[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[pakeha]

-

So anyway, I am currently trying to provide evidence and logic, supportive of my claim that we cannot eliminate ~A as a possibility. And as long as we can’t, and my other numbers are reasonable, A is very probably wrong. And, very probably, I will not have just one finite existence.

- Whatever, in my suggested formula I'm using a prior probability for ~A of only 1% -- and, sure seems like reasonable people have to accept that there is some possibility of ~A being the case. Would .1% be small enough? We can go as low as you want.

- And then,
- We have all sorts of anecdotal evidence of reincarnation, NDEs and OOBEs.
- Quantum mechanics seems to support a universal consciousness.
- All sorts of credible scientists do believe in a God.
- The ones who don't probably have a blind spot.
- Then, the reasons we think that our consciousness is ultimately hooked to our body don’t seem all that demanding – i.e., 1) we think that nothing is non-physical, and 2) most of us don't know many people who have experienced an NDE or OOBE, or who 'remember' any past lives.

Wait, what?
NDEs?
What?
"- All sorts of credible scientists do believe in a God.
- The ones who don't probably have a blind spot."
What?

NDEs and OOBEs are not evidence of any kind for reincarnation or immortality.

Firstly, NDEs are culture-dependent.

Christians report 'seeing' Jesus but never Hindu deities, Hindus report seeing Yamraj but never Jesus.
Until one researcher (Moody) described an NDE as involving a tunnel with a light at the end, very few people actually reported seeing a tunnel. After this research was published, many reporters of NDEs reported the tunnel. This suggests that belief and culture drives the pattern of the NDE. http://www.pacifica.edu/gems/grothmarnat/CrossCulturalNDE.pdf

Secondly, NDEs can be induced by artificial means, suggesting that the phenomenon is a natural brain response to lack of blood flow or oxygen to the brain.

OOBEs do not suggest anything more than some people have hallucinations of being outside their body under certain circumstances. In experiments, no person has been able to read notes placed away from their actual eyeline, or report any conversation taking place out of earshot.

Mundane explanations are not ruled out for either NDEs or OOBEs. Your assertion that "most of us don't know many people who have experienced an NDE or OOBE, or who 'remember' any past lives" does not have any bearing on whether the phenomena are evidence of the supernatural; I don't know anyone who has won a lottery jackpot and yet hundreds of people win lottery jackpots every week. On the other hand, I know someone (my mother-in-law) who had an NDE, and someone (me) who has had two OOBEs.

It's worth noting that cerebral hypoxia is often first indicated by tunnel vision accompanied by loss of colour vision. Fighter pilots who encounter G-LOC during centrifuge training & evaluation have reported classic NDE and OBE experiences, including tunnels, bright lights, seeing relatives & the deceased, etc.

Thanks for those posts!

 

[John Jones]

Frozenwolf,

- Look up "quantum mechanics universal consciousness."
- Here's an example.
From http://guardianlv.com/2013/11/quant...on-universal-consciousness-and-the-afterlife/

Bruce Rosenblum, a Professor of Physics summarized the quantum world in a way that illustrates Einstein and Jordan’s frustrations when he said “relativity says strange things about time, space and energy. But quantum mechanics says unbelievable things about us, our consciousness, our free will, and the nature of our human involvement with physical reality.”

- Another example.
http://endgametime.wordpress.com/th...chanics-of-the-human-brain-and-consciousness/

You don't get to make appeals to quantum mechanics if you don't know anything about it.



The Woo-Woo Credo

10 Use the word quantum in a sentence, despite not knowing what it means. For a more impressive effect, use it with the name of your favorite superstition - "quantum dowsing" sure sounds mighty serious.

http://www.insolitology.com/tests/credo.htm

 

[pakeha]

You don't get to make appeals to quantum mechanics if you don't know anything about it.



The Woo-Woo Credo


http://www.insolitology.com/tests/credo.htm

Thanks for the link.
I especially liked
"10 Use the word quantum in a sentence, despite not knowing what it means. For a more impressive effect, use it with the name of your favorite superstition - "quantum dowsing" sure sounds mighty serious."

 

[John Jones]

Thanks for the link.
I especially liked
"10 Use the word quantum in a sentence, despite not knowing what it means. For a more impressive effect, use it with the name of your favorite superstition - "quantum dowsing" sure sounds mighty serious."

The Woo-Woo Credo is a classic from the USENET days. It was authored by a guy who called himself Lou Minatti (wink, wink). I don't know what became of him.

 

[carlitos]

Frozenwolf,

- Let me know if you mind me addressing you by name when I respond to you -- but for me, it's sort of disrespectful not to. And abbreviating your name a little is meant to promote friendliness...

- If you do mind any of that, let me know, and I'll gladly desist.



- Unfortunately, I just spent about an hour trying to answer your questions (immediately above), but somehow lost all my answers when I went to breakfast...

#jabbasgreatesthitsfeb14
#mydogatemyhomework
#plusçachangeplusc'estlamêmechose

 

[Jabba]

Mojo,
- A = human "selves" exist for one finite time at most.
- Are we justified in eliminating the possibility of ~A in this case?

Let's look at a different A.

A = Human selves are immortal.
Are we justified in eliminating the possibility of ~A in this case?

Mojo,
- No, we're not. But, you didn't answer my question.

 

[Garrette]

Mojo,
- No, we're not. But, you didn't answer my question.

If we are to go by your own behavior, that's perfectly fine. Regardless, others have answered. Not good enough for you?

 

[Jabba]

Good morning,Mr. Savage:

This is exactly the same approach you tried in Shroud^TM and Shroud II: The Return of the Tablecloth. I must admit, I am just a touch disappointed, in that the problems of this approach have been pointed out to you in several threads, and on several fora.

Let's go back to the fair 6-sided dice problem. You (rightly) wanted to define "every possible outcome" as being limited to rolling a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6. There are good reasons to do so: for one thing, a die balancing on its edge is so very unlikely that it is reasonable to simplify the event space. Simplifying the event space does, in fact, ignore or omit vanishingly improbable formal possibilities; the remedy is not to pretend that the vanishingly small possibilities must be considered likely,or even functionally possible. That way, if, for instance, the die did in fact balance on a corner, on a flat tabletop, one's response is not, "that's impossible", but,"I wonder what made that happen. What evidence can be found to explain this inexpressably unlikely event?"...

Slowvehicle,
- You seem to be saying that the possibility of ~A is vanishingly small. If that is your opinion, I would count that as believing that we are justified in eliminating the possibility of ~A.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Mojo,
- No, we're not. But, you didn't answer my question.

Good Afternoon, Mr. Savage!

It seems to me that Mojo did, in fact, imply an answer to your question by presenting a counter-question.

If, in your opinion, Mojo's ~A cannot be eliminated, then (applying your logic) it is more likely that humans are not "immortal" that that they are.

(Is that not your claim. that is, that since "immortality" cannot be formally ruled out, then, in your opinion, reality is so very unlikely that "immortality" is more likely?)

You, on the other hand, appear not to have answered a raft of questions, some of which have been asked several times (including mine).

I know that you are feeling beset and put upon. It seems to me that your options are:

1) present empirical, practical, objective evidence for your claims; or,

2) explain that you simply believe your claims as a matter of faith, without evidence, and admit that you cannot "prove", "essentially prove", or even "make a strong case for" immortality.

 

[Giordano]

Slowvehicle,
- You seem to be saying that the possibility of ~A is vanishingly small. If that is your opinion, I would count that as believing that we are justified in eliminating the possibility of ~A.

First, this was an example to help you see the problem better; not an answer to your problem itself in defining ~A. You know that. But yes, I believe that immortality is very improbable. Are we now only arguing whether immortality is "possible" at some number greater than 0, or that (as promised by your OP) immortality is assured (1)?

BUT AGAIN, even if you fix your math, you are going to only proof that an exact duplicate of Jabba is unlikely to be born in the future. Your chance of already existing is 1. You cannot retroactively use Bayesian statistics to calculate the possibility of an event that has already taken place. This has been explained to you many times here in many different ways. The way I like to see it is that the chance of drawing a royal flush NEXT round is indeed very small, but if you already drew a royal flush, the probability of you having that hand is 1.

You are that royal flush. Oddly, you are also 1,3,4,5 of hearts and a jack of clubs; which is equally likely. See?

 

[Mojo]

Let's look at a different A.

A = Human selves are immortal.
Are we justified in eliminating the possibility of ~A in this case?

Mojo,
- No, we're not.

Then you've got a problem, because if you're going to prove immortality you need to do precisely that.

 

[carlitos]

Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

But, you didn't answer my question.

 

[John Jones]

Mojo,
- No, we're not. But, you didn't answer my question.

How rude!
Like you always answer questions or something?

 

[tsig]

As a lot of 14-year-olds are when philosophising, you were just wrong (the probability that you exist, given that you DO, is 1).

When I was 14 I discovered that girls weren't icky.

 

[Mojo]

When I was 14 I discovered that girls weren't icky.

I was wondering who Eurica Moment was.

 

[tsig]

Frozenwolf,

- Look up "quantum mechanics universal consciousness."
- Here's an example.
From http://guardianlv.com/2013/11/quant...on-universal-consciousness-and-the-afterlife/

Bruce Rosenblum, a Professor of Physics summarized the quantum world in a way that illustrates Einstein and Jordan’s frustrations when he said “relativity says strange things about time, space and energy. But quantum mechanics says unbelievable things about us, our consciousness, our free will, and the nature of our human involvement with physical reality.”

- Another example.
http://endgametime.wordpress.com/th...chanics-of-the-human-brain-and-consciousness/

From the link:

Consciousness is, therefore, a non-material entity capable of independent, eternal existence, and not a property. Consciousness is not emergent, and is eternal similar to the electron. It can remain localized in the human brain and interact with the brain, and thereby, control the activities of the human body. While electrons in the brain behave as particles, these electrons prevent the consciousness from realizing that it is part of a larger whole. When the electrons behave as a wave, the consciousness becomes aware of its existence outside the human mind, which makes OBE and NDE possible.

Consciousness, as used here, sounds a lot like a soul.

 

[Garrette]

Consciousness, as used here, sounds a lot like a soul.

Particularly since the only thing presented in its support is speculation with a side of ignoring-actual-evidence?

 

[godless dave]

While electrons in the brain behave as particles, these electrons prevent the consciousness from realizing that it is part of a larger whole. When the electrons behave as a wave, the consciousness becomes aware of its existence outside the human mind

Wow, that was even stupider than I imagined.

 

[dlorde]

From the link:

...While electrons in the brain behave as particles, these electrons prevent the consciousness from realizing that it is part of a larger whole. When the electrons behave as a wave, the consciousness becomes aware of its existence outside the human mind, which makes OBE and NDE possible.

Gaah! wine all over my keyboard! but I don't mind because I'm laughing so hard it hurts
Bad electrons!

 

[Giordano]

-
- All sorts of credible scientists do believe in a God.
- The ones who don't probably have a blind spot.
- Then, the reasons we think that our consciousness is ultimately hooked to our body don’t seem all that demanding – i.e., 1) we think that nothing is non-physical, and 2) most of us don't know many people who have experienced an NDE or OOBE, or who 'remember' any past lives.

How is this a thread about "God?"

How insulting to suggest that anyone here has a bind spot in regards to this issue; perhaps it is you that is all too ready to believe? In any case, again this thread has nothing to do with belief in god.

There is lot of evidence that physical damage to specific areas of the brain causes specific defects in consciousness. Whereas specific damage to areas of the kidney does not. This is pretty convincing. How come, as others have asked you, are all NDEs "near death" instead of post-death? Why do most NDEs require some brain function?