[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[George]

Mojo,
- OK. I still have trepidations about using the word "soul," but I'll give it a try. In trying to 'prove' immortality, I am, in effect, trying to 'prove' that the soul (something we think of as non-physical) exists.

Get on with it!!

 

[Garrette]

Carlitos,
- OK. But what I meant to imply (but didn't) was that there was only one instant (in space/time) that defined ME -- that instant was at the inception of my consciousness. The ME, in my question, is not something that is constantly changing.

1. Yes, it is constantly changing, as has been repeatedly explained.

2. It doesn't matter if it is constantly changing, as Xtifr has pointed out. Regardless if it changes or is constant, it is tied to the physics from which it emerges and is born with the brain and dies with the brain.

 

[Slowvehicle]

xtifr,
- Is the location defined by a Planck Length, space/time instant?

Location is "place or position",

Planck length, at most, defines the closest to each other two physical locations may be (it does not let you invoke QM to claim that the "soul" is a "quantum effect").

 

[Slowvehicle]

Mojo,
- OK. I still have trepidations about using the word "soul," but I'll give it a try. In trying to 'prove' immortality, I am, in effect, trying to 'prove' that the soul (something we think of as non-physical) exists.

Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

While I approve of your honesty in (finally) admitting that you are talking about the "soul" (and after only 7500+ posts!), I am sorry to point out that you still appear to be waffling, so as to have hidey-holes (Yes. I noticed that because my hidey-sense is tingling),

Why do you say you are only trying to prove the existence of the "soul" in effect? What do you think that means, and how do you think it strengthens your position?

What is the purpose of putting "prove" in scare quotes? What does that imply, to you, and how do you think it strengthens your position?

Who do you think "we" is? What evidence do you have that "we" think the soul exists at all, much less is non-physical?

When do you expect to be presenting evidence for the existence of the "soul"? (NB: your claims that, in your opinion "soul" which is not a part of any scientific model of existence is less unlikely than observed reality does not constitute evidence).

 

[Slowvehicle]

Carlitos,
- OK. But what I meant to imply (but didn't) was that there was only one instant (in space/time) that defined ME -- that instant was at the inception of my consciousness. The ME, in my question, is not something that is constantly changing.

Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

This opinion of yours needs to be supported, and is not consonant with any interpretation of any scientific model I have ever encountered.

I eagerly await your support for this claim.

 

[Mojo]

Mojo,
- OK. I still have trepidations about using the word "soul," but I'll give it a try.

There's no need for you to have trepidations about this. That ship sailed when the thread was moved from SMM&T to R&P.

 

[carlitos]

Carlitos,
- OK. But what I meant to imply (but didn't) was that there was only one instant (in space/time) that defined ME -- that instant was at the inception of my consciousness. The ME, in my question, is not something that is constantly changing.

I don't think that there can be an inception of your consciousness. It's an emergent process that derives from a functioning neurosystem. I'm no scientist, but I'd say that it starts at a certain point in brain development. Not to mention, you'd have an "inception of consciousness" every time you wake up from anesthesia, just to take one example.

Now, if you're talking about an inception of your soul, that's a different discussion. Catholics go with "at conception," for instance.

 

[Giordano]

Jabba's willingness to prove the existence of the non-physical "soul" is potential progress indeed (if he ever gets to it), Just a word of caution though: Jabba has previously posted (months ago) that a "soul" is the immortal "self" and that his intention was to prove that the "self" was immortal, and therefore a "soul." He seemed to assume a non-physical "self" was a given, and only sought to prove that it was indeed reincarnated (a "soul") using Bayesian statistics. So I fear that this statement of his is not really progress at all, but just a restatement of his prior post.

Jabba, what do you think? Are you going to prove that there is a non-material self, sense of self, soul, or spirit first before you prove that it is reincarnated? What is it and what part of you is reincarnated anyway? I've asked before. Anyway, please provide proof and evidence. Now please. Thanks!

 

[Giordano]

Carlitos,
- OK. But what I meant to imply (but didn't) was that there was only one instant (in space/time) that defined ME -- that instant was at the inception of my consciousness. The ME, in my question, is not something that is constantly changing.

Please don't believe your statement is generally accepted by the others here or represents the SM. But if you think you are correct: please convince us by proving it. Thanks!

 

[Giordano]

I don't think that there can be an inception of your consciousness. It's an emergent process that derives from a functioning neurosystem. I'm no scientist, but I'd say that it starts at a certain point in brain development. Not to mention, you'd have an "inception of consciousness" every time you wake up from anesthesia, just to take one example.

Now, if you're talking about an inception of your soul, that's a different discussion. Catholics go with "at conception," for instance.

All excellent points!

Odd that Jabba accepts that consciousness originates the sense of self/soul, but that a one celled zygote has a unique sense of self/soul. I didn't realize fertilized zygotes thought about much at all. In my experience, I believe even teenagers don't think too much. Or that Jabba thinks about his model much.

 

[Monza]

I confess my eyes watered. What on earth is a "real illusion"?

This reminds me of the late-80s when Jay Leno was hired as a regular substitute for Johnny Carson. He was called the Permanent Guest Host... a triple oxymoron!

 

[Loss Leader]

In trying to 'prove' immortality, I am, in effect, trying to 'prove' that the soul (something we think of as non-physical) exists.

Actually, in order to prove immortality, you have to assume that the soul exists. Otherwise, there's nothing to be immortal. You must first prove that there is some unchanging soul with, you know, evidence.

Otherwise your argument is: Assume the soul exists. Each soul is so special that there must be an infinite number. So, the only way a soul could come to exist is if it always existed. Since it always existed, instead of a physical body with a functioning brain, we all have souls.

That is a very, very bad argument.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Mojo,
- If you think you exist, I'm sure I have the same evidence as you, so I surely don't need to tell you. If you don't think you exist, I certainly don't need to tell you.

ETA: Wrong quote; intended to use the last one dealing with a soul.

Jabba, I am not entirely hostile to your quest, as indicated here.

I did make an attempt here to address the difficulties in your approach, perhaps a bit stridently. I do recommend you have another look and provide me with your reactions.

In the final analysis, you may indeed choose to subscribe to your views, simply aware that the means used for material phenomena do not apply; that is, you will not find material support for immaterial assertions.

This is not to say, as many believe, that the existence of a soul can be proved or disproved. Better to say that this is a realm in which science has no interest by definition, as there is no room for proper due diligence.

For that, it does have to be considered a matter of faith alone. I would only hold that against someone if and when it is mixed with science, as that attempts to make two incompatible methods work together.

Indeed, you are attempting to deal with both the natural world, and a potential other, that do not intersect in any demonstrable way. Faith, not science, is the domain you seek, and that is a viable choice for this sort of topic: immortality.

 

[Slowvehicle]

ETA: Wrong quote; intended to use the last one dealing with a soul.

Jabba, I am not entirely hostile to your quest, as indicated here.

I did make an attempt here to address the difficulties in your approach, perhaps a bit stridently. I do recommend you have another look and provide me with your reactions.

In the final analysis, you may indeed choose to subscribe to your views, simply aware that the means used for material phenomena do not apply; that is, you will not find material support for immaterial assertions.

This is not to say, as many believe, that the existence of a soul can be proved or disproved. Better to say that this is a realm in which science has no interest by definition, as there is no room for proper due diligence.

For that, it does have to be considered a matter of faith alone. I would only hold that against someone if and when it is mixed with science, as that attempts to make two incompatible methods work together.

Indeed, you are attempting to deal with both the natural world, and a potential other, that do not intersect in any demonstrable way. Faith, not science, is the domain you seek, and that is a viable choice for this sort of topic: immortality.

When I am done applauding, I will only add that, having accepted that the "existence" of the "soul" (and its "immortality") is a matter of faith, the word "proof" is rendered singularly inapt.

 

[jond]

ETA: Wrong quote; intended to use the last one dealing with a soul.

Jabba, I am not entirely hostile to your quest, as indicated here.

I did make an attempt here to address the difficulties in your approach, perhaps a bit stridently. I do recommend you have another look and provide me with your reactions.

In the final analysis, you may indeed choose to subscribe to your views, simply aware that the means used for material phenomena do not apply; that is, you will not find material support for immaterial assertions.

This is not to say, as many believe, that the existence of a soul can be proved or disproved. Better to say that this is a realm in which science has no interest by definition, as there is no room for proper due diligence.

For that, it does have to be considered a matter of faith alone. I would only hold that against someone if and when it is mixed with science, as that attempts to make two incompatible methods work together.

Indeed, you are attempting to deal with both the natural world, and a potential other, that do not intersect in any demonstrable way. Faith, not science, is the domain you seek, and that is a viable choice for this sort of topic: immortality.

Well said!

(Too bad I suspect Jabba's response will be to stamp his feet and scream "it's Not faith!!!")

 

[xtifr]

xtifr,
- Is the location defined by a Planck Length, space/time instant?

I'm not quite sure what you mean. In this context, it's defined by the space-time coordinates of a brain, which is an object that is normally quite a bit larger than the Planck length!

Mojo,
- OK. I still have trepidations about using the word "soul," but I'll give it a try. In trying to 'prove' immortality, I am, in effect, trying to 'prove' that the soul (something we think of as non-physical) exists.

You're welcome to introduce the concept of a soul when you get to the providing counter-proposals part. What you can't do is introduce it into the scientific model as part of your effort to disprove the scientific model, because it's not part of the scientific model.

Carlitos,
- OK. But what I meant to imply (but didn't) was that there was only one instant (in space/time) that defined ME -- that instant was at the inception of my consciousness. The ME, in my question, is not something that is constantly changing.

The ME in the scientific model is constantly changing. Again, if you want to disprove the scientific model, you have to start with the scientific model. The ME that exists now is not the same as the ME that existed two seconds ago. It shares most of the same memories, but has (among other things), two seconds more memories. And remember, it's the memories that give the illusion of continuity. (The continuity, not the consciousness, sense of self, or anything like that, is the illusory part. Unless you're a Buddhist, in which case, it's all illusory--but that's not the scientific model either.)

ETA: Think of a movie. Each of the frames is a static image, but taken together, they provide the illusion of actual motion.

 

[pakeha]

Carlitos,
- OK. But what I meant to imply (but didn't) was that there was only one instant (in space/time) that defined ME -- that instant was at the inception of my consciousness. The ME, in my question, is not something that is constantly changing.

No, Jabba.
The ME is neither more nor less than part of consciousness, which is an emergent property of a functioning neurosystem.

 

[Monza]

I'm not quite sure what you mean. In this context, it's defined by the space-time coordinates of a brain, which is an object that is normally quite a bit larger than the Planck length!

Then how do you explain Jersey Shore?

 

[Jabba]

Xtifr,

- We seem to disagree on just about everything – so, it hardly matters where I begin...

- Dr Blackmore only got back to me that one time. And, I’m sure that she is saying more than I understand, but based upon what I think that I understand, what she claims makes sense, at least in a sense. In a sense at least, the continuity of the self seems to be an illusion…
- My first objection is that such doesn’t matter – if the continuous self is some kind of illusion, it is still 1) what I’m talking about, 2) what I am mostly enjoying and 3) what science says will go away (indirectly accepting that it does currently exist) to never return…

 

[Slowvehicle]

Xtifr,

- We seem to disagree on just about everything – so, it hardly matters where I begin...

- Dr Blackmore only got back to me that one time. And, I’m sure that she is saying more than I understand, but based upon what I think that I understand, what she claims makes sense, at least in a sense. In a sense at least, the continuity of the self seems to be an illusion…
- My first objection is that such doesn’t matter – if the continuous self is some kind of illusion, it is still 1) what I’m talking about, 2) what I am mostly enjoying and 3) what science says will go away (indirectly accepting that it does currently exist) to never return…

Good Afternoon, Mr. Savage.

In what way do you consider this post to advance the discussion, if any?