Proof of Immortality II

[Giordano]

Circular reasoning 101?

I presume you mean, "Where did this conscious god get their consciousness from?" Well, somehow most theologies are happy to hand wave this away in the same way as the argument, "All things are created by other things, so God must have created the Universe. Oh, then who created God? Oh, God didn't need to be created." No, it is not logical, but I mentioned that I was going to suggest something I personally don't believe. Frankly If Jabba wants to go fully into an illogical form of religion, that it okay by me. As long as he doesn't claim it is proven by math.
Did you mean some other form of circular reasoning?

 

[Giordano]

Just a warning: Jabba has posted that life itself is incompatible with the scientific approach, not with his own theory. So we will need to see what he "really" thinks in his next post...

 

[Mojo]

Just a warning: Jabba has posted that life itself is incompatible with the scientific approach, not with his own theory. So we will need to see what he "really" thinks in his next post...

Given that he hasn't even said what his own theory is, or defined "the scientific model" he's arguing against, what is the likeyhood that we will be able to see what he "really" thinks from his next post?

 

[Mojo]

Incidentally, if anyone is interested there's a nice brief explanation of Bayesian statistics here.

 

[HighRiser]

Incidentally, if anyone is interested there's a nice brief explanation of Bayesian statistics here.

I don't have the background to evaluate its accuracy, but it seems an excellent explanation. This is the first time I've thought I might have an understanding of Bayes.

Statistics really do lie!

 

[John Jones]

Incidentally, if anyone is interested there's a nice brief explanation of Bayesian statistics here.

Jabba,

Read for comprehension.

 

[Loss Leader]

I don't have the background to evaluate its accuracy, but it seems an excellent explanation. This is the first time I've thought I might have an understanding of Bayes.

Statistics really do lie!

The fact is, new information has to actually be new information. If you make a series of predictions about US elections based on polls and then the elections happen, you can use that new information to gauge which polls have the highest degree of accuracy.

If you already exist and then pretend you might not have and then add back in that you exist, that's not Bayesian. It's not even math.

 

[HighRiser]

The fact is, new information has to actually be new information. If you make a series of predictions about US elections based on polls and then the elections happen, you can use that new information to gauge which polls have the highest degree of accuracy.

If you already exist and then pretend you might not have and then add back in that you exist, that's not Bayesian. It's not even math.

I like the way you stated both parts of this post. Simple and direct. Perhaps someone will take notice and give a simple and direct reply.

 

[John Jones]

I like the way you stated both parts of this post. Simple and direct. Perhaps someone will take notice and give a simple and direct reply.

Nobody who disputes it will. Not on this form. Not in this mortal frame.

 

[Jabba]

- in the following attempt at a syllogism, Numbers 1, 2 and 3 are the best I can do at expressing why I think that I am special, or that I should be set apart, and deserve such a small likelihood of existing. For now, that's probably the best that I can do.
1. I, in one form or the other (thing, process or illusion), am the only thing that I know exists.
2. Also, I am the only eyes on the universe that I have.
3. Consequently, if I never existed it would be as if nothing ever existed...

None of this overcomes the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy

Dave,
I think that it does -- but, I do need to track down what Bayesian statistics actually says about determining whether or not an event is, in my terms, “special” and “set apart,” or just one of numerous expected events.

4. Given A, the likelihood of me ever existing is something like 1/10⁸⁰!.
5. Whereas, the prior probability of A being incorrect is something like 1%, or better.

Not that it matters, but where did that 1% number come from? (For why it doesn't matter, see below).

- From my online search, it appears that about 40% of natural scientists do [i}not[/i] believe in God, whereas only about 30% of social scientists do not believe in God (e.g. http://www.livescience.com/379-scientists-belief-god-varies-starkly-discipline.html). Obviously, this doesn’t mean that 60% of natural scientists do believe in God, or an after-life – but, it does suggest that a significant percentage do. I’ll keep looking…
- And, not that the percentage of natural scientists who believe in an afterlife should be equated to the scientific probability of an afterlife, but it should be considered… And, while it seems that NDEs may have a natural explanation, many reports of OBEs, and of reincarnation, seem to resist any natural explanation other than dishonesty…
- In addition, from my online search, it appears that either our analytic hemisphere is “transcendence blind,” or our holistic hemisphere hallucinates. It appears that what we call religious experience and transcendence are “appreciated” only by the holistic hemisphere. And surely, you guys -- and, scientists in general -- tend to be highly analytic.
- Then too, there is the reasonable possibility (it seems to me) that “now” isn’t what we think it is -- that time, itself, isn’t what we think it is – and, the scientific model doesn’t take that possibility into account…

6. So, in the Bayesian formula, the likelihood of me ever existing, given A, is much smaller than the prior probability of A being incorrect.

I don't think those are the two numbers you compare in a Bayesian formula.

- Why do you think that? From my perspective, those are exactly the obvious numbers to be compared. The only real issue is my mathematical right to use the likelihood of my specific current existence, given “A,” in the formula, rather than the likelihood of someone/anyone’s current existence, given “A.”

7. In other words, I am either unimaginably lucky or A is incorrect.

How do you express "unimaginably" mathematically?

- 10⁸⁰!.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,

- From my online search, it appears that about 40% of natural scientists do [i}not[/i] believe in God, whereas only about 30% of social scientists do not believe in God (e.g. http://www.livescience.com/379-scientists-belief-god-varies-starkly-discipline.html). Obviously, this doesn’t mean that 60% of natural scientists do believe in God, or an after-life – but, it does suggest that a significant percentage do. I’ll keep looking…
- And, not that the percentage of natural scientists who believe in an afterlife should be equated to the scientific probability of an afterlife, but it should be considered… And, while it seems that NDEs may have a natural explanation, many reports of OBEs, and of reincarnation, seem to resist any natural explanation other than dishonesty…
- In addition, from my online search, it appears that either our analytic hemisphere is “transcendence blind,” or our holistic hemisphere hallucinates. It appears that what we call religious experience and transcendence are “appreciated” only by the holistic hemisphere. And surely, you guys -- and, scientists in general -- tend to be highly analytic.
- Then too, there is the reasonable possibility (it seems to me) that “now” isn’t what we think it is -- that time, itself, isn’t what we think it is – and, the scientific model doesn’t take that possibility into account…

That doesn't explain where the 1% number comes from.

Also, if you had done any kind of online research at all, you would know that the idea that the human brain has one holistic and one analytical hemisphere was discredited a long time ago.

- Why do you think that? From my perspective, those are exactly the obvious numbers to be compared. The only real issue is my mathematical right to use the likelihood of my specific current existence, given “A,” in the formula, rather than the likelihood of someone/anyone’s current existence, given “A.”

Looks like you answered your own question.

 

[Giordano]

As thus Jabba continues to ignore all of the very posts that are most relevant and which falsify his theory the most strongly. Two years of this. What are the chances of this happening randomly?

 

[Akhenaten]

- In addition, from my online search, it appears that either our analytic hemisphere is “transcendence blind,” or our holistic hemisphere hallucinates. It appears that what we call religious experience and transcendence are “appreciated” only by the holistic hemisphere. And surely, you guys -- and, scientists in general -- tend to be highly analytic.

It was explained to you more than a year ago when you first brought it up that this is a complete crock.

- Then too, there is the reasonable possibility (it seems to me) that “now” isn’t what we think it is -- that time, itself, isn’t what we think it is – and, the scientific model doesn’t take that possibility into account…

Isis wept.

 

[Nonpareil]

I think that it does -- but, I do need to track down what Bayesian statistics actually says about determining whether or not an event is, in my terms, “special” and “set apart,” or just one of numerous expected events.

It says that you're committing the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. This is not something you can argue against, Jabba. This is flat-out, one hundred percent, undeniable fact. You are committing the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

Stop it.

And, not that the percentage of natural scientists who believe in an afterlife should be equated to the scientific probability of an afterlife, but it should be considered…

No, it shouldn't. Being a scientist does not exclude you from the category of people who are allowed to be wrong, or believe stupid things, or anything of the sort. This is both the argumentum ad populum fallacy and a non sequitur. The number and type of people that believe in something is irrelevant to whether or not it is actually true. Scientists also used to believe in the luminiferous ether and an Earth-centric universe.

And, while it seems that NDEs may have a natural explanation

It's not a "may" situation. They do.

many reports of OBEs, and of reincarnation, seem to resist any natural explanation other than dishonesty…

Or simple self-delusion without any malice involved, yes. People believe stupid things all the time.

In addition, from my online search, it appears that either our analytic hemisphere is “transcendence blind,” or our holistic hemisphere hallucinates. It appears that what we call religious experience and transcendence are “appreciated” only by the holistic hemisphere.

Pure nonsense.

Then too, there is the reasonable possibility (it seems to me) that “now” isn’t what we think it is -- that time, itself, isn’t what we think it is – and, the scientific model doesn’t take that possibility into account…

Perhaps time isn't what you think it is. The rest of us have a pretty solid understanding.

Why do you think that? From my perspective, those are exactly the obvious numbers to be compared. The only real issue is my mathematical right to use the likelihood of my specific current existence, given “A,” in the formula, rather than the likelihood of someone/anyone’s current existence, given “A.”

You do not have that right. You are a someone.

 

[Loss Leader]

- And, not that the percentage of natural scientists who believe in an afterlife should be equated to the scientific probability of an afterlife, but it should be considered…

As what? How should we consider it? What numbers should be added or changed in order to take this into consideration?

And, while it seems that NDEs may have a natural explanation, many reports of OBEs, and of reincarnation, seem to resist any natural explanation other than dishonesty…

Hey, look, you answered your own question.

Then too, there is the reasonable possibility (it seems to me) that “now” isn’t what we think it is -- that time, itself, isn’t what we think it is – and, the scientific model doesn’t take that possibility into account…

How should we take that into account? What number do we put in where? How would a better understanding of time change or bolster your theory?

 

[Giordano]

Dave,
I think that it does -- but, I do need to track down what Bayesian statistics actually says about determining whether or not an event is, in my terms, “special” and “set apart,” or just one of numerous expected events.



- From my online search, it appears that about 40% of natural scientists do [i}not[/i] believe in God, whereas only about 30% of social scientists do not believe in God (e.g. http://www.livescience.com/379-scientists-belief-god-varies-starkly-discipline.html). Obviously, this doesn’t mean that 60% of natural scientists do believe in God, or an after-life – but, it does suggest that a significant percentage do. I’ll keep looking….

1. Perhaps you should have refreshed your knowledge of Bayesian statistics before you posted the OP citing it two years ago? Or at least when people with working knowledge of statistics posted the many errors in your own use of the formula? But better late than never...

2. I am uncertain how any interpretation of the numbers of believers in an afterlife, in or out of science, relates to the specific question asked or to the broader question of reincarnation. Obviously, the truth does not depend on popularity; if so, a question asked of 2 year olds might provide evidence for Santa Claus. Even if it mattered, isn't the real question how many scientists believe in reincarnation in particular, not about an afterlife in general? And where would this number go in the Bayesian equation once you find it?

 

[Giordano]

I should add: and even if some scientists believe in an afterlife, do they agree on the specifics of this afterlife, or are there many different theories that often contract one another? Is there any scientific proof that favors one of these theories over another?

 

[Mojo]

From my online search, it appears that about 40% of natural scientists do [i}not[/i] believe in God...

...snip...

Obviously, this doesn’t mean that 60% of natural scientists do believe in God...

It means that you are having trouble with the definitions for a new A and ~A.

 

[Mojo]

And, while it seems that NDEs may have a natural explanation, many reports of OBEs, and of reincarnation, seem to resist any natural explanation other than dishonesty…

Perhaps we could apply Bayesian statistics to this. To put it informally, which is more likely: that pretty much everything we knw about consciousness is wrong, or that some people are mistaken, lying, or hallucinating?

 

[Jabba]

Dave,

- From my online search, it appears that about 40% of natural scientists do [i}not[/i] believe in God, whereas only about 30% of social scientists do not believe in God (e.g. http://www.livescience.com/379-scien...iscipline.html). Obviously, this doesn’t mean that 60% of natural scientists do believe in God, or an after-life – but, it does suggest that a significant percentage do. I’ll keep looking…
- And, not that the percentage of natural scientists who believe in an afterlife should be equated to the scientific probability of an afterlife, but it should be considered… And, while it seems that NDEs may have a natural explanation, many reports of OBEs, and of reincarnation, seem to resist any natural explanation other than dishonesty…
- In addition, from my online search, it appears that either our analytic hemisphere is “transcendence blind,” or our holistic hemisphere hallucinates. It appears that what we call religious experience and transcendence are “appreciated” only by the holistic hemisphere. And surely, you guys -- and, scientists in general -- tend to be highly analytic.
- Then too, there is the reasonable possibility (it seems to me) that “now” isn’t what we think it is -- that time, itself, isn’t what we think it is – and, the scientific model doesn’t take that possibility into account…

That doesn't explain where the 1% number comes from…

- Sorry about that. I was just arguing that there is more than enough reason to support a 1% prior probability of ~A.