[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

In any case, again this thread has nothing to do with belief in god.

This thread has always been about a belief in God, it's just that Jabba has, until now, studiously avoided using terms which could be associated with that subject (hence "selves", rather than "souls"). That the thread's not been about God is exactly what he wants you to think.

 

[Giordano]

This thread has always been about a belief in God, it's just that Jabba has, until now, studiously avoided using terms which could be associated with that subject (hence "selves", rather than "souls"). That the thread's not been about God is exactly what he wants you to think.

I agree, of course, that Jabba is thinking of souls and his "god" when he writes his posts.

But technically one can be reincarnated infinitely without a god existing, and one can have one short life to live even if there is a god.

So to me, his "proof" of reincarnation has nothing to do with god.

 

[Loss Leader]

I agree, of course, that Jabba is thinking of souls and his "god" when he writes his posts.

But technically one can be reincarnated infinitely without a god existing, and one can have one short life to live even if there is a god.

So to me, his "proof" of reincarnation has nothing to do with god.

Ah, but if scientific data suggests there is no God, and there's a possibility that God is real, then I have essentially proven the existence of God.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Frozenwolf,
- Let me know if you mind me addressing you by name when I respond to you -- but for me, it's sort of disrespectful not to. And abbreviating your name a little is meant to promote friendliness...
- If you do mind any of that, let me know, and I'll gladly desist.

The quote function will suffice.

- Otherwise, I do fear oblivion. Certainly part of that is due simply to the instinct for survival. But then, I've had a relatively easy and enjoyable life and would like to keep going.
- I have a strong gut feeling that life is ultimately meaningful, that love is the "bottom line" and is what makes life seriously worthwhile. Consequently, I deeply fear the loss of loved ones, the end of the 'dance' -- but then, I wouldn't give up having the dance, for the world. Garth Brooks said something about that.

If your memories are gone, how is that any different from death? It's a cessation or interruption of the functioning of the mind. Even if that function is later restored in a different body, such as through reincarnation, the person you were before is still gone. This doesn't sound too different from what we know now as death. Why should we treat it any differently from death?

- I assume that I wouldn't really want the same life to go on forever, nor would I want to remember much about past lives.
- Whatever, I also assume that humans trying to understand this whole thing are like chickens trying to understand calculus. We can get only so far with our reasoning and imagination.

Do you see the irony in this last statement of yours?

Frozenwolf,

- Look up "quantum mechanics universal consciousness."
- Here's an example.
From http://guardianlv.com/2013/11/quant...on-universal-consciousness-and-the-afterlife/

Bruce Rosenblum, a Professor of Physics summarized the quantum world in a way that illustrates Einstein and Jordan’s frustrations when he said “relativity says strange things about time, space and energy. But quantum mechanics says unbelievable things about us, our consciousness, our free will, and the nature of our human involvement with physical reality.”

- Another example.
http://endgametime.wordpress.com/th...chanics-of-the-human-brain-and-consciousness/

I'm not objecting to your right to believe what you wish. I'm objecting to your misuse of the word "quantum" to try to make your beliefs sound more credible.

Frozenwolf,
- Do you agree with me that elimination of ~A as a possibility is unwarranted? I thought you had made such a statement previously, but looking back, I couldn't find it.

No, I disagree. You still need a way to rule out all the other possibilities encompassed by ~A, in order to distill it down to the conclusion you desire. You're not exactly making this easy for yourself by leaving ~A open to an infinite number of other possibilities.

 

[pakeha]

While electrons in the brain behave as particles, these electrons prevent the consciousness from realizing that it is part of a larger whole. When the electrons behave as a wave, the consciousness becomes aware of its existence outside the human mind

Wow, that was even stupider than I imagined.

Yes.
But then again,the idea that quantum mechanics explains immortality needs special, very special arguments and reasoning to back it up.

 

[Mojo]

Yes.
But then again,the idea that quantum mechanics explains immortality needs special, very special arguments and reasoning to back it up.

The "very special argumants and reasoning" usually goes:

1. Quantum!
2. ?
3. Therefore whatever I'm trying to prove is true.

 

[Jabba]

If your memories are gone, how is that any different from death? It's a cessation or interruption of the functioning of the mind. Even if that function is later restored in a different body, such as through reincarnation, the person you were before is still gone. This doesn't sound too different from what we know now as death. Why should we treat it any differently from death?...

- That seems like a strange question to me, but others have asked the same one -- so I guess I should quit ignoring it. (I have to ignore most(?) questions/suggestions/objections/comments in general cause I just don't have time to answer any more than I am.)

- One point is that the reincarnation philosophies I'm familiar with assume that there really is no break in consciousness between physical lives. I haven't read much about such things recently, so could be that I'm missing, or forgetting, a lot...
- Otherwise, the observer returns (minus any memory), and I (one observer) don't need to worry about eternal oblivion -- which I would, if I didn't believe in some sort of recurring awareness. Then, that I wasn't aware inbetween would be basically like sleeping -- only, more restful.
- It's expecting the reoccurrence that allows me to quit worrying about oblivion.
- To me, this seems obvious, so I sort of suspect that it won't really answer your question. Whatever, please let me know how it "sits with you."

 

[godless dave]

How do you differentiate between one observer who has no memories of previous lives and multiple observers?

 

[Akhenaten]

<wishful thinking>

- To me, this seems obvious, so I sort of suspect that it won't really answer your question. Whatever, please let me know how it "sits with you."

How it sits is as many people have already pointed out to you. This thread has nothing to do with essential proof, evidence, or in fact anything related to the way things actually are.

It's all about your own desperate need to pretend that your beliefs are based in reality.

 

[Sideroxylon]

- That seems like a strange question to me, but others have asked the same one -- so I guess I should quit ignoring it. (I have to ignore most(?) questions/suggestions/objections/comments in general cause I just don't have time to answer any more than I am.)

- One point is that the reincarnation philosophies I'm familiar with assume that there really is no break in consciousness between physical lives. I haven't read much about such things recently, so could be that I'm missing, or forgetting, a lot...
- Otherwise, the observer returns (minus any memory), and I (one observer) don't need to worry about eternal oblivion -- which I would, if I didn't believe in some sort of recurring awareness. Then, that I wasn't aware inbetween would be basically like sleeping -- only, more restful.
- It's expecting the reoccurrence that allows me to quit worrying about oblivion.- To me, this seems obvious, so I sort of suspect that it won't really answer your question. Whatever, please let me know how it "sits with you."

Have a kid. They will at least carry some of your memories, unlike reincarnation. If there are souls and mine once gave animating force to (or whatever other redundant explanation such a notion offers) Napoleon, he is dead. He's still dead if I fluff about with a hypnotist and supposedly remember things.

 

[Jabba]

- I assume that I wouldn't really want the same life to go on forever, nor would I want to remember much about past lives.
- Whatever, I also assume that humans trying to understand this whole thing are like chickens trying to understand calculus. We can get only so far with our reasoning and imagination.

Do you see the irony in this last statement of yours?

- Here, I assume that you're referring to my ability "to understand this whole thing", and to me thinking that I do understand the whole thing.
- Fortunately, that wasn't my intention. I was trying to excuse myself for where I had to leave off. I can tell you where I seem forced to go by following my own imagination and reasoning, but going there sort of finds me out in the middle of nowhere, anyway -- with little, or no, idea of where to go next for explanation.
- Ultimately, it seems to me that the only thing that would really make sense is nothing. Once we have something, we seem faced with an unsolvable conundrum...
- Hope all that communicates a little...

 

[Agatha]

- That seems like a strange question to me, but others have asked the same one -- so I guess I should quit ignoring it. (I have to ignore most(?) questions/suggestions/objections/comments in general cause I just don't have time to answer any more than I am.)

- One point is that the reincarnation philosophies I'm familiar with assume that there really is no break in consciousness between physical lives. I haven't read much about such things recently, so could be that I'm missing, or forgetting, a lot...
- Otherwise, the observer returns (minus any memory), and I (one observer) don't need to worry about eternal oblivion -- which I would, if I didn't believe in some sort of recurring awareness. Then, that I wasn't aware inbetween would be basically like sleeping -- only, more restful.
- It's expecting the reoccurrence that allows me to quit worrying about oblivion.
- To me, this seems obvious, so I sort of suspect that it won't really answer your question. Whatever, please let me know how it "sits with you."

If you have no memories of your previous awareness, how does that differ from being an entirely new consciousness? Effectively, it's still oblivion for the consciousness/self/soul you are now.

Further, what you are wishing for has nothing to do with evidence.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- That seems like a strange question to me, but others have asked the same one -- so I guess I should quit ignoring it. (I have to ignore most(?) questions/suggestions/objections/comments in general cause I just don't have time to answer any more than I am.)

- One point is that the reincarnation philosophies I'm familiar with assume that there really is no break in consciousness between physical lives. I haven't read much about such things recently, so could be that I'm missing, or forgetting, a lot...
- Otherwise, the observer returns (minus any memory), and I (one observer) don't need to worry about eternal oblivion -- which I would, if I didn't believe in some sort of recurring awareness. Then, that I wasn't aware inbetween would be basically like sleeping -- only, more restful.
- It's expecting the reoccurrence that allows me to quit worrying about oblivion.
- To me, this seems obvious , so I sort of suspect that it won't really answer your question. Whatever, please let me know how it "sits with you."

Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

How it sits with me is that you are clearly describing what you have decided to believe, without evidence (or even consistency) because you so desperately want to believe it, without even the slightest scintilla of evidence.

Others have addressed, and no doubt will continue to address, the fatal flaw (actually, one of the fatal flaws) in your argument--that is, that if there is no continuity (not memory, not experience, not identity, not awareness; nothing, in fact to tie "self" one to "self" two) among your "selves", it beggars the concept of "self" to claim that those two unrelated consciousnesses are the "same self". How is it different from experiencing oblivion to think that the "next time" your"self" inhabits a body, it will not share any attributes at all with your "current self"?

Not to mention that that does not address the fact that consciousness acts as it is an emergent property of a specific neurosystem; and , when specific kinds of damage are done to specific components of the neurosystem, specific kinds of affects, even substantive alterations (up to, and including, extinction) to the neurosystem are demonstrated.

I do wish that you would deal with evidence, not opinion.

 

[Giordano]

- That seems like a strange question to me, but others have asked the same one -- so I guess I should quit ignoring it. (I have to ignore most(?) questions/suggestions/objections/comments in general cause I just don't have time to answer any more than I am.)

- One point is that the reincarnation philosophies I'm familiar with assume that there really is no break in consciousness between physical lives. I haven't read much about such things recently, so could be that I'm missing, or forgetting, a lot...
- Otherwise, the observer returns (minus any memory), and I (one observer) don't need to worry about eternal oblivion -- which I would, if I didn't believe in some sort of recurring awareness. Then, that I wasn't aware inbetween would be basically like sleeping -- only, more restful.
- It's expecting the reoccurrence that allows me to quit worrying about oblivion.
- To me, this seems obvious, so I sort of suspect that it won't really answer your question. Whatever, please let me know how it "sits with you."

1. If the question appears strange to you, or obvious in terms of its answer, but multiple people ask it, you should reconsider your way of thinking about it. Maybe you don't see the problem? Anyway, you should still answer it; perhaps other people aren't as clever as you.
2. I thought you stated multiple times in this thread (some very recently) that memories are lost as you reincarnate. I think you even said that was a good thing so you wouldn't worry about what you lost. If you forgot this essential point, then what is the point of debating you if you have no frirm position to debate? Are memories lost or not?
3. If you now take the position that there is no break in memories, do you remember any of your past lives? If not, doesn't this say that you never had any?
4. If you take the position that consciousness is retained without a break, but memories are lost, then the obvious question: what is consciousness without memories? How is this not oblivion for what makes you you?
5. Adults face that they will die and end; the fact that you could not when you were 14 is okay, but it is time to accept it. My pet cat dies, my rose bush dies, and even everyone I know will be gone in 150 years, but that doesn't mean I have to pretend otherwise, or I can't enjoy them now.

 

[Garrette]

- I assume that I wouldn't really want the same life to go on forever, nor would I want to remember much about past lives.
- Whatever, I also assume that humans trying to understand this whole thing are like chickens trying to understand calculus. We can get only so far with our reasoning and imagination.

Do you see the irony in this last statement of yours?

- Here, I assume that you're referring to my ability "to understand this whole thing", and to me thinking that I do understand the whole thing.
- Fortunately, that wasn't my intention. I was trying to excuse myself for where I had to leave off. I can tell you where I seem forced to go by following my own imagination and reasoning, but going there sort of finds me out in the middle of nowhere, anyway -- with little, or no, idea of where to go next for explanation.
- Ultimately, it seems to me that the only thing that would really make sense is nothing. Once we have something, we seem faced with an unsolvable conundrum...
- Hope all that communicates a little...

No. Frozenwolf was quite clear; he said "in this LAST statement of yours." Your last statement was what I highlighted. The irony, if I still need to spell it out, is that you admit that reasoning AND IMAGINATION can get us only so far, yet you are relying almost entirely on your imagination to carry your argument forward. It's failing.

 

[Giordano]

- Here, I assume that you're referring to my ability "to understand this whole thing", and to me thinking that I do understand the whole thing.
- Fortunately, that wasn't my intention. I was trying to excuse myself for where I had to leave off. I can tell you where I seem forced to go by following my own imagination and reasoning, but going there sort of finds me out in the middle of nowhere, anyway -- with little, or no, idea of where to go next for explanation.
- Ultimately, it seems to me that the only thing that would really make sense is nothing. Once we have something, we seem faced with an unsolvable conundrum...
- Hope all that communicates a little...

"... finds me out in the middle of nowhere--with little, or no, idea of where to go next for explanation. -Ultimately, it seems to me that the only thing that would really make sense is nothing..."

Exactly! At this point I should remind you that we did not seek you out to disprove reincarnation. Instead you came here claiming a mathematical proof. Perhaps if you are confused you should quit this thread and work this confusion out on your own in the absence all of our confusing questions and evidence? I recommend it.

 

[Giordano]

-I have to ignore most(?) questions/suggestions/objections/comments in general cause I just don't have time to answer any more than I am.)

- One point is that the reincarnation philosophies I'm familiar with assume that there really is no break in consciousness between physical lives.

1. Maybe you are not the right person to do this debate if you have no time to answer our questions?

2. The reincarnation philosophies I am familiar with suggest that a human may have previously been reincarnated as an insect or a mouse. The ultimate goal is Nirvana; an absence of reincarnation. Do you agree? Your posts appear to conclude that you will always be reincarnated as a human; is that true? Would nothingness be a goal ultimately.

 

[Jabba]

I'm not objecting to your right to believe what you wish. I'm objecting to your misuse of the word "quantum" to try to make your beliefs sound more credible.

- I don't really understand your objection here. I think that quantum physics supports the possibility of consciousness being something quite different than "normative" physics would have it . Some of the relationships they've discovered through quantum physics just don't make sense through normative physics, and in that sense seem "magical."

 

[carlitos]

deleted upon reflection

 

[Giordano]

- I don't really understand your objection here. I think that quantum physics supports the possibility of consciousness being something quite different than "normative" physics would have it . Some of the relationships they've discovered through quantum physics just don't make sense through normative physics, and in that sense seem "magical."

No, you are wrong. Quantum physics does not support the possibility of consciousness being something different than "normative" (do you mean Newtonian"?) physics would have it. As explained by others here, consciousness is not addressed by quantum physics at all; do you understand quantum physics or are you using it as a means of justifying all kinds of magic? There is no doubt that THE MATH BEHIND QUANTUM PHYSICS MAY DEMAND THINGS THAT DON"T MAKE SENSE AT THE SCALE WE ARE USED TO (quantum tunneling, for e.g.), but they are supported completely by the math and typically by experimental reality. They are not magical, and just the fact that an electron in an atom can occupy only certain quantum states looks "magical" to a person who thinks of atoms as sticks and ping-pong balls, this does not allow magic to explain all things.

Quantum physics suggests zebras running through grass can demonstrate wave-like behavior, it neither says that a zoo fence is not a good way to keep zebras penned in, or that you should look for unicorns there.