[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Garrette]

Four.

 

[Slowvehicle]

"Three, sire".

(I mean five.)

 

[Agatha]

I heartily sixth this motion.

 

[Giordano]

Ooh look! Yet another word being used to mean "soul".

As "unlimited" is another word to mean "infinite." Jabba is just trying to find a less meaningful word that might get someone's thoughtless agreement, then impose his own wrong definition on it.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Film-starring-Brad-Pitt-and-Morgan-Freeman-thed.

 

[Garrette]

Film-starring-Brad-Pitt-and-Morgan-Freeman-thed.

Morgan Freeman was not in Ocean's Eleven. It was the other black actor.

 

[Jabba]

Why not?

Remember, it's not just the combinations that are finite. The amount of sperm and eggs available is finite.

Dave,
- I accept that having a finite number of sperm and eggs available limits the amount of actual selves possible. But if we have no preceding "representation" (in the form of specific DNA that will produce us specifically), who "comes out" will be unlimited. In that sense, we each come from nothing and are brand new. And, it's totally miraculous that we're here.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Dave,
- I accept that having a finite number of sperm and eggs available limits the amount of actual selves possible. But if we have no preceding "representation" (in the form of specific DNA that will produce us specifically), who "comes out" will be unlimited. In that sense, we each come from nothing and are brand new. And, it's totally miraculous that we're here.

A finite number times a finite number is a finite number. (And you should refer to the "number" of actual selves possible, not the "amount".)

The very fact that "we" are "here" means that "our" existence is not, by definition, "miraculous".

I really, really, wish you had been honest in your OP and simply said, "I, Rich Savage, think that the 'soul' exists, and is 'immortal'..."

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- I accept that having a finite number of sperm and eggs available limits the amount of actual selves possible. But if we have no preceding "representation" (in the form of specific DNA that will produce us specifically), who "comes out" will be unlimited.

And that's your mistake. Who comes out *is* determined by the combination of DNA that will produce us specifically *and* by the matter that is used to produce us.

 

[Giordano]

OK, Jabba, now that you've answered Garrette's question, I have another one for you:

Do you understand that the current scientific understanding precludes the existence of a "continuous self that is unchanging throughout one's life"?

If not, you need to acknowledge that you are out of your depth here, scientifically.

If yes, your next step needs to be to provide evidence that this "self" "thing" actually exists. Until you do, everything you post can only be considered nonsense.

I also endorse this question, although saying Jabba has answered Garrette's question is being very generous. His answer appears to also state that his "answer" may be a lie. Is that an answer? Like "Everything I tell you is a lie." What does it mean?

 

[Giordano]

Dave,
- I accept that having a finite number of sperm and eggs available limits the amount of actual selves possible. But if we have no preceding "representation" (in the form of specific DNA that will produce us specifically), who "comes out" will be unlimited. In that sense, we each come from nothing and are brand new. And, it's totally miraculous that we're here.

Wrong, for the reasons clearly explained repeatedly above.

 

[Giordano]

- To me, the claims you guys are making seem to prove that you are not understanding what I'm saying. For instance...

- The self that I've been referring to is continuous during your lifetime.

I understand fully what you are saying, and you are wrong. Please read the other posts here, or my other posts, that have repeatedly explained why and how you are wrong.

 

[Giordano]

- In still other words, who that first you would be was unlimited – according to the scientific model.

Please show me anything in the scientific model that is "unlimited." The very idea of an infinite existence of anything violates the scientific model.

 

[Giordano]

[qimg]http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/JabbaBot.jpg[/qimg]​

Brilliant!

 

[godless dave]

Wrong, for the reasons clearly explained repeatedly above.

Where "above" means the last few hundred posts.

 

[Giordano]

Jabba,

Now that this thread is properly under Religion instead of Science, I have no real problem with you believing any magical thing you wish, including reincarnation, if it makes you feel good. As I have pointed out, in fact, I can't disprove magic using physical reality: if you really believe you have an invisible magical unicorn in your garden that leaves no physical evidence of its existence, how can I disprove it?

But if you misstate or misuse science to prove your magic, then I will object. I don't care what you yourself believe, but 1 + 1 does not equal 3, ever. Even if 1 + 1 = 3 helps prove unicorns for some reason. You can believe in unicorns, if you wish, but not prove unicorns because 1 + 1 =3.

 

[Giordano]

- So -- ask, or complain, away. As always, I will try to deal with one question or complaint at a time -- the one I think is most important.

Why? What more is there to say? So that anything I or someone else says can be ignored completely, just like the last hundreds of pages?

And no, you have never tried to deal with even one question at a time, honestly.

Nice touch with your proposal to answer the "most important" questions. Apparently you believe that very few of the points raised here are "important." Even though they invalidate your pet proof.

 

[jond]

I also endorse this question, although saying Jabba has answered Garrette's question is being very generous. His answer appears to also state that his "answer" may be a lie. Is that an answer? Like "Everything I tell you is a lie." What does it mean?

I confess I was, for the last time, giving Jabba the benefit of the doubt. However, his last post has indeed confirmed that his "answer" was a lie.

In any case, so much could be learned from this thread by anyone wanting to learn. Sadly the only person in the thread unwilling to learn is the one who most needs to.

 

[Jabba]

And that's your mistake. Who comes out *is* determined by the combination of DNA that will produce us specifically *and* by the matter that is used to produce us.

- But, you said that it wouldn't be you if we replicated your brain.

 

[Jabba]

- But, you said that it wouldn't be you if we replicated your brain.

Dave,
- Are you saying that if we replicated the DNA and the specific matter that you were made of, the self we produced would be you?