[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Jabba]

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!

Giodarno,
- I didn't express that point about reincarnation very well. I don't really "believe in" reincarnation, but I do give its likelihood as more than 50%.
- I do have some fear of death, but very little of that fear has to do with eternal oblivion. That's the part that I think is "essentially" impossible. I do fear the unknown aspect of death (what actually happens after death), but mostly I fear the separation from loved ones. And, "fear" doesn't seem quite the right word here anyway -- "excruciating sadness" seems more descriptive.

 

[jond]

Jabba: take it you have abandoned all pretense of discussing this topic scientifically?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Giodarno,
- I didn't express that point about reincarnation very well. I don't really "believe in" reincarnation, but I do give its likelihood as more than 50%.
- I do have some fear of death, but very little of that fear has to do with eternal oblivion. That's the part that I think is "essentially" impossible. I do fear the unknown aspect of death (what actually happens after death), but mostly I fear the separation from loved ones. And, "fear" doesn't seem quite the right word here anyway -- "excruciating sadness" seems more descriptive.

Just for the record: The highlighted bit is NOT evidence that the "soul" exists, and is "immortal"...

 

[Jabba]

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"...

Slowvehicle,
- No one here seems to believe in an actual lifetime continuous self -- but, at least most of you believe in the sense of such a self.
- Re "representation," I did not mean for it to refer to consciousness. For you, it would be the chemical "construct" that coming together would always produce your sense of self.

 

[Giordano]

- 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?

One of the things you don't understand: we understand you fully, you just are wrong. What you are trying to communicate is only difficult for you to understand, not us. We get it.

I can't tell why you have repeatedly reworded definitions once people have agreed to a statement, but by rewording you have created different statements that people don't agree to. You have admitted that "words" are important, then you must realize changing the words after an agreement is misleading.

The problems with your points 1-3 is that they are completely incorrect and go against what we know from 1000s of years of science. Otherwise, no problem.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle,
- No one here seems to believe in an actual lifetime continuous self -- but, at least most of you believe in the sense of such a self.
- Re "representation," I did not mean for it to refer to consciousness. For you, it would be the chemical "construct" that coming together would always produce your sense of self.

Good Morning, Mr. Savage:

At the risk of being shoved back in the closet again: Do not presume to tell me what I think, especially when you are wrong.

For you, it would be the chemical "construct" that coming together would always produce your sense of self.

I deny that there is such a "chemical 'construct' "; I invite you to direct me to evidence of its existence.

I deny that it is useful to distinguish the "self" from the "sense of self"; infinite recursion is seldom meaningful.

I deny that the "self" is anything other than "consciousness"; I invite you to demonstrate how a "self" might exist, without "consciousness, or how "consciousness" might exist without a "self". For that matter, I invite you to indicate how a "sense of self" might exist without a "self".

If you were not using "representation" as a stand-in-du-jour in order not to admit that you have been talking about a "soul" all along, then what do you mean by "representation"; further, in what way does the "representation" you posited differ from what you have called "consciousness", the "self", the sense of "self", or the "observer"?

...and so forth...

(Thank you for admitting to my existence, even if only as a brief candle.)

 

[Giordano]

Giodarno,
- I didn't express that point about reincarnation very well. I don't really "believe in" reincarnation, but I do give its likelihood as more than 50%.
- I do have some fear of death, but very little of that fear has to do with eternal oblivion. That's the part that I think is "essentially" impossible. I do fear the unknown aspect of death (what actually happens after death), but mostly I fear the separation from loved ones. And, "fear" doesn't seem quite the right word here anyway -- "excruciating sadness" seems more descriptive.

You said clearly that you could essentially prove reincarnation. Now you say that means only "more than 50% likelihood." You should look up what "prove" means. By the way, as others here have shown, if anything your "proof" fails for many reasons, leaving its likelihood as close to zero.

Even your idea of reincarnation involves separation from loved ones. Face it, even the reincarnated beings you propose will not remember or be recognized by loved ones. You and I have had many decades to do stuff and enjoy things; at some point it will be the turn of our child and/or of the stuff we leave behind. That is good enough for me given we all die. I would rather not make up a false story to just to make me feel better.

 

[Garrette]

We do not think you need to keep rewordin it at all. Quite the opposite. Your rewordings are time consumin and obfuscatory. I will say it again: We understand you. We understand exactly what you mean. Regardless that you think otherwise, your idea, at its core, is quite a simple obe, not a difficult one. The issue is not that you have not communicated it. The issue is that you fail to see the fatal flaws in it despite having them repeatedly explained.

 

[Garrette]

The hubris continues to astound me. One man who has done so little research into the topic he intends to prove and so little study in the field of statistics with which he intends to prove it, insists that the actual statisticians, researchers, professors, and educators who have studied both fields insists that we fail to understand him .

 

[Giordano]

Slowvehicle,
-but, at least most of you believe in the sense of such a self.

As I mentioned, even my cat had a "sense of self," i.e. that it was a separate creature distinct from other cats. But I do not think that your "such a self" is what we means by "self" = consciousness. In fact, I think a lot of people here have told you this in many difference ways. I don't believe in your "sense of self" at all.

But even if I did have a "sense" of self, does that mean it is actually true? I have a "sense" that particles do not have wave properties at all, yet that has been theoretically and experimentally shown to be wrong. I look at electron micrographs all the time! I have a "sense" that a slot machine that has not paid out for weeks is due to pay out, yet I know enough statistics to know that the truth is different from my "sense" and I don't put my quarter into it.

 

[Akhenaten]

- You guys figure that I need to keep rewording my ideas because my ideas don’t make sense.

No, you need to abandon your ideas because they don't make sense.

I figure that I need to keep rewording them because they’re especially difficult to communicate.

No, because:

1. Your ideas are actually incredibly easy to communicate but you persist in a woefully misguided belief that disagreement and misunderstanding are the same thing.
   
   
2. You're just not a very good communicator.

Though sometimes, I reword them just to remind you of something I’ve already said.

Only one person in the entire thread has a track record of forgetting what you've already said.

Do you have a mirror?

That latter is my reason for this current paragraph. The former is my reason for the following.

Round like a circle in a spiral
Like a wheel within a wheel
Never ending on beginning
On an ever-spinning reel
Like a snowball down a mountain
Or a carnival balloon
Like a carousel that's turning
Running rings around the moon
Like a clock whose hands are sweeping
Past the minutes on its face
And the world is like an apple
Whirling silently in space
Like the circles that you find
In the windmills of your mind.​

- My claim:
1. Your sense of self had no prior existence, or “representation,” of any kind prior to its current existence.

That's hardly a claim, Jabba. It's just the bleeding obvious.

Nobody here has ever claimed otherwise.

2. “Prior representation” would be chemistry such that identical batches of it would produce your sense of self, and only your sense of self.

No, "prior representation" is just a weasel phrase that you've made up to replace the Pool of Souls™ that you felt forced to abandon.

3. Apparently, there is no such chemistry re your sense of self.

But we do, Jabba. Have a look at some photos of your parents. Voila! Preceding representation.

- Problems so far?

Only for yourself in that you're repeating the same gibberish that you were posting more than a year ago.

 

[Giordano]

The hubris continues to astound me. One man who has done so little research into the topic he intends to prove and so little study in the field of statistics with which he intends to prove it, insists that the actual statisticians, researchers, professors, and educators who have studied both fields insists that we fail to understand him .

Interesting isn't it? I see that in the physics discussion all the time: that one person, typically one who is not an expert, will decide that EVERYONE else in the field is wrong and they alone have figured out a new theory in physics that disproves all the other, widely held theories. All the real physicists are wrong!

As I go through life, I have had the honor of meeting some incredibly smart people in many walks of life and science. They are typically very willing to admit that they might be wrong, if you prove it to them. To me, it is amazing how quickly they see the implications of a actual fact in terms of theory. To suggest that you are light years ahead of them is indeed hubris. As was said: yes some laughed at first at Einstein, but they also laughed at the Three Stooges. Yet Einstein convinced the skeptical physicists very quickly and his theories were later proven in the physical world. We still laugh at the Three Stooges...

 

[Giordano]

- You guys figure that I need to keep rewording my ideas because my ideas don’t make sense. Though sometimes, I reword them just to remind you of something I’ve already said.

Your ideas don't make sense however you choose to word them. And as pointed out by others, I don't need to be reminded what you already said, and you are the only one here who has admitted to this problem of forgetfulness. Oddly, even if I do forget something I can still reread it in this thread.

So this constant repetition of your failed theories only highlights that there is nothing more to them and emphasizes that you are dead (if you forgive the word) wrong.

 

[Akhenaten]

Giordano,
- What I believe is that the one, finite existence hypothesis is wrong.

And that bluuuurd was non-existent in the 14th century.

And that you're winning this debate.


Credibility Rating: -∞

I don't really "believe in" reincarnation, but it probably is my best guess at this point.

Help us out here. Which of the following best describes what you were hoping to present in this thread:

1. what you believe in,
   
   
2. your best guess,
   
   
3. essential proof, or
   
   
4. other.

 

[Akhenaten]

Giodarno,
- I didn't express that point about reincarnation very well.

Gee, there's a first.

I don't really "believe in" reincarnation, but I do give its likelihood as more than 50%.

And this is different to belief because _____________________________ ?

- I do have some fear of death, but very little of that fear has to do with eternal oblivion.

Lucky break, considering that's all there is.

That's the part that I think is "essentially" impossible.

You don't think any such thing.

You hope, you wish and you weakly believe that there's something good coming up after your funeral, but don't dare to pretend that you've thought about it.

We have before us, in this very thread, more than ample evidence that such is not the case.

I do fear the unknown aspect of death (what actually happens after death), but mostly I fear the separation from loved ones. And, "fear" doesn't seem quite the right word here anyway -- "excruciating sadness" seems more descriptive.

Perhaps it would be a better use of your time to try to cement a lasting impression with your loved ones of someone with his feet planted in reality, rather than leave crap like this thread as the legacy of someone who simply doddered of into childlike fantasies of a life to come where maybe he'd finally win an argument.

 

[pakeha]

...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?

Well, yes.
Remember the definition of consciousness?
An emergent property of a functioning neurosystem?

...but mostly I fear the separation from loved ones. And, "fear" doesn't seem quite the right word here anyway -- "excruciating sadness" seems more descriptive.

It is to your credit you have loved ones, Jabba.
Now stop moping and show them your love, invent new ways to show them your love and never forget how much you love them.

Keep in mind any number of things other than death can separate you from your loved ones, such as hideously unpredictable accidents or diseases of many types so count every chance to show your love as of a worth greater than natural sea-water pearls.

Slowvehicle,
- No one here seems to believe in an actual lifetime continuous self -- but, at least most of you believe in the sense of such a self.
- Re "representation," I did not mean for it to refer to consciousness. For you, it would be the chemical "construct" that coming together would always produce your sense of self.

What is a chemical construct and why do you use this expression rather than the standard definition of consciousness?

... the Pool of Souls™ ...

Pool of Souls^TM is excellent, O Pharaoh.
It reminded me of the Well of Souls, both the one featured in Raiders of the Lost Ark and the real one, under the Dome of the Rock.

 

[godless dave]

- 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?

Just the problem I pointed out yesterday in a direct reply to you, and that several people have pointed out for pages and pages of discussion that you are rudely ignoring:

- The difference between them is not due to a difference in chemistry.

Of course not. The difference between them is due to being two different "batches". One is inside one skull, the other is inside another. That's the difference. That's why one cannot see out of the eyes of the other.

 

[Mojo]

- 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?

Yes.

"Identical batches" of chemistry (if such "identical batches" could be produced) would produce identical selves. A brain that was in all ways, including its environment and chemistry, identical to my brain would produce a "self" identical to mine, but it would not be my self, it would merely be a self identical to mine.

The "sense of self", along with the "self", is an emergent property of the neurosystem, and the neurosystem's chemistry is an integral part of the neurosystem. There is clearly "such chemistry re your sense of self".

 

[Mojo]

I can't tell why you have repeatedly reworded definitions once people have agreed to a statement, but by rewording you have created different statements that people don't agree to. You have admitted that "words" are important, then you must realize changing the words after an agreement is misleading.

It's called "bait and switch".

 

[John Jones]

- 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.

You ideas are not difficult to understand. They are wrong and often internally inconsistent.

You keep trying to use sophistry to trap us into conceding your points, but you are just not very good at it.