Proof of Immortality III

[abaddon]

There are no natural theories because science deals with the material and utilizes the personal self as the agent of investigation and analysis of results.

"there has been no direct observation of such a possibility" needs to be narrowed. There has been no direct observation of such a possibility by the personal self utilizing sensory means.

There is direct observation but it is being observing itself! Enlightenment experience.

Gave up trying to defeat Lenski, eh?

 

[Belz...]

Well, not exactly. All that matters is, your only way to ever see the light of day came through with flying colors against giganogargantuan odds. Which proves you are a special snowflake. Because very nearly everything that might have happened after the main quantum shuffle began at t = 0 + 10 ^-43, did not happen, and never will.

You're making a fundamental mistake, here, which is to assume that it occured by chance. It didn't. Physics limit the possibilities, and in fact will tend towards a certain number of outcomes. The end result was all but inevitable given the universe we're talking about.

Again, that's not chance at all.

And there is no other possible explanation, and no explaining to be done.

That reads remarkably like "la la la I can't hear you."

 

[MRC_Hans]

This is simply another failure to differientiate between the general and the specific, and a refusal to address the subjective perspective at all, let alone invalidate it.

Nice words. Well built sentences. Does it mean anything?

No, the (1) was not "meant" to come (unless the game was rigged). It was, however, "required" to be rolled, or else, by Nonpariel's captors. At that point, it was (1) versus all the other numbers. In 2 separate groups, distinguishable by their outcomes, and by their implications.

It was? Why?

If you're referring to me, then you are proving that you don't know what you're talking about. Not only do I grasp the random coincidence of my brain, I try to convince others of it, and use it as evidence.

Well, I'll prefer to avoid taking about you. You will know if the shoe fits or not.

Hans

 

[Jabba]

They have quite a few clues. There is a heck of a lot scientists don't understand about human consciousness but the scientific model is that it is produced by the brain. In the scientific model, one of the scenarios included in H, the human self is the physical body and brain of a particular human being. The "identity" is determined the same way the "identity" of the physical body is determined.



My point exactly. That's the model you are trying to disprove.

Dave,
- Do you think of the "identity" I'm referring to as the combination of all the person's characteristics?

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- Do you think of the "identity" I'm referring to as the combination of all the person's characteristics?

That's the closest thing to an "identity" I can think of in the scientific model.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Dave,
- Do you think of the "identity" I'm referring to as the combination of all the person's characteristics?

There is, of course, a test to see what happens to your 'self' if your brain is basically turned off or rebooted, so consciousness, if immaterial, would logically go on if it is continuous and not dependent on the physical brain. This is best initiated from an awake and conscious state so as not to confuse it with normal sleeping.

Whack yourself, hard, on the head with a sledge hammer. I would say ball peen, but that is likely to actually do more harm if you use the wrong side. (But I was tempted, ohh, so tempted. Thread fatigue, mind you.) Get a friend to help you if you need to.

If my rustic manners offend, you could also try to convince someone in the medical field to put you under, preferably an induced coma. Again, due diligence begrudgingly obliges me to add to not forget to give them a wake-by date.

When you get back, you will have a very good idea of the fact that when you are out, you are not around. The brain hosts the mind, and that is exactly why in both scenarios you can be rebooted. End, and very end, of story.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

We've had some long odds in this thread, but what are the chances of someone actually making a flounce stick?

 

[Nonpareil]

The difference between the 2 groups is that the appearance of a member of one group strongly supports a rigged game, and an appearance of a member of the other group strongly suggests otherwise.

You say this.

You have yet to provide any justification for it other than "I don't buy that a one could come up by chance".

Again, the only way to provide support for your contention that the game must have been rigged would be to examine the die. One specific roll coming up in your favor, no matter the odds - or even a series of equivalent rolls all turning up - can do no more than prompt an investigation.

Because, no matter how much you wish it were otherwise, long shots are not impossibilities.

 

[Nonpareil]

- The likelihood of a particular human self currently existing -- given OOFLam -- is approx 7 billion over an unimaginably large number. The likelihood of Mt Rainier currently existing -- given the science of Geology -- is one over one.

Both are one over one, Jabba, because both exist.

- Keep in mind that these likelihoods are both estimates -- and geologists would expect/estimate that Mt Rainier would follow the same rules that every other mountain has followed, and geologists would very likely be able to explain scientifically each characteristic they encountered.
- However, the human self being judged here is not the physical body and brain of a particular human being -- biologists would estimate that the likelihood of such a physical 'self' currently existing would also be one over one. But the likelihood that my particular consciousness would currently exist is one over some unimaginably large number because science doesn't have a clue as to what determines the particular "identity" of this consciousness.

Except that it does. You assume an immaterial self, disconnected from the body and brain. Literally all evidence that we have points to the self being the brain - or, rather, being the neurochemical processes taking place within the brain.

Even if this weren't the case, it wouldn't change the fact that the probability of you existing, examined from the current perspective, is one over one - and that you were no more or less likely to exist than anyone else before you were born.

Your argument fails on every count.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

We've had some long odds in this thread, but what are the chances of someone actually making a flounce stick?

My apologies to readers, and to you, laddie. I've done more honest work. Bad day today. Fun though. I think pain loosens me tongue more than a whisky would.

 

[Jabba]

That's the closest thing to an "identity" I can think of in the scientific model.

Dave,
- That isn't what I mean by "identity." The "self," or "identity" to which I'm referring, is the one that people who believe in reincarnation refer to. They believe that their particular consciousness/self will exist in a later life, but not with the physical or mental characteristics of their current lives. That's the "identity" I'm trying to communicate, and it doesn't communicate readily.

 

[jond]

Dave,
- That isn't what I mean by "identity." The "self," or "identity" to which I'm referring, is the one that people who believe in reincarnation refer to. They believe that their particular consciousness/self will exist in a later life, but not with the physical or mental characteristics of their current lives. That's the "identity" I'm trying to communicate, and it doesn't communicate readily.

In other words, a soul which exists separate from the brain/body. And, of course, there is no evidence suggesting this exists, and no amount of playing with statistics is going to demonstrate the existence of it. But you've been told this an infinite number of times, and ignored it each and every time.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- That isn't what I mean by "identity." The "self," or "identity" to which I'm referring, is the one that people who believe in reincarnation refer to. They believe that their particular consciousness/self will exist in a later life, but not with the physical or mental characteristics of their current lives. That's the "identity" I'm trying to communicate, and it doesn't communicate readily.

What you're referring to doesn't exist in the scientific model.

 

[Nonpareil]

What you're referring to doesn't exist in the scientific model.

What he is referring to does not exist.

 

[abaddon]

Oh, hello, Godless Dave has been anointed as the current LCP.

Congrats.

 

[Giordano]

To help out, I will just provide the definition the Jabba presented in the historical version of this thread:

- The "self" is that part that is reincarnated.

No more detailed answer was given after repeated questioning. Apparently it was not one's consciousness, memories, appearance, affection or hate toward others, personality, etc. Then, as now, Jabba explained that he couldn't quite explain what he meant by self except, well you know, the part that is reincarnated.

I believe that Jabba came very close (or beyond) toward defining "self" as "soul" more than once, but he tried to avoid this because he didn't want to taint his purely scientific, statistical argument with a religious concept.

I hope this helps.

 

[Monza]

I believe that Jabba came very close (or beyond) toward defining "self" as "soul" more than once, but he tried to avoid this because he didn't want to taint his purely scientific, statistical argument with a religious concept.

True. This thread was even moved from the Science Mathematics Medicine and Technology forum to the Religion and Philosophy forum to allow for him to argue about a soul. His argument failed on a scientific basis long ago.

 

[The Sparrow]

There is, of course, a test to see what happens to your 'self' if your brain is basically turned off or rebooted, so consciousness, if immaterial, would logically go on if it is continuous and not dependent on the physical brain. This is best initiated from an awake and conscious state so as not to confuse it with normal sleeping.

Whack yourself, hard, on the head with a sledge hammer. I would say ball peen, but that is likely to actually do more harm if you use the wrong side. (But I was tempted, ohh, so tempted. Thread fatigue, mind you.) Get a friend to help you if you need to.

If my rustic manners offend, you could also try to convince someone in the medical field to put you under, preferably an induced coma. Again, due diligence begrudgingly obliges me to add to not forget to give them a wake-by date.

When you get back, you will have a very good idea of the fact that when you are out, you are not around. The brain hosts the mind, and that is exactly why in both scenarios you can be rebooted. End, and very end, of story.

A simpler and less dangerous method I discovered accidentally. My wife got a new video camera. She recorded me sleeping for a few minutes without my knowledge and showed it to me after. Very strange experience. There I was existing, but I had no sense of it. I was simply not existing during that time, but there I was, snoring away!

 

[kyrani99]

Gave up trying to defeat Lenski, eh?

No! I am having to learn a bit about mouse models but I am getting there!

 

[kyrani99]

You will need to do significantly better than that, and word things so they might make more sense.

You can't say that there is no proof of immortality because we cannot devise a scientific experiment to provide evidence for or against the hypothesis. Even if we found evidence, it is not proof. All we can say in that case is we have no scientific evidence. But that does not say we disprove immortality.

I cannot do any scientific experiment to prove or even provide evidence for your subjective experience but that does not disprove the reality of your subjective experience.