[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Slowvehicle]

I, for one, welcome our new immortal Type 2 Transporter Android overlords.

...bearing ftangpoofles!

 

[Akhenaten]

Yes, in exactly the same way that the brain ceases to exist after the brain ceases to exist.

The molecules that made up the ice crystals will still exist after they melt, but the crystals won't. And any emergent properties that the ice crystals may have had as a result of being crystalline will have vanished along with the structure.

Sand, on the other hand, doesn't melt.

Therefore, immortality.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Sand, on the other hand, doesn't melt.

Therefore, immortality.

Like sands through the hourglass... so are the days of our lives - endless.

 

[jt512]

Jay,
- I may be misunderstanding your point, but I've always said that as long as you guys aren't androids, immortality applies to you guys (and everyone else) also.

Yes, you apparently missed my point. That suggests (for the second time) that you don't understand Bayes' Theorem well enough to use it. My point, which I first made a hundred pages ago or so, is that all the data relevant to the hypotheses must be taken into account in Bayes formula as part of the data or the background information. Cherry picking the data will lead to wrong posteriors. You are cherry picking, as far as I can tell. Your only data point is "me," which is to say, you. What about all the other people who are currently alive or have been alive? Where are they in your formula? What about everything else we know about the world, say the standard model of particle physics? Where is it in your formula? How about the theory of evolution? What about the extremely strong evidence that you, me, and every one else is descended from an extinct species of ape? Surely that information is relevant to your hypotheses? Where is it in your formula? What about the fact that the Earth is only a few billion years old, and the Universe itself only about 14 billion? Surely that has a bearing on whether immortality exists? Where is it in your formula? What about the fact that the Universe will eventually end up in heat death, a state of maximum entropy? Where will our "selves" be then? And what will they be doing for the rest eternity? Where in your formula is that taken into account? Etc. Etc. Etc.

 

[Giordano]

- For one thing, lack of an emergent property.

Emergent, as meant here, means a natural consequence of forming a physical brain. From Merriam Webster: "arising as a natural or logical consequence."

Therefore grains of sand have lots of emergent properties: hardness, luster, shape, etc. that arise as a natural or logical consequence of being a grain of sand, just like our consciousness arises as a natural or logical consequence of having a physical brain. They are both finite.

Your problem is you want our consciousness to come from magic, not to be rooted in and being a natural consequence of the physical activities of a physical brain. You will never get me or most of us here to agree with your definition that the consciousness/self/observer is separate from the physical brain, no matter how often you change the words you use to describe your same definition. If, as you indeed promised, you will prove it and I will be persuaded. The consciousness being an emergent property of the physical brain is the SM and must be taken into account in your formula.

As I have posted in detail, I am in disagreement with many of your theories, so I focusing here on only the consequences of your theories even should I accept them. I notice that you have not (can not) answer why our unique fingerprints do not fit it the same formula you use to prove a consciousness is reincarnated. I also have not noticed you explaining why do we need reincarnation if new souls are created de novo to account for the ever increasing number of people on this planet. Why recycle if you accept that the majority of people must have been minted fresh?

 

[Giordano]

-
- You are an emergent property. So am I. Your particular consciousness -- the one that, at least, appears to span your whole lifetime -- is an emergent property. (I'll try "particular consciousness" for awhile, instead of "observer.")

- Otherwise, your particular consciousness had no preexistence of any kind. That being the case, what was the probability (likelihood) that it would come into existence when it did?

The chance that I would develop a consciousness was very close to 1.0, once I was fertilized and was born with a developed human, physical brain.

The chance that consciousness would be me, rather than you, depends on the quirks of genetics, development, and experience. In fact, that consciousness that I call me continues to change with time, and maybe if you provide a proof I can trust, it will parallel your consciousness more in its belief system. But so far, I haven't seen anything that would change my mind, so to speak.

If you accept, as you appear to do, that consciousness is an emergent property of a physical brain, even if it goes on to become magical (non-physical), what is the need for reincarnation?

 

[Giordano]

Jabba,
Just to clarify:does your "proof" of reincarnation demand that the "self" or "consciousness" exist separate from the physical brain? It appears to me to be highly dependent in this fashion.

Given that I and many of the other people here would disagree with this concept, would you prove this (that the self or consciousness exists separate from the physical brain) first? You promised you would in just so many words. Since your "proof" of reincarnation uses Bayesian math, you may want to use this same math in your proof of the non-material "self." Alternatively you may want to use any widely-accepted fact, firmly based in reality.

Thanks!

 

[Loss Leader]

Just to clarify:does your "proof" of reincarnation demand that the "self" or "consciousness" exist separate from the physical brain? It appears to me to be highly dependent in this fashion.

I think he's saying that if the self is the same as the brain, the chance of the self existing is zero; but if the self is immortal and separate from the brain, then the chance of it existing is, like, way better.

 

[godless dave]

Jabba, it's pretty clear that you are talking about an immaterial "self" that somehow attaches itself to a physical brain. This is not the scientific model of consciousness.

It may well be that if you assume an immaterial self, you can demonstrate, using Bayesian statistics, that it is more likely to be immortal than mortal. I don't know. I don't believe in an immaterial self, so the question is not very interesting to me.

With a physical self, I think we've established pretty thoroughly that the chance of a particular self existing is not 1 over infinity.

 

[dlorde]

Observers don't have emergent properties. They are an emergent property.

Of brains, which are for all intents and purposes just as finitely variable as grains of sand.

Quite; and sand dunes are an emergent property of sand, and just as finitely variable as observers.

Oh, and while I'm at it, androids are people too - and they do dream of electric sheep

 

[Anders Lindman]

- I think that I can essentially prove immortality using Bayesian statistics.
- If this belongs in a different thread, or has already been done, please let me know. Otherwise, I'll present my case here.
--- Jabba

"Bayesian statistics is a subset of the field of statistics in which the evidence about the true state of the world is expressed in terms of degrees of belief or, more specifically, Bayesian probabilities." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_statistics

How can you prove something based on beliefs?

I believe medicine and technology will soon (within decades) give us humans immortality. But that's a prediction, based on Ray Kurzweil's statistics etc, not any proof.

 

[dlorde]

Here's quite a clear article on Bayesian statistics.

Note the summary:

... the point about Bayes’ Theorem isn’t... to throw some numbers around. It just puts in nice clear terms what we implicitly do every time we have to consider whether a claim is true

 

[Jabba]

- Sorry about my recent absence. Along with the usual suspects, I broke my computer, and have been cleaning a flooded basement for several days...
- I should have something objectionable to say shortly.

 

[abaddon]

- Sorry about my recent absence. Along with the usual suspects, I broke my computer, and have been cleaning a flooded basement for several days...
- I should have something objectionable to say shortly.

Promises, promises. You have yet to come up with anything but promises of what you might claim at some unspecified point in the future.

135 pages of promises.

 

[Jabba]

- I got a response from Dr. Horel (of Union College) today.
- The following was my response to him.

Roger,

Thanks, again.

The short of it is that I wouldn’t exist if a particular sperm cell hadn’t met with a particular ovum 71 years ago. What are the odds of that?
The long of it begins at http://messiahornot.com/ACT2Scene1.php. But that IS just the beginning, and it’s long all by itself -- so you might want to start with the short side.

May I quote you on the Randi forum? I suspect you wouldn’t want to JOIN us on the forum, but I would love to have you – whatever your thoughts.

Rich

 

[Jabba]

Jabba, it's pretty clear that you are talking about an immaterial "self" that somehow attaches itself to a physical brain. This is not the scientific model of consciousness.

It may well be that if you assume an immaterial self, you can demonstrate, using Bayesian statistics, that it is more likely to be immortal than mortal. I don't know. I don't believe in an immaterial self, so the question is not very interesting to me.

With a physical self, I think we've established pretty thoroughly that the chance of a particular self existing is not 1 over infinity.

- However much “you” are connected to, caused by, the physical, this “you” is also what we call “mental.” If consciousness is itself physical, it is a different kind of physical than anything else of which we know.

 

[Loss Leader]

- However much “you” are connected to, caused by, the physical, this “you” is also what we call “mental.” If consciousness is itself physical, it is a different kind of physical than anything else of which we know.

So what?

Humans are the only animals on earth that drink milk into adulthood. What does something being singular matter?

I also note that you are specifically contradicting your earlier statements. You had appeared to accept that minds are physical, only developing when a sperm fertilizes an egg. You seemed to rely on that in your argument that there are an infinite possible number of selves in that every person born is new and different even from their genetic twin.

Now, you state that consciousness is not physical. If it is not, then what reason can you now give for there being an infinite number of possible people? How do you know that God didn't create exactly 200 billion mental frames which he installs in all people until they run out and then, poof, no more new people?

Quite simply, you are attempting to inhabit two completely different worlds at the same time on the same side of the equation - that which science tells us and that which you wish were true. But, if you want your statistical model to have any meaning, everything on this side must be material and provable.

 

[Jabba]

- Consciousness appears to be an emergent property of some sort of physical situation or event -- though, it is our standard for what we call “mental.” If “mental” should be considered a physical property, it is a different kind of physical than anything else of which we know.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- Consciousness appears to be an emergent property of some sort of physical situation or event -- though, it is our standard for what we call “mental.” If “mental” should be considered a physical property, it is a different kind of physical than anything else of which we know.

Good Evening, Mr. Savage!

I have sympathy for your IRL troubles. I hope you have everything in hand.

I would be interested, should you ever again deign to notice that I am posting, in having you justify your assertion that "'consciousness" "...is our standard for what we call 'mental'..."

1. Who, in this case, is "we"?

2. Where, in the literature, can one of "we" be found making, much less supporting or demonstrating, this claim?

3. FTR, where, in the literature, can one of "we" be found making, much less supporting, your assertion that, "Consciousness appears to be an emergent property of some sort of physical situation or event."?

4. If consciousness is NOT an emergent property of a specific brain as part of a specific, functioning neurosystem, why is it that physical trauma to the brain affects consciousness? Why is it that specific kinds of trauma result in specific, even diagnostic, kinds of effects?

 

[Giordano]

- Consciousness appears to be an emergent property of some sort of physical situation or event -- though, it is our standard for what we call “mental.” If “mental” should be considered a physical property, it is a different kind of physical than anything else of which we know.

No, it's not. It just is a complicated, but fully explainable result of the mix of action potentials and synapsis found in the physical brain. We can also see how a neural system, behavior, and even sense of identity, become more and more complex as animals have more neurons, from hydra, to insects, to people. No different physics.