[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[kedo1981]

Ain't it fun to when a bunch modern minds try to make sense of nonsense made up by bronze age barbarians.

 

[godless dave]

I think that quantum physics supports the possibility of consciousness being something quite different than "normative" physics would have it .

How so? What does Newtonian physics have to do with consciousness, other than brains being made of cells that are made of molecules that are made of atoms?

 

[Garrette]

How so? What does normative physics have to do with consciousness, other than brains being made of cells that are made of molecules that are made of atoms?

He read the on-line, uncritical summaries of pop-quantum books that said so.

And, no, I'm not joking. That is the extent of Jabba's understanding of how quantum physics supports his view of consciousness.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- I don't really understand your objection here. I think that quantum physics supports the possibility of consciousness being something quite different than "normative" physics would have it . Some of the relationships they've discovered through quantum physics just don't make sense through normative physics, and in that sense seem "magical."

Good Afternoon, Mr. Savage!

You are, evidently, intending to simply gloss over my question about trauma, as you have been for a while.

My question is not trivial; it goes to the heart of the reasons that we consider consciousness to be an emergent property of a specific neurosystem.

In that light, I would like to make a friendly suggestion about your claim that "quantum physics" is "magical" enough to let you claim that it proves, or even demonstrates, or even kind of supports you claim that the "soul" exists,and is "immortal". Here is the thing about quantum physics. You can't just invoke it, as some lesser demi-urge that effects a desired end simply by being summoned. If you are going to claim that "consciousness" is a "quantum physics" effect, it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate in what way "consciousness demonstrates a "quantum" effect"; further, you ought to be able to at lest suggest a specific "quantum effect" that is demonstrated.

I am looking forward to you doing so.

 

[John Jones]

- That seems like a strange question to me, but others have asked the same one -- so I guess I should quit ignoring it. (I have to ignore most(?) questions/suggestions/objections/comments in general cause I just don't have time to answer any more than I am.)

- One point is that the reincarnation philosophies I'm familiar with assume that there really is no break in consciousness between physical lives. I haven't read much about such things recently, so could be that I'm missing, or forgetting, a lot...
- Otherwise, the observer returns (minus any memory), and I (one observer) don't need to worry about eternal oblivion -- which I would, if I didn't believe in some sort of recurring awareness. Then, that I wasn't aware inbetween would be basically like sleeping -- only, more restful.
- It's expecting the reoccurrence that allows me to quit worrying about oblivion.- To me, this seems obvious, so I sort of suspect that it won't really answer your question. Whatever, please let me know how it "sits with you."

So quit worrying already. Then essentially prove immortality or admit you've got nothing but wishful, and very muddled thinking - not to mention a habit of character assassination of people that disagree with you.

 

[John Jones]

- I don't really understand your objection here. I think that quantum physics supports the possibility of consciousness being something quite different than "normative" physics would have it . Some of the relationships they've discovered through quantum physics just don't make sense through normative physics, and in that sense seem "magical."

Where did you study quantum mechanics? A woo-woo web site?

 

[carlitos]

wishful, and very muddled thinking

QFT

 

[Jabba]

Frozenwolf,
- Do you agree with me that elimination of ~A as a possibility is unwarranted? I thought you had made such a statement previously, but looking back, I couldn't find it.

No, I disagree. You still need a way to rule out all the other possibilities encompassed by ~A, in order to distill it down to the conclusion you desire. You're not exactly making this easy for yourself by leaving ~A open to an infinite number of other possibilities.

- Could be that we're just passing in the night. I'll try to phrase my question better -- it isn't easy.
- Do you believe that the claim that "all human 'selves' exist for one finite time at most" is true beyond reasonable doubt?

 

[Loss Leader]

- Do you believe that the claim that "all human 'selves' exist for one finite time at most" is true beyond reasonable doubt?

I do, yes.

 

[Giordano]

- Could be that we're just passing in the night. I'll try to phrase my question better -- it isn't easy.
- Do you believe that the claim that "all human 'selves' exist for one finite time at most" is true beyond reasonable doubt?

Although not directed at me, let me answer your question: do you mean "reasonable doubt" as used by a court of law? If so, yes certainly.

If you mean reasonable doubt in a more conventional way ("is it reasonable to me") then yes I would still say yes.

Do you mean "beyond any doubt" I would say anything is possible, but many things are extremely unlikely. Might a flipped coin land and balance on edge, yes. Is reincarnation true? Far less likely than have a coin land and balance on edge.

Again, I ask: are you now stating that reincarnation is to some very limited extent "possible" or will you prove, as stated in your OP, that it is certain? Are you done posting in this thread if you have abandoned the OP? Do you intend to ever correct your demonstrated errors in statistics and quantum mechanics, as pointed out here, or will you just ignore the corrections and continue ("move on") as if you were not wrong?

 

[Slowvehicle]

- Could be that we're just passing in the night. I'll try to phrase my question better -- it isn't easy.
- Do you believe that the claim that "all human 'selves' exist for one finite time at most" is true beyond reasonable doubt?

Although I would prefer a mor prosaic construction, along the lines of, "Consciousness is an emergent property of a specific neurosytem", I will say, yes--I am convinced beyond any any reasonable doubt that a particular consciousness, or "self", exists for as long as the neurosystem of which it is an emergent property exists; and, according to observable reality, when that neurosystem ceases to function (due to trauma, say, or senescence) the consciousness ceases to be. All that "reasonable doubt" means is that, presented with evidence (practical, empirical, objective evidence) to the contrary, I would reconsider my position.

"Theoretically not impossible" does not in any way mean, "therefore probable".

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

- I don't really understand your objection here. I think that quantum physics supports the possibility of consciousness being something quite different than "normative" physics would have it . Some of the relationships they've discovered through quantum physics just don't make sense through normative physics, and in that sense seem "magical."

Please link to any peer-reviewed, scientific paper, published in a reputable journal, which supports this claim.

 

[Giordano]

Jabba,

Please look at and respond to post #3380 if you have forgotten. Thanks.

 

[Humots]

Although I would prefer a mor prosaic construction, along the lines of, "Consciousness is an emergent property of a specific neurosytem", I will say, yes--I am convinced beyond any any reasonable doubt that a particular consciousness, or "self", exists for as long as the neurosystem of which it is an emergent property exists; and, according to observable reality, when that neurosystem ceases to function (due to trauma, say, or senescence) the consciousness ceases to be. All that "reasonable doubt" means is that, presented with evidence (practical, empirical, objective evidence) to the contrary, I would reconsider my position.

"Theoretically not impossible" does not in any way mean, "therefore probable".

Seconded.

 

[Humots]

- I don't really understand your objection here. I think that quantum physics supports the possibility of consciousness being something quite different than "normative" physics would have it . Some of the relationships they've discovered through quantum physics just don't make sense through normative physics, and in that sense seem "magical."

I'd like to know what branch of physics is referred to as "normative" too, Jabba.

And I want a definition: Newtonian? Einsteinian? Aristotelian? Whovian?

One more time: what's with the quotes? Do you mean "so-called" physics?

Quantum physics is a well-established science that is the basis of many technologies. You seem to have a very low threshold for what counts as "magical".

 

[Humots]

- That seems like a strange question to me, but others have asked the same one -- so I guess I should quit ignoring it. (I have to ignore most(?) questions/suggestions/objections/comments in general cause I just don't have time to answer any more than I am.)
"

So you ignore questions/suggestions/objections/comments in general? Interesting choice of word.

Others have more of the same /suggestions/objections/comments, Jabba. You should quit ignoring them.

You could address quite a few with a single answer. Indeed, you could address everything with the answer "I really have no proof of any of this. I have just have faith, and it comforts me. I really have no right to call others transcendence-blind just because they don't share my faith."

 

[Akhenaten]

- I don't really understand your objection here.

You appear not to have understood anyone's objections since this ridiculous thread started.

Although the less charitable might point out that it's more a case of refusing to understand.

I think that quantum physics supports the possibility of consciousness being something quite different than "normative" physics would have it .

Once again:

Have you also missed that everyone reading your posts understands that "scare quotes" mean that "Jabba is making this up"?

Some of the relationships they've discovered through quantum physics just don't make sense through normative physics, and in that sense seem "magical."

It's highly doubtful that using your interpretation of what is and isn't magical is likely to serve any useful purpose.

 

[Aepervius]

Ain't it fun to when a bunch modern minds try to make sense of nonsense made up by bronze age barbarians.

Iron age.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

- That seems like a strange question to me, but others have asked the same one -- so I guess I should quit ignoring it. (I have to ignore most(?) questions/suggestions/objections/comments in general cause I just don't have time to answer any more than I am.)

- One point is that the reincarnation philosophies I'm familiar with assume that there really is no break in consciousness between physical lives. I haven't read much about such things recently, so could be that I'm missing, or forgetting, a lot...
- Otherwise, the observer returns (minus any memory), and I (one observer) don't need to worry about eternal oblivion -- which I would, if I didn't believe in some sort of recurring awareness. Then, that I wasn't aware inbetween would be basically like sleeping -- only, more restful.
- It's expecting the reoccurrence that allows me to quit worrying about oblivion.
- To me, this seems obvious, so I sort of suspect that it won't really answer your question. Whatever, please let me know how it "sits with you."

If that's the case, then it seems like there's no functional difference between immortality and mortality, and no reason for people to behave or live their lives any differently.

- Here, I assume that you're referring to my ability "to understand this whole thing", and to me thinking that I do understand the whole thing.
- Fortunately, that wasn't my intention. I was trying to excuse myself for where I had to leave off. I can tell you where I seem forced to go by following my own imagination and reasoning, but going there sort of finds me out in the middle of nowhere, anyway -- with little, or no, idea of where to go next for explanation.
- Ultimately, it seems to me that the only thing that would really make sense is nothing. Once we have something, we seem faced with an unsolvable conundrum...
- Hope all that communicates a little...

I appreciate your honesty. Yes, human knowledge and understanding has its limits, and it's important to recognize them. This is why I think it's also important to realize that it's unlikely anyone would have found all the answers already, whether it's a religion, an ideology, or a hypothesis about immortality and reincarnation based on personal belief.

- I don't really understand your objection here. I think that quantum physics supports the possibility of consciousness being something quite different than "normative" physics would have it . Some of the relationships they've discovered through quantum physics just don't make sense through normative physics, and in that sense seem "magical."

These relationships don't apply to the workings of the physical brain or its emergent properties though. While there is much about the brain and consciousness that science doesn't yet understand, it's not going to find the answers by relegating everything to the realm of magical thinking.

- Could be that we're just passing in the night. I'll try to phrase my question better -- it isn't easy.
- Do you believe that the claim that "all human 'selves' exist for one finite time at most" is true beyond reasonable doubt?

I have no reason to believe otherwise. However, evidence is all it would take to change my mind.

 

[Mojo]

I'd like to know what branch of physics is referred to as "normative" too, Jabba.

The use of the term "normative" is probably an attempt to imply that physics is just a social construct and therefore Jabba's interpretation is just as valid.