[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
Akhenaten,
- No. The "self," or "observer," is what I think that I can essentially prove is immortal. I also think that I haven't done a very good job of communicating what I mean by those words. I keep hoping that I can do better at it.
Click to expand...

The meanings of the word immortality are pretty well understood. Now start proving it.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,

- "Me" does change, but it's still me. I am still aware -- and to some extent, I'm aware of the changes.

- Maybe, this will help.
- The "me" I'm talking about is the the "thing" that those who believe in reincarnation are referring to as occurring over and over again. Whether they are right or not, they and I are talking about the same thing. Certainly, the characteristics of this thing are expected to change totally between occurrences -- yet, it's the same "person," or "self" each time.

- You and I may never agree, but thanks for staying with me.
Click to expand...

Mr. Savage:

At the risk of being accused of being condescending, may I point out that it appears that you are, for all intents and purposes, postulating the existence of a "soul". Is this correct?

Upon what evidence do you base this postulate?
 
Jabba said:
The "me" I'm talking about is the the "thing" that those who believe in reincarnation are referring to as occurring over and over again. Whether they are right or not, they and I are talking about the same thing.
Click to expand...
The concept of reincarnation makes no sense whatsoever precisely because of the point that is being made to you. Some future entity that does not have any of my memories cannot be me in any meaningful sense.

Incidentally when you quote philosophers like Descartes you should keep in mind that we have learned a lot about how the brain and consciousness work since he died. A modern reincarnation of Descartes might have a very different opinion. ;)
 
Pixel42 said:
The concept of reincarnation makes no sense whatsoever precisely because of the point that is being made to you. Some future entity that does not have any of my memories cannot be me in any meaningful sense.
Click to expand...
There are several rationales for that, providing one makes some wild a priori assumptions.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,

- "Me" does change, but it's still me. I am still aware -- and to some extent, I'm aware of the changes.
Click to expand...


Is it "You" or you who is aware of the changes?

How can "We" be sure it's not you? Or maybe even you?

It's essential that we get this sorted out.



Jabba said:
- Maybe, this will help.
Click to expand...


As I keep reminding "you" - essentially the only thing that will help is more lists.



Jabba said:
- The "me" I'm talking about is the the "thing" that those who believe in reincarnation are referring to as occurring over and over again.
Click to expand...


You essentially appear to be saying that this entire thread is all about "you" proving (essentially) that something you (or is it you?) are unable to even define other than in terms of its being a vague "thing" that someone else believes in.



Jabba said:
Whether they are right or not, they and I are talking about the same thing.
Click to expand...


Well if they're wrong it essentially makes your argument look kind of stupid(er), doesn't it?

I would have thought "you" would be a little more supportive of the idea upon which your entire argument is essentially based, even if you aren't exactly sure what it is.



Jabba said:
Certainly, the characteristics of this thing are expected to change totally between occurrences -- yet, it's the same "person," or "self" each time.
Click to expand...


So far "you" appear to be doing a good job of essentially proving that this "thing" that "you" are unable to define doesn't even last as long as the body that supports it. It's going to be tough to essentially prove that it lasts forever, don't you reckon?



Jabba said:
- You and I may never agree, but thanks for staying with me.
Click to expand...


It would be a pretty boring thread if "you" didn't have at least one straight man. My thanks to godless dave for his outstanding performance in this essential role.



Hope this helps. It made My brain hurt when "I" typed it.

Essentially.
 
- I'm trying to support my suggestion/claim that there is an infinite 'number' of potential selves...

godless dave said:
... I don't see how that follows. There is a finite number of sperm and a finite number of ova.
Click to expand...
Jabba said:
Dave,
... probably, it is not the specific sperm and ovum that produce a specific self. Probably, any time a sperm and ovum come together, they produce a brand new consciousness (as an emergent property), and that consciousness inherently has a "self." And that self is brand new -- out of thin air so to speak. If a brand new self is created ["out of thin air"] whenever an ovum and sperm cell come together, there should be an infinity of potential selves...
Click to expand...

godless dave said:
I still don't see how an infinite number of potential selves follows from that.
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
Dave,
- I was claiming that the specificity of the self probably [does not] depend upon the specificity of the sperm and ovum...
Click to expand...
- Previously, I should have said, ... probably, it is not the specific sperm and ovum that produce a specific self, any way. Probably, any time a sperm and ovum come together, they produce a brand new consciousness (as an emergent property), and that consciousness inherently has a "self." And that self is brand new -- out of thin air so to speak. If a brand new self is created simply by an ovum and sperm cell coming together, there should be an infinity of potential selves.
- And, as you have pointed out, identical twins have two different selves.

- Sorry about all the hilites and underlinings.
- Does that help...?
 
Jabba said:
- I'm trying to support my suggestion/claim that there is an infinite 'number' of potential selves...

<snip>

- Does that help...?
Click to expand...


No, because you're still essentially refusing to see the incredibly obvious truth that numerous people have pointed out to you:


Finite Number x Finite Number ≠ Infinity​
 
Last edited:
I step in occasionally to see how the thread's progressing
Jabba said:
...
- The "me" I'm talking about is the the "thing" that those who believe in reincarnation are referring to as occurring over and over again. Whether they are right or not, they and I are talking about the same thing. Certainly, the characteristics of this thing are expected to change totally between occurrences -- yet, it's the same "person," or "self" each time. ...
Click to expand...
Have you read any anthroposophic literature, lately?
You might enjoy it.


Jabba said:
- I'm trying to support my suggestion/claim that there is an infinite 'number' of potential selves...
... Probably, any time a sperm and ovum come together, they produce a brand new consciousness (as an emergent property), and that consciousness inherently has a "self." And that self is brand new -- out of thin air so to speak. If a brand new self is created simply by an ovum and sperm cell coming together, there should be an infinity of potential selves.[/I]
- And, as you have pointed out, identical twins have two different selves.

- Sorry about all the hilites and underlinings.
- Does that help...?
Click to expand...

Why infinite, Jabba, if there's a finite number of sperm and ova involved?
"out of thin air"? How does that relate to re-incarnation?
 
Jabba said:
- I'm trying to support my suggestion/claim that there is an infinite 'number' of potential selves...

- Previously, I should have said, ... probably, it is not the specific sperm and ovum that produce a specific self, any way. Probably, any time a sperm and ovum come together, they produce a brand new consciousness (as an emergent property), and that consciousness inherently has a "self." And that self is brand new -- out of thin air so to speak. If a brand new self is created simply by an ovum and sperm cell coming together, there should be an infinity of potential selves.
- And, as you have pointed out, identical twins have two different selves.

- Sorry about all the hilites and underlinings.
- Does that help...?
Click to expand...

You're just restating what you posted before. There is not an infinite number of sperm and ova, so there is not an infinite number of potential people.
 
@ Jabba

Call me impatient, but let's skip ahead a little and answer a question based on your having (against all odds) essentially proved that immortality is a thing.

It's estimated that in the year 0 there were approximately 300,000,000 people on Earth.

In 2013 there are about 7,000,000,000.


What were the 6,700,000,000 immortal selves doing way back then when there weren't enough brains to go around?


ETA: Supplementary question.

The Population Research Bureau estimates that the total number of people that have ever lived on Earth is 108,000,000,000 which means (if immortality is essentially true) that there are currently 103,000,000,000 more selves than there are brains.

Where are they?
 
Last edited:
godless dave said:
You're just restating what you posted before. There is not an infinite number of sperm and ova, so there is not an infinite number of potential people.
Click to expand...
Dave,
- If a sperm cell and ovum of the very same chemistry as the combination that produced you came together again, would you exist again, or would it be someone else?
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Dave,
- If a sperm cell and ovum of the very same chemistry as the combination that produced you came together again, would you exist again, or would it be someone else?
Click to expand...


You're essentially describing identical twins with a longer-than-normal age difference. The fact of two finite numbers multiplied together being another finite number is not impacted in any way by such an occurrence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom