[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Giordano]

You sent a college professor a note to tell him that you had some thoughts, but that you deleted them, and that you were going to take a nap.

Again, try making your point without all the special formatting. No ALLCAPS, no scare quotes. See if you can make your point using just the English language, as we all use it.

I thought we had asked you to just find out the truth of your idea of extrinsic vs, intrinsic finiteness? Instead you ran by him your idea of proving reincarnation. Isn't that a big question to ask? Nonetheless, though I understand he would rather not be quoted here, he seems to have reiterated exactly what everyone here has told you: you are not so special and you misunderstand the difference between the probability of forming anyone, vs. the probability of forming a Jabba in particular.

But you simply refuse to believe anyone: us, him, anyone! Is there any argument, anyone, who you will believe and cause you to see the flaws in your "proof"?

Also, as pointed out, this is your dear hobby and you went to the trouble of emailing a faculty who specializes in key aspects of your "proof." You establish some communication and you promise to contact him again. Yet you deleted your arguments, took a nap, and forgot to contact him again. Really?

 

[Mojo]

- Dr Hoerl did respond, saying that he didn't find my argument convincing so far, but that he would be studying it some more.
- He didn't want me to quote him...
- The following was my response -- several days ago. I had forgotten that I needed to follow up.

Roger,
Good. You brought up what I see as the weakest link in my chain. My buddies on the forum find more weaknesses...

All that is required, though, is that one link fails, and your whole argument fails. Identifying the weakest link saves time.

 

[Mojo]

All that is required, though, is that one link fails, and your whole argument fails. Identifying the weakest link saves time.

The strength of your links hardly matters though, given that you have so far failed even to establish your initial assumptions.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I cannot speak for Dr. Blackmore, or for anyone else, but with this I agree. Your sense of "self" has not happened before and will not happen again.

Your sense of "self" did not exist before your neurosystem began to function, and will not exist when your neurosystem ceases to function.

 

[John Jones]

- My first thought following the Blackmore video is that I do accept that "dualism" may be an illusion -- at least in the possibility that what we're calling consciousness is in fact physical, just that it's an emergent property, and a different kind of physical... It could be that "immaterial" is an illusion.

Wrong yet again.

Your first thought was that you didn't understand a lot of her arguments.

 

[Jabba]

- I just sent the following.


Dr. Blackmore,

I suspect that you don’t have enough time to do all the important things in your life – so, I certainly can’t expect you to answer all your emails. But just in case…
I’m in a debate at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=248163 (I’m Jabba). Yesterday, following the advice of one of your fans, I watched a video in which you describe the “self” as an illusion. I must admit that your argument seems to make a lot of sense – but then, I have a lot of questions also.

We first came to you because I’ve been claiming that I can essentially prove the immortality of our selves by applying Bayesian statistics. My opponents don’t believe a word of it -- as they believe that a continuous lifetime self is an illusion anyway. Most of them do agree, however, that we do have the sense of a continuous lifetime self – that’s the illusion. Which, seems to be exactly what you’re saying.
My first question: Assuming that’s correct and that you believe that this personal illusion, 1) will not continue after death, 2) did not exist before life and 3) will never return -- can you say how many different potential such illusions of selves there would be? (Sorry about all of that.)
I should warn you that I claim that there should be an infinity of such potential illusionary selves.

Thanks.

Rich Savage

 

[George]

My first question: Assuming that’s correct and that you believe that this personal illusion, 1) will not continue after death, 2) did not exist before life and 3) will never return -- can you say how many different potential such illusions of selves there would be? (Sorry about all of that.)
I should warn you that I claim that there should be an infinity of such potential illusions selves.

Thanks.

Rich Savage

What a beautifully crafted piece of nonsense.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- I just sent the following.


Dr. Blackmore,

I suspect that you don’t have enough time to do all the important things in your life – so, I certainly can’t expect you to answer all your emails. But just in case…
I’m in a debate at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=248163 (I’m Jabba). Yesterday, following the advice of one of your fans, I watched a video in which you describe the “self” as an illusion. I must admit that your argument seems to make a lot of sense – but then, I have a lot of questions also.

We first came to you because I’ve been claiming that I can essentially prove the immortality of our selves by applying Bayesian statistics. My opponents don’t believe a word of it -- as they believe that a continuous lifetime self is an illusion anyway. Most of them do agree, however, that we do have the sense of a continuous lifetime self – that’s the illusion. Which, seems to be exactly what you’re saying.
My first question: Assuming that’s correct and that you believe that this personal illusion, 1) will not continue after death, 2) did not exist before life and 3) will never return -- can you say how many different potential such illusions of selves there would be? (Sorry about all of that.)
I should warn you that I claim that there should be an infinity of such potential illusionary selves.

Thanks.

Rich Savage

Dear Mr. Savage:

I do wish you would,at least, be honest with "Roger". You keep saying things to him that are not true.

You still have not addressed the fact that you did not tell the truth when you said that everyone on the forum thought you were stupid or crazy. I wonder if you are ever going to address that bit of prevarication?

You continue the dishonesty in the letter you quote. Mr. Savage, "we" did not "come to" "Roger". YOU, personally, by yourself, "came to ""Roger", hoping for support in your untenable position It's a minor point, I know, but It seems a shame, to me, that your own sense of right and wrong does not keep you from telling lies that involve me.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Dear Mr. Savage:

I do wish you would,at least, be honest with "Roger". You keep saying things to him that are not true.

You still have not addressed the fact that you did not tell the truth when you said that everyone on the forum thought you were stupid or crazy. I wonder if you are ever going to address that bit of prevarication?

You continue the dishonesty in the letter you quote. Mr. Savage, "we" did not "come to" "Roger". YOU, personally, by yourself, "came to ""Roger", hoping for support in your untenable position It's a minor point, I know, but It seems a shame, to me, that your own sense of right and wrong does not keep you from telling lies that involve me.

It's not Roger having the pleasure this time.

 

[tsig]

"Microterm" and "macroterm" are quite different. Only the former has been observed by selves. The latter is, of course, too long for selves to observe.

And since we weren't there it didn't happen.

 

[Loss Leader]

can you say how many different potential such illusions of selves there would be? (Sorry about all of that.)
I should warn you that I claim that there should be an infinity of such potential illusionary selves.

"I'm trying to prove that there are an infinite number of unicorns. Everyone says unicorns only exist in dreams. Can you say how many different dreams about unicorns there could be? I should warn you that I will use your words about dreams of unicorns to prove there are an infinite amount of actual unicorns."

We are completely through the looking glass now.

 

[John Jones]

In about 4 months, it will have been two years with no "essential proof of immortality via Bayesian statistics" nor by any other venue.

Jabba, you had better step-up the pace. You have not provided a thing supporting your OP.

If I were you, I would concentrate on providing empirical evidence that immortality exists, because you have gotten nowhere so far.

 

[John Jones]

- I just sent the following.


Dr. Blackmore,

I suspect that you don’t have enough time to do all the important things in your life – so, I certainly can’t expect you to answer all your emails. But just in case…
I’m in a debate at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=248163 (I’m Jabba). Yesterday, following the advice of one of your fans, I watched a video in which you describe the “self” as an illusion. I must admit that your argument seems to make a lot of sense – but then, I have a lot of questions also.

We first came to you because I’ve been claiming that I can essentially prove the immortality of our selves by applying Bayesian statistics. My opponents don’t believe a word of it -- as they believe that a continuous lifetime self is an illusion anyway. Most of them do agree, however, that we do have the sense of a continuous lifetime self – that’s the illusion. Which, seems to be exactly what you’re saying.
My first question: Assuming that’s correct and that you believe that this personal illusion, 1) will not continue after death, 2) did not exist before life and 3) will never return -- can you say how many different potential such illusions of selves there would be? (Sorry about all of that.)
I should warn you that I claim that there should be an infinity of such potential illusionary selves.

Thanks.

Rich Savage

How will we know if you ever get a reply?

 

[Jabba]

How will we know if you ever get a reply?

- I'll let you know.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- I'll let you know.

Good Afternoon, Mr. Savage.

I wonder if you might take a moment from your busy afternoon to explain why you have felt it necessary to resort to outright dishonesty in your communication with "Roger"? Why do you feel it is acceptable for you to say that everyone on the forum thinks you are crazy or stupid? Why do you feel it is acceptable to claim that "we" resorted to bothering "Roger", when it was, in fact,you, and you alone, that chose to do so?

It seems to me that if you hope for, or depend upon, "immortality", you of all people would attempt, as far as is possible, to deal with others in strict honesty. Why is it that you choose not to do so?

I truly hope you will deign to answer address this issue, and not simply pretend not to be able to see these questions.

 

[abaddon]

- I'll let you know.

So "no" is your answer.

 

[John Jones]

- I'll let you know.

Like you have done with every other claim you have ever made?

Pardon my skepticism, Jabba, but you have done very little to keep us up-to-date with your frequent claims which warrant much skepticism.

In fact, you have posted little these last 17 months that doesn't make you look like an outright prevaricator. Go ahead and prove this by asking us once again to disprove whatever point you think you're making.

So don't bother letting us know - We already know. We gots the goods on you.

 

[John Jones]

- I'll let you know.

But you're not a credible source. I can't believe you didn't know that already.

 

[abaddon]

Like you have done with every other claim you have ever made?

Pardon my skepticism, Jabba, but you have done very little to keep us up-to-date with your frequent claims which warrant much skepticism.

In fact, you have posted little these last 17 months that doesn't make you look like an outright prevaricator. Go ahead and prove this by asking us once again to disprove whatever point you think you're making.

So don't bother letting us know - We already know. We gots the goods on you.

Dunno about you, but I predict this is yet another question which will be confined to the bit bucket of oblivion. Even if it is raised again, Jabba will ignore it.

 

[Giordano]

Jabba,

I will ask you once again: you are asking a question of Dr. Blackmore that you have asked of us many different ways and many different times. Virtually all of us have told you you were wrong. Will you believe Dr. Blackmore if she agrees with us? If so, why? Why not the many here, instead of the one on the end of your email? Will you accept anyone or any evidence if they disagree with your pet "theories."

I'll even ask- why not ask the mathematics professor about infinity and Blackmore about neurobiology and the "self?" Why did you ask each person about an area (reincarnation and infinity) that they have the least experience in? Do you fear the answers?