Proof of Immortality II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Agatha said:
I am at a loss to explain why you are linking to stuff about REM sleep (which is basic knowledge and not unknown to me). None of it refutes that I remember most of my dreams, at least one a night, every night. Nor does it explain why you claimed that 'we' don't remember most of our dreams, nor what dreaming has to do with immortality.
Click to expand...


Perhaps Jabba is working up to a claim that when we wake up each day we don't remember our previous life.
 
Agatha said:
How did you calculate the probability of ~[one finite life] to be 0.01?
What does "a particular awareness of self" mean?

I am at a loss to explain why you are linking to stuff about REM sleep (which is basic knowledge and not unknown to me). None of it refutes that I remember most of my dreams, at least one a night, every night. Nor does it explain why you claimed that 'we' don't remember most of our dreams, nor what dreaming has to do with immortality.
Click to expand...
agatha,
- i'll tell you, but first, am i correct to assume that you wouldn't accept .0000000001 either/
 
Jabba said:
agatha,
- i'll tell you, but first, am i correct to assume that you wouldn't accept .0000000001 either/
Click to expand...
Whether or not any specific number will be accepted depends entirely on how good a case can be made for it. Make a compelling, well argued case supported by objective evidence, and you just might convince us.

No rational person will accept any number you have just made up at random.
 
Agatha said:
How did you calculate the probability of ~[one finite life] to be 0.01?

What does "a particular awareness of self" mean? I am at a loss to explain why you are linking to stuff about REM sleep (which is basic knowledge and not unknown to me). None of it refutes that I remember most of my dreams, at least one a night, every night. Nor does it explain why you claimed that 'we' don't remember most of our dreams, nor what dreaming has to do with immortality.
Click to expand...
agatha,
- this is an example of a concept that is (at least, nearly) impossible to communicate, for sure, unless the 'listener' has already 'recognized' it...
- one's 'self' is what people who believe in reincarnation believe will return over and over again, in different bodies and with no memory of past lives.
- Such people don't worry about lapsing into permanent nothingness.
 
Jabba said:
- one's 'self' is what people who believe in reincarnation believe will return over and over again, in different bodies and with no memory of past lives.
Click to expand...
You mean 'soul'?
- Such people don't worry about lapsing into permanent nothingness.
Click to expand...
Are you aware that such people don't tend to be Christians?
 
Jabba said:
agatha,
- i'll tell you, but first, am i correct to assume that you wouldn't accept .0000000001 either/
Click to expand...
Unless I understand how you calculated it, I have no idea whether I'd accept that or any other number. Evidence comes first, not the conclusion one draws from it.
 
Agatha said:
How did you calculate the probability of ~[one finite life] to be 0.01?
What does "a particular awareness of self" mean?

I am at a loss to explain why you are linking to stuff about REM sleep (which is basic knowledge and not unknown to me). None of it refutes that I remember most of my dreams, at least one a night, every night. Nor does it explain why you claimed that 'we' don't remember most of our dreams, nor what dreaming has to do with immortality.
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
agatha,
- i'll tell you, but first, am i correct to assume that you wouldn't accept .0000000001 either/
Click to expand...

Pixel42 said:
Whether or not any specific number will be accepted depends entirely on how good a case can be made for it. Make a compelling, well argued case supported by objective evidence, and you just might convince us.

No rational person will accept any number you have just made up at random.
Click to expand...
pixel,
- i assume that you recognized the implication in my question, but just in case...
- if we accept that the opinion that we each have but one, finite, life is possibly wrong, bayesian statistics mixed with modern science concludes that it is wrong.

- It will take me a little time to gather up my case for the possibility that the one, finite, life opinion is wrong.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
agatha,
- this is an example of a concept that is (at least, nearly) impossible to communicate, for sure, unless the 'listener' has already 'recognized' it...
- one's 'self' is what people who believe in reincarnation believe will return over and over again, in different bodies and with no memory of past lives.
- Such people don't worry about lapsing into permanent nothingness.
Click to expand...
I can't see how what you describe as this 'self' differs from what some theists call a soul, nor (since this self carries no memory or awareness) how such a thing could ever be shown to exist. From the description that you have given, it seems that this 'awareness of self' is nothing more than the consciousness that is an emergent property of the living nervous system. How does it differ from a 'soul'?

The proposal that it returns in another person after death is nothing more than wishful thinking, there is no evidence to support the idea.

Many people who don't believe in reincarnation or what you call this 'particular awareness of self' don't worry about lapsing into permanent nothingness either. It's just the way life and death is, no point in worrying about it.
 
Jabba said:
agatha,
- this is an example of a concept that is (at least, nearly) impossible to communicate, for sure, unless the 'listener' has already 'recognized' it...
- one's 'self' is what people who believe in reincarnation believe will return over and over again, in different bodies and with no memory of past lives.
- Such people don't worry about lapsing into permanent nothingness.
Click to expand...

My Dear Mr. Savage:

You have never yet, to my knowledge, bothered to explain why a "self" in a different body, with "no memory of 'past lives'[sic]" is any kind of any manifestation of any sence opf actual continuity. Such a self would be indistinguishable from observable reality; that is, that the "self" is a function of a sufficiently complex neurosystem, which comes into existence as an effect of the characteristics of that system, and ceased to exist when that system ceases to function.

Nor have you ever demonstrated how any of this is in accord, in any way, with your professed desire to "be a 'Christian'[sic]".

Nor have you presented the least skerrick of, you know, evidence...

Do you ever intend to do any of that?

I remain skeptically yours, &ct.
 
Jabba said:
p- if we accept that the opinion that we each have but one, finite, life is possibly wrong, bayesian statistics mixed with modern science concludes that it is wrong.
Click to expand...
This perfectly encapsulates the error that you are making. You need to have the evidence that one finite life is wrong or possibly wrong first, and then you test that evidence. Only if the evidence stands up to the testing could you even consider thinking about Bayesian statistics or anything else.

Or, to use your explanation: If we accept that the opinion that stars are made from mostly hydrogen and helium is possibly wrong, Bayesian statistics mixed with modern science concludes that it is wrong.

So we could use Bayesian statistics to show that stars might be made of glitter and whipped cream, but we'd be flat-out wrong.
 
Jabba said:
....
- if we accept that the opinion that we each have but one, finite, life is possibly wrong, bayesian statistics mixed with modern science concludes that it is wrong....
Click to expand...

That is the most ridiculous think I've heard.

If we suspect that when I roll this dice it might possibly be 6, then it certainly must come up 6.

See how silly that sounds?

you cannot use "bayesian statistics" to take a possibility and make it proof without any supporting data.

And 'modern science' does not support it at all. you lose.
 
Jabba said:
agatha,
- this is an example of a concept that is (at least, nearly) impossible to communicate, for sure, unless the 'listener' has already 'recognized' it...
- one's 'self' is what people who believe in reincarnation believe will return over and over again, in different bodies and with no memory of past lives.
- Such people don't worry about lapsing into permanent nothingness.
Click to expand...


The dead do not lapse into permanent nothingness. That would entail a continued existence.
 
Jabba said:
agatha,
- i'll tell you, but first, am i correct to assume that you wouldn't accept .0000000001 either/
Click to expand...


Jabba,
- If your calculation of the probability of ~[one finite life] to be 0.01 was valid, we would have to reject a value of 0.0000000001 for the same probability because it would be demonstrably incorrect. If you want anyone to accept any value for this probability you will have to demonstrate that it is valid.

So, how did you calculate the probability of ~[one finite life] to be 0.01?
 
Jabba said:
Agatha,
- What is your evidence that we have but one, finite, life?
Click to expand...

It is a reversal of burden, but all evidence we have none indicate more than 1 life.

The fact that we have all point out to show that the consciousness is an emerging process of the brain function. Forget the woo. None of that pan/panned out even the (panneti ?) study.

Not a receptacle.

not an Antenna.

An emerging process integral to the brain.

Thus when the brain die , consciousness die with it.
 
Peregrinus said:
Nothingness is existence? Try pulling the other one.
Click to expand...

I admit it made a lot more sense to me before I posted it. :D Something about Jabba still assuming some from of life force / self / soul that transcends bio-chemical processes.

It does matter, though. Even if I had been comprehensible, Jabba would have still ignored it.
 
Jabba, how did you calculate the probability of ~[one finite life] to be 0.01?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom