Proof of Immortality II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
Dave,
- I don't really understand your question -- but, for the word "soul" I'd use Wikipedia's basic definition: The soul in many religions, philosophical and mythological traditions, is the incorporeal and immortal essence of a living being.
- But, keep in mind that I don't use that word as it automatically accepts immortality, and I'd be begging the question if I used it. Here, I'm just talking about the "self," or individual consciousness and trying to show that H -- the scientific expectation that each (potential) self has one, finite, life (at most) -- is misled.
Click to expand...

So in H, the self is material, and produced by the brain?
 
Rincewind said:
You know, given that Princess Leia killed Jabba "a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away", and he's posting here right now, maybe there's a case for believing in immortality?
Click to expand...


Because Jabba lived in a galaxy far, far away, his posts take a long time to arrive here, so even though Princess Leia killed him a long time ago posts he wrote while he was still alive are still arriving.
 
godless dave said:
So in H, the self is material, and produced by the brain?
Click to expand...
Dave,
- No. The self appears to be an immaterial emergent property produced by the material brain.
- My claim is that by inserting the fact of my current existence into the math of Bayesian statistics, the conclusion is reached that my particular self is (somehow) not limited to the one, finite, lifetime implied by modern science. (One problem here is that what I mean by "one, finite, lifetime" is maybe impossible to fully express -- like saying what things were like "before time.")
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- No. The self appears to be an immaterial emergent property produced by the material brain.
- My claim is that by inserting the fact of my current existence into the math of Bayesian statistics, the conclusion is reached that my particular self is (somehow) not limited to the one, finite, lifetime implied by modern science. (One problem here is that what I mean by "one, finite, lifetime" is maybe impossible to fully express -- like saying what things were like "before time.")
Click to expand...

Poster,
- Yes. That is, appearances can be deceiving. The fully material nature of your conscious thought is a scientific known. So, no, the self is by no means immaterial.
- No. That claim has had no support for pages and pages. Too late for square one again. Chance was had; chance not taken.

Now, back to my far more important observation: La-la-la. (To make that a thesis: superficial humor is the key to the pursuit of happiness, which is why jokes make a good constitutional.) And how does this relate to the OP? Well, who wants immortality if it's a bummer? Gotta make life fun first.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Dave,
- No. The self appears to be an immaterial emergent property produced by the material brain.
- My claim is that by inserting the fact of my current existence into the math of Bayesian statistics, the conclusion is reached that my particular self is (somehow) not limited to the one, finite, lifetime implied by modern science. (One problem here is that what I mean by "one, finite, lifetime" is maybe impossible to fully express -- like saying what things were like "before time.")
Click to expand...

This is nitpicky, but I am mystified by your punctuation of the phrase "one, finite, life(time)" and get hung up on it whenever it appears. Ordinarily, you should not place a comma between "finite" and "life." Commas do not separate nouns from their modifiers. There really shouldn't be a comma between "one" and "finite" either because they are cumulative adjectives. I get hung up on this when I read it because I keep wondering whether you have another purpose in setting "finite" off with commas. I find myself reading it as if the commas are used to emphasize the word "finite:" one finite life. If that is the intent, there are clearer ways to emphasize a word (italics, underline, dashes). Again, I apologize for the nitpick, and I don't mean to go all grammar Nazi on you, but I am genuinely confused about your purpose in using this slightly eccentric punctuation.
 
Agatha said:
Circumstantial evidence isn't going to support ~H, the most it can do is not rule it out, but it also won't rule out H.

Do you have any evidence to support ~H over H? If not, then why on earth would you think ~H has any chance of being true, let alone 0.1?
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
Agatha,

- This should get me started.

1. There is no direct evidence for OFL (one, finite, life); the only evidence for OFL is circumstantial. We infer that there is no other life for each of us than the one each of us is currently experiencing because 1) we think we would remember them if there were – and because 2) we think there is nothing immaterial.
2. That the likelihood of your current existence given the one, finite, life (at most) scenario is 7 billion over an unimaginably large number is evidence itself that the one, finite, life (at most) scenario is wrong. Any actual number as the denominator of the likelihood of your current existence given ~OFL pales in comparison to the unimaginably large number as the denominator of the likelihood of your current existence given OFL. 3. Then there are black holes, dark matter, multiverses, singularities, quantum entanglement, the anthropic principle, consciousness, particle waves, the relativity of time, the curvature of spacetime, life, etc. -- and possibly 7 physical dimensions that we can’t see and “numinous.”

4. NDEs make for direct evidence for ~OFL, and some are credible.
5. OOBEs make for direct evidence for ~OFL, and some are credible.
6. Claims of reincarnation make for direct evidence for ~OFL, and some are credible.

7. We humans process data in two different ways – analytically and holistically. Each of us, especially we men, tend to be dominated by one way of thinking or the other. Western education teaches towards analytic thinking -- so those who are dominated by analytic thinking are more likely to do well in western schools than those who are dominated by holistic thinking. As the analytic thinkers advance through western schools, they become more dominated by analytic thinking. The belief in what we call “transcendence” is what makes a philosophy religious. Holistic thinking is responsible for our ‘sense’ of transcendence. It would appear that either analytic thinkers tend to be transcendence-blind or holistic thinkers hallucinate…
8. Many of our great thinkers of the past seem to have been ‘bilingual’ in regard to their thinking.
Click to expand...

Agatha said:
Or, more likely, because we are familiar with the fact that we were each born, we will all one day die, that our consciousnesses are emergent properties of our living neurosystems, and that no evidence has ever been shown to suggest that dead consciousnesses somehow recur.
No. Just no. We've been through all this, and your mathematical ideas are untenable. Let me try to explain. If, 52 years ago my parents had written down the registration number of a car that I would one day own, the odds against them happening on the correct plate would be infinitesimally small. Indeed, the format for UK registration numbers has changed several times in that time and they would not have known how they would change in the future. The likelihood of my owning any particular registration number when looked at before the fact would be similar to your "7 billion over unimaginably large". However, that does not mean that registration plates are reincarnated, or are anything special. Many things are unlikely before the fact, but once they happen the likelihood is 1. None of which have any bearing on this discussion, unless it is your contention that just because some things are strange, any strange things are therefore real.

This has already been addressed in your first immortality thread, but even credible NDEs are not evidence for ~OFL. They are evidence for a known physical response to a lack of oxygen to the brain, and they are culture-dependent which tends to support them being hallucinatory experiences caused by lack of oxygen. If you claim they are evidence for ~OFL, please explain exactly how something that happens prior to death, reported only when the person does not die, which has a physical explanation and which varies by culture has anything to do with the persistence of consciousness after death.
Again this was addressed. No OOBE has ever been shown to see anything other than what the person is able to view from their actual position. All the evidence points to OOBEs being halluinations brought on by stress, fear or drugs. I've had one myself, and I can assure you it was an hallucination brought on by stress and pethidine.
I've never seen a credible claim, do you have any? Not anecdotal, one that has been properly investigated.

Pop-psychology hogwash, if I may be blunt.
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
Agatha,
- From Wikipedia,
Bayesian inference is a method of statistical inference in which Bayes' theorem is used to update the probability for a hypothesis as more evidence or information becomes available. - In our case E is the new information and, in a sense at least, its "probability" of existence is, in fact, 1.00. However, in Bayesian inference, we're looking for the effect that its actual existence has on the (posterior) probability of H. And, to do that, we need to figure the "likelihood" of E, given that H is true. And, that likelihood is virtually zero.
Click to expand...
Agatha,
- Do you agree with that?
- What would you prefer me to address next?
 
Lucian said:
This is nitpicky, but I am mystified by your punctuation of the phrase "one, finite, life(time)" and get hung up on it whenever it appears. Ordinarily, you should not place a comma between "finite" and "life." Commas do not separate nouns from their modifiers. There really shouldn't be a comma between "one" and "finite" either because they are cumulative adjectives. I get hung up on this when I read it because I keep wondering whether you have another purpose in setting "finite" off with commas. I find myself reading it as if the commas are used to emphasize the word "finite:" one finite life. If that is the intent, there are clearer ways to emphasize a word (italics, underline, dashes). Again, I apologize for the nitpick, and I don't mean to go all grammar Nazi on you, but I am genuinely confused about your purpose in using this slightly eccentric punctuation.
Click to expand...
Lucian,
- Sorry.
- I had an English professor who said that such was appropriate under certain circumstances... Or at least, that's what I understood him to say...
- My understanding of his explanation had something to do with the desire to think of the adjectives separately...
- If that's not sufficient, I'll try again...
 
Jabba said:
- No. The self appears to be an immaterial emergent property produced by the material brain.
Click to expand...


Then why have you repeatedly claimed that it is unlikely that your particular "self" should be associated with your brain?
 
Jabba said:
Agatha,
- From Wikipedia,
Bayesian inference is a method of statistical inference in which Bayes' theorem is used to update the probability for a hypothesis as more evidence or information becomes available..
Click to expand...

I have a sincere question. I am not trying to play gotcha.

When they say "update the probability of a hypothesis," are they talking about an event that has already happened or an event that has not yet happened? Or both?
 
Jabba said:
Agatha,
- From Wikipedia,
Bayesian inference is a method of statistical inference in which Bayes' theorem is used to update the probability for a hypothesis as more evidence or information becomes available.
- In our case E is the new information and, in a sense at least, its "probability" of existence is, in fact, 1.00. However, in Bayesian inference, we're looking for the effect that its actual existence has on the (posterior) probability of H. And, to do that, we need to figure the "likelihood" of E, given that H is true. And, that likelihood is virtually zero.
Click to expand...

Ladewig said:
I have a sincere question. I am not trying to play gotcha.

When they say "update the probability of a hypothesis," are they talking about an event that has already happened or an event that has not yet happened? Or both?
Click to expand...
Ladewig,
- The (relevant) event has already happened.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- No. The self appears to be an immaterial emergent property produced by the material brain.
- My claim is that by inserting the fact of my current existence into the math of Bayesian statistics, the conclusion is reached that my particular self is (somehow) not limited to the one, finite, lifetime implied by modern science. (One problem here is that what I mean by "one, finite, lifetime" is maybe impossible to fully express -- like saying what things were like "before time.")
Click to expand...

I think we're using two different definitions of "material" but that's OK. Would you agree that since, in H, the self is produced by the brain, the likelihood of someone's self existing is exactly the same as the likelihood of their physical body existing?
 
Jabba said:
Agatha,
- From Wikipedia,
Bayesian inference is a method of statistical inference in which Bayes' theorem is used to update the probability for a hypothesis as more evidence or information becomes available.
- In our case E is the new information and, in a sense at least, its "probability" of existence is, in fact, 1.00. However, in Bayesian inference, we're looking for the effect that its actual existence has on the (posterior) probability of H. And, to do that, we need to figure the "likelihood" of E, given that H is true. And, that likelihood is virtually zero.
Click to expand...
godless dave said:
So in H, the self is material, and produced by the brain?
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
Dave,
- No. The self appears to be an immaterial emergent property produced by the material brain.
- My claim is that by inserting the fact of my current existence into the math of Bayesian statistics, the conclusion is reached that my particular self is (somehow) not limited to the one, finite, lifetime implied by modern science. (One problem here is that what I mean by "one, finite, lifetime" is maybe impossible to fully express -- like saying what things were like "before time.")
Click to expand...
godless dave said:
I think we're using two different definitions of "material" but that's OK. Would you agree that since, in H, the self is produced by the brain, the likelihood of someone's self existing is exactly the same as the likelihood of their physical body existing?
Click to expand...
Dave,
- Sorry. I used the wrong word. The self appears to be an immaterial emergent property somehow connected to the material brain. William James argued that the brain doesn't produce the mind; it transmits the mind. (Just a thought, but I wonder if that could be how emergent properties work in general...)
- Anyway, I shouldn't have restricted the connection to producing the mind. The brain could be transmitting something non-physical into the physical world.
- And as strange as such might seem, it seems to pale in comparison to recent discoveries in physics.
- And then if the self is not restricted to one, finite, life at most (as the math seems to require), the basic self must be what we would call "non-physical."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom