I don't know what you mean here, exactly, but since you are guessing anyway, please guess what creature had the "first" "self." Whatever you guess, where did that first self come from?
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics
- Thread starter Jabba
- Start date
- Status
I don't know what you mean here, exactly, but since you are guessing anyway, please guess what creature had the "first" "self." Whatever you guess, where did that first self come from?
Okay! Are you done posting "proofs" of this belief now? Especially using incorrectly understand aspects of science and math to support your "proof?"
Thirded, of course.
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
Has this thread finally become the Oakland, California, of JREF?
Monza
Alta Viro
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,307
I respect your belief, even if it is different from mine. Many people have many different beliefs regarding spirituality, the afterlife, and so on.
But where do you intend to go from here? The purpose of the original post was to prove immortality by using Bayesian statistics. You haven't really come close to this as you don't really understand the current scientific understanding of consciousness, nor do you really understand Bayesian statistics. I don't say this to be rude, but the errors, modifications, and logical flaws throughout this thread demonstrate such.
All of that is OK, if you just want to express your inner belief. This is quite appropriate for a thread in the R&P section. Since this is where we are now, and since you have just beliefs and guesses, what's next? What do you want to get out of this or should the thread be closed?
Bongwater-addled piffle.
It's far from an original thought, and there are several interesting threads on the subject.
"We are all one consciousness, infinitely diversified" ?
Universal Consciousness
Definition of Consciousness
Explain consciousness to the layman
etc.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
Yes. It's time.
Jabba, what do you want or expect to get out of this discussion?
Frankly, your arguments have been massacred again and again the last 18 months. This fact has escaped nobody's attention except yours.
I'm here to witness the fact that you either acknowledge defeat, or abandon the thread like you did the shroud threads.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Echoed here. What do you want to get out of this thread now that you have expressed your inner belief?
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 32,124
We know what Jabba wants - to persuade an invisible, intangible audience that he is right.
xtifr
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2012
- Messages
- 1,299
Not if you're discussing the standard scientific model, there isn't. If you want to disprove some other theory, well, feel free, but you said you were going to show that immortality is statistically more likely than the standard scientific model, and to do that, you have to start with the standard model, which doesn't have any such "sub-feature" of consciousness.
Filippo Lippi
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2002
- Messages
- 5,527
We can all see that you cannot "essentially prove immortality" and it's about time you showed some intellectual honesty and admit it to yourself instead of flailing around, spouting less than half-baked notions that you hope will be the first step toward your desired conclusion. How can you conceive that there's a magic form of words that, if you could only chance upon them, would have us fall into line and concede that there is an infinite number of no-see-ums that slots into your formula? Keep your faith, but you can no more prove it using formulae than you can fly through the air unaided.
Or you're a troll
George
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2004
- Messages
- 397
Ni!
Stop using the word!
Shirley he will resurrect it and use it against us. As a proof of something, or something similar, or something like that. Not identical, but the same though.
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
Good Evening, Mr. Savage!
I have to ask: Do you ever intend to actually address "proving" "immortality"?
I do not even insist that you try to figure out how to actually use Bayes' work, at all; I would be perfectly happy if you would present some support for your idea of "immortality" beyond anything to the effect of, "Because I want it to be, that's why!"
Got anything?
I thought you could essentially prove reincarnation, based on your name for this thread...Now you tell me that you yourself don't really believe it, but it is just your best guess at this point. So your "proof" doesn't even convince you? Is that why you are here-hoping someone else might be convinced by your flawed proof, and in turn convince you.? How sad to be so afraid of death!
Last edited:
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
- You guys figure that I need to keep rewording my ideas because my ideas don’t make sense. I figure that I need to keep rewording them because they’re especially difficult to communicate. Though sometimes, I reword them just to remind you of something I’ve already said. That latter is my reason for this current paragraph. The former is my reason for the following.
- My claim:
1. Your sense of self had no prior existence, or “representation,” of any kind prior to its current existence.
2. “Prior representation” would be chemistry such that identical batches of it would produce your sense of self, and only your sense of self.
3. Apparently, there is no such chemistry re your sense of self.
- Problems so far?
- My claim:
1. Your sense of self had no prior existence, or “representation,” of any kind prior to its current existence.
2. “Prior representation” would be chemistry such that identical batches of it would produce your sense of self, and only your sense of self.
3. Apparently, there is no such chemistry re your sense of self.
- Problems so far?
Last edited:
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
Good morning, Mr. Savage!
I realize the futility of this gesture, but naetheless:
You are continuing to equivocate.
Previously, you used "representation" as a way to refer to "consciousness" (which you have also called "self"; it has been pointed out to you that hiding the concept in a cloud of words does not obscure the fact that you are talking about a "soul"). Now, here, you appear to be attempting to distinguish the "self" from the "representation", and that from the "sense of self".
Why not just explain how the "soul" exists at all, and how it is "immortal", given that consciousness is an emergent property of a functioning neurosystem?
- Status