Proof of Immortality II

[Akhenaten]

In what way does that mean you are a special case?

- I know what you're saying, and I accept that it seems to undermine my claim...

What undermines your claim that you're special more than anything else is this:

- I've said over and over that we are all special.

i.e. Special is another of the hundreds of words for which you have adopted your own personal meanings at the expense of being able to communicate your ideas to people who are using their commonly understood meanings.

- And again, I'll be back.

This is merely a restatement of the claim in your OP - a claim for which you've been unable to provide a jot of evidence, let alone proof, since you first made it two years ago.

Repeating it in every other post is doing little more than reminding everyone of the incompetence of your arguments.

 

[Jabba]

- 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...

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

If that was what you were arguing, then you failed.

dave,
- Just to make sure, and to nail down the wording, you believe that I have failed to show any reasonable doubt that "A" is correct?

Correct.

- Unless you want to explain why none of my evidence provided any reasonable doubt, I'm happy just to say that I disagree, and to claim that most natural scientists would also disagree.

What evidence? You made a vague reference to out of body experiences.I doubt that very much.

- Again.

- 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's my evidence so far for the prior probability of ~A being at least 1%. You don't seem to accept those things as "evidence," but I do (especially as they apply to Bayesian statistics) and I still need to improve upon, or support, my "hemisphere" argument -- my to-do list keeps growing...
- But again, again -- as always -- I'll be back.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Mojo,
- I've said over and over that we are all special.
- If you are conscious, you are special. All things, processes or "illusions" that are conscious are special.
- We take our own consciousness for granted, but we shouldn't. We are all EXTREMELY lucky -- if the scientific model is correct.

Given that you have yet to demonstrate that you understand an actual, honest and accurate statement of the Scientific Model, you are not qualified to assess its correctness.

- I'm still trying to explain why the fact that it would be as if nothing ever existed, if I never existed (and the fact that my likelihood of ever existing -- given the scientific model -- is only 1/10⁸⁰!) makes me (and you, if you are conscious) special.

- I'm claiming that the above saves us from the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy -- but so far, I haven't been able to explain my claim...
- I'll be back.

You can't explain the TSF away, because you are depending on it.

Why not start with your evidence that the "soul" exists, and it "immortal"?

 

[Akhenaten]

- 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...

- I'm still trying to clarify the logic here, but for now, that's still the best that I can do.

1.0. You're not attempting to clarify anything.

1.1. All you're doing is repeatedly posting the same nonsense.

6.1.3.1.1.2. No matter how many times it's explained to you exactly why it's nonsense.

2.0. There's no logic there to be clarified.

3.∞. It will always be the best you can do because you're unable to correct your arguments in the light of new information and are doomed to an endless all-too-short lifetime of repeating the same baseless assertions.

 

[Loss Leader]

- Again.
- That's my evidence so far for the prior probability of ~A being at least 1%. You don't seem to accept those things as "evidence," but I do (especially as they apply to Bayesian statistics) and I still need to improve upon, or support, my "hemisphere" argument -- my to-do list keeps growing...
- But again, again -- as always -- I'll be back.

You haven't even supported your case that Bayesian statistical methods are appropriate to the problem. Also, castles don't have phones.

 

[Akhenaten]

- Again.
- That's my evidence so far for the prior probability of ~A being at least 1%.

Those are just re-re-re-reiterations of your personal belief in a value that you arbitrarily chose for something (~A) in a theorem that doesn't allow for the insertion of any value.

You don't seem to accept those things as "evidence," but I do (especially as they apply to Bayesian statistics) . . .

Things which are accepted only by their proponent and heartily rejected by everyone else are not evidence.

Your use of scare quotes above seems to indicate that you actually understand this but persist in using the word anyway.

This is why people are prone to accusing you of wilful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty.

. . . and I still need to improve upon, or support, my "hemisphere" argument -

How far through the reading list that I provided for you have you managed to get so far?

- my to-do list keeps growing...

And yet you keep digging.

- But again, again -- as always -- I'll be back.

No, you won't

 

[godless dave]

- Again.
- That's my evidence so far for the prior probability of ~A being at least 1%. You don't seem to accept those things as "evidence," but I do (especially as they apply to Bayesian statistics) and I still need to improve upon, or support, my "hemisphere" argument -- my to-do list keeps growing...
- But again, again -- as always -- I'll be back.

How is that evidence?

A certain percentage of scientists believing in god is not evidence for the scientific model of consciousness being wrong. Even a certain percentage of scientists believing in an afterlife would not be evidence for the scientific model of consciousness being wrong.

Your idea about different kinds of thinking is irrelevant.

Your idea about time not being what we think it is is completely unsupported. I honestly have no idea what you're talking about there, nor do I understand what relevance it has to the scientific model of consciousness.

I honestly don't understand how you think what you posted could be considered evidence of anything related to human consciousness.

You mention credible reports of out of body experiences and reincarnation. I've never heard of any. If you want to use them as evidence, you have to link to some research into them.

 

[Akhenaten]

Why do you do this?

 

[HighRiser]

Jabba, did you know that properly controlled scientific testing eliminates biases, such as belief, as factors that affect the outcome of the test? If a Christian, a Muslim, a Hindu, and an atheist all perform the same, properly controlled experiment; They should all get the same result. If the test is repeated and the same result is repeated time and again; The experiment and the result are accepted by the scientific community as valid. This is the only way that consensus comes into the philosophy of science. It's not like a consensus of religious philosophy where the members of the sect share beliefs that aren't supported by objective evidence.

 

[Giordano]

Mojo,
- I've said over and over that we are all special.
- If you are conscious, you are special. All things, processes or "illusions" that are conscious are special.
- We take our own consciousness for granted, but we shouldn't. We are all EXTREMELY lucky -- if the scientific model is correct.
- I'm still trying to explain why the fact that it would be as if nothing ever existed, if I never existed (and the fact that my likelihood of ever existing -- given the scientific model -- is only 1/10⁸⁰!) makes me (and you, if you are conscious) special.

- I'm claiming that the above saves us from the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy -- but so far, I haven't been able to explain my claim...
- I'll be back.

We are all special! Do you have a dictionary?

Also, the question is not are we special now, but were we special pre-existing targets before we were born so as to allow use of your Bayesian formula.

Also, I realize the numbers that you chose for your formula are totally arbitrary, but must you highlight that fact by choosing different numbers in different posts?

 

[Giordano]

- I know what you're saying, and I accept that it seems to undermine my claim...
- And again, I'll be back.

It does more than seem to undermine your claim, it actually undermines your claim completely.

 

[abaddon]

Mojo,
- I've said over and over that we are all special.
- If you are conscious, you are special. All things, processes or "illusions" that are conscious are special.
- We take our own consciousness for granted, but we shouldn't. We are all EXTREMELY lucky -- if the scientific model is correct.
- I'm still trying to explain why the fact that it would be as if nothing ever existed, if I never existed (and the fact that my likelihood of ever existing -- given the scientific model -- is only 1/10⁸⁰!) makes me (and you, if you are conscious) special.

- I'm claiming that the above saves us from the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy -- but so far, I haven't been able to explain my claim...
- I'll be back.

If we are all "special" then "specialness" loses any actual meaning.

 

[Giordano]

- Again.
- That's my evidence so far for the prior probability of ~A being at least 1%. You don't seem to accept those things as "evidence," but I do (especially as they apply to Bayesian statistics) and I still need to improve upon, or support, my "hemisphere" argument -- my to-do list keeps growing...
- But again, again -- as always -- I'll be back.

The rejection of this as "evidence" is probably because it is not evidence. It is not even an accurate interpretation of what you quote (if you are presenting popularity polls as evidence of real facts, shall we ask how many of those scientists who believe in god also believe in souls and reincarnation?)

And of course you will never be back with new information: have you forgotten how many times you have meaninglessly said this in the past?

But of course, all of these points have been presented before, over and over again, even recently. So do you have a goal here?

 

[John Jones]

- Again.
- That's my evidence so far for the prior probability of ~A being at least 1%. You don't seem to accept those things as "evidence," but I do (especially as they apply to Bayesian statistics) and I still need to improve upon, or support, my "hemisphere" argument -- my to-do list keeps growing...
- But again, again -- as always -- I'll be back.

That's not evidence. At least not in the empirical, reproducible, objective, and falsifiable way natural scientists understand it.

You made an appeal to natural scientists just recently, so do NOT try to back-down from that appeal now. I haven't forgotten that you said that scientists as a rule are corrupt and/or incompetent, but I won't dwell on that except to point out the delicious irony.

You have not presented any evidence - just wishful thinking. Repeating it and claiming we just can't understand you for two years now is nonsense.

We understand you perfectly well. You've presented wishful thinking for 2 years, but no evidence except for your presence on this forum.

 

[Jabba]

How is that evidence?

A certain percentage of scientists believing in god is not evidence for the scientific model of consciousness being wrong. Even a certain percentage of scientists believing in an afterlife would not be evidence for the scientific model of consciousness being wrong...

Dave,
- I disagree. And, I especially disagree when it comes to Bayesian statistics. It just isn't the kind of evidence you're looking for.
- I'll try to get back in touch with the Union Stat Professor to see what he says about this...

 

[John Jones]

Dave,
- I disagree. And, I especially disagree when it comes to Bayesian statistics. It just isn't the kind of evidence you're looking for.
- I'll try to get back in touch with the Union Stat Professor to see what he says about this...

Then you're wrong again. I would further point out that you don't seem to understand the discipline of science.

 

[George]

Dave,
- I disagree. And, I especially disagree when it comes to Bayesian statistics. It just isn't the kind of evidence you're looking for.
- I'll try to get back in touch with the Union Stat Professor to see what he says about this...

Why not get in touch with Susan Blackmore and ask her to resend the links to that material you obviously didn't read.

 

[zooterkin]

Why not get in touch with Susan Blackmore and ask her to resend the links to that material you obviously didn't read.

What have you got against Susan Blackmore?

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- I disagree. And, I especially disagree when it comes to Bayesian statistics. It just isn't the kind of evidence you're looking for.

I am not aware of any scientific or mathematical discipline where the personal beliefs of scientists is evidence of anything besides what they believe.

 

[Recovering Agnostic]

We are all special! Do you have a dictionary?

Also, the question is not are we special now, but were we special pre-existing targets before we were born so as to allow use of your Bayesian formula.

Also, I realize the numbers that you chose for your formula are totally arbitrary, but must you highlight that fact by choosing different numbers in different posts?

Maybe some of us are special in different ways from others?

Jabba, if we're all special as you claim, would a hypothetical (but unborn) combination of characteristics from your new Bucket o' Souls, chosen at random, also be special? I suspect you'll say not, but that explicitly leads you straight into the path of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy for the 10^80!th time, by insisting that it's the fact of being alive that makes us special.

Or you could say that any conceivable combination is special, adding Humpty Dumptyism and irrelevance to your unprovoked goading of William of Ockham. Frankly, it would make as much sense as anything else in this thread, which long ago ceased to have any value except as a terrible warning and unintentional lulz.