[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Jabba]

Jabba, it's been clear from the start that what you think might be immortal is not the body but the consciousness/self/soul - whatever you are calling it. Nobody is confused about that, or by your terms.

We are only confused about why you think the consciousness/self/soul is immortal, and exasperated that you seem to be unwilling to explain any of your reasoning.

What we as humans observe:
Each person has one consciousness which commences prior to or at birth, develops over the life, is temporarily absent during sleep, can be changed by damage to the brain, and which ends at death...

Yes, we know. This is incredibly clear. You've been told it's incredibly clear... Yes, we know. What you've got to do is demonstrate that such a thing actually exists...

Squeegee,
- I assume that you agree with Agatha, above.
- I assume that you know what I mean by "self," and accept that such a thing exists -- that it's reincarnation that you don't accept as actually existing (happening). Am I correct?

 

[Akhenaten]

Squeegee,
- I assume that you agree with Agatha, above.

You assume a whole universe of wrong.

So?

- I assume that you know what I mean by "self," and accept that such a thing exists -- that it's reincarnation that you don't accept as actually existing (happening).

You assume a whole universe of wrong.

So?

Am I correct?

You're not even wrong, Jabba.

 

[godless dave]

- I assume that you know what I mean by "self," and accept that such a thing exists

I can't speak for Squeegee, but from one of your other posts it seems like what you mean by "self" is separate from the human brain. If it is, then no, I don't accept that such a thing exists.

 

[Jabba]

I know what you're claiming. Do you have any evidence for that claim?

Loss Leader,
- The following quotes comes from a ways back. I think that my quote pretty much covers my "evidence" in a very general way. I'm sure that others will want me to be much more specific -- but, in that I'm allowing the prior probability of the non-scientific opinion to be only 1%, and you guys are probably pretty familiar with some of the supportive "evidence," I shouldn't need to provide much in the way of specific evidence.

At the risk of being told I'm being "condescending", upon what evidence do you base your suspicions?

Slowvehicle,
- My suspicion of a continuous non-physical existence between physical iterations seems to me like the best explanation for my current existence.
- As you know, based upon its statistical requirements, I think that the scientific theory that each of us has only one finite period of consciousness is extremely unlikely to be correct, and that my consciousness either exists continuously (in one form or another), or it returns periodically.
- There IS some further logic involved, but probably the primary "evidence" which has me thinking that we're continuous rather than periodic is what I've read about reincarnation and near death experiences. Clearly, you do not perceive much, if any, credibility in such reports -- but I do, and for better or worse, those reports probably are the "evidence" most responsible for my selection here.
- If I can find the time, I'll try to describe the "further logic" in my choice.

 

[Jabba]

I can't speak for Squeegee, but from one of your other posts it seems like what you mean by "self" is separate from the human brain. If it is, then no, I don't accept that such a thing exists.

Dave,
- I sure think that we're talking about the same concept -- you and I just disagree about its nature.

 

[Jabba]

- Oops. I forgot to mention quantum mechanics as evidence for 1) personal consciousness being something more than neurobiology, and 2) some sort of immortality being quite possible.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Squeegee,
- I assume that you agree with Agatha, above.
- I assume that you know what I mean by "self," and accept that such a thing exists -- that it's reincarnation that you don't accept as actually existing (happening). Am I correct?

You may put as many donkeys between yourself and umption all you want to, Mr. Savage, but it does not change the fact that when you say "self", you mean "soul", and I, for one, do not accept that conflation. The emergent property of consciousness that I will grudgingly allow to be called "self" is an emergent, and dependent property of the brain itself, and has no existence outside the functioning of that brain. You point to the "soul", and it's like Cleveland: there's no "there" there.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Loss Leader,
- The following quotes comes from a ways back. I think that my quote pretty much covers my "evidence" in a very general way. I'm sure that others will want me to be much more specific -- but, in that I'm allowing the prior probability of the non-scientific opinion to be only 1%, and you guys are probably pretty familiar with some of the supportive "evidence," I shouldn't need to provide much in the way of specific evidence.

Mr. Savage:

Your "suspicions", as several poster have told you, are not "evidence"...

 

[Ladewig]

................

Slowvehicle,
- My suspicion of a continuous non-physical existence between physical iterations seems to me like the best explanation for my current existence.
- As you know, based upon its statistical requirements, I think that the scientific theory that each of us has only one finite period of consciousness is extremely unlikely to be correct, and that my consciousness either exists continuously (in one form or another), or it returns periodically.
- There IS some further logic involved, but probably the primary "evidence" which has me thinking that we're continuous rather than periodic is what I've read about reincarnation and near death experiences. Clearly, you do not perceive much, if any, credibility in such reports -- but I do, and for better or worse, those reports probably are the "evidence" most responsible for my selection here.
- If I can find the time, I'll try to describe the "further logic" in my choice.

Not to harp on the matter, but disproving one-finite-period-of-consciousness is NOT proving immortality. Emphatically not.
..........................

- Oops. I forgot to mention quantum mechanics as evidence for 1) personal consciousness being something more than neurobiology, and 2) some sort of immortality being quite possible.

[Ladewig crosses off one more square on the bingo card and crosses his fingers that the next post will mentions vibrations]

 

[Slowvehicle]

Dave,
- I sure think that we're talking about the same concept -- you and I just disagree about its nature.

No.

You are talking about a property that exists independent of any brain; in fact, you "suspect" that whatever-it-is you are talking about retains identity no matter with which, if any, brain it is, in fact, associated.

I am talking about an emergent property of the brain itself, that cannot exist apart form the brain of which it is an emergent property.

Not even "kinda" the same thing, at all.

 

[Slowvehicle]

<respectful snip for focus>
[Ladewig crosses off one more square on the bingo card and crosses his fingers that the next post will mentions vibrations]

Beat me to it, darn it!

 

[Agatha]

You are talking about a property that exists independent of any brain; in fact, you "suspect" that whatever-it-is you are talking about retains identity no matter with which, if any, brain it is, in fact, associated.

I am talking about an emergent property of the brain itself, that cannot exist apart form the brain of which it is an emergent property.

Not even "kinda" the same thing, at all.

This - Jabba's idea of consciousness/self is very different from the observed reality.

And now you've said quantum, Jabba. This thread has now officially devolved into woo. If you are going down the road of reincarnation and NDE, it's really time this thread jumped out of SMMT and headed for the graveyard of hopes which is GS&P.

Reincarnation has never been shown to exist, it's just a fantasy. NDEs are a well understood phenomenon, and they are induced by a lack of oxygen to the brain. OOBEs are hallucinatory phenomena which can be caused by pain, stress or drugs amongst other causes.

 

[Jabba]

- The prior probability of any theory that allows for immortality is less than 1%.
- Anyone here disagree with that statement (remember, 0% is less than 1%)?

 

[HighRiser]

- Oops. I forgot to mention quantum mechanics as evidence for 1) personal consciousness being something more than neurobiology, and 2) some sort of immortality being quite possible.

Ok, but it's not enough to just say "quantum mechanics" and be done with it.Do you have any knowledge of QM or neurobiology? How does QM support your premise of consciousness being more than neurobiology? Do you have any links to research in QM that support your premise? How does this unspecified research lead from QM to immortal souls?

 

[pakeha]

...Where is your evidence for the idea that consciousness/self/soul is anything more than an emergent property of the brain? ...

Jabba, isn't it time you answered this question?

 

[Jabba]

Humots, Lenny, Jay, xtifr,
- Are any of you guys still around?

 

[Slowvehicle]

- The prior probability of any theory that allows for immortality is less than 1%.
- Anyone here disagree with that statement (remember, 0% is less than 1%)?

Until you present a "theory that allows for immortality" that is not just your perfervid wish that it were so, I disagree with that statement on account of the fact that you have not demonstrated the existence of any such thing.

 

[Ladewig]

- The prior probability of any theory that allows for immortality is less than 1%.
- Anyone here disagree with that statement (remember, 0% is less than 1%)?

So everyone agrees that for the first 50+ pages the baby-step method has not worked at all. And now you've decided to stick with the baby-step method.

Please present the entire argument or admit you are just trying to pull our collective legs.

 

[Humots]

Humots, Lenny, Jay, xtifr,
- Are any of you guys still around?

I'm still around, Jabba. But the way your "argument" is going, I may find someplace more interesting to be Perhaps some dental work?

- The prior probability of any theory that allows for immortality is less than 1%.

This statement is nonsense. Meaningless. Undefined. Totally invalid in so many ways.

The "prior probability of a theory" - I assume you mean "prior probability of being true". I don't see how a theory can be spoken of in this way.

What if I said "the prior probability of syllogism A being true"? I think that statement would be nonsense in much the same way.

For the record: I disagree with that statement. Not because it is incorrect, but because it is nonsense.

- Anyone here disagree with that statement (remember, 0% is less than 1%)?

Are you implying that everyone agrees with this statement except for the probability value given?

 

[Jabba]

- The prior probability of any theory that allows for immortality is less than 1%.
- Anyone here disagree with that statement (remember, 0% is less than 1%)?

This statement is nonsense. Meaningless. Undefined. Totally invalid in so many ways.

The "prior probability of a theory" - I assume you mean "prior probability of being true". I don't see how a theory can be spoken of in this way.
...
For the record: I disagree with that statement. Not because it is incorrect, but because it is nonsense...

Humots,
- I think that the following statement shows that I don't need to say anything about the theory being true...
From http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bayes-theorem/:
1. Conditional Probabilities and Bayes' Theorem

The probability of a hypothesis H conditional on a given body of data E is the ratio of the unconditional probability of the conjunction of the hypothesis with the data to the unconditional probability of the data alone.