[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Akhenaten]

And Jabba believes that it is some kind of magical soul. This thread is now in the wrong forum.

It's pretty much in the wrong Universe.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Pixy,
- It does leave "you guys" in such a situation -- but, it isn't you guys that I wish to convince. My hope is to present a case that would convince most neutral observers that my case is better than yours.

Why did you lie in your OP?

 

[Akhenaten]

Pixy,
- It does leave "you guys" in such a situation -- but, it isn't you guys that I wish to convince.

Since us guys are the only ones here, you seem to be in the wrong venue.

Or are you pretending that there's a vast readership out there hanging on your every word?

My hope is to present a case that would convince most neutral observers that my case is better than yours.

Not only are you ignoring that you've been told hundreds of times in multiple threads that facts aren't determined by a show of hands, you're ignoring that those with whom you are attempting to argue are neutral in so far as their opinions are shaped by the evidence. That you want their opinions to be shaped by rhetoric is but one more indication that this is the wrong place to be peddling your nonsensical ideas.

 

[Garrette]

Pixy,
- It does leave "you guys" in such a situation -- but, it isn't you guys that I wish to convince. My hope is to present a case that would convince most neutral observers that my case is better than yours.

Another direct admission that you are not interested in proof, science, or fact. Rather, you are interested in rhetorical tricks employed to give the impression of science to those who have already chosen to believe -- without evidence -- the same things you believe.

As has been said: wrong forum. Take it to religion & philosophy.

 

[Akhenaten]

Why did you lie in your OP?

Because the way the OP is written is the same way the opening address was made in his favourite episode of Perry Mason.

 

[PixyMisa]

Pixy,
- It does leave "you guys" in such a situation -- but, it isn't you guys that I wish to convince. My hope is to present a case that would convince most neutral observers that my case is better than yours.

Jabba, we are neutral observers. If you present us with a sound argument, we will accept it. If your premises are false, or your logic is flawed, we will point that out.

In this case, your premises are false, and your logic is flawed. To proceed with your argument you need to fix both problems. For various reasons already presented, I don't think that's possible.

 

[John Jones]

Pixy,
- It does leave "you guys" in such a situation -- but, it isn't you guys that I wish to convince. My hope is to present a case that would convince most neutral observers that my case is better than yours.

You say that quite often - both on this thread and on the shroud thread. Has it happened even once?

 

[Garrette]

--snip--

you're ignoring that those with whom you are attempting to argue are neutral in so far as their opinions are shaped by the evidence.

This.

Jabba, add the word "objective" to the list of many words you do not understand. It does not mean "has no opinion," nor does it mean, "never bluntly points out the fallacies in my thinking." Rather, it means what Akhenaten has said it means above. Don't believe me? Let's go to the relevant online oxford dictionary page.

1. (Of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts

2. Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual


Pretty much everyone participating in this thread is a highly opinionated sort, you included, so you have no advantage there.

But the only one in this thread who has based his conclusion entirely on those opinions and on his personal feelings is you. Not those who point out your errors; you. And read the second definition above: it perfectly describes what your version of the self is not. Your version is entirely dependent on your mind for its existence, and that's mind in the imagination sense, not in the physical neurobiological sense.

Your proof fell to pieces in the first response to it in this thread. Everyone else knew it, but it has taken you scores of pages to grudgingly admit that it isn't really a proof but an argument. It took scores more to make it plain that it's not an argument so much as it is an attempt to define something into existence. It has taken these last few pages to make it plain that it isn't a definition issue so much as it is a religious hope that you plan to use in your online evangelizing.

Face it: there is no science in your thoughts; there is no logic in your reason. Even if it were presented in a courtroom as you mistakenly think it should be, any objective judge and jury would say, at best, Nice thought, even if rather sophomoric. Hope it keeps you happy at night.

 

[Aepervius]

Pixy,
- It does leave "you guys" in such a situation -- but, it isn't you guys that I wish to convince. My hope is to present a case that would convince most neutral observers that my case is better than yours.

So you want to omit information and lie to the neutral observer to convince him ? Lie by omission is still a lie. Omitting to mention that science part, is akin to a lie.

 

[godless dave]

- Maybe, I should have called it an "aspect" of the self, or better yet, the "core" of the self. Whatever, it's the part of the self that does not change from it's first memory, at least, to its last. And probably, it doesn't change from conception to death -- at least.

I'm going to expand a little more on why this doesn't meet the scientific idea of the self, and thus is not the appropriate definition for proposition A.

"Conception" is not a scientific term. I don't know if you're referring to fertilization or implantation, but either way, at those two points none of the cells in a zygote have differentiated into neurons yet. In the scientific view, to have an "experiencer" there has to be a brain. The brain doesn't even begin to develop until week 5 of pregnancy. So, the very earliest we could say there is an "experiencer" - a self - is the fifth week of fetal development.

But it does not remain unchanged - ever. Human brains are constantly changing. Neurons form new connections and discard some of the old ones. Sometimes this happens very fast (early childhood and adolescence), sometimes slower, but it's always happening.

This is the self according to our best scientific understanding. There aren't an infinite number of potential ones because there are finite chemicals available to make new ones and, at any given time, a finite number of possible situations that will result in new humans.

If you're not talking about a self that is made of neurons, then you aren't talking about the scientific model of human consciousness.

 

[elbe]

Pixy,
- It does leave "you guys" in such a situation -- but, it isn't you guys that I wish to convince. My hope is to present a case that would convince most neutral observers that my case is better than yours.

Not to beat a dead horse, but why would any "neutral observers" feel swayed by your case if you can't actually address any criticisms laid upon it?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Pixy,
- It does leave "you guys" in such a situation -- but, it isn't you guys that I wish to convince. My hope is to present a case that would convince most neutral observers that my case is better than yours.

You've used this insult before.

We are neutral observers. Show us evidence and convincing arguments, and we'll agree with you. That's what being neutral is.

Don't try to frame your own failures as our bias.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Pixy,
- It does leave "you guys" in such a situation -- but, it isn't you guys that I wish to convince. My hope is to present a case that would convince most neutral observers that my case is better than yours.

Good Morning,Mr. Savage:

I hope you are well.

I wonder if you have any idea how dismissively rude of you it is to assume that the reason your nebulous and insubstantial denotations of a "soul" theat is "immortal" find no purchase here, on an Education forum, is that the people with whom you are interacting are not "neutral" enough to simply accept your unsubstantiated and evanescent claims as representations of fact.

If your "case" were "better"--if you were explaining observable phenomena more usefully, more accurately, more completely, or with better evidence--many, many posters who havetaken the time to interact with you would have recognized that.

You are, as I have said before, still trying to sell an immortal pig in an invisible poke. You want the acceptance, and the accolades, without having done the work.

Instead of trying finesse the admission that you are "right" in your assumed consequent, why not provide your evidence? Why not show the "soul" in action? Why not deal with the problem of traumatic aphasia?

I say again: you have not failed to convince me because I am not "neutral" enough, or because I am not "sensitive" to "transcendence" enough, or because I have blinded myself to wonder.

You have failed to convince me because you make inconsistent and self-contradictory claims, because you cannot keep your claims straight from post to post,and because you provide no support for your claims.

Perhaps you are selling your pitch to the wrong audience.

ETA: I see that the ninja legion is out in force, as Akhenaten (may he post forever!), PixyMisa, Garrette (he's a genius, you know), Johm Jones, Aepervirus, elbe, and Squgee Beckenheim all beat me to my point. That'll teach me to sleep in!

 

[pakeha]

Pakeha, I think that is what I'm trying to do -- at least in a sense. What I have tried to define, or denote, is the "self" that I'm talking about. I don't know a better word to use. (I know that last sentence makes for a great "straight line," but what'r'ya'gonna'do?)

I can see your point, Jabba. You're trying to describe a sentiment or feeling you have.
Sooner or later either you'll come to see that the self is simply a function of the brain or not and that the notion of an observer is simply a meme employed by a quite a number of spiritual and/or meditative schools, often with an eventual eye on your bank balance.

Your notion that your self is independent of your brain is something you have yet to demonstrate to anyone's satisfaction here.
Now, about those definitions of A and non-A?

 

[Giordano]

- From Wikipedia"
The self is the subject of one's own experience of phenomena: perception, emotions, thoughts. In phenomenology, it is conceived as what experiences, and there isn't any experiencing without an experiencer, the self. The self is therefore an "immediate given", an intrinsic dimension of the fact of experiencing phenomena. In some other trends of philosophy, the self is instead seen as requiring a reflexive perception of oneself, the individual person, meaning the self in such a view is an object of consciousness.

The self has been studied extensively by philosophers and psychologists and is central to many world religions. With the recent rise in technology, the self has been discussed under various new emerging fields, such as Technoself Studies.

Dave,
- This is the best "scientific" definition I could find, and I think that it does fit with what I have tried to define. My most recent "definition" invoking what we who fear oblivion mean by "self" is really a denotation, more than a definition.

You defined self as unchanging with time; where is that part of this definition?

Should I point out that Wikipedia also has an excellent definition of Vishnu? Do you therefore believe in Vishnu?

As others have posted, you are being very rude to say that unlike a "neutral" audience, we are prejudiced against your posts. First, we are particularly open to any proof you might make; but it has to be correct. Math, in particular, is neutral; you have made fatal flaws in your math, and that would be true no matter the audience. Are you looking for an audience that might not know these are errors? That would be an ignorant audience, not a neutral one. Despite your promises, you appear unable to find any neutral mathematician who agrees with your view of math; doesn't that tell you something?

I am not afraid of death, but I would enjoy knowing that I would somehow continue after I die. I am prejudiced in favor of your view. But currently I see no proof that I will continue; only the contrary. So convince me otherwise; I want to be convinced!

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Jabba, we are neutral observers. If you present us with a sound argument, we will accept it. If your premises are false, or your logic is flawed, we will point that out.

In this case, your premises are false, and your logic is flawed. To proceed with your argument you need to fix both problems. For various reasons already presented, I don't think that's possible.

You've used this insult before.

We are neutral observers. Show us evidence and convincing arguments, and we'll agree with you. That's what being neutral is.

Don't try to frame your own failures as our bias.

Speak for yourselves. I'm not a neutral observer. I'm biased as hell, and can admit to my bias. I've already explained my reasons why I think immortality would be an undesirable fate. Even now, as Jabba is getting into his arguments for a part of the self that remains unchanging over the course of one's life, my bias is kicking in and I can tell you that I'm subjectively opposed to the very idea.

That said, if he were to present the requested evidence and convincing arguments, I might consider it and change my mind. It's just very hard for me to remain unbiased about the thought of being psychologically tormented for all eternity.

 

[Jabba]

- Unfortunately, I'm still not sure that you and I are talking about the same concept...
- Some of you probably are -- but, I'm not sure. And, it's hard to move on with that doubt in mind...

- I'll try, at least one more time, to clarify -- just what it is to which I'm referring by "self" -- with an analogy.
- The "self" I'm referring to is like a DVD recording a particular lifetime. Clearly, the DVD "changes" enormously over that lifetime, but it is still the same DVD. In that sense, I am the same self that I was when I was three.
- The difference between what you believe and what I believe is that I don't believe that the DVD exists only while the particular neurosystem exists.

 

[Loss Leader]

- Unfortunately, I'm still not sure that we are talking about the same concept... - Some of you probably are -- but, I'm not sure. And, it's hard to move on with that doubt in mind... - I'll try, at least one more time, to clarify -- just what it is to which I'm referring by "self" -- with an analogy. - The "self" I'm referring to is like a DVD recording a particular lifetime. Clearly, the DVD "changes" enormously over that lifetime, but it is still the same DVD. In that sense, I am the same self that I was when I was three. - The difference between what you believe and what I believe is that I don't believe that the DVD exists only while the particular neurosystem exists.

Literally everybody knows that this is what you think. And everybody who has expressed an opinion believes you are wrong.

No amount of definition or analogy by you will cause anyone to think that your conception of the soul is correct.

However, since you seem married to it, please take the next step and explain why this thing (which does not and cannot exist) is actually independent of the physical body.


(Understand, however, that you are defining your way to success. You are not making a logical or even a coherent argument.)

 

[godless dave]

- Unfortunately, I'm still not sure that you and I are talking about the same concept...
- Some of you probably are -- but, I'm not sure. And, it's hard to move on with that doubt in mind...

- I'll try, at least one more time, to clarify -- just what it is to which I'm referring by "self" -- with an analogy.
- The "self" I'm referring to is like a DVD recording a particular lifetime. Clearly, the DVD "changes" enormously over that lifetime, but it is still the same DVD. In that sense, I am the same self that I was when I was three.
- The difference between what you believe and what I believe is that I don't believe that the DVD exists only while the particular neurosystem exists.

In that case, we're mostly talking about the same self, except your last sentence means you are not talking about the scientific conception of the self, which means your proposition A is not the scientific explanation for consciousness.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- Unfortunately, I'm still not sure that you and I are talking about the same concept...
- Some of you probably are -- but, I'm not sure. And, it's hard to move on with that doubt in mind...

- I'll try, at least one more time, to clarify -- just what it is to which I'm referring by "self" -- with an analogy.
- The "self" I'm referring to is like a DVD recording a particular lifetime. Clearly, the DVD "changes" enormously over that lifetime, but it is still the same DVD. In that sense, I am the same self that I was when I was three.
- The difference between what you believe and what I believe is that I don't believe that the DVD exists only while the particular neurosystem exists.

Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

What evidence do you offer in support of your highlighted belief?

For that matter, what evidence do you offer to support your claim that the "DVD" exists, at all? (Where does it "exist"? Of what is it constructed?)

How do you explain the effect of physical trauma?