-
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
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
You think that you can use Bayesian statistics to essentially prove immortality. Everybody else thinks that this is a preposterous idea.
Is that simple enough for you?
Why on earth should Loss Leader, or anyone else, do any such thing?
How about, instead, you list the evidence you have for the existence of a soul? Or have you already done that?
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Somewhat ironically, your absence actually facilitates a more interesting and meaningful exchange of ideas than does your presence.
If you need evidence of this then just do a quick review of your last dozen or so posts and see if you can identify a single new thought in any of them.
Last edited:
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
So, now what? Maybe it's time to start essentially proving immortality using Bayesian statistics?
George
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2004
- Messages
- 397
Why on earth should Loss Leader, or anyone else, do any such thing?
How about, instead, you list the evidence you have for the existence of a soul? Or have you already done that?
Yes he did you must have missed it. Well not evidence in the way evidence is usually presented, more a collection of ramblings only Jabba can appreciate.
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
We've defined the self, or consciousness, as an emergent property of a neurosystem.
That makes it impossible to look through two pairs of eyes.
Have you decided to define the self or consciousness differently than the rest of us?
If so, please share your definition with us.
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
After all these months of obfuscation and double talk, can you think of a reason why anyone should believe you will ever give a competent answer?
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
- So anyway, the "self" to which I'm referring is the self (real or imagined) that people who fear death want to continue after death -- and also, the self that Squeegee described above.
- It would appear that 1) most of you guys not only think that a self cannot continue after death and that there is no such self before death anyway, but that 2) most of you are not referring to the same self as I am, anyway.
- A lot of "anyways," but there it is, as best I can tell -- and, probably time to move on.
- That being "cleared up," I'll now try to show that the self that I'm talking about is real and will in fact continue after bodily death. I will begin my argument with trying to show that there should be an infinity of potential such selves.
- At least most of you guys think that my arguments are stupid, so I'm not sure why you're hanging in there... You should be able to find better, and more enjoyable, mind experiments elsewhere.
- It would appear that 1) most of you guys not only think that a self cannot continue after death and that there is no such self before death anyway, but that 2) most of you are not referring to the same self as I am, anyway.
- A lot of "anyways," but there it is, as best I can tell -- and, probably time to move on.
- That being "cleared up," I'll now try to show that the self that I'm talking about is real and will in fact continue after bodily death. I will begin my argument with trying to show that there should be an infinity of potential such selves.
- At least most of you guys think that my arguments are stupid, so I'm not sure why you're hanging in there... You should be able to find better, and more enjoyable, mind experiments elsewhere.
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
Again? Have you any new arguments to add to this merry-go-round discussion? Do you anticipate any greater success this revolution?
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
Make no mistake about it: The quality of the arguments used to dispute your
I'm under no illusion that you will prove immortality using Bayesian statistics, evidence, logic or anything else.
Now carry-on with whatever it is you do, excluding any more fringe resets.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
"I have failed in all my attempts to define my preferred version of the self into existence so I will fall back to my earlier reference to it being something that I hope exists."
"No matter what you guys think I'm talking about, I promise that it's really, truly something else."
"I've completely forgotten what point I was trying to make so I'll just drop that subject for now and reintroduce one that was done to death months ago and hope nobody notices."
"Let me take you back to November, 2012 . . ."
"I have no idea what these things are, but I'm going to essentially prove that there's an infinity of them."
Because we find that blowing stupid arguments out of the water is entertaining and educational both for ourselves and for our non-participating readers.
The real mystery is why people bring their stupid arguments here simply to facilitate this process.
You wish.
Last edited:
Great, please prove these things!
Just to be clear at the onset, no one here (except for you), currently accepts that:
1. A "self" exists unchanged from our birth to our death.
2. That this "self" is immortal and survives multiple physical lives (am I correct that you would, if thus proved, call that a "soul")?
3. That there are an infinity of potential selves.
If anyone here disagrees with my summary, my apologies and please post your thoughts on this thread.
But if Jabba wants to prove these things, I would be happy to change my mind, so please, do what so many people have urged, please go ahead and prove these points.
As to why we persist: we are hoping to educate you and to correct your errors and misunderstandings. I would appreciate such corrections so I can learn. Do you propose to publish enormous flaws and not have other people try to correct them? Perhaps you therefore may wish to consider a rural billboard, instead of a discussion forum.
Last edited:
So anyone who disagrees with you must simply not understand you? What if they understand you completely, but don't agree with you? Is that possible? If I said 2=3, and most people said no, I'm wrong, would that be because they don't understand what I meant?
Last edited:
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Which include the existence of something that you call the "self", which you have failed to distinguish from the "soul".
Do you see why your argument is invalid?
Last edited:
You yourself define "self" as that which many people believes continues after physical death, so it is no surprise most people have viewed "self" as the same as "soul." But if you want to prove that "self" is an immortal "soul" please go ahead. Just remember than most people here do not currently accept that there is an unchanging "self" that even exists for this life time, and is not tightly linked to a physical brain. So you will have to prove both.
Squeege "has it right" but you failed to note that he/she thinks you are wrong. I believe most everyone here understands you (except you, who seems confused) and disagrees with you too!
WHy not skip the middleman, and just have him reply as you would?
That is an absurd request on top of a very impolite one! Do you think that any one of us has to right to interpret the responses of the rest and "lump redundant Q/Cs together?" So that you can get handle on it? They are mostly not redundant-everyone has their own response (which summarizes to "no" if I am correct).
Again, if for any reason you can't yourself look at the responses and reply appropriately to them, you are not the person to advance your argument or "proof." Find a less difficult thread, or someone who can.
Again, no one here, except for you, agrees with your premise: that there is a non-changing "self" that is not directly linked to the physical brain. So we disagree with your premise as well as your conclusion.
But you must prove both. GOT IT?
Only the psychology of believers interests me
Well now, Jabba, that may be the crux of your problem: You have no idea what you think that you think.
To illustrate: You said, somewhere up this muddy stream, that you fear oblivion. Have you considered, that is, have you thought about how impossible that is? Oblivion means the annihilation of consciousness; it's not a state you can experience; there's nothing to feel fear or anything else when you're oblivious.
Children may imagine themselves being dead and somehow still conscious, and that makes them fearful. It's a scary feeling, but it's not a rational dread. Most of us grow out of it pretty early in childhood.
I conclude from the evidence of your posts* that you feel negative things about the cessation of your consciousness. You don't like that feeling and, confusing emotion with rationality, you type prolonged, circular, confused, unpersuasive, and futile posts to try to make yourself feel better.
Others here will differ from me, but I find incoherent arguments boring. So will you, old-timer,** when once their incoherence and triviality become plain to you. And when that day comes, I predict -- I promise -- that you'll feel better!
* "I conclude from the evidence" is a way of saying "I think." How I feel about my conclusion is another matter, and at the present time it's impossible to communicate it directly.
** I get to call you "old-timer" because I'm 71. You 'n me, we have but a short time to be here, and a long time to be gone.
Well now, Jabba, that may be the crux of your problem: You have no idea what you think that you think.
To illustrate: You said, somewhere up this muddy stream, that you fear oblivion. Have you considered, that is, have you thought about how impossible that is? Oblivion means the annihilation of consciousness; it's not a state you can experience; there's nothing to feel fear or anything else when you're oblivious.
Children may imagine themselves being dead and somehow still conscious, and that makes them fearful. It's a scary feeling, but it's not a rational dread. Most of us grow out of it pretty early in childhood.
I conclude from the evidence of your posts* that you feel negative things about the cessation of your consciousness. You don't like that feeling and, confusing emotion with rationality, you type prolonged, circular, confused, unpersuasive, and futile posts to try to make yourself feel better.
Others here will differ from me, but I find incoherent arguments boring. So will you, old-timer,** when once their incoherence and triviality become plain to you. And when that day comes, I predict -- I promise -- that you'll feel better!
* "I conclude from the evidence" is a way of saying "I think." How I feel about my conclusion is another matter, and at the present time it's impossible to communicate it directly.
** I get to call you "old-timer" because I'm 71. You 'n me, we have but a short time to be here, and a long time to be gone.
- Status