[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

Status
Not open for further replies.
Akhenaten said:
If you're going to insist on using argumentum ad copypasta, at least learn how to do it properly.

What a mess.
Click to expand...
Of all the buttons one could hit when quoting a reference, I'd not recommend both bold and italics. Also, a link would be generous.
 
Jabba said:
Soul
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Soul (disambiguation).
The soul, in many religious, philosophical, psychological, and mythological traditions, is the incorporeal and, in many conceptions, immortal essence of a person, living thing, or object.[1] According to some religions, including the Abrahamic religions in most of their forms, souls — or at least immortal souls capable of union with the divine[2] — belong only to human beings. For example, the Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas attributed "soul" (anima) to all organisms but taught that only human souls are immortal.[3] Other religions (most notably Jainism and Hinduism) teach that all biological organisms have souls, and others further still that non-biological entities (such as rivers and mountains) possess souls. This latter belief is called animism.[4] Anima mundi is the concept of a "world soul."
Soul can function as a synonym for spirit, mind, psyche or self.[5]

- OK. That IS what I'm talking about, except that I'm trying to remove the religious connotations. Ultimately, I do accept the religious connotations, but here, I'm trying to talk about the basic, non-religious idea. There IS one.
- Certainly, I'm having great difficulty trying to communicate what I mean by the "self," "observer" or "individual consciousness." But again, maybe the best way to convey the idea is to point to what religious people mean by "afterlife," or "reincarnation." For the moment, I'm not arguing that there are such things -- I'm just pointing out examples of reference to the concept of "self." The self is what is referred to as continuing in afterlife, or returning in reincarnation, by believers. The self is what skeptics, and probably most scientists, believe does not continue, or return. That is what I'm talkin about when I claim that the "self" is immortal
- It is this self that I believe is, in fact, immortal.
- I tried that approach before, and it didn' seem to help. Maybe, I said it better this time...

- Whatever, now that I've probably done the best I can at communicating the concept, I'll go back to trying to show why I think it's immortal.
Click to expand...


Fascinating.
You think our objections are based on the idea that we don't know what a soul is.

Everything in your most recent post has been stated within the first four pages of this thread. Saying that stuff again and again is not going to bring us closer to your non-scientific,1 kind-of-a-proof of immortality.

What a strange hobby you have: misusing statistics to prove the existence of a immortal soul to skeptics.

.............
(1) your words.
 
Last edited:
- How about this?
- A "self" is simply a consciousness. According to modern science (at least where humans are concerned), each new consciousness begins sometime after conception (or even, perhaps, at conception) and continues (most of the time at least) until we die -- to never return. That's the "self" that I claim is immortal.
 
Last edited:
pakeha said:
As always, Pharaoh reminds us of the blinding simplicity of the truth.
Some things never change, and the breakfast nook is one of them
[qimg]http://imageshack.us/a/img440/6439/300pxsyriancafe.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

That's the breakfast hookah.
 
Jabba said:
- How about this?
- A "self" is simply a consciousness. According to modern science (at least where humans are concerned), each new consciousness begins sometime after conception (or even, perhaps, at conception) and continues (most of the time at least) until we die -- to never return. That's the "self" that I claim is immortal.
Click to expand...
Consciousness ceases during dreamless sleep. Is it your contention that it goes to wherever you think it was before birth and will be after death for a few hours every night? What happens to it during a coma and why it can be radically altered by brain damage also requires explanation if consciousness is not an emergent property of the brain, as does the fact that many people resemble their parents psychologically as well as physically.
 
Jabba said:
- How about this?
- A "self" is simply a consciousness. According to modern science (at least where humans are concerned), each new consciousness begins sometime after conception (or even, perhaps, at conception) and continues (most of the time at least) until we die -- to never return. That's the "self" that I claim is immortal.
Click to expand...

Mr. Savage:

At the risk of being accused of being condescending, I, for one, am curious as to where you picked up the odd idea that "modern science" claims that "consciousness" begins "even, perhaps, at conception".

It seems to me that you are still simply making unsupported assertions.

Not only that, it seems to me that you are making those assertions in order to knock them down with other assertions.

So far, it seems that the thrust of your argument is that you believe that what is often called "consciousness" is actually what your faith calls the "soul"; and, since "souls" are "immortal", then "consciousness" must be, by definition, "immortal", never mind that none of it can be demonstrated.
 
Jabba, we understand what you mean by the <thing/soul/self/consciousness> that you claim to be immortal. What we don't understand, and what you seem to be shy of explaining, is why you think this is immortal.

What evidence do you have of even one consciousness being immortal, or even transcending dreamless sleep (h/t Pixel42) never mind transcending death?

Please, forget the flawed analogies of being aces in a deck of cards or otherwise special snowflakes, show us some reason to think that you are doing any more than wanting the 'you' being not snuffed out once you are dead.
 
Jabba said:
- How about this?
- A "self" is simply a consciousness. According to modern science (at least where humans are concerned), each new consciousness begins sometime after conception (or even, perhaps, at conception) and continues (most of the time at least) until we die -- to never return. That's the "self" that I claim is immortal.
Click to expand...
- You guys have wondered how my discussion so far addresses immortality.

- Here's my story.
- Most recently, I've been trying to define -- and effectively communicate the meaning of -- the "self" that I believe is immortal. Here, I've just been trying to "get us on the same page."
- I've been doing that because it began to seem obvious that we were not on the same page. It had begun to seem obvious that I wasn't actually conveying what I was talking about...

- A little before that, I had been trying to support that claim.
- And most recently, in order to do that, I was arguing that the likelihood of my current existence -- given the scientific model -- is one over infinity. Such a likelihood is not zero, but it has to be expressed as a "limit" -- and, the limit of 1/x as x approaches infinity IS zero.
- I had asked Dave that if I could show him that the likelihood of my current existence was one over zero, would he accept my conclusion? And he said that he might...

- Are we still on different pages?
 
Jesus Christ. The likelihood of your current existence is one over one. How many times do you have to hear this before you understand it? You exist. You're not immortal. Stop wasting your time on this nonsense.
 
Jabba said:
- How about this?
- A "self" is simply a consciousness. According to modern science (at least where humans are concerned), each new consciousness begins sometime after conception (or even, perhaps, at conception) and continues (most of the time at least) until we die -- to never return. That's the "self" that I claim is immortal.
Click to expand...


:rolleyes:
 
Jabba said:
- You guys have wondered how my discussion so far addresses immortality.

- Here's my story.
- Most recently, I've been trying to define -- and effectively communicate the meaning of -- the "self" that I believe is immortal. Here, I've just been trying to "get us on the same page."
- I've been doing that because it began to seem obvious that we were not on the same page. It had begun to seem obvious that I wasn't actually conveying what I was talking about...
Click to expand...
I think it's been understood from the beginning that you are trying to convey the idea of a self. In religious terms, some might call it a soul.

Jabba said:
- A little before that, I had been trying to support that claim.
- And most recently, in order to do that, I was arguing that the likelihood of my current existence -- given the scientific model -- is one over infinity.
Click to expand...
Even if that were true (which it isn't, as very large numbers are finite), all that shows is either the scientific model as described by you is wrong somewhere, or that your mathematics are wrong, or that there is some other problem with your hypothesis. It does not imply that any one particular unscientific idea must perforce be correct. That would be a whole new step, one that you have not even touched on yet.

Jabba said:
Such a likelihood is not zero, but it has to be expressed as a "limit" -- and, the limit of 1/x as x approaches infinity IS zero.
Click to expand...
Dealing with very big numbers and very small numbers can be difficult to conceptualise. But zero and infinity have precise meanings and you cannot simply substitute zero for <a very very small number>, nor can you substitute infinity for <a really quite unimaginable big number> in this case.

Jabba said:
- I had asked Dave that if I could show him that the likelihood of my current existence was one over zero, would he accept my conclusion? And he said that he might...
Click to expand...
And? You haven't shown it, and to be honest you never can show that the likelihood of your existence is zero, because you do actually exist.

Jabba said:
- Are we still on different pages?
Click to expand...
Clearly. But not because we don't understand your concept of self/soul/consciousness, we do. It's because we think your model and your mathematics are not only wrong, but also inapplicable to the task you are trying to undertake.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- You guys have wondered how my discussion so far addresses immortality.

<snip>
Click to expand...


And we still are because all you keep doing is restating everything you've already said and hoping against hope that it suddenly, and somewhat miraculously, ceases to be gobbledygook.



Jabba said:
- Are we still on different pages?
Click to expand...


Different planets would be a better analogy.
 
Mojo said:
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
He's saying that "the scientific model" says consciousness begins and then dies, but he believes otherwise.

Mojo said:
Only if Jabba exists. He seems to be arguing that he doesn't:
Click to expand...
He's arguing that "the scientific model" predicts his nonexistence, therefore it must be wrong.

He has yet to make a coherent argument to support any of his assertions.
 
Pixel42 said:
Consciousness ceases during dreamless sleep. Is it your contention that it goes to wherever you think it was before birth and will be after death for a few hours every night? What happens to it during a coma and why it can be radically altered by brain damage also requires explanation if consciousness is not an emergent property of the brain, as does the fact that many people resemble their parents psychologically as well as physically.
Click to expand...
Pixel,
- We certainly don't remember being conscious during dreamless sleep, but there is electrical activity in the brain during dreamless sleep...
- But mostly, when we wake up, we seem to be the same person. Somehow that consciousness, that "self," had persisted while resting...
- I'll have to think some more about this question. I can see some merit to it -- but so far, as you might expect, I think that the perceived merit is misleading...
 
Pixel42 said:
He's saying that "the scientific model" says consciousness begins and then dies, but he believes otherwise.


He's arguing that "the scientific model" predicts his nonexistence, therefore it must be wrong.
Click to expand...


Ah, I see: strawmen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom