Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics
- Thread starter Jabba
- Start date
- Status
Humots
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- May 29, 2012
- Messages
- 425
OK, thanks for the heads up.
I would love to find the interiior artwork in a format I could print and hang up somewhere. It was so well done and appropriate to the story.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Last edited:
xtifr
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2012
- Messages
- 1,299
Do you think it's coincidence that this happened right after Obamacare? I think not.
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
Jabba,
I hope you finally realize that this 2-year long argument has been a waste of your time.
I have a 21-yo daughter I have been encouraging to read this thread, but it's a waste of her time.
I hope you finally realize that this 2-year long argument has been a waste of your time.
I have a 21-yo daughter I have been encouraging to read this thread, but it's a waste of her time.
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
Jabba,
I hope you finally realize that this 2-year long argument has been a waste of your time.
I have twin 21-yo daughters I have been encouraging to read this thread, but it's a waste of their time.
I hope you finally realize that this 2-year long argument has been a waste of your time.
I have twin 21-yo daughters I have been encouraging to read this thread, but it's a waste of their time.
Edited by jhunter1163:
Edited for civility.
Last edited by a moderator:
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Messages
- 10,293
Two and a half years on, and you haven't brought us any closer to what was suggested early on.
Jabba, you have utterly failed. Give up your meaningless struggle or admit you had absolutely nothing to your argument from day one except your own faith.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
6998
- I think you hit the nail on the head.
- First, I don’t think that we can claim with any kind of certainty that matter, energy, time and space are finite. For now, however, I’m just claiming that there is a basis for claiming that something is infinite that doesn’t require that matter, energy, time and space be infinite – as unintuitive as that may sound…
- Here, I claim that there is nothing biological prior to the existence of an illusion of a particular continuous lifetime self (avoiding any issue as to whether a continuous self is real or not) – that limits “who” that illusion will be. I.E., when a particular illusion (a who) ceases to exist, we cannot bring it back into existence by replicating the biology that produced it. There is no limited pool of such illusions. There is nothing to represent a particular illusion prior to its actual existence, and in that sense, the particular illusion comes from nowhere, nothing. Coming from nowhere, nothing, the particular illusion is brand new and had no limited pool from which it was taken. In that sense, the possible particular illusion is unlimited, and any “pool” it came from is infinite.
- I’m sure that you have objections. I hope that they are not too many. This is a hard topic to parse effectively.
xtifr,
- I think you hit the nail on the head.
If I understand what you’re saying, I’m pretty sure that the “duplicate” thing is relevant.
Identical in one sense; but not, in another. For the sake of communication, I’ll go along with the first sense.
- This is where I disagree.
- First, I don’t think that we can claim with any kind of certainty that matter, energy, time and space are finite. For now, however, I’m just claiming that there is a basis for claiming that something is infinite that doesn’t require that matter, energy, time and space be infinite – as unintuitive as that may sound…
- Here, I claim that there is nothing biological prior to the existence of an illusion of a particular continuous lifetime self (avoiding any issue as to whether a continuous self is real or not) – that limits “who” that illusion will be. I.E., when a particular illusion (a who) ceases to exist, we cannot bring it back into existence by replicating the biology that produced it. There is no limited pool of such illusions. There is nothing to represent a particular illusion prior to its actual existence, and in that sense, the particular illusion comes from nowhere, nothing. Coming from nowhere, nothing, the particular illusion is brand new and had no limited pool from which it was taken. In that sense, the possible particular illusion is unlimited, and any “pool” it came from is infinite.
- I’m sure that you have objections. I hope that they are not too many. This is a hard topic to parse effectively.
At least you are being forthright with your errors now, as you state the both plainly.
1. No, you cannot get infinity out of a combination of finite things.
2. Yes, the illusion of self is predicated upon the biology/physics/environment from which it emerged.
Codicil: This is why xtifr correctly stated that the duplicate thing is irrelevant; it has no bearing on the veracity of 1 and 2 above.
1. No, you cannot get infinity out of a combination of finite things.
2. Yes, the illusion of self is predicated upon the biology/physics/environment from which it emerged.
Codicil: This is why xtifr correctly stated that the duplicate thing is irrelevant; it has no bearing on the veracity of 1 and 2 above.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
By stating the obvious truths that scores of people have been pointing out to you for months?
Who'd have thought?
Then clearly you don't understand at all.
I find it difficult to believe that anything you've posted in the last two years was done "for the sake of communication".
And so you fall at the first hurdle. Everything you might have to say after this is meaningless, irrelevant nonsense.
Especially when one adamantly refuses to read 95% of the discussion.
Well, you would be wrong, then. But that is okay if you acknowledge that what you believe, think, and claim is not what science or the standard model states. If you want detailed reasons you are wrong, then read the other posts here. But there is obviously no reason to try to re-state what we have already tried to tell you- I think people tried an almost infinity of ways already without success.
Any way, welcome back! Is xtifr the current LCP? If so, I think you are misunderstanding what he is saying.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Identical in the sense of "exactly the same". How is "identical" defined in the other sense of it you are using?
Are you still thinking we don't understand you? It is a simple thing to parse effectively for everyone else here, if not for you.
By the way, do you have any un -rebutted evidence? Are you any closer to the "proof" that you began 2 years ago?
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
Jabba, earlier you said:
And I asked:
Can you answer that? I don't know of anything in the scientific model that supports what you're saying in that post.
And I asked:
Can you answer that? I don't know of anything in the scientific model that supports what you're saying in that post.
Last edited:
Then if a continuous self is required for your view on reincarnation, do you intend to prove that such a thing exists at some point later?
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
Good Morning, Mr. Savage!
I am happy to see you posting again...I feared we might have lost you.
I do not want to get bogged down any further in minutiae, but I wonder why you think you can claim that the universe ("matter, energy, time, and space") is not finite? What indication do you have for this, other than the need to appear to support your assumed conclusion?
I am also puzzled by your claim that the "infinity of souls" is not limited by a finite universe. I truly wish you would begin to support your assertions.
I would also like to point out (again) that the lack of a "pool" of "souls" does not mean that the possible number of consciousnesses emergent from functioning neurosystems is "infinite". A finite number multiplied by a finite number is still finite.
I also wonder if you realize that:
...effectively rules out "immortality" as neurosystems do not last "forever"; but also effectively rules out "reincarnation", as the consciousness that emerges from a particular neurosystem is unique to that neurosysten: it has not been before, nor will it be again .
Since you have destroyed your own argument form this end, why not start at the other end? Why not provide you concrete, empirical, practical, objective evidence that the "souls" exists, and is "immortal"?
I have asked before, without any attempt on your part to at least clarify what you are saying: are you referring to your own views in this post, or to your mistaken views of what the SM says (or, if it doesn't say it, it should say it according to you so you can show it is wrong). As I said, you can believe this statement if you wish as part of your views, but it is not the SM. I can't help but think you believe this to be proposed by the SM, because it denies reincarnation strongly ("comes from nothing"). So if you think you are stating the SM, you are wrong.
By the way: if reincarnation represents a reincarnation of my "sense of self" but I am next Jane Smith, will that make me a trans-sexual in the next life?
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
I wouldn't get my hopes up too high, if I were you. According to Jabba's redefinition of the SM you're just as likely to be the next Rin Tin Tin or the next "that old rose bush at the bottom of the garden".
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
This is an easy topic to parse effectively. All you have to do is to stop equating "infinity" with "nothing." If you keep making up your own rules of math, science and logic, I don't think anyone can help you.
- Status