[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Jabba]

This was my college textbook and I found it very readable. On the 3rd edition now, last updated in 2000.

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/brain-mind-and-behavior-floyd-e-bloom/1101827539?ean=9780716723899

Dave,
- I'll see if I can get a copy from the State library. It's a time consuming process for me, so don't hold your breath.
- I assume that you no longer have a copy yourself (that you could quote from)?

 

[Pixel42]

Have you watched the Susan Blackmore video yet? It's only an hour, and it will tell you most of what you need to know.

 

[Jabba]

- A big part of why I asked for a source is that I don't really understand what "illusion" means in this context... I know that sounds strange, and I'll try to expound upon it -- but again, no one should hold their breath. I also know that you already know that.

 

[Garrette]

If he hasn't got time to read a whole paragraph on Wikipedia, then I highly doubt he's got time to watch a video.

Given his claim, should he not have time to spare?

 

[jond]

- A big part of why I asked for a source is that I don't really understand what "illusion" means in this context... I know that sounds strange, and I'll try to expound upon it -- but again, no one should hold their breath. I also know that you already know that.

Then watch the Susan Blackmore video, it answers your question directly.

 

[Mojo]

He could do "one potato, two potato.... n potato" to help him decide, where 'n' is an intrinsic infinity of potatoes

If there is an intrinsic infinity of potatoes, then this must be immortal as well.

 

[Agatha]

- A big part of why I asked for a source is that I don't really understand what "illusion" means in this context... I know that sounds strange, and I'll try to expound upon it -- but again, no one should hold their breath. I also know that you already know that.

Forgive me if I'm being dense, but was it not you that introduced the word 'illusion' in this exact context into the thread?

Well, you used the word here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9845813#post9845813

Then you mentioned it in a different context: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9883746#post9883746

Here you use the word in the context you claim not to understand: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9944197#post9944197

Jabba, I'm really not trying to be confrontational or rude, but why would you use a word/phrase/context that you later claim not to understand?

Google is a marvellous free resource (other search engines are available) which is literally* at your fingertips. There is no good reason to remain in a fog of misunderstanding or in ignorance of meaning.

*In the proper meaning of literally, not the newly coined usage meaning "not actually literally".

 

[pakeha]

- A big part of why I asked for a source is that I don't really understand what "illusion" means in this context... I know that sounds strange, and I'll try to expound upon it -- but again, no one should hold their breath. I also know that you already know that.

Wait, what?

Forgive me if I'm being dense, but was it not you that introduced the word 'illusion' in this exact context into the thread?

Well, you used the word here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9845813#post9845813

Then you mentioned it in a different context: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9883746#post9883746

Here you use the word in the context you claim not to understand: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9944197#post9944197

Jabba, I'm really not trying to be confrontational or rude, but why would you use a word/phrase/context that you later claim not to understand?

Google is a marvellous free resource (other search engines are available) which is literally* at your fingertips. There is no good reason to remain in a fog of misunderstanding or in ignorance of meaning.

*In the proper meaning of literally, not the newly coined usage meaning "not actually literally".

Thanks for taking the words out of my pre-coffee consciousness, or what passes for consciousness in a pre-coffee state.

 

[Mojo]

Thanks for taking the words out of my pre-coffee consciousness, or what passes for consciousness in a pre-coffee state.

That would be "consciousness".

 

[Garrette]

--snip--

*In the proper meaning of literally, not the newly coined usage meaning "not actually literally".

Ahem.

 

[Jabba]

Have you watched the Susan Blackmore video yet? It's only an hour, and it will tell you most of what you need to know.

Pixel,
- An hour, for me, is quite a long time. And looking quickly at the length of the video, I thought it said 1:54, rather than 1:01:54...

- Anyway, I did watch a little, but her topic was "living without free will" and I figured it would take awhile to get to the "illusion of self" part. Could you quote or paraphrase what she says about the illusion of self? Or maybe, just direct me to the part you're referring to?

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Pixel,
- An hour, for me, is quite a long time. And looking quickly at the length of the video, I thought it said 1:54, rather than 1:01:54...

- Anyway, I did watch a little, but her topic was "living without free will" and I figured it would take awhile to get to the "illusion of self" part. Could you quote or paraphrase what she says about the illusion of self? Or maybe, just direct me to the part you're referring to?

An hour is a long time for you, but you get offended when we lose patience with you not being able to present a jot of evidence to support your claim that you can prove immortality after four years!

The chances of this thread not being a game to annoy sceptics is one over infinity.

 

[Garrette]

Pixel,
- An hour, for me, is quite a long time.

And yet you think nothing of pointing people, including kind professors you have never met, to a long, confusingly written website with multiple pages and expecting them to sift through it all for whatever point you think you are making.

And looking quickly at the length of the video, I thought it said 1:54, rather than 1:01:54...

You continue to claim that you can prove what would be the most astounding thing in the history of history and that you have been able to do so for years, yet you cannot devote two hours to view a qualified expert's lecture in order to determine if there is a flaw in your thinking. You put little stock in the robustness of your argument, then.

- Anyway, I did watch a little, but her topic was "living without free will" and I figured it would take awhile to get to the "illusion of self" part. Could you quote or paraphrase what she says about the illusion of self? Or maybe, just direct me to the part you're referring to?

If you want the full picture to gain the glimmer of an understanding as opposed to a snippet you can deceptively dissect out of context, watch the whole thing.

Natheless, I shall get you started.

Start at 27:53

At 30:40, her comment that begins "It is after the fact..." is as close as you will get to a summary statement.

Watch from 31:09 to 38:35 for her explanation of Benjamin Libet's experiments.

In and around all of the above is a discussion of the observer -- your "core self" -- and how it is an illusion. Free will and it are tied up.

 

[Loss Leader]

Pixel,
- An hour, for me, is quite a long time.

Do you have any idea how long it takes to read through your entire website? Why would you expect anyone to devote more time to learning your argument than you're willing to spend yourself? Why would you expect your argument to be taken seriously if you are not willing to take seriously all of the research that has come before?

Shall I match into the paleontology department, announce that I've no time to study dinosaurs, and then insist the professors listen to my three hour lecture on why I think trans-fats killed Triceratops?

Please be less rude.

 

[Akhenaten]

Pixel,
- An hour, for me, is quite a long time. And looking quickly at the length of the video, I thought it said 1:54, rather than 1:01:54...

- Anyway, I did watch a little, but her topic was "living without free will" and I figured it would take awhile to get to the "illusion of self" part. Could you quote or paraphrase what she says about the illusion of self? Or maybe, just direct me to the part you're referring to?

How dare you?

What a pathetic joke you have prpetrated here.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

- An hour, for me, is quite a long time.

Considering that you constantly use your old age as an excuse, and that you say that you've had this pet theory since you were 17, I'd imagine that 1 hour is a mere drop in the ocean, when all is taken into consideration.

Or, indeed, a mere drop in the ocean compared to the more-than-a-year this thread has been treading water for.

 

[Pixel42]

Pixel,
- An hour, for me, is quite a long time. And looking quickly at the length of the video, I thought it said 1:54, rather than 1:01:54...

- Anyway, I did watch a little, but her topic was "living without free will" and I figured it would take awhile to get to the "illusion of self" part. Could you quote or paraphrase what she says about the illusion of self? Or maybe, just direct me to the part you're referring to?

An hour is absolutely nothing when it's an hour that succinctly summarises the complex answer to a question you specifically asked, especially when that answer is knowledge which is essential to your continued participation in a discussion you started which has already lasted for years.

Watch the video. All of it. Before you make another post. Or admit that you have nothing further to contribute to this thread, accept defeat, and go away.

 

[jond]

Pharaoh: is it possible to photoshop Jabba the Hut on water skis, jumping over a shark?

 

[Akhenaten]

Pixel,
- An hour, for me, is quite a long time. And looking quickly at the length of the video, I thought it said 1:54, rather than 1:01:54...

- Anyway, I did watch a little, but her topic was "living without free will" and I figured it would take awhile to get to the "illusion of self" part. Could you quote or paraphrase what she says about the illusion of self? Or maybe, just direct me to the part you're referring to?

How dare you?

What a pathetic joke you have perpetrated here.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Pixel,
- An hour, for me, is quite a long time. And looking quickly at the length of the video, I thought it said 1:54, rather than 1:01:54...

- Anyway, I did watch a little, but her topic was "living without free will" and I figured it would take awhile to get to the "illusion of self" part. Could you quote or paraphrase what she says about the illusion of self? Or maybe, just direct me to the part you're referring to?

Critical thinking requires the expenditure of time and effort. For many of the people you are debating here, the motivation to pursue the truth comes from their being curious "souls." Such people read, watch dry documentaries and attend lectures out of the pleasure of finding things out. They are simply not satisfied with constructing narratives about themselves and the cosmos built upon their own ignorant intuitions when they have access to humanity's best hard won knowledge.