• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
But, I assume that you would agree that perfectly replicated human embryos would not be identical, in that they would not have identical selves -- even if we were able to give them identical environments till consciousness emerged.

Jabba, consciousness doesn't emerge, like a lotus from a sacred pool.

Remember?
Consciousness is an emergent property of a neurosystem.
 
- But these would all be identical if we were able to provide identical environments for both.


If you accept this, on what basis are you claiming that (if we were able to provide identical environments for both) their "selves" would be different?
 
I have tried. I've asked him if there are more people today than ever before on Earth (which is historic fact), where do the extra "selves" come from? If these extra selves are created de novo according to his theory, why are any selves reincarnated (recycled)? Doesn't this invalidate his proof of reincarnation? If both do happen, however hard to prove, then are some of us reincarnated and others freshly made? Can one tell the two apart?

So far, silence on his part.
- I provided my best explanation a long time ago. If reincarnation is true, we must have come from an infinitely divisible source -- and, there are probably several of us today that were Napoleon in past lives... That's my story, and I'm st-st-stickin to it.
- Right now, I have older fish to fry.
 
- I provided my best explanation a long time ago. If reincarnation is true, we must have come from an infinitely divisible source -- and, there are probably several of us today that were Napoleon in past lives... That's my story, and I'm st-st-stickin to it.
- Right now, I have older fish to fry.

You are the sum of your memories. In what way is it meaningful to talk about being someone with a completely different set of memories and outlook on life?
 
- I provided my best explanation a long time ago. If reincarnation is true, we must have come from an infinitely divisible source -- and, there are probably several of us today that were Napoleon in past lives... That's my story, and I'm st-st-stickin to it.
- Right now, I have older fish to fry.
1. The highlight demonstrates, again, that you are assuming the consequent.

2. Your internal logic is broken. Let me demonstrate using your premise. Letters represent people

Long Ago
One infinite pool of selves

A & B (the first people)

Self[superscript]A[/superscript] and Self[superscript]B[/superscript] attach

C, D & E are born

Self[superscript]C[/superscript], Self[superscript]D[/superscript] and Self[superscript]E[/superscript] attach

A & B die

Self[superscript]A[/superscript] and Self[superscript]B[/superscript] go ....... where? Back to the pool of infinite selves?


Fast Forward to X, Y and Z

Self[superscript]A[/superscript] attaches to X

How does it also attach to Y and Z?


For your multiple Napoleons today you have to posit not only that their are infinite selves but that the selves bi-located or tri-located.
 
- I provided my best explanation a long time ago. If reincarnation is true, we must have come from an infinitely divisible source -- and, there are probably several of us today that were Napoleon in past lives... That's my story, and I'm st-st-stickin to it.
- Right now, I have older fish to fry.

In what way is this claim consonant with anything we know about neuroscience?

You are taking everything that has been told you, nodding your head, pretending to understand it,and then simply declaiming, "Yeah,but the "soul" really does exist, and really is "immortal", and I have essentially proved it be declaring that some of us used to be Napoleon".

Still assuming the consequent.
 
Last edited:
- I provided my best explanation a long time ago. If reincarnation is true, we must have come from an infinitely divisible source -- and, there are probably several of us today that were Napoleon in past lives... That's my story, and I'm st-st-stickin to it.
- Right now, I have older fish to fry.

As I said long ago, that is the problem in disproving magic, in that invoking even more bizarre magic can be used to explain any flaw in the first discussion of magic. This proposal only shows how desperate you must be to believe in your theory, and how you yourself realize its problems.

Surely you realize that you yourself have disproven your theory here by proposing a need for an infinitely divisible source, which is impossible. Neither infinite nor infinitely divisible things exist.
 
Last edited:
1. The highlight demonstrates, again, that you are assuming the consequent.

2. Your internal logic is broken. Let me demonstrate using your premise. Letters represent people

Long Ago
One infinite pool of selves

A & B (the first people)

Self[superscript]A[/superscript] and Self[superscript]B[/superscript] attach

C, D & E are born

Self[superscript]C[/superscript], Self[superscript]D[/superscript] and Self[superscript]E[/superscript] attach

A & B die

Self[superscript]A[/superscript] and Self[superscript]B[/superscript] go ....... where? Back to the pool of infinite selves?


Fast Forward to X, Y and Z

Self[superscript]A[/superscript] attaches to X

How does it also attach to Y and Z?


For your multiple Napoleons today you have to posit not only that their are infinite selves but that the selves bi-located or tri-located.

Good points! But even more so, assume the first two people have three kids, and at least for a time all 5 are alive. Where did the 3 new selves come from? Can fractions of selves be ripped from 2 living parents and given to the 3 children? If you think about this "overlap" problem, it actually comes about every generation in a growing population.
 
- I provided my best explanation a long time ago. If reincarnation is true, we must have come from an infinitely divisible source -- and, there are probably several of us today that were Napoleon in past lives... That's my story, and I'm st-st-stickin to it.
- Right now, I have older fish to fry.

Like essentially proving immortality with Bayesian statistics.
 
Good points! But even more so, assume the first two people have three kids, and at least for a time all 5 are alive. Where did the 3 new selves come from? Can fractions of selves be ripped from 2 living parents and given to the 3 children? If you think about this "overlap" problem, it actually comes about every generation in a growing population.
To be fair, the extras come from the infinite pool/potential.

The real problem is that reincarnation can only happen with perfect timing, else some person is standing there selfless waiting either for a reincarnated self to arrive at birth or waiting to die after the self has flown off to be in someone else.
 
To be fair, the extras come from the infinite pool/potential.

The real problem is that reincarnation can only happen with perfect timing, else some person is standing there selfless waiting either for a reincarnated self to arrive at birth or waiting to die after the self has flown off to be in someone else.

I thought Jabba claimed there was no pool. I don't know why not. Maybe he will now.
 
I thought Jabba claimed there was no pool. I don't know why not. Maybe he will now.
He says he claims no pool, but all he has really done is change the word to "potential." Same thing he did with consciousness, observer, self, etc.
 
- I provided my best explanation a long time ago. If reincarnation is true, we must have come from an infinitely divisible source -- and, there are probably several of us today that were Napoleon in past lives... That's my story, and I'm st-st-stickin to it.
- Right now, I have older fish to fry.
Which Napoleon?
 
Last edited:
- I provided my best explanation a long time ago. If reincarnation is true, we must have come from an infinitely divisible source -- and, there are probably several of us today that were Napoleon in past lives... That's my story, and I'm st-st-stickin to it.
- Right now, I have older fish to fry.



Oh, you mean nonsense. In the future, you can save yourself time by just typing the word nonsense.
 
That would also save the reader a lot of time.
Perhaps, but there are many interesting and compelling variations he could write.

Nonsense.

Nonsense.

Nonsense.

"Nonsense."

1. Nonsense.

1.Non
2.Sense


It could be quite a debate.
 
I am not sure if I want to be 1/64 of Napoleon. Of course, we are all a fraction of the "first" 2 "humans" anyway: 1/7 billionth. Duplicated and re-duplicated and re-re-duplicated according to Jabba... Or is it an exact duplication, so my division of Napoleon's self resulted somehow in me receiving an entire Napoleon?

At least I now know Jabba will respond to certain posts and that he is just ignoring the most fatal criticisms.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom