Proof of Immortality II

[Agatha]

Thank you for replying, I appreciate that you are now addressing more posters than you were before. I hope you continue to do so.

Agatha,
- "A" is the scientific model, and (currently) specifically, it is that each potential self exists for one, finite time, at most.

I fixed that for you by removing the words "potential" and "at most". One is incorrect and the other redundant.

Right. The new information of your existence doesn't contradict this, in fact that people exist is an expected outcome. So rather than falsify the scientific model, your existence adds more weight to the likelihood of it being correct.

ETA ninjad by godless dave.

 

[Jabba]

Thank you for replying, I appreciate that you are now addressing more posters than you were before. I hope you continue to do so.

I fixed that for you by removing the words "potential" and "at most". One is incorrect and the other redundant.

Right. The new information of your existence doesn't contradict this, in fact that people exist is an expected outcome. So rather than falsify the scientific model, your existence adds more weight to the likelihood of it being correct.

ETA ninjad by godless dave.

Agatha,
- What does ETA mean?

 

[Humots]

Agatha,
- "A" is the scientific model, and (currently) specifically, it is that each potential self exists for one, finite time, at most.

It is unclear to me whether Jabba thinks that A, "the scientific model", consists entirely of this one statement. He seems to change opinions.

Sometimes he seems to think that A, "the scientific model", is only this one statement (at least implicitly, when he considers ~A) and sometimes he seems to think that this statement is included in A.

I think both are wrong. The Scientific Model is not a single statement or a collection of statements such as "each self exists for one finite time".

In my opinion, the Scientific Model is a process for determining validity that includes basic concepts. It is not just a list of statements "A and B and C and D and ...".

The statement "each self exists for one finite time" is a conclusion we arrive at by applying the Scientific Model to the available evidence, pro and con, for such ideas as reincarnation and souls.

To wit:

Plenty of evidence that a self is an emergent property of a functioning neural system that exists only as long as the neural system is able to support it.

No creditable evidence as to life after death in any proposed form.

 

[godless dave]

ETA = Edited to Add

 

[Jabba]

It is unclear to me whether Jabba thinks that A, "the scientific model", consists entirely of this one statement. He seems to change opinions.

Sometimes he seems to think that A, "the scientific model", is only this one statement (at least implicitly, when he considers ~A) and sometimes he seems to think that this statement is included in A.

I think both are wrong. The Scientific Model is not a single statement or a collection of statements such as "each self exists for one finite time".

In my opinion, the Scientific Model is a process for determining validity that includes basic concepts. It is not just a list of statements "A and B and C and D and ...".

Humots,
- I understand. This is just one of numerous conclusions/theories in what I'm calling the "scientific model."

 

[Jabba]

ETA = Edited to Add

- Thanks.

 

[carlitos]

.... what I'm calling the "scientific model."

....Isn't the scientific model.

 

[Akhenaten]

Giordano,
- Roughly speaking, what are the different values you would insert?

P(A|immortal Soul) = P(Immortal Soul|A) P(A)/(P(Immortal Soul|A) P(A) + P(Immortal Soul|~A) P(~A))

 

[Akhenaten]

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."

It's only new in the sense that it's something you made up yourself for the purpose of this silly discussion.

For as long as you maintain that "me" includes a living neurosytem and its emergent properties + an immortal soul you're going to be as wrong as you were when you asserted that nobody had access to human blood during the Renaissance.

 

[John Jones]

Humots,
- I understand. This is just one of numerous conclusions/theories in what I'm calling the "scientific model."

Careful there. Just you calling something the scientific model doesn't mean it IS part of the scientific model. This is especially troublesome given your long history of logical fallacies, and outright duplicity, guile, and subterfuge.

 

[Akhenaten]

xtifr and Giordano,
- How about helping me explain the Bayesian interpretation to Dave?

That's possibly going to leave potential LCPs who are willing to explain it to you, the one person here who most desperately needs the tuition, rather thin on the ground.

- 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.

So far you've made exactly zero points.

After two years, promises of advancing this total are as empty as Oscar Pistorious' sock drawer.

- I still claim that according to the scientific model, potential selves/experiencers are infinite.

When did the first self/experiencer appear, Jabba?

Was it an infinite time ago?

If not, guess what?

-- but, I can also put that off for awhile.

Of course you can. What possible time limit could apply to non-presentation of an argument?

 

[godless dave]

When did the first self/experiencer appear, Jabba?

Was it an infinite time ago?

Akhenaten is correct, this is why the "infinite potential experiencers" part wouldn't be relevant even if it were true. They would only be infinite over the entire infinite lifespan of the universe, including the future. Up to this point in time, there have only been a finite number of potential experiencers. At any given point in time, the only potential experiencers are those that can be produced by the humans alive at that time, with the materials they have to work with. This would still be true if humans had the ability to duplicate human beings - they would have a finite number of human beings who could be duplicated, and finite material do make the duplicates out of.

 

[Akhenaten]

Agatha,
- "A" is the scientific model, and (currently) specifically, it is that each potential self exists for one, finite time, at most.

Cite please.

 

[jond]

Thank you for replying, I appreciate that you are now addressing more posters than you were before. I hope you continue to do so.

I fixed that for you by removing the words "potential" and "at most". One is incorrect and the other redundant.

Right. The new information of your existence doesn't contradict this, in fact that people exist is an expected outcome. So rather than falsify the scientific model, your existence adds more weight to the likelihood of it being correct.

ETA ninjad by godless dave.

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.

 

[Akhenaten]

Humots,
- I understand. This is just one of numerous conclusions/theories in what I'm calling the "scientific model."

Sadly for you it's not a conclusion/theory in what anyone else calls the scientific model.

 

[George]

Agatha,
- What does ETA mean?

Estimated time of arrival. ETA of your proof of immortality = infinity.

 

[Mojo]

I still claim that according to the scientific model, potential selves/experiencers are infinite --

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

 

[Humots]

It is unclear to me whether Jabba thinks that A, "the scientific model", consists entirely of this one statement. He seems to change opinions.

Sometimes he seems to think that A, "the scientific model", is only this one statement (at least implicitly, when he considers ~A) and sometimes he seems to think that this statement is included in A.

I think both are wrong. The Scientific Model is not a single statement or a collection of statements such as "each self exists for one finite time".

In my opinion, the Scientific Model is a process for determining validity that includes basic concepts. It is not just a list of statements "A and B and C and D and ...".

The statement "each self exists for one finite time" is a conclusion we arrive at by applying the Scientific Model to the available evidence, pro and con, for such ideas as reincarnation and souls.

To wit:

Plenty of evidence that a self is an emergent property of a functioning neural system that exists only as long as the neural system is able to support it.

No creditable evidence as to life after death in any proposed form.

Humots,
- I understand. This is just one of numerous conclusions/theories in what I'm calling the "scientific model."

This conclusion is not in any Scientific Model. It is not a postulate or an axiom or anything of the kind.

I see this conclusion as a verbalization of our current understanding, based on a wide range of evidence in a wide range of fields.

What evidence do you have to the contrary, besides your own existence and a poor understanding of probability?

 

[zooterkin]

Humots,
- I understand. This is just one of numerous conclusions/theories in what I'm calling the "scientific model."

Really? Show your working.

 

[Mojo]

The statement "each self exists for one finite time" is a conclusion we arrive at by applying the Scientific Model to the available evidence, pro and con, for such ideas as reincarnation and souls.

To wit:

Plenty of evidence that a self is an emergent property of a functioning neural system that exists only as long as the neural system is able to support it.

No creditable evidence as to life after death in any proposed form.

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?"