Proof of Immortality III

Status
Not open for further replies.

Humots

Critical Thinker
Humots
Joined
May 29, 2012
Messages
425
The previous thread was running slowly so I have split it to this new thread. As is usual, the split point is arbitrary and participants may quote from the previous thread(s) into this one should they wish.
Posted By: Agatha







Jabba said:
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."
Click to expand...

"Appears". "Somehow connected". "Just a thought". "Could be".

Emergent properties are "transmitted" from somewhere, somehow.

Just empty hand-waving.

What "recent discoveries in physics" are you referring to? And how do they pertain to the question at hand?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jabba said:
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."
Click to expand...


OK, then H isn't the scientific model for consciousness. That means ~H would include, among other things, models where immaterial selves are immortal, but also models where immaterial selves don't exist at all.
 
godless dave said:
OK, then H isn't the scientific model for consciousness. That means ~H would include, among other things, models where immaterial selves are immortal, but also models where immaterial selves don't exist at all.
Click to expand...


~H includes the very situation that his false dilemma relies on disproving.

Given that Jabba's argument boils down to his existence being too improbable to have happened by chance, all he is really arguing for is 'Intelligent Design'.
 
OT:
sometime i wish i could estimate the carbon foot print of those threads. Number of lines written * time spent to read for every thread reader * 100 watts (most assuming a PC) * number of Kg Carbon average per watt.

I have a feeling that would surprise most of us.

More than the thread post content anyway.
 
Ooh, part III. So we have proof that this thread has more than "one, finite, life." I wonder if it has any memory of its previous incarnations.
 
- We haven't worked out the specific day and time, but the statistics professor with whom I've been corresponding has agreed to meet me for lunch to discuss my claim about one, finite, life (at most). I'll ask him to write down his opinion.
 
Are you discussing the Bayesian statistics part of your claim with this professor, or the philosophical aspects?

Are you willing to share how you calculated the probability of ~OFL to be 0.01 - or will you concede that you made that number up?
 
Jabba said:
[T]he statistics professor with whom I've been corresponding has agreed to meet me for lunch to discuss my claim about one, finite, life (at most). I'll ask him to write down his opinion.
Click to expand...

I'd like to incorporate by reference Agatha's concerns.

What assurances do we have that you will faithfully and completely present to him what you've presented here, including your blatantly invented priors?

What assurances do we have that you will faithfully represent his answer?

What about this particular proposal constitutes anything but an appeal to anonymous authority?
 
Jabba said:
- We haven't worked out the specific day and time, but the statistics professor with whom I've been corresponding has agreed to meet me for lunch to discuss my claim about one, finite, life (at most). I'll ask him to write down his opinion.
Click to expand...

This is Dr. Roger Hoerl, still, right?

Couple of things to keep in mind: Sooner is better than later, because finals rapidly approach, and after that, commencement.

Where did you decide to go for lunch?
 
Jabba said:
- We haven't worked out the specific day and time, but the statistics professor with whom I've been corresponding has agreed to meet me for lunch to discuss my claim about one, finite, life (at most). I'll ask him to write down his opinion.
Click to expand...


Be sure to tell him that you have a reputation for misquoting peeps, and quoting them out ofg context on that damned blog of yours.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom