Belief in the Afterlife

[Akhenaten]

You can mention it all you like. That's a bit different from demonstrating it; so far all you've demonstrated is a weak supporting argument.

You are misrepresenting my position. Your implied position that I need to demonstrate that the computational model is the way things are, would only apply if I were making that claim. I am not doing that. I'm only claiming that if it were true, and there seems to be no logical reason why it couldn't be, that it would allow for the possibility of an afterlife.

Resume was being far too generous. It's your position itself that's weak and your supporting argument is actually non-existant.

 

[RobRoy]

Actually I was referencing exactly what you mention in the sense of there was the original Zoe and then there was the Zoe in the VR realm, one being original and the other being a copy ( or more accurately as you point out a reconstruction ).

Right, and they are two different, and separate beings, regardless of how exact the duplicate is.

However we seem to still be having an issue on the difference between that and our existence within the computational model ( of the universe ). Continuing in another realm beyond this one after we complete our cycle here doesn't require being transferred into another storage unit.

Actually, yes it does. Currently, my storage unit is a decaying biological construct. If you want it to continue beyond the biological shells lifecycle, then whatever it is that makes me me has to be transferred, which includes my conscious self. Otherwise, how are you suggesting that it gets into this other realm?

But even if it did, provided all the data that makes up you was moved ( not copied ), it wouldn't make any difference anyway. You would still be you no matter where it was moved to.

Which is what I've been saying the entire time. If you can move the conscious me, not just the data that makes up my life, then yeah, bang, immortality. If you can't, then you're just creating a copy of me, and I cease to exist when my shelf-life hits the expiration date.

In either case, you aren't meeting the definition of an afterlife. Either you can move my conscious self into the new storage format, in which case I simply continue on with life; or you can't, and I die while my simulacrum continues on with its new life. Neither is an afterlife.

 

[Paul2]

You're not using the terminology correctly. I'm not mocking you, just pointing it out.

In this case, the fallacy of appeal to authority is saying, "Einstein believed in God" during an argument regarding religion. Einstein was a smart man, but he was an expert in physics, not in theology. On the other hand, citing when Einstein says that he believes in the "God of Spinoza", he appeals to an authority, but he commits no fallacy, because he's clearly defined his terms.

Simply saying that an intelligent individual, Paul2, believes something to be true, without offering additional support for the claim is committing the fallacy of appeal to authority. Saying that Paul2 has shown in his peer reviewed, published research that something is true, is not a fallacy. Further support, such as linking to the article or providing the citation, would remove all doubt.

Folo, I have nothing to add to the above.

 

[Paul2]

That's just the same as saying, "Because some scientist or another says so then it lends credibility to my case". So what? It's still an appeal to authority, however you're missing my initial point. Appeals to authority can be perfectly valid, but not simply because they come from a scientist or other expert, but because they have some objective basis that stands on its own regardless. Science tends to emulate this but it doesn't always get it right.

Folo it's the difference between

1. "Einstein says A is correct." (implying, in context, that merely because E. says it, it's correct).

2. "Einstein says A is correct." (implying, in context, that Einstein's published, peer-reviewed paper shows that A is correct.)

1. is an appeal to authority, but 2 is not. Admittedly, it may be difficult or impossible to tell which is which (they use the same exact words), but clarifying questions would soon make the distinction.

 

[EHocking]

Rredefinition of science and/or appeal to authority in 5, 4, 3, 2....

.... 1....

That's just the same as saying, "Because some scientist or another says so then it lends credibility to my case". So what? It's still an appeal to authority, however you're missing my initial point. Appeals to authority can be perfectly valid, but not simply because they come from a scientist or other expert, but because they have some objective basis that stands on its own regardless. Science tends to emulate this but it doesn't always get it right.

 

[ufology]

Folo it's the difference between

1. "Einstein says A is correct." (implying, in context, that merely because E. says it, it's correct).

2. "Einstein says A is correct." (implying, in context, that Einstein's published, peer-reviewed paper shows that A is correct.)

1. is an appeal to authority, but 2 is not. Admittedly, it may be difficult or impossible to tell which is which (they use the same exact words), but clarifying questions would soon make the distinction.

My last comment stands as is. However you've given me the opportunity to add here that the position that a so-called appeal to authority is valid when supported by a bunch of peer reviews, is actually combination of confirmation bias and argumentum ad populum. I've been at this long enough now to know that most of these tactics were designed for political debates and don't always apply to what we're actually talking about in any practical sense. More often they are used here in this forum as a diversionary tactic. Better you just drop them and just pose points that have logical consistency. Then there would be no need for invoking this list of debating tactics rather than dealing with the issue itself.

 

[ufology]

Right, and they are two different, and separate beings, regardless of how exact the duplicate is.



Actually, yes it does. Currently, my storage unit is a decaying biological construct. If you want it to continue beyond the biological shells lifecycle, then whatever it is that makes me me has to be transferred, which includes my conscious self. Otherwise, how are you suggesting that it gets into this other realm?



Which is what I've been saying the entire time. If you can move the conscious me, not just the data that makes up my life, then yeah, bang, immortality. If you can't, then you're just creating a copy of me, and I cease to exist when my shelf-life hits the expiration date.

In either case, you aren't meeting the definition of an afterlife. Either you can move my conscious self into the new storage format, in which case I simply continue on with life; or you can't, and I die while my simulacrum continues on with its new life. Neither is an afterlife.

OK. We're getting closer to the real heart of the issue here and it could get interesting ... thanks for bearing with me and making your points in such a reasonable way. Where we are still not in synch is when you say, "Currently, my storage unit is a decaying biological construct."

In the computational model your storage unit is the construct itself, not your seemingly decaying body. All your body is is a set of sensory and memory input output filters for this particular reality. But during the time you use it, it also becomes a part of your overall data set and could also be reused ( regenerated or simply manifested ) and in every case, you would still be you at all times in the process ... at least to the same extent we think we remain who we are now whenever some part of us is repaired or regenerated.

 

[RobRoy]

My last comment stands as is. However you've given me the opportunity to add here that the position that a so-called appeal to authority is valid when supported by a bunch of peer reviews, is actually combination of confirmation bias and argumentum ad populum.

Well, I was enjoying our discussion, until you said the above. If you believe this, then you don't understand what the terms "scientific process" and "peer review" actually mean. They have nothing to do with "confirmation bias" or the fallacy of argument by popularity. In fact, they do everything to avoid those exact fallacies, which is why we put some measure of stock into citing scientific studies over, "Nine out of ten dentists agree that RockStar is awesome!*"

OK. We're getting closer to the real heart of the issue here and could get interesting ... thanks for bearing with me and making your points in such a reasonable way. Where we are still not in synch is when you say, "Currently, my storage unit is a decaying biological construct."

In the computational model your storage unit is the construct itself, not your seemingly decaying body. All your body is is a set of sensory and memory input output filters for this particular reality. But during the time you use it, it also becomes a part of your overall data set and could also be reused ( regenerated or simply manifested ) and in every case, you would still be you at all times in the process ... at least to the same extent we think we remain who we are now whenever some part of us is repaired or regenerated.

Of course we're out of synch. I disagree with your position. This is exactly the reason that I disagree with it. You can't transfer consciousness within a computational model. If you're suggesting that you can, then you're not talking about science fact, you're talking about science fiction, and that's a moving set of goalposts that can't be argued with. The best that can be hoped for in a computational model is that all the data can make a simulacrum that my friends and family will never notice the difference.

There is something comforting about that, because then my hopes and dreams and whatnot become, to an extent, immortal. But I do not.

Either way, this isn't an afterlife.



*Please Note: Rockstar is awesome, but not because of dentists.

 

[AdMan]

My last comment stands as is. However you've given me the opportunity to add here that the position that a so-called appeal to authority is valid when supported by a bunch of peer reviews, is actually combination of confirmation bias and argumentum ad populum.

Wow. That's the first time I'd heard that citing many peer-reviewed studies to support a claim was actually committing a logical fallacy.

You don't really believe that, do you? Or is argumentum ad populum yet one more term you don't understand?

 

[Stray Cat]

My last comment stands as is. However you've given me the opportunity to add here that the position that a so-called appeal to authority is valid when supported by a bunch of peer reviews, is actually combination of confirmation bias and argumentum ad populum.

The list of things you don't understand gets longer everytime you post.
If a position is supported by a bunch of peer reviewed papers, it is not an appeal to authority, it is an appeal to science (not a fallacy).

"a bunch of peer reviewed papers" is neither confirmation bias or argumentum ad populum. It is science in action and science gives us the most reliable methodology for reaching accurate conclusions about our physical universe.

I've been at this long enough now to know that most of these tactics were designed for political debates and don't always apply to what we're actually talking about in any practical sense. More often they are used here in this forum as a diversionary tactic. Better you just drop them and just pose points that have logical consistency. Then there would be no need for invoking this list of debating tactics rather than dealing with the issue itself.

Yes, I can see why you'd want everyone to overlook your constant use of fallacies and your constant misunderstanding of them in the hope that (without the rules of logic that they reside over) your ideas would become somehow acceptable... sadly (for you) this isn't the place to ask people to abandon the rules of logic or overlook the logical fallacies you post time after time.

 

[ufology]

Well, I was enjoying our discussion, until you said the above. If you believe this, then you don't understand what the terms "scientific process" and "peer review" actually mean. They have nothing to do with "confirmation bias" or the fallacy of argument by popularity. In fact, they do everything to avoid those exact fallacies.

OK well then, it's not sufficient simply to say I don't understand, so I'll elaborate so you can form a proper rebuttal:

"In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it; which alleges: "If many believe so, it is so."

Appeal to authority says:

"The strength of this argument depends upon two factors:

1. The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
2. A consensus exists among legitimate experts on the matter under discussion."

The concept of a "legitimate expert" is determined by confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias, myside bias or verification bias, is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses. This is pretty much the whole point of getting peer reviewed in the first place ... to find other people in your peer group to favor information supporting your hypothesis. The concept that it must meet a consensus is pure argumentum ad populum as decribed above If many believe so, it is so.

Please don't forget ... I'm not proposing that these debating tactics are accurate in the first place. The logic in them when used together is not consistent and they are primarily a diversionary tactic ... which as you can see is working here. Since it was introduced by someone else ( not me ), our conversation has diverged into this. So how about we just dump this or go dicuss it on another thread ... if there is one for it?

 

[RobRoy]

Appeal to authority says:

You've cut and pasted from the wrong section of Wikipedia. The definition you provided it the legitimate use of an appeal to authority, which I reflected in my example above in regards to both Einstein and (the theoretical) Paul2. The proper section you should have cited for the fallacy of appeal to authority is this one:

Fallacious arguments from authority often are the result of failing to meet at least one of the two conditions from the previous section.[1][2] Specifically, when the inference fails to meet the first condition, this is sometimes called an "appeal to inappropriate authority".[3] This occurs when an inference relies on individuals or groups without relevant expertise or knowledge.[3]

Secondly, because the argument is inductive (which in this sense implies that the truth of the conclusion cannot be guaranteed by the truth of the premises), it also is fallacious to assert that the conclusion must be true.[2] Such an assertion is a non sequitur; the inductive argument might have probabilistic or statistical merit, but the conclusion does not follow unconditionally in the sense of being logically necessary.[4][5]​

Please don't forget ... I'm not proposing that these debating tactics are accurate in the first place. The logic in them when used together is not consistent and they are primarily a diversionary tactic ... which as you can see is working here. Since it was introduced by someone else ( not me ), our conversation has diverged into this. So how about we just dump this or go dicuss it on another thread ... if there is one for it?

By using the wrong definition for the fallacy you then used the concept of "confirmation basis" incorrectly as well. Peer review under proper scientific rigors is never confirmation bias. That's the whole point. Again, you don't understand what "peer review" means in this case, otherwise you wouldn't suggest the definition you offered.

I've reviewed the thread, and the question about your appeal to authority is an appropriate criticism in regards to the fallacy, one that has gone unanswered. I understand that at first you might claim this to be mere sophistry, an argumentative tactic, but it is not. It's actually something that you should be able to address quite easily. I don't want to speculate why you haven't done so, perhaps you're just being overly emotional because you have been called for the fallacious reasoning.

If so, I'd suggest, in as friendly a way, that you admit it and move on. I commit such fallacies of thinking from time to time, and it's no shame to be called on it. In fact, it's a good way to bring about better discussion. Admit where you made the mistake, don't try to shore up the boat after its sunk. <shrug>

 

[Akhenaten]

Rredefinition of science and/or appeal to authority in 5, 4, 3, 2....

.... 1....

That's just the same as saying, "Because some scientist or another says so then it lends credibility to my case". So what? It's still an appeal to authority, however you're missing my initial point. Appeals to authority can be perfectly valid, but not simply because they come from a scientist or other expert, but because they have some objective basis that stands on its own regardless. Science tends to emulate this but it doesn't always get it right.

Death, taxes and Rredefinitions.

 

[Resume]

[/LIST]The concept of a "legitimate expert" is determined by confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias, myside bias or verification bias, is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses. This is pretty much the whole point of getting peer reviewed in the first place ... to find other people in your peer group to favor information supporting your hypothesis.

Huh?

 

[Resume]

Death, taxes and Rredefinitions.

They are becoming more frequent. That's ominous I think.

 

[Akhenaten]

My last comment stands as is.

They all do, in fact. They're all wrong and that's just how they'll stay.

You don't even appear to understand what is meant by 'afterlife' so it's unlikely that anything you have to say in a thread with that as its topic is going to be right, now is it?

 

[ufology]

Well, I was enjoying our discussion, until you said the above. If you believe this, then you don't understand what the terms "scientific process" and "peer review" actually mean. They have nothing to do with "confirmation bias" or the fallacy of argument by popularity. In fact, they do everything to avoid those exact fallacies, which is why we put some measure of stock into citing scientific studies over, "Nine out of ten dentists agree that RockStar is awesome!*"



Of course we're out of synch. I disagree with your position. This is exactly the reason that I disagree with it. You can't transfer consciousness within a computational model. If you're suggesting that you can, then you're not talking about science fact, you're talking about science fiction, and that's a moving set of goalposts that can't be argued with. The best that can be hoped for in a computational model is that all the data can make a simulacrum that my friends and family will never notice the difference.

There is something comforting about that, because then my hopes and dreams and whatnot become, to an extent, immortal. But I do not.

Either way, this isn't an afterlife.



*Please Note: Rockstar is awesome, but not because of dentists.

You still seem to missing the idea that within the computational model consciousness isn't being transferred, it exists as part of your data set no matter where it is, so no matter where it is you are. but it is only apparent to you that you are someplace ( anyplace ) when you are conscious. However we are not always conscious, we usually sleep several hours a day. In other cases, such as during operations or accidents we lose consciousness altogether ... we are for all intents and purposes dead for some period of time before being revived. So the idea that we need to be entirely conscious at all times in order to retain our self identity can become a real quagmire. The computational model facilitates all these circumstances as well or better than assuming that we are not in such a construct. As applied to the possibility of an afterlife, perhaps there may be some lapse of consciousness before being integrated into the next reality, but that is no different than going to sleep in Toronto and waking up in New York. Only the causal mechanism for the change in your data set's coordinates is different.

 

[Akhenaten]

Death, taxes and Rredefinitions.

They are becoming more frequent. That's ominous I think.

It certainly doesn't bode well for ufology. He already appears to be well beyond the point where he shares a common language with the rest of us.

 

[ufology]

You've cut and pasted from the wrong section of Wikipedia. The definition you provided it the legitimate use of an appeal to authority, which I reflected in my example above in regards to both Einstein and (the theoretical) Paul2. The proper section you should have cited for the fallacy of appeal to authority is this one:

Fallacious arguments from authority often are the result of failing to meet at least one of the two conditions from the previous section.[1][2] Specifically, when the inference fails to meet the first condition, this is sometimes called an "appeal to inappropriate authority".[3] This occurs when an inference relies on individuals or groups without relevant expertise or knowledge.[3]

Secondly, because the argument is inductive (which in this sense implies that the truth of the conclusion cannot be guaranteed by the truth of the premises), it also is fallacious to assert that the conclusion must be true.[2] Such an assertion is a non sequitur; the inductive argument might have probabilistic or statistical merit, but the conclusion does not follow unconditionally in the sense of being logically necessary.[4][5]
​

By using the wrong definition for the fallacy you then used the concept of "confirmation basis" incorrectly as well. Peer review under proper scientific rigors is never confirmation bias. That's the whole point. Again, you don't understand what "peer review" means in this case, otherwise you wouldn't suggest the definition you offered.

I've reviewed the thread, and the question about your appeal to authority is an appropriate criticism in regards to the fallacy, one that has gone unanswered. I understand that at first you might claim this to be mere sophistry, an argumentative tactic, but it is not. It's actually something that you should be able to address quite easily. I don't want to speculate why you haven't done so, perhaps you're just being overly emotional because you have been called for the fallacious reasoning.

If so, I'd suggest, in as friendly a way, that you admit it and move on. I commit such fallacies of thinking from time to time, and it's no shame to be called on it. In fact, it's a good way to bring about better discussion. Admit where you made the mistake, don't try to shore up the boat after its sunk. <shrug>

Your quote regarding the two conditions you say I didn't correctly quote are the two conditions I quoted. Specifically this is what you seem to say you are referring to correctly but I'm not:

From your post above: "Fallacious arguments from authority often are the result of failing to meet at least one of the two conditions from the previous section.[1][2] "

And these are those two conditions from the same article that I posted:

1. The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
2. A consensus exists among legitimate experts on the matter under discussion."

So let's get past this issue of debating tactics please. Or move it to another thread.

 

[Stray Cat]

OK well then, it's not sufficient simply to say I don't understand, so I'll elaborate so you can form a proper rebuttal:

"In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it; which alleges: "If many believe so, it is so."

But if I say "the world is round" is that an argumentum ad populum?
Because everyone (who is sane) says the world is round.

I'll tell you, no it's not. Because no one is saying "the world is round because everyone says it is". They are saying here is the proof that the world is round and then everyone agrees with the conclusion the evidence points towards... this is not a fallacy!

Appeal to authority says:
"The strength of this argument depends upon two factors:

1. The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
2. A consensus exists among legitimate experts on the matter under discussion."

The concept of a "legitimate expert" is determined by confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias, myside bias or verification bias, is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.

No it is not.
The scientific process is geared towards eliminating confirmation bias and a legitimate expert is not determined by his title but by his work (which will be adhering to the scientific process which as we know is the most reliable process with which to determine reliable conclusions about our physical universe). The scientific process allows for the fact that even legitimate experts can be wrong sometimes and so their work is reviewed and any flaws pointed out.

This is pretty much the whole point of getting peer reviewed in the first place ... to find other people in your peer group to favor information supporting your hypothesis.

We're adding "peer review" to the list of things you don't understand.
Though I can understand to an extent why you'd reach that conclusion as that's the way pseudo science works and you'll have come across that faulty method a lot in your chosen hobby.

The concept that it must meet a consensus is pure argumentum ad populum as decribed above If many believe so, it is so.

Again no.
If your work is compelling enough and your conclusions supported by your evidence (adhering to the strict scientific method), it will meet with scientific approval, but only until something more compelling with better evidence contradicts it.
The passing the peer review process really only allows the work to be fully published where it meets it's real challenge of being open to scrutiny by the science world in general, who will have the method, protocols and data sets revealed in the body of work so they can replicate the studies to see if they get the same results or suggest other things which the original scientist may not have considered. Remember that science constantly tries to prove itself wrong, it doesn't try to prove itself right.

Please don't forget ... I'm not proposing that these debating tactics are accurate in the first place. The logic in them when used together is not consistent and they are primarily a diversionary tactic ...

They are only not consistent when they are (ironically) consistently misrepresented by people who don't understand them.
When placed in their correct context and given their correct and accurate significance, they are immensely accurate and consistent in providing a clear path through a logical maze.