Proof of Immortality II

[zooterkin]

He's also relying on a false dilemma. You can't prove one hypothesis by disproving another (far less by disproving one that you have made up in order to be able to disprove it). If Jabba wants to make a statement about immortality using Bayesian statistics, the question he should be asking is something along the lines of "given the evidence we have, what is the likelyhood that the self is immortal?"

Ah, you're suggesting the logic is something along the lines of this old joke?


A: I can prove you're not here.
B: Really? Ok, go ahead.
A: Are you in Paris?
B: No.
A: If you're not in Paris, you must be somewhere else.
B: Indeed.
A: So you can't be here, because you're somewhere else
B: ...

 

[JoeMorgue]

Your version of "the scientific model" is a strawman.

At this point it's a strawman that has fallen over and burned down.

 

[Mojo]

Ah, you're suggesting the logic is something along the lines of this old joke?

To some extent. Disproving Jabba's "scientific model", whatever that is, does not "essentially prove immortality" because it fails to account for all the possibilities other than Jabba's "scientific model" that don't include immortality.

 

[pakeha]

xtifr and Giordano,
- How about helping me explain the Bayesian interpretation to Dave?
- Do that, and I'll gladly move on to your point. I plan on getting to your point eventually, anyway -- but, one point at a time.
- I still claim that according to the scientific model, potential selves/experiencers are infinite -- but, I can also put that off for awhile.

No, Jabba.

I would also change "self" to "brain" given that the "self/experiencer/soul" does not actually exist as a separate "thing" but rather is a process of a functioning brain.

And this is where Jabb'a's idea about the scientific model falls and fails every time he tries to formulate a separation of the brain and its activity.

 

[Jabba]

Yes, and to calculate the likelihood of that person existing given "A", you need to include all the factors that A says led to her existence.

...
- Next, if you analyze the Bayesian formula I’m using, you see that there is no place to include all the factors that led to my existence.
- The formula: P(A|me) = P(me|A) P(A)/(P(me|A) P(A) + P(me|~A) P(~A))
- Here, we are NOT asking for the likelihood of my existence – we already know that I exist. What we’re really asking is, “What is the random likelihood that I would exist if the theory at issue is true?” Or better yet, “What is the random likelihood that all the events necessary for my existence to occur would, themselves, occur IF THE THEORY AT ISSUE IS TRUE?”
- I think I’ll leave it there for now.

- So once again, does that help…?

No. It does not explain where you get 1/infinity.
I also don't understand what new, relevant data you are using to update the probability.

In fact, if you're not including the likelihood of your existence, why is "me" in the formula at all? Bayes is used for calculating the probability of a hypothesis being true.

Dave,
- "me" is the new, relevant data (evidence) included in the formula. It is "new" in the sense that it isn't part of the evidence determining the prior probability of "A."

OK, I understand how it's new data. However, it's an expected outcome that fits in with the model, so if anything, shouldn't it increase the probability that the model is correct?

Dave,
- First, I think that you now accept that the Bayesian formula does not -- and does not need to -- include all the factors that A says led to my existence. Am I correct?

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- First, I think that you now accept that the Bayesian formula does not -- and does not need to -- include all the factors that A says led to my existence. Am I correct?

That depends. Are you including the likelihood that you exist under A or not?

If you're not, then you don't have to include all those factors.

If you are, then you do.

 

[Giordano]

Dave,
- First, I think that you now accept that the Bayesian formula does not -- and does not need to -- include all the factors that A says led to my existence. Am I correct?

No. Absolutely not. You may choose to not show them individually, but all the factors that A claims lead to the probability of A must be included in the calculation of the probability of A being true.


Why do you think that the web-searches, textbooks, and statistics professors that you have examined, as well as every poster here, all disagree with your calculation, and that only you are correct? How long since you "took" those statistic classes? Have you reviewed this topic recently?

 

[Akhenaten]

Dave,
- First, I think that you now accept that the Bayesian formula does not -- and does not need to -- include all the factors that A says led to my existence.

Why would you think that?

The three LCP posts that you've quoted disagree with you. How can you claim that they represent acceptance of your misunderstanding?

Am I correct?

You're not even wrong.

 

[John Jones]

Jabba,

Have you ever heard of the concept of falsifiability with regard to scientific paradigms?

Many of us would be happy to provide you with references to accepted definitions of these terms.

You're welcome.

 

[Jabba]

Dave,
- Just to set the stage:
- In arguing towards an infinite number of potential selves, I had been claiming that combinations of sperm cells and ova from your dad and Cleopatra, respectively, represented potential selves. You said that such would require time travel, which is impossible. I came back with impossible does not preclude potential. You came back with P(me) is 1. I came back with, “There is no P(me) is one in the Bayesian formula.” To which, you came back with, “But to calculate the probability, you still need to look at the conditions at the time of the event occurring.”

...and to calculate the likelihood of that person existing given "A", you need to include all the factors that A says led to her existence.

- But all that A "says" is that each self has only one finite life to live. It doesn't say anything specific about "her," or "me." And "A" is the only given.
- There is nothing in the Bayes formula that deals with the specific factors leading to my, existence. And, we're really asking, "What is the likelihood (in a random universe) that all the factors necessary for leading to my current existence would occur?
- Again, we already know that I exist. What we're looking for is the impact that my current existence has on the truth value of "A." Does my current existence undermine the theory?

The probability of drawing a particular sample from a particular population has mathematical implications re the probability that a particular sample was, in fact, drawn from THAT population... (My own quote -- you might want to read that again.)

- Which leads, I think, to the "other" major issue here (the first issue being the 'number' of potential selves), "Is the likelihood of my, particular, current existence, given 'A,' the appropriate entry here; or, is the likelihood of anyone's current existence, given 'A,' the appropriate entry here?

- I know that everyone has been asking me to move on to that issue, but I was hoping to clear up the infinity issue first.

- Hopefully, I’ll be able to organize that better, and get on with the “me” vs “anyone” issue in my next posting.

 

[John Jones]

Everyone has been asking you to provide evidence that immortality even exists.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- Just to set the stage:
- In arguing towards an infinite number of potential selves, I had been claiming that combinations of sperm cells and ova from your dad and Cleopatra, respectively, represented potential selves. You said that such would require time travel, which is impossible. I came back with impossible does not preclude potential.

And you're wrong.

- But all that A "says" is that each self has only one finite life to live.

That's all it says? The scientific model for consciousness doesn't say how a particular consciousness comes to exist?

- There is nothing in the Bayes formula that deals with the specific factors leading to my, existence. And, we're really asking, "What is the likelihood (in a random universe) that all the factors necessary for leading to my current existence would occur?

You just contradicted yourself.

- Again, we already know that I exist. What we're looking for is the impact that my current existence has on the truth value of "A." Does my current existence undermine the theory?

The probability of drawing a particular sample from a particular population has mathematical implications re the probability that a particular sample was, in fact, drawn from THAT population... (My own quote -- you might want to read that again.)

And you have yet to provide any reason at all to think that the particular sample in question was not drawn from the particular population, or provided any kind of mathematical formula that applies to that question.

The population of human beings up to this point in time is finite. The population of potential human beings up to this point in time is finite. Also, the population of potential human beings changes over time. It was different in 50,000 BC than it was in 20,000 BC and both of those were different than the year you were born and all three were different than now.

 

[xtifr]

- There is nothing in the Bayes formula that deals with the specific factors leading to my, existence. And, we're really asking, "What is the likelihood (in a random universe) that all the factors necessary for leading to my current existence would occur?

Obviously there's no way to give a precise answer to that question, but we can give a lower bound. It's greater than one over the total number of possible arrangements of all particles in the universe over the time period where matter can exist (after the rise of the strong and weak nuclear forces, and before the decay of the last proton). I might actually limit it to the stelliferous period of the universe (where stars exist), but I won't insist on that, since the important bottom line is: that number is finite.

And yes, as John Jones points out, another important question is: can you provide any evidence at all that immortality exists?

 

[Giordano]

Dave,
I came back with impossible does not preclude potential.

And you are very wrong, as explained by many others here.

 

[Giordano]

- But all that A "says" is that each self has only one finite life to live. It doesn't say anything specific about "her," or "me."

"Is the likelihood of my, particular, current existence, given 'A,' the appropriate entry here...?

You are contradicting your self here, and this is one of your major problems. You are saying that A does not say anything specific about her or me, yet you are calculating (in your prior posts) the probability of your particular existence.

By the way, once again, to place a value on the probability of "A" you have to take into incorporate everything that influences the probability of "A." You can show those terms or not, but they have to go into your calculation. Some (Dave's father's sperm fertilizing Cleopatra's ova) would be so very near zero probability as to not affect the value of "A," whereas others (the probability of a normal brain forming a sense of self) would be near certainty and would play a major role in the value of "A."

 

[Giordano]

- Which leads, I think, to the "other" major issue here (the first issue being the 'number' of potential selves), "Is the likelihood of my, particular, current existence, given 'A,' the appropriate entry here; or, is the likelihood of anyone's current existence, given 'A,' the appropriate entry here?

- Hopefully, I’ll be able to organize that better, and get on with the “me” vs “anyone” issue in my next posting.

That would be great. Next post?

 

[HighRiser]

Dave,
- Just to set the stage:
- In arguing towards an infinite number of potential selves, I had been claiming that combinations of sperm cells and ova from your dad and Cleopatra, respectively, represented potential selves. You said that such would require time travel, which is impossible. I came back with impossible does not preclude potential. You came back with P(me) is 1. I came back with, “There is no P(me) is one in the Bayesian formula.” To which, you came back with, “But to calculate the probability, you still need to look at the conditions at the time of the event occurring.”

This doesn't do anything to support your made-up-on-the-spot premise or correct your misconception of the scientific process.

- But all that A "says" is that each self has only one finite life to live. It doesn't say anything specific about "her," or "me." And "A" is the only given.
- There is nothing in the Bayes formula that deals with the specific factors leading to my, existence. And, we're really asking, "What is the likelihood (in a random universe) that all the factors necessary for leading to my current existence would occur?
- Again, we already know that I exist. What we're looking for is the impact that my current existence has on the truth value of "A." Does my current existence undermine the theory?

This says nothing you haven't previously barely asserted.

The probability of drawing a particular sample from a particular population has mathematical implications re the probability that a particular sample was, in fact, drawn from THAT population... (My own quote -- you might want to read that again.)

I have read this several times and don't understand what the implication you're alluding to is. Please elaborate.

- Which leads, I think, to the "other" major issue here (the first issue being the 'number' of potential selves), "Is the likelihood of my, particular, current existence, given 'A,' the appropriate entry here; or, is the likelihood of anyone's current existence, given 'A,' the appropriate entry here?

- I know that everyone has been asking me to move on to that issue, but I was hoping to clear up the infinity issue first.

- Hopefully, I’ll be able to organize that better, and get on with the “me” vs “anyone” issue in my next posting.

 

[Loss Leader]

- But all that A "says" is that each self has only one finite life to live. It doesn't say anything specific about "her," or "me." And "A" is the only given.
- There is nothing in the Bayes formula that deals with the specific factors leading to my, existence. And, we're really asking, "What is the likelihood (in a random universe) that all the factors necessary for leading to my current existence would occur?
- Again, we already know that I exist. What we're looking for is the impact that my current existence has on the truth value of "A." Does my current existence undermine the theory?

The probability of drawing a particular sample from a particular population has mathematical implications re the probability that a particular sample was, in fact, drawn from THAT population... (My own quote -- you might want to read that again.)

- Which leads, I think, to the "other" major issue here (the first issue being the 'number' of potential selves), "Is the likelihood of my, particular, current existence, given 'A,' the appropriate entry here; or, is the likelihood of anyone's current existence, given 'A,' the appropriate entry here?

This is complete gibberish. It has no meaning. It is evidence of such a confusion of ideas that they could likely never be untangled.

 

[George]

Ok Jabba let's say immortality is true. Now where do we go from here? Please describe such a universe. You have the floor sir.

 

[Mojo]

Hopefully, I’ll be able to organize that better, and get on with the “me” vs “anyone” issue in my next posting.

Jabba, have you thought about the implications for your agument if you are correct*, that souls are actual things that somehow inhabit bodies, and there is an infinite number of potential souls? You are arguing that because there is an infinite number of potential souls, if they ony have a single finite existence then the likelyhood of your particular soul inhabiting your body is zero because in any formula for the likelyhood of that particular soul inhabiting your body you need to divide by the number of potential souls, which is infinity. But by the same argument, if there is an infinite number of potential souls that are eternal or have more than one finite existence, then the likelyhood of your particular soul inhabiting your body is still zero, because while the universe contains a finite amount of material and has existed for a finite amount of time you still have to put infinity into your formula to account for the number of potential souls.

Would you like to propose a Bayesian formula for the likelyhood of your argument being correct given that you exist?





*NB: I'm not saying that you are.