God and the right hemisphere

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by GordonHide

Science is well aware that complexity leads to emergent properties not apparent in the components of complex systems.

However, science definitely is incomplete. Otherwise it would stop!

Gordon,

- "Strong" emergence is (I think) exactly what I'm referring to.

- And then, I'm referring to "incomplete" in a different sense. I guess I'm referring to the current epistemological(?) tools of science rather than the current conclusions of science.
- To the extent that science allows for strong emergence in its epistemology, I drop my criticism.

[steenkh]

Originally Posted by Jabba

- This goes back to my claim about "blending." If the winner (like the extortionist) does not "blend" with numerous other contestants, there is something special about him.
- I claim that I do not blend -- which, I think, is the seat of your primary disagreement with my extended syllogism.

Yes, I believe your argument is circular. You claim that you are special because you do not blend, and you do not blend because you are special.

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by steenkh

Yes, I believe your argument is circular. You claim that you are special because you do not blend, and you do not blend because you are special.

Steen,
- No. I claim that I do not blend, because my current existence suggests other plausible hypotheses than the scientific hypothesis we're trying to evaluate.

[steenkh]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Steen,
- No. I claim that I do not blend, because my current existence suggests other plausible hypotheses than the scientific hypothesis we're trying to evaluate.

And what is the reason why your current existence suggests other plausible hypothesis if it is not that you do not blend?

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by steenkh

And what is the reason why your current existence suggests other plausible hypothesis if it is not that you do not blend?

Steen,

- Interesting question...

- I'm not sure how they would explain this in formal logic, but it seems to me that you're sort of reasoning backwards. In a sense, my current existence does suggest another hypothesis because my current existence does not blend. But in the relevant sense, my current existence suggests another hypothesis for other reasons -- reasons that I have deliberately withheld...
- What I have done, instead, is jump directly to the hypotheses that my current existence suggests to me -- i.e., that I always exist (being the most easily understood of the bunch). Seems like everyone can see that my current existence would suggest to me the possibility that I always exist. But, why it suggests such a thing is much more difficult to pin down -- it gets complicated.

- So, I was hoping to deal with that issue after everyone understood my more surface claims... Which, I would still prefer to do...
- I'll try to outline my surface claims momentarily.

[Jabba]

- Here are my surface claims so far. Up till now, I hadn’t realized how complicated some of them were…
- Tell me where you disagree -- and which of the, surely, many I should address first.

1. There is an infinity of potential selves.

2. The probability of PP|S has mathematical implications re the probability of S|PP. That is, P(PP|S) is one of the variables in the formula for determining P(S|PP).
3. In our discussion, S is the scientific hypothesis at issue (that each of us has but one finite life to live), and PP is the current existence of any particular specific person.
4. The appropriate formula for determining the probability of the scientific hypothesis being true, given that the particular specific person does currently exist, is P(S|PP) = P(PP|S)P(S)/P(PP).
5. Since we’re looking for the probability of this hypothesis being true, given that the particular specific person does exist, P(PP) must be 1.00.
6. P(S|PP) = (1/∞)(.9)/1 = 1/∞ (vanishingly small).
7. The probability that the scientific hypothesis at issue (that each of us has but one finite life to live) is true is vanishingly small.

8. But then, if this self does not “stand out” in a particular way from the “crowd” of potential selves, he/she “blends,” and must take on the combined probability of the crowd he is with – and P(S|PP) is no longer vanishingly small, but rather, is finite, and most likely, rather large.
9. If this self does stand out – in the sense that his/her existence suggests a different plausible hypothesis (while the existence of those in his potential crowd do not) he/she retains the singular probability of 1/∞, and the probability of S, given PP, is back to vanishingly small.
10. Whew!

[bowmore]

Originally Posted by Jabba

1. There is an infinity of potential selves.

This is not a scientific claim. So you cannot use this to determine P(pp|S), as that should be what the scientific hypothesis says the probability of a particular self to exist is.

Originally Posted by Jabba

2. The probability of PP|S has mathematical implications re the probability of S|PP. That is, P(PP|S) is one of the variables in the formula for determining P(S|PP).

Indeed, assuming pp is a prediction made by the scientific hypothesis. But the scientific hypothesis does not predict particular persons. If you disagree, perhaps you can point us to some of those current predictions?

Originally Posted by Jabba

4. The appropriate formula for determining the probability of the scientific hypothesis being true, given that the particular specific person does currently exist, is P(S|PP) = P(PP|S)P(S)/P(PP).

Two remarks.

• In addition P(pp) = ∑(P(pp|H[i]*P(H[i])) (H[i] being hypothesis i of n competing hypotheses, S is one of them) (see wiki :

  P(E) is called the marginal probability of E: the a priori probability of witnessing the new evidence E under all possible hypotheses. It can be calculated as the sum of the product of all probabilities of any complete set of mutually exclusive hypotheses and corresponding conditional probabilities:
  
  P(E) = ∑ P(E|H_i)P(H_i).

  )
• The probability of a hypothesis is not determined by evaluating only one prediction. The formula must be repeated for each prediction.

Originally Posted by Jabba

5. Since we’re looking for the probability of this hypothesis being true, given that the particular specific person does exist, P(PP) must be 1.00.
6. P(S|PP) = (1/∞)(.9)/1 = 1/∞ (vanishingly small).

Since P(pp) = sum(P(pp|H[i]*P(H[i])) 5 and 6 contradict each other.

From 6 and the formula for P(pp) it would follow that P(pp) is at most (.1 + 1/∞) which is obviously not 1.

Originally Posted by Jabba

9. If this self does stand out – in the sense that his/her existence suggests a different plausible hypothesis (while the existence of those in his potential crowd do not) he/she retains the singular probability of 1/∞, and the probability of S, given PP, is back to vanishingly small.

The entire 'standing out' construct is of your own invention and does not seem to have any valid mathematical backing.

Priority to address for me : still that 5 combined with 6 is simply mathematically incorrect.
P(pp) can only be 1 if P(pp|S) = 1

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by bowmore

For each i it is so that P(H[i]) <= P(D|H[i])*P(H[i])...

Originally Posted by Jabba

bowmore,
- I don't understand that last statement. Shouldn't the left side of the equation be ">=" to the right side?

Bowmore,
- I don't think you ever answered my question.

[bowmore]

Originally Posted by Jabba

Bowmore,
- I don't think you ever answered my question.

Yes I have :

Originally Posted by bowmore

Indeed. An unfortunate typo.

The point was that multiplying each term P(H[i]) with P(D|H[i]) will lead to a sum that is less than what it was unless each P(D|H[i]) = 1

So

1 = sum(P(H[i])) >= sum(P(D|H[i])*P(H[i])) = P(D)

P(D) = 1 only if every P(D|H[i]) = 1

And here I was, thinking you were ignoring it

[countingteeth]

Originally Posted by Jabba

countingteeth,

- I should probably admit that I have basically abandoned my argument that started with, "Would you exist if your parents had never met?" I perceive your argument above as addressing that original argument that, unbeknownced(?) to you, has been essentially abandoned. Sorry about that.

Perhaps. I am not aware of your "Would you exist if your parents had never met?" hypothesis, however my response was aimed at the notion of "pre-selves".

- I had been assuming that the physical explanation for each of us having a different awareness had to rest in our genes -- that if we could somehow reproduce the very same DNA, in two different bodies, one "self" would be seeing out of two different bodies...
- As I have often noted, making assumptions explicit will often reveal their foolishness. Up until recently, I would have had to admit that identical twins appear to have the very same DNA, but do not share the same self... Recently, I read that identical twins do not quite share the very same DNA -- so my original-assumption-made-explicit doesn't sound so foolish.

Assuming a necessary "ingredient" to consciousness is the genotype (DNA),specifically a large brain, would you not concur that phenotype (environment/development + genotype ) would lead to two very different and independent "selves". My own observations of a person with dissociative identity disorder (multiple personality disorder) leads me to conclude the exact opposite to you. Here we have more than one self, not only having exactly the same DNA, unlike the marginal differences in CNV and mDNA in twins, but exactly the same brain.....two selves looking out the same body, sharing one consciousness, but not memory.

Here you would interject and say therefore the number of potential selves is infinite, given that there can be an infinite number of selves resident in one brain, to which I counter that it is still only one consciousness and the number of selves is limited by brain capacity and environmental experience, specifically trauma. (On a side note.... does the destruction of one of the selves via therapy in an mpd patient constitute murder or the murder of a mpp patient genocide ?)

- But for awhile, at least, I had to rethink my assumption. And consequently, now, I'm thinking that the most likely physical explanation for different selves is that "life" (however that is explained), at certain levels of complexity (at least), results in consciousness, which intrinsically involves a separate, and new, "self" (though perhaps, with a "level" of consciousness and focus determined by the complexity of the life form).
- Anyway, given that explanation at least, the number of possible different selves should be infinite. Each new consciousness inherently involves a brand new self, and the number of possible consciousnesses should have no limit...

- Again, that probably doesn't help. But again, "Hey. You never know!"

see my points above