Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

[MarkCorrigan]

Mark,
- H (we each have Only One Finite Life at most) is my version of what I believe to be the consensus scientific opinion re human mortality.
- Certainly, I didn't mean "we" to simply represent our physical bodies. As far as I know, science has no issue at all about how many lives our bodies have. When scientists talk about the impossibility of immortality, they are not referring to our bodies -- they're talking about what we humans think of as our selves. H is about what we think of as our selves, and whether or not we might return, or never really go.

But that isn't the case Jabba. When scientists talk about the sense of self it is purely as a result of a functioning brain. You, or anyone else is free to believe in souls or whatever else you like but that has no impact on H. H is the idea that there is nothing in the sense of self that is non physical..

 

[Waterman]

Waterman,
#1. It's all anecdotal,

Ok then, it is not yet evidence. Anecdotes are only the beginning, a reason to investigate those ‘that’s unusual or unexpected’ findings using the scientific method. It only becomes evidence once evaluated with proper controls and the observation persists. To my knowledge no study has concluded that here is a persistence of a life element external to a physical body.

but there are real efforts to submit the anecdotes to objective science. Try this to get you started: http://www.jimbtucker.com/.

Anecdotes by their very nature are subjective and thus cannot result is conclusive ‘objective science’ except as a catalog of claimed (not proven) events. They may point to avenues where further study MAY prove to be fruitful but alone they are merely sign pointers to ‘something’. Whether that ‘something’ it is mundane or not is undetermined.

#2. I assume that they would be. I assume that they are conscious and have "selves." I assume that their selves would be less "focused" than ours.

Interesting I would like to explore this further with you. There are a number of theories based upon ‘élan vital’ or life force that embody living things (and sometimes non-living things depending on the flavor). But many of them do not support continuity of personal continuance as you imply. However there is the hindu concept of accumulation of karma that allows your essence to move up and down the ‘scale’ depending on your ‘life score’ eventually to ‘level up’ to something else. Is that what you are thinking? Of course this is all conceptual anyway without any supporting evidence either. Just trying to figure out where your theology lay.

 

[Mojo]

Dave,
- I still think that I can virtually prove that it's wrong -- which is what I originally claimed...

That is not what you originally claimed:

- I think that I can essentially prove immortality using Bayesian statistics.

What you are currently trying to do is to prove that the hypothesis that you have a single finite lifetime and a soul is wrong. Even if you could do that it would leave the hypothesis that you are mortal and have no soul standing.

Additionally, if your argument is valid it would also prove that all hypotheses in which you have a soul that exists independently of your body are wrong. That is precisely the opposite of what you claimed. You have failed miserably.

 

[Mojo]

Mark,
- H (we each have Only One Finite Life at most) is my version of what I believe to be the consensus scientific opinion re human mortality.

And that's your problem: the "consensus scientific opinion" doesn't include souls, but your "version" does. Disproving your strawman doesn't disprove the consensus opinion.

 

[Belz...]

- H (we each have Only One Finite Life at most) is my version of what I believe to be the consensus scientific opinion re human mortality.

Maybe you should use the real version.

- Are they just referring to our physical bodies, or are they also referring to our "selves"?

The self IS physical. It's a process of the brain like "running" is a process of legs. You think the former is special because it feels special but that's a terrible reason for reaching that conclusion.

 

[Belz...]

- This is what I can't seem to communicate to you guys. We all sense a kind of identity -- that many of us would like to be immortal. Mostly, scientists don't believe that this identity we sense can be immortal, because they believe it's entirely physical. That hypothesis could be wrong.

Oh, you're communicating it very well. We all understand. Yes, it feels special. Yes it'd be nice to live forever. I'd also like a unicorn, a billion dollars and my own starship.

Reality is under no obligation to be what we want it to be. Part of growing up is realising that.

 

[Belz...]

- I still think that I can virtually prove that it's wrong -- which is what I originally claimed...

After five days of trying I'd have realised that I couldn't prove it, virtually or otherwise. What's your excuse after five years?

- The point here is that H is in fact referring to the identity mentioned above. There is no issue as to whether or not the physical body could be immortal.

Again, the self IS physical. It's part of the physical body. This is the part you refuse to accept, and every error you make stems from that.

 

[Jabba]

Dave,
- I still think that I can virtually prove that it's wrong -- which is what I originally claimed...
- The point here is that H is in fact referring to the identity mentioned above. There is no issue as to whether or not the physical body could be immortal.

In H, that identity is part of the physical body. If the body is mortal than so is that identity.

Dave,
- Are you saying that H is not referring to that identity when it says "we"?

 

[John Jones]

Dave,
- Are you saying that H is not referring to that identity when it says "we"?

When did H say "we"?

 

[jond]

Dave,
- Are you saying that H is not referring to that identity when it says "we"?

Jabba, please: under H, the self, ME, identity are all processes in the brain. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

 

[Belz...]

Dave,
- Are you saying that H is not referring to that identity when it says "we"?

The self is physical. You're trying to introduce a distinction that doesn't exist under H.

Stop it.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Jabba, please: under H, the self, ME, identity are all processes in the brain. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

He understands, he finds it convenient to ignore it all.

 

[Mojo]

Jabba, please: under H, the self, ME, identity are all processes in the brain. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Because it's fatal to his argument.

 

[Jabba]

js,
- But, if there is such a thing as reincarnation, OOFLam is wrong...

That would be one avenue to pursue in making a small step towards supporting your claims.

1)What scientifically sound repeatable evidence is that that supports reincarnation.

2) BTW are copies of apes, cats and dogs missing the same thing as human copies? Why or why not?

Waterman,
#1. It's all anecdotal, but there are real efforts to submit the anecdotes to objective science. Try this to get you started: http://www.jimbtucker.com/.
#2. I assume that they would be. I assume that they are conscious and have "selves." I assume that their selves would be less "focused" than ours.

1)Ok then, it is not yet evidence. Anecdotes are only the beginning, a reason to investigate those ‘that’s unusual or unexpected’ findings using the scientific method. It only becomes evidence once evaluated with proper controls and the observation persists. To my knowledge no study has concluded that here is a persistence of a life element external to a physical body.
Anecdotes by their very nature are subjective and thus cannot result is conclusive ‘objective science’ except as a catalog of claimed (not proven) events. They may point to avenues where further study MAY prove to be fruitful but alone they are merely sign pointers to ‘something’. Whether that ‘something’ it is mundane or not is undetermined.

2)Interesting I would like to explore this further with you. There are a number of theories based upon ‘élan vital’ or life force that embody living things (and sometimes non-living things depending on the flavor). But many of them do not support continuity of personal continuance as you imply. However there is the hindu concept of accumulation of karma that allows your essence to move up and down the ‘scale’ depending on your ‘life score’ eventually to ‘level up’ to something else. Is that what you are thinking? Of course this is all conceptual anyway without any supporting evidence either. Just trying to figure out where your theology lay.

Waterman,
#1. I would argue that anecdotes do constitute evidence -- it's their relative strength that's the issue. I would then argue that the University of Virginia Division of Perceptual Studies has done exactly what a research organization should do in trying to evaluate anecdotal strength.
#2. Sorry, but I have very little 'tilt' in regard to this area -- other than what I've already tilted...

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- Are you saying that H is not referring to that identity when it says "we"?

I'm saying exactly what I said: In H, that identity is part of the physical body. If the body is mortal than so is that identity.

 

[Belz...]

Waterman,
#1. I would argue that anecdotes do constitute evidence -- it's their relative strength that's the issue.

Oh, are we back to that argument now?

How about you answer our points about the physicality of the "self", jabba?

 

[JayUtah]

I would argue that anecdotes do constitute evidence...

And you would be wrong to do so. The research to which you pointed everyone, which you clearly have not read yourself, tells a story of a one-man-band, Stevenson, who basically took all those anecdotes at face value and did almost nothing to verify them. Oh sure, he ran a bunch of interesting but non-probative statistical analyses on them. But in the final analysis his "science" was simply the same sort of nonsense as we get from UFO researchers. "I've disputed a few proffered prosaic causes, and that means all that's left is a paranormal cause."

I would then argue that the University of Virginia Division of Perceptual Studies has done exactly what a research organization should do in trying to evaluate anecdotal strength.

No. You obviously didn't read and understand the research, which is why you're ignoring my analysis of it entirely. You clearly expected everyone to balk at a wall of references. Guess what: I read them. You didn't, as usual. This is why you're unprepared and unwilling to have an actual discussion regarding their purported strength. How rude of you.

 

[JayUtah]

Are you saying that H is not referring to that identity when it says "we"?

H doesn't say "we." "That identity" to you seems to mean "the thing I'm calling a soul without using that exact word." No, H doesn't refer to that. H refers to E, the sense of an identity, in that it tries to explain it. You're trying to shoehorn your notion of a soul into E and make H explain it. Noting that H explicitly denies the need for any sort of "soul" doesn't mean H isn't referring to E. It means H isn't referring to the begged question you've substituted for E.

 

[jond]

No. You obviously didn't read and understand the research, which is why you're ignoring my analysis of it entirely. You clearly expected everyone to balk at a wall of references. Guess what: I read them. You didn't, as usual. This is why you're unprepared and unwilling to have an actual discussion regarding their purported strength. How rude of you.

I am shocked. SHOCKED! that Jabba ignored your analysis of his reference...

 

[Mojo]

We now have the ludicrous situation that Jabba is trying to prove that immortal souls exist in order to use Bayesian statistics to prove that immortal souls exist.