your heart of hearts you intend a very different meaning from the one agreed to by others. And you did this even though others here strongly disagreed with your secret meaning and expressed that disagreement vocally in previous posts.

Again, I think you are too caught up being the attorney in a court of law, rather than seeking truth like the rest of us. ("Might the sound you heard not be a gun shot, but a back fire? Not a back fire? How about a door being closed? Not a door being closed? Might, just might it have it been a vase falling? Clearly not a vase falling? How about moose sharping its alters? There are no moose on your street in New York City? Might the sound have been a....). You might get one of us to agree that, although unlikely, the sound might have been a flying saucer closing its hatch. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a gun shot.

 

[John Jones]

If by "observer" you mean the same as "self" (or possibly, eventually, even "soul") then I disagree with your use of the term "observer" for the same reason I disagree with your use of "self." The definition of "observer" that I agreed to appears not to be your definition of "observer." So, no go.

I would also echo the feelings of other people here that this is a very dishonest attempt to simply change the word to get apparent agreement, when in your heart of hearts you intend a very different meaning from the one agreed to by others. And you did this even though others here strongly disagreed with your secret meaning and expressed that disagreement vocally in previous posts.

[...]

And I guess he thinks we're pretty stupid not to see through that farce.

 

[Giordano]

I think you are right! That helps explain a lot. It is like trying to get an attorney to admit in court that his client is guilty- they never will no matter the evidence or how they truly feel!

But here, the jury has already spoken- the client is guilty! Is there any participant in this thread, or lurker, who votes not guilty on any of Jabba's arguments that have been questioned here? Please post so I am not mis-stating your views.

But more so, I do hope Jabba eventually understands that this is not a court of law or a confrontation. First, truth is truth no matter who believes it. And we are only interested in the truth here, and not in court arguments!

In examining Jabba's recent posts, I've come to believe that not just the jury, but Jabba, too, knows the defendant is guilty. That is the only way I can interpret his complete lack of a response to the repeated posts here pointing out the fatal flaws in his "proof." He simply has no response, and he realizes that his "proof" is wrong in many ways. I think he showed that he understands at least some of our concerns when he recently admitted to a "minor" problem with one of his theories: of course, it was a major problem that invalidated his proof, but he realized he had a problem.

I don't see this as does Jabba as a court of law. But like a lawyer, sometimes you have to support a defendant that you have come to realize did the crime. You just can't expect the lawyer to admit it.

 

[Toontown]

It's impossible to even estimate without setting explicit limits; how far do we go back - to the start of life on Earth? formation of the solar system? the galaxy? the universe? You'd be better trying to calculate the length of a coastline or a Hilbert curve.

Why do you think it needs to be precise? You're saying, in effect, that it's really grater than 400 trillion to 1, and I agree. It doesn't matter. It's like beating a dead horse. The horse doesn't get any deader the more you beat it.

 

[godless dave]

I don't believe for an instant that I've actually beaten the 400 trillion odds implied by hypothesis A.

You haven't beaten any odds. Before the unlikely thing happened, there was no you.

 

[Toontown]

That would be a mistake (to conclude that godless dave is trolling).

You use "prohibitively" one way; he has accepted that and uses it the same way. That is not the core of your disagreement.

Allow me to coin the term "Godds," meaning "against Giganogargantuan ODDS." (And, yes, I find the homonymous nature of the term humorous, but don't hold that against me).

You (Toontown, godless dave, and presumably others here) and I agree that some number must come up when the 400 trillion-sided die is rolled, yes?

And we agree that were we to predict, before rolling, that the number 6 were to show up, it would have to beat Godds to actually show up.

Where we disagree is that, without a prediction, the number that happened to show up on the die can be used as justification to use Godds in the attempted Bayesian proof.

If I have summarized incorrectly, my apologies to all, but I think I'm at least close.

I've been aware of that objection since the 1970's. You're hardly the first one to come up with it.

Where I think you're going wrong is in thinking the selection has to be a prediction. No prediction need be involved. In fact, it would be somewhat foolish, don't you think, to predict that a 1 in 400 trillion longshot would come in? Even a faint hope of beating such staggering odds would be childishly naive.

It has to be a requirement. Being a requirement selects it.

Hypothesis A says your brain is the prerequisite of the sentience you are currently experiencing.

 

[Toontown]

You haven't beaten any odds. Before the unlikely thing happened, there was no you.

But there is a me now, which proves conclusively that I have beaten those odds, if hypothesis A is true. Just think of my existence as my winnings, and maybe you'll get it.


(no me ---> me) is precisely how the odds were beaten. If hypothesis A is true.

 

[PixyMisa]

Back to the recurring misunderstanding: you still don't understand that what I really think is that it is prohibitively unlikely that hypothesis A fully accounts for my current sentient experience, because I don't believe for an instant that I've actually beaten the 400 trillion odds implied by hypothesis A.

We all understand that. We have always understood that. You're just wrong.

Your position mistakes the probability of one specific face of the die coming up, for the probability that any face of the die comes up. That's also the #1 critical flaw in Jabba's argument.

So, are you on for that bet? I'll sweeten the odds = 100:1 in your favour! How can you say no? I'm willing to offer you the same odds on Mojo's version as well.

 

[Toontown]

We all understand that. We have always understood that. You're just wrong.

Do you now. That's odd. xtifr claims the collective 'you' can't understand anything I say because of my poor communication skills. Are you with me so far?

Your position mistakes the probability of one specific face of the die coming up...

1 in 400 trillion, by one rough estimate I linked to...

...for the probability that any face of the die comes up.

Converging on 1.

Nope. No confusion on my part. I know the difference. Do you know the difference?

So, are you on for that bet? I'll sweeten the odds = 100:1 in your favour! How can you say no? I'm willing to offer you the same odds on Mojo's version as well.

The only wagering I would be interested in is impossible, because legal online poker is unavailable in the US. If it were available, I would challenge you to a heads-up poker match.

As I see it, your misconception that the probability of something happening is meaningless unless you 'predict' it, while not a crippling misconception in itself, could well be accompanied by other misconceptions which could seriously compromise your poker efficiency, possibly giving me a nearly insurmountable advantage.

 

[abaddon]

You've succeeded in proving that you have no idea what I claim. Not a clue. .

You have done your level best to make no claim at all.

What is it that you claim?

 

[Loss Leader]

you still don't understand that what I really think is that it is prohibitively unlikely that hypothesis A fully accounts for my current sentient experience, because I don't believe for an instant that I've actually beaten the 400 trillion odds implied by hypothesis A.

Graduate student is walking with his economics professor across the quad. Suddently the grad student points and says, "Look, professor, there's a five dollar bill on the ground over there." The professor snaps back, "Impossible! If there were a five dollar bill, somebody would have picked it up already!"

 

[PixyMisa]

Do you now. That's odd. xtifr claims the collective 'you' can't understand anything I say because of my poor communication skills

No.

Nope. No confusion on my part. I know the difference. Do you know the difference?

And yet you persist in making the same blatant error over and over. Why is that?

As I see it, your misconception that the probability of something happening is meaningless unless you 'predict' it, while not a crippling misconception in itself, could well be accompanied by other misconceptions which could seriously compromise your poker efficiency, possibly giving me a nearly insurmountable advantage.

And you are, of course, wrong.

It's not enough to know that there's a difference between odds of 1, and odds of 1 in 400 trillion. You have to know which applies to a given situation. That's your error, and Jabba's.

So, are you going to take the bet or not?

 

[Akhenaten]

You've succeeded in proving that you have no idea what I claim. Not a clue.

<snip>

That's probably true of most of us, but you seem to be neglecting the fact that the reason for this is that you don't have a claim.

 

[abaddon]

That's probably true of most of us, but you seem to be neglecting the fact that the reason for this is that you don't have a claim.

Not true.

He claims to have a claim, but if he claims that if he told us what the claim he claims to have is, the world would end. Or something.

Haman.

 

[PixyMisa]

The claim of no claim is also a claim.

Or maybe that was clam. My zen master always did like seafood.

 

[Akhenaten]

 

[Garrette]

That would be a mistake (to conclude that godless dave is trolling).

You use "prohibitively" one way; he has accepted that and uses it the same way. That is not the core of your disagreement.

Allow me to coin the term "Godds," meaning "against Giganogargantuan ODDS." (And, yes, I find the homonymous nature of the term humorous, but don't hold that against me).

You (Toontown, godless dave, and presumably others here) and I agree that some number must come up when the 400 trillion-sided die is rolled, yes?

And we agree that were we to predict, before rolling, that the number 6 were to show up, it would have to beat Godds to actually show up.

Where we disagree is that, without a prediction, the number that happened to show up on the die can be used as justification to use Godds in the attempted Bayesian proof.

If I have summarized incorrectly, my apologies to all, but I think I'm at least close.

I've been aware of that objection since the 1970's. You're hardly the first one to come up with it.

Where I think you're going wrong is in thinking the selection has to be a prediction. No prediction need be involved. In fact, it would be somewhat foolish, don't you think, to predict that a 1 in 400 trillion longshot would come in? Even a faint hope of beating such staggering odds would be childishly naive.

It has to be a requirement. Being a requirement selects it.
Hypothesis A says your brain is the prerequisite of the sentience you are currently experiencing.

If you have been aware of it, and if it has been what you have attempted to address, then you have communicated poorly, but thanks for making it clear now. And to make clear to you what I suspect is clear to nearly everyone else: I have not made, nor do I make now, any claims to originality in my thinking on this subject, so your presumption that I have thought myself the first to voice the objection is misplaced.

To answer the first question (first highlighted bit): Not just foolish – impossible. That’s rather the point.

To address the second highlighted bit: No. This is where you are going wrong. It does not have to be a requirement. It is possible that it is a requirement, but it doesn’t have to be, at least not so far as we know. dlorde can address this far, far better than I can, but it is my understanding that the universe appears deterministic but is not, in fact, demonstrated to be so.

To address the third highlighted bit: Whose “Hypothesis A?” Yours? Or do you think it is Jabba’s? Perhaps it is, but he has been remarkably inconsistent in describing his premises so I’m not ready to accept that yet. Regardless, I think you will find little disagreement here with the concept, though if we are trying to be precise for the purposes of any proof, I could find room to nitpick starting with the clumsy wording that implies I can experience my sentience without having that sentience.


(Spoiler to keep the post short by hiding an only marginally related side-track.)

Then I would ask for clarification regarding what distinguishes a sentience. Do we know that it is not possible that there is someone with an identical sentience to mine, someone who – through an entirely different neurological construct and life experiences – is sentient in a way which, if somehow compared to mine would be deemed identical?

I’m not sure I am being clear, so I will try a clumsy analogy: Suppose that we find a way to categorize the emergent property of sentience, and we do it with numbers. My sentience happens to be 112 because my physiological/neurological make-up is 47 and my sum total of life experiences is 65, summing to 112. Tomorrow, I will have a different neurological make-up because of the natural changes of aging and it will be represented by 39 while my life experiences will 73, still summing to 112. It should be clear that most, and perhaps all other people will have sentiences that sum to something else, but perhaps there is a trans-gendered Maori child who has a neurological make-up of 75 and a set of life-experiences of 37, also summing to 112, and tomorrow he will be 60 and 52, still summing to 112. When a disinterested scientist comes along and compares our sentiences under a microscope, he will exclaim: ”These consciousnesses from two separate human beings are not the same, but they are identical!”

Forgive the side-track. It’s not really central to anything here, but I got involved in writing it.

Perhaps I should modify my earlier speculation on what your claim is by adding a large dollop of determinism, but regardless if it is your position or not, you should be aware that it has been brought up more than once, especially by SlowVehicle in an attempt to get Jabba to address it. Jabba ignores it completely, so I’m not sure your criticism is appropriately directed.

 

[Toontown]

Not true.

He claims to have a claim, but if he claims that if he told us what the claim he claims to have is, the world would end. Or something.

Haman.

That's a lie. I haven't said I had a claim. I said I have my own interpretation of Jabba's observation, which I have no interest in presenting, for glaringly obvious reasons. Viewed in context, there should be no difficulty understanding why I said that.