Belief in the Afterlife

[RobRoy]

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.

No, I’m not. Which is part of the problem. You’re assuming that’s the case because you seem to be locked into the concept. I’m saying that you’re concept of a computational model as applied to consciousness is incorrect. The computational model cannot take consciousness into consideration.

but it is only apparent to you that you are someplace ( anyplace ) when you are conscious.

[snip]

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.

Yeppers, there it is exactly. You’ve confused “being conscious” with the concept of “consciousness”. We are not speaking the same language, so it’s no wonder you’re having a tough time understanding what it is that I’m saying. You'll need to do some additional research into "consciousness" before we can continue this discussion.

The computational model facilitates all these circumstances as well or better than assuming that we are not in such a construct.

Then you’re talking science fiction, and you’re able to move the goal posts to address any arguments you want. The computational model does not facilitate the concept of consciousness. It can't, which is the crux of my argument.

Even if it could, that would not be afterlife. That would just be life. You seem unable to grasp this notion, as it is another failure of your argument.

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.

Once again, this is the fault of your misuse of the term "consciousness" and believing it means "being conscious". These are two incredibly different concepts. Suffice to say that within the computational model, I would go to sleep in Toronto, but I would not wake up anywhere. I would die. RobRoy 2.0 would wake up in New York, and, if perfect, no one could tell the difference . . . well, except for dead RobRoy 1.0. But he's dead, so again, no one.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I presented a viewpoint and found an independent source with scientific credentials who is studying the same viewpoint and I used it as a reference, not to prove the theory itself is correct, but to prove that some scientific minds take it seriously. Therefore no "appeal to authority" has taken place.

Science is all about consensus. "an independent source" or "some scientific minds" doesn't count as consensus.

 

[Akhenaten]

If so, I'd suggest, in as friendly a way [as possible], 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>

This will never happen since ufology has never made a mistake. His memory is infallible, his arguments are irrefutable, his logic is that of a Mentat and his ability to think critically is something that we mere mortals can only aspire to.

 

[ufology]

Huh?

Not surprised.

 

[ufology]

Science is all about consensus. "an independent source" or "some scientific minds" doesn't count as consensus.

OK ... what's your point though? This is just a discussion forum, not science.

 

[RobRoy]

Your quote regarding the two conditions you say I didn't correctly quote are the two conditions I quoted.

<sigh>

There are two different concepts here, and you're not understanding them. It's starting to look like you're doing that on purpose, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt.

The concepts are:

1 - A legitimate appeal to authority.
2 - A fallacious appeal to authority.​

You cited the Wikipedia definition for the legitimate appeal to authority, which is perfectly, well, legitimate, as the name implies. Saying that Einstein believed in relativity, and therefore we should as well is a legitimate appeal of authority. The fallacious appeal to authority fails, usually because it misapplies the authority in question. Saying that Einstein believed in God is a fallacious appeal to authority. Einstein was a physicist, not a theologian or philosopher, so his opinion on this matter, while interesting, is a misuse of his name as an authority.

 

[ufology]

No, I’m not. Which is part of the problem. You’re assuming that’s the case because you seem to be locked into the concept. I’m saying that you’re concept of a computational model as applied to consciousness is incorrect. The computational model cannot take consciousness into consideration.



Yeppers, there it is exactly. You’ve confused “being conscious” with the concept of “consciousness”. We are not speaking the same language, so it’s no wonder you’re having a tough time understanding what it is that I’m saying. You'll need to do some additional research into "consciousness" before we can continue this discussion.



Then you’re talking science fiction, and you’re able to move the goal posts to address any arguments you want. The computational model does not facilitate the concept of consciousness. It can't, which is the crux of my argument.

Even if it could, that would not be afterlife. That would just be life. You seem unable to grasp this notion, as it is another failure of your argument.



Once again, this is the fault of your misuse of the term "consciousness" and believing it means "being conscious". These are two incredibly different concepts. Suffice to say that within the computational model, I would go to sleep in Toronto, but I would not wake up anywhere. I would die. RobRoy 2.0 would wake up in New York, and, if perfect, no one could tell the difference . . . well, except for dead RobRoy 1.0. But he's dead, so again, no one.

OK ... I'm willing to make an effort to get on the same page as you regarding what we mean by consciousness. I am presently taking it to mean self-aware. Can you point me to some of the reference material you are using so I can get a more accurate sense of your perspective?

 

[Resume]

Not surprised.

So you agree the part of your post I quoted was incoherent dither.

 

[Paul2]

. . . 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.

A finer example of doubling down you couldn't find.

Ad populum is a fallacy because it is the idea that *merely* many people agreeing with a claim makes it true. The mere number of people is sufficient (in the fallacy) to "prove" the claim.

In science, the number of scientists who support a claim is not sufficient. They had to have used the scientific method rigorously, and the claim is established through that as much (more so, I guess) than the mere number of scientists agreeing with a claim.

 

[ufology]

<sigh>

There are two different concepts here, and you're not understanding them. It's starting to look like you're doing that on purpose, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt.

The concepts are:

1 - A legitimate appeal to authority.
2 - A fallacious appeal to authority.
​

You cited the Wikipedia definition for the legitimate appeal to authority, which is perfectly, well, legitimate, as the name implies. Saying that Einstein believed in relativity, and therefore we should as well is a legitimate appeal of authority. The fallacious appeal to authority fails, usually because it misapplies the authority in question. Saying that Einstein believed in God is a fallacious appeal to authority. Einstein was a physicist, not a theologian or philosopher, so his opinion on this matter, while interesting, is a misuse of his name as an authority.

Nope. You are merely proclaiming that an appeal to Einstein is a legitimate appeal to authority on relativity. But a so-called "legitimate authority" is only determined by what the consensus of his peers think, which is an appeal to the popular opinion ( argumentum ad populum ) of those in his own field who are favoring information that confirms his beliefs or hypotheses ( confirmation bias ). In other words just because all the scientists agree that some scientist or another is correct, doesn't mean it's true. I take no issue with the remainder of your interpretation.

 

[RobRoy]

Nope. You are merely proclaiming that an appeal to Einstein is a legitimate appeal to authority on relativity. But a so-called "legitimate authority" is only determined by what the consensus of his peers think, which is an appeal to the popular opinion ( argumentum ad populum ) of those in his own field who favoring information that confirms his beliefs or hypotheses ( confirmation bias ). In other words just because all the scientists agree that some scientist or another is correct, doesn't mean it's true. I take no issue with the remainder of your interpretation.

Unfortunate.

No. You're confusing the two concepts entirely to make your argument, and you're not even attempting to try to see the difference in order to maintain your argument. I would attempt, once again, to try to explain how you're wrong, but this confusion appears to be deliberate on your part, and I'm sorry to see that. I have no wish to continue discussing with someone who is plucking out his own eyes in order to prove that the world is black.

 

[ufology]

A finer example of doubling down you couldn't find.

Ad populum is a fallacy because it is the idea that *merely* many people agreeing with a claim makes it true. The mere number of people is sufficient (in the fallacy) to "prove" the claim.

In science, the number of scientists who support a claim is not sufficient. They had to have used the scientific method rigorously, and the claim is established through that as much (more so, I guess) than the mere number of scientists agreeing with a claim.

We would like to think so anyway. But I daresay that most peer reviews do no such thing. They are simply papers written by people in the same field who may or may not agree and may or may not do any experiments at all. There have been many criticisms of the peer review process, if not for the simple reason that it is essentially a form of self-regulation and therefore open to pressure from internal bias.

 

[ufology]

Unfortunate.

No. You're confusing the two concepts entirely to make your argument, and you're not even attempting to try to see the difference in order to maintain your argument. I would attempt, once again, to try to explain how you're wrong, but this confusion appears to be deliberate on your part, and I'm sorry to see that. I have no wish to continue discussing with someone who is plucking out his own eyes in order to prove that the world is black.

Hey I'm just quoting what it says. So if their own rules don't make any sense that's not my fault. Do you have those references for me on consciousness?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

But even if it did, provided all the data that makes up you was moved ( not copied ), it wouldn't make any difference anyway.

What process do you think happens when data is moved from one computer to another, and how do you think that this is different from making a copy of that data?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Admit where you made the mistake, don't try to shore up the boat after its sunk. <shrug>

Good luck with that.

 

[Stray Cat]

We would like to think so anyway. But I daresay that most peer reviews do no such thing.

Yes but you also "dare say" that you met a giant talking rabbit so really what you dare say doesn't seem to restrict what you do say.

And of course your suggestion that peer reviews do no such thing is totally unsupported by (dare I say) evidence.

They are simply papers written by people in the same field who may or may not agree and may or may not do any experiments at all.

So this confirmation bias comes from people in the same field who may or may not agree?
How does that work?

There have been many criticisms of the peer review process, if not for the simple reason that it is essentially a form of self-regulation and therefore open to pressure from internal bias.

Yes, go figure, even scientists criticise it and try to constantly improve it and try to ensure it meets the highest possible standards. But as I said already (and you'd have read if you hadn't put me on ignore), the peer review process is only the start of a body of work being studied by the science world. It's real test comes after it's publication. Where if it is found to be highly dubious and not supported by the evidence, not only will the scientist look like a dolt, but so will the peer review panel and that reflects badly on the publication, therefore ensuring that the publications will go to great lengths to make sure the methodology is sound. (Peer review doesn't necessitate the reviewers having an opinion on the result, more it focuses on the logical application of scientific method in the process).

 

[Mashuna]

Hey I'm just quoting what it says. So if their own rules don't make any sense that's not my fault.

The rules do make sense, you're just misunderstanding what you're quoting.

 

[ufology]

What process do you think happens when data is moved from one computer to another, and how do you think that this is different from making a copy of that data?

In the computational model we're not moving data from one computer to another, our reality including us, is part of a single computer that is processing our data set.

 

[ufology]

The rules do make sense, you're just misunderstanding what you're quoting.

Then you can explain how I'm sure. Please do.

 

[AdMan]

Then you can explain how I'm sure. Please do.

Innumerable posters, the latest being RobRoy, have demonstrated that trying to explain to you why you're wrong is a waste of time.