Reincarnation data & modelling

[T'ai Chi]

I was thinking about how to assess claims of reincarnation that we often read about. A bonus is that examining claims of reincarnation could also be used to examine claims of Near Death Experiences, stages of reincarnation (hell, purgatory, etc.), if certain people get priority, and if there is one god or many gods.

The timeline of a person claiming to be reincarnated once is like:

past person birth date
(time elapses, past person's age)
past person death date
(time elapses, time between being 'born again')
present person birth date
(time elapses, present person's age)
present person death date

I think models, using queing theory (the branch of probability theory that looks at various aspects of waiting in lines), might be able to be constructed to model claims of reincarnation.

Out of the analysis, one could get things like:
-the average number of people in the system
-the average number of people waiting in the queue
-the average amount of time a person spends in the system
-the average amount of time a person spends waiting in the queue

Some possible models are:

M/M/1
-arrival distribution exponential
-service distribution exponential
-single server

M/M/1 having finite capacity
-arrival distribution exponential
-service distribution exponential
-single server
-Note: same as previous model, except there is a limit on the number of people in the system at the same time- there can be no more than N people in the system at any time. So if someone 'dies' and there are already N people in the system, then that person does not enter the system. Maybe they go back to living, and this could help examine claims of Near Death Experiences.

M/M/1 with bulk service
-arrival distribution exponential
-service distribution exponential
-single server
-Note: server is able to serve two people at the same time

M/M/1 x2: an open system
-arrival distribution exponential
-service distribution exponential
-single server
-Note: person exits one M/M/1 system to enter another M/M/1 system. This might help examing claims of moving through different stages; purgatory, hell, etc.

M/G/1
-arrival distribution exponential
-service distribution is general
-single server

M/G/1 with random-sized batch arrivals
-arrival distribution exponential
-service distribution is general
-single server
-arrival consists not of a single person but of a random number of persons

M/G/1 with priority queues
-arrival distribution exponential
-service distribution is general
-single server
-persons are classified into types and given service priority according to type
-Note: priority could be used to examine claims of priority given to those who do good works, or to those who are religious

G/M/1
-arrival distribution general
-service distribution is exponential
-single server

M/M/k
-arrival distribution exponential
-service distribution is exponential
-k servers
-Note: perhaps the single server models can examine claims of a single god and the multi-server models can examine claims of many gods

G/M/k
-arrival distribution general
-service distribution is exponential
-k servers

M/G/k
-arrival distribution exponential
-service distribution is general
-k servers

Could be fun. :)

Is there any database of persons claiming reincarnation?

[CFLarsen]

Given that all reincarnation tales are post-hoc anecdotes, where the re-born and the family have had plenty of time to make up anything they want, what is the purpose of collecting these fairytales?

It sure isn't for "fun": When you dress up such fantasies in statistical lingo, you are assigning credibility to something that has no credibility at all.

[Kopji]

I'm not a statistician, but what do you do when two living people claim to have been the same person in the past?

Your database would seem to need to keep track of that for anything to be meaningful.

And then you would eventually need a methodology to determine who was the real reincarnation of Napoleon, Cleopatra, etc.

Without that, isn't it just nonsense?

[Cuddles]

What's the point of models without any data to fit to them? Until you come up with a meaingful way of determining that someone really has been reincarnated and isn't just making things up, the entire thing is just a complete waste of time.

In fact, I'll rephrase that. The entire thing is just a complete waste of time.

[Mojo]

I'm not a statistician, but what do you do when two living people claim to have been the same person in the past? Put them both in the same series of Big Brother and wait for the fun to start! :D

[Mashuna]

Put them in the same series of Big Brother and wait for the fun to start! :D

I'm a reincarnated Napoleon, get me out of here?

[T'ai Chi]

..what do you do when two living people claim to have been the same person in the past?


That doesn't seem to be too big of a problem. It might even be able to be used as an argument against reincarnation if enough people claim to be the same person.


And then you would eventually need a methodology to determine who was the real reincarnation of Napoleon, Cleopatra, etc.


Well obviously! If this could be done there would obviously be no need to do anything in the first place.

[CFLarsen]

Well obviously! If this could be done there would obviously be no need to do anything in the first place.

But you will have to determine this, before you start collecting the data. Otherwise, how will you know that you aren't counting the same incarnation more than once?

Another nail in the coffin.

[Minarvia]

Damn, you all are good! I ran thru the OP's list and just sat here scratching my head saying, "huh?"

[CFLarsen]

Damn, you all are good! I ran thru the OP's list and just sat here scratching my head saying, "huh?"

It takes a little practice to recognize such superstitious claptrap.

You'll get the hang of it. :)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I'm the reincarnation of myself. Make sure the analysis can handle that.

~~Paul

[logical muse]

And I'm the reincarnation of an alien. From the future.

[Loss Leader]

I suppose if there are people out there drawing up complex design schematics for ships that were featured on one episode of Voyager from the second season, this is as good a use of your time as any.

Since homo sapiens did not have a start date but instead eveloved from other hominids, how do you model the population? How far back do you go? Is there a single date in pre-history where we know the population of the planet with any accuracy? And what do you do about the fact that population has not steadily increased but sometimes decreased and decreased drastically. For example, between 1347 and 1357, one out of every three Europeans died.

[Kopji]

That doesn't seem to be too big of a problem. It might even be able to be used as an argument against reincarnation if enough people claim to be the same person.

...Well obviously! If this could be done there would obviously be no need to do anything in the first place.

A lot of people seem to claim to be reincarnations of famous people. I'm not sure this kind of data disproves anything about reincarnation, just that we need better data than personal stories if it is to be meaningful.

Also, the raw data could support other conclusions, perhaps something like genetic memory or unusual dream states. Maybe plausible, maybe not - but we can't really make conclusions about our data yet. Reincarnation is a conclusion.

[Loss Leader]

Also, the raw data could support other conclusions, perhaps something like genetic memory or unusual dream states. Maybe plausible, maybe not - but we can't really make conclusions about our data yet. Reincarnation is a conclusion.

Or the already well-known psychological tendencies people have of overestimating their own importance and wanting to have power over their own lives as well as the brain's ability to create memories to justify current beliefs.

[T'ai Chi]

I suppose if there are people out there drawing up complex design schematics for ships that were featured on one episode of Voyager from the second season, this is as good a use of your time as any.


I'm not sure why my use of my free time should be any of your concern.

[T'ai Chi]

And I'm the reincarnation of an alien. From the future.

And if you report that in a real print venue with your real name and testify to its seriousness I'd be glad to include your details in the database of people claiming such things.

[CFLarsen]

And if you report that in a real print venue with your real name and testify to its seriousness I'd be glad to include your details in the database of people claiming such things.

How many cases do you have in your database so far?

[SirPhilip]

When Claus rationalizes emotional bias with statistics and probability, Tai Ch'i rationalizes statistics and probability with emotional bias. Thus the wheel is turned.

[digithead]

Who's to say that a person can't be reincarnated into multiple beings at the same time? Ergo, multiple people claiming to be the same person in reincarnated form might be telling the truth. So I would think the first step is to prove that reincarnation exists before one goes applying Poisson processes to model it...

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Who's to say that a person can't be reincarnated into multiple beings at the same time?
Well now, that's a whole different kettle of frogs.

~~ Paul

[T'ai Chi]

Who's to say that a person can't be reincarnated into multiple beings at the same time? Ergo, multiple people claiming to be the same person in reincarnated form might be telling the truth. So I would think the first step is to prove that reincarnation exists before one goes applying Poisson processes to model it...

I understand it to be some type of disease to want to get super hyper complicated when investigating wierd claims, but let's stick with the simple question in the OP:

"Is there any database of persons claiming reincarnation?"

[CFLarsen]

When Claus rationalizes emotional bias with statistics and probability

How so?

[digithead]

I understand it to be some type of disease to want to get super hyper complicated when investigating wierd claims, but let's stick with the simple question in the OP:

"Is there any database of persons claiming reincarnation?"

You're the one who wants to model reincarnation with Poisson processes (e.g, M/M/1, etc in your first post). All I asked is that shouldn't one prove that reincarnation exists before one uses complex mathematics to model it?

So who is being super hyper complicated?

[T'ai Chi]

You're the one who wants to model reincarnation
...
So who is being super hyper complicated?

I don't "want" to model it. I simply proposed a possible way of looking at a claim. In fact, if you read closer, I said "think", "might", "could", "fun".

I am, however, definitely inquiring about a database of claimed reincarnation, something whose existance is irrelevant to asking if reincarnation is really true or not.

[personable]

I read somewhere that Napoleon Bonaparte's building one as we speak, though I'm not sure which Napoleon Bonaparte that would be, sorry.

I hope you have fun building a database full of these unverifiable claims, though I'm not sure what the result of your efforts would be, you see as the old maxim of computery things states "rubbish in, rubbish out".

[Last of the Fraggles]

I think the previous poster was suggesting that your analysis will be based on assumptions - e.g. re-incarnation is one in one out - that may or may not be true. Unless you can find something that defines what re0incarnation is and how it works (i.e. what is the process) then modelling the process is impossible.

So there is no need for data, which is lucky since it doesn't exist.

[Loss Leader]

"Is there any database of persons claiming reincarnation?"


I have, in fact, just completed exactly such a database. It contains each and every independently verified instance of reincarnation ever recorded from 1961 to the present day. Not only that, but I am making the entire database available to the public at no charge. I have encoded it in binary and am uploading it in its entirety to the JREF along with this post. The database follows:

0

I hope this helps in your research.

[Taarkin]

What about people who claim to be reincarnated fictional character?
http://www.demon-sushi.com/warning/index2.html

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm with Digithead, Cuddles and others--you can't do science on reincarnation when there's no reason to think reincarnation even exists.

I'll go one further, I don't think a definition of reincarnation exists. What exactly is it that is constant from one life to the next? (Not language, hair color, finger print, culture, gender, etc. No one has offered any explanation for how memory can transcend the brain.)

So not only is there no evidence for reincarnation, there's also no sensible theory of reincarnation in itself. If there is, I'd love to hear it.

[JoeTheJuggler]

What about people who claim to be reincarnated fictional character?


Oh that's easy--you just have to invoke the concept of L-space and the effects of Narrativium.

:)

[digithead]

I don't "want" to model it. I simply proposed a possible way of looking at a claim. In fact, if you read closer, I said "think", "might", "could", "fun".

Snip

I think models, using queing theory (the branch of probability theory that looks at various aspects of waiting in lines), might be able to be constructed to model claims of reincarnation.

snip

So you're relying on conditional statements (e.g. might be able) so that you can't be pinned down if someone points out logical inconsistencies. Ok, I think you might never provide a direct answer to anything, but it could be fun if you did...

I am, however, definitely inquiring about a database of claimed reincarnation, something whose existance is irrelevant to asking if reincarnation is really true or not.

And what exactly would a database of claimed reincarnation tell you? What happens if you find patterns, statistical significance, etc.? Since it presupposes that reincarnation exists, you're still back at square one: is there proof of reincarnation? Since your database can't answer that, you've only proven that your database has patterns and structure in reincarnation claims, not that reincarnation exists...

[Rodney]

I don't "want" to model it. I simply proposed a possible way of looking at a claim. In fact, if you read closer, I said "think", "might", "could", "fun".

I am, however, definitely inquiring about a database of claimed reincarnation, something whose existance is irrelevant to asking if reincarnation is really true or not.
Edgar Cayce's readings include a number of cases in which he specified the exact or approximate date a person supposedly died and then was reborn.

[Loss Leader]

Edgar Cayce's readings include a number of cases in which he specified the exact or approximate date a person supposedly died and then was reborn.

Oh lord, here we go.

[SirPhilip]

How so? (I didn't mean in this thread...)

[SirPhilip]

Edgar Cayce's readings include a number of cases in which he specified the exact or approximate date a person supposedly died and then was reborn. Oh, I bet.

[SirPhilip]

While I myself subscribe to the idea of metempsychosis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metempsychosis), including the idea some strong traits are retained, it is only a responsible philosophical position, and certainly not a comforting one. I don't, conceptually, see how it is possible to "track" someone's history and destiny (as Buddhists, especially the Tibetan flavored kind, believe), any more than it is possible to track a drop of water after falling into the ocean; it being something the almighty knows only. There is also the question of what a "soul" would be conceptually. Everyone that occupies a human form shares twelve basic interdependent factors with everyone else, the interaction of which constitutes a superficial identity. Even if you turned these interdependent factors into independent factors (through self-discipline), you would still, like two identical cars driven down different roads then immaculately restored, retain a seperate identity (until, being completely self-absorbed and lacking any reason to live anymore, you willfully chose to annihilate yourself forever (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03028b.htm)). Also, reincarnation and transmigration by themselves, aren't a remotely balanced way of looking at things. If it only existed - with the only refuge being self-annihilation, handing you a mint and compounding trillions (actually indeterminately infinite) of years of uncertainty and suffering, would be a sadistic, capital crime. So consider this form of madness next time you view one metaphysical idea singularly saner than another.

[CFLarsen]

(I didn't mean in this thread...)

That's OK. How so, in other threads?

[SirPhilip]

That's OK. How so, in other threads? I don't want to steer this thread off course; and you know one particular thread. :rolleyes:

[CFLarsen]

I don't want to steer this thread off course;

Surely, you don't fire off such a comment and expect that it isn't questioned?

and you know one particular thread. :rolleyes:

No, that's why I asked.

[Zep]

Edgar Cayce's readings include a number of cases in which he specified the exact or approximate date a person supposedly died and then was reborn.But then, so does any local newspaper's Births, Deaths and Marriages column. So what's to say dear Edgar wasn't just quoting the Daily Woofle's freely available library copies for wherever he lived?

[Kaarjuus]

There is also the question of what a "soul" would be conceptually. Everyone that occupies a human form shares twelve basic interdependent factors with everyone else, the interaction of which constitutes a superficial identity.

Huh? :confused:

[SirPhilip]

Huh? :confused: They refer to the three motivating factors in humans: body, will, and mind. Each having four primary functions. Surely you can figure them out?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

There is also the question of what a "soul" would be conceptually.
Conceptually? The heck with conceptually. I want to know what this supposed soul actually is.

~~ Paul

[Kaarjuus]

They refer to the three motivating factors in humans: body, will, and mind. Each having four primary functions. Surely you can figure them out?

Maybe you can just give a link to somewhere.

And what about the other motivating factors?

[Mercutio]

They refer to the three motivating factors in humans: body, will, and mind. Each having four primary functions. Surely you can figure them out?
Got a source for your first sentence? See, I teach psychology, and it would be nice to know these things.






"Will" and "mind" are both circularly inferred from behavior, unless you are the first to have evidence to the contrary. The "four primary functions" could be anything a theorist wanted to make up, given that she or he is starting with a blank slate.

[T'ai Chi]

I'm with Digithead, Cuddles and others--


Is a forum popularity contest supposed to influence me somehow?


you can't do science on reincarnation when there's no reason to think reincarnation even exists.


People making the claim is reason enough. -Not to think it really exists, of course, but reason for investigation.

[Rodney]

But then, so does any local newspaper's Births, Deaths and Marriages column. So what's to say dear Edgar wasn't just quoting the Daily Woofle's freely available library copies for wherever he lived?

You must read different newspaper than I do. I've never read one that lists a newborn's or decedent's alleged previous lives ;) However, as far as Cayce relying on the local newspaper for information about alleged previous lives, that makes sense only if the previous lifetime(s) were in the local area.

[CFLarsen]

Is a forum popularity contest supposed to influence me somehow?

It seems to be the only thing that does influence you.

After all, you are impervious to reason, facts, and evidence.

On the other hand, you are the first to point to just how many people (especially if they are even remotely connected with science) share your views.

So, yes, it should influence you. If you are consistent, that is.

[Moochie]

When I unplug my computer, it loses its "mind." I figure something similar happens with humans. There is certainly no evidence to support the notion of reincarnation. Recycling? Yeah, obviously. Growing up in the country, I saw the plain evidence of that all the time.

M.

[Loss Leader]

They refer to the three motivating factors in humans: body, will, and mind. Each having four primary functions. Surely you can figure them out?

What in the world are you talking about? Who are "they"? How are "will" and "mind" different? What are the four primary functions?

Please explain yourself or give some sort of link to somebody who can.

[kittykatkarma]

"Is there any database of persons claiming reincarnation?"

According to the author of The Skeptic Tank (http://www.skepticfiles.org/skeptic/neardeth.htm) Professor Ian Stevenson, formerly Head of the Psychiatry Dept. at the University of Virginia, spent over 30 years seriously investigating children between the ages of 2 and 4 years old who claimed to remember previous lives.

Apparently there is a PsycLIT database that he searched against, however all that I find are libraries offered through various different colleges, which I did not take the time to investigate. Or, you could always search on The American Psychological Association website (http://www.apa.org/).

As for me, I am a kitty cat reincarnate. Which explains my affinity for napping in sunny spots, the absolute pleasure I get from a full body stretch, and those occasional tickly coughs most likely from the memory of a fur ball.
;)

[Mike D.]

I am, however, definitely inquiring about a database of claimed reincarnation, something whose existance is irrelevant to asking if reincarnation is really true or not.

T'ai Chi,

If you develop a database of claimed cases of reincarnation, it should include those in the works of Ian Stevenson.

Mike

[Mike D.]

Sorry, I posted the info about Stevenson before I'd read Kittykatkarma's post.

[T'ai Chi]

THanks, I'll check it out

[SirPhilip]

Surely, you don't fire off such a comment and expect that it isn't questioned? But it was referring to you questioning, and making conclusions, about people who fire things off. :p

[SirPhilip]

Conceptually? The heck with conceptually. I want to know what this supposed soul actually is. I'd say the best definition would be like a platonic solid. It's form having no intrinsic meaning, rather the configuration it assumes.

[Jekyll]

I'd say the best definition would be like a platonic solid. It's form having no intrinsic meaning, rather the configuration it assumes.

So it's a theoretical construct that need not have any correspondence with reality, in much the same way that a triangle as a planar solid can not be said to exist?

Can you at least describe this form? Platonic solids are notorious for being well defined.

[Loss Leader]

Everyone that occupies a human form shares twelve basic interdependent factors with everyone else, the interaction of which constitutes a superficial identity.

Are you ever going to explain what in the honking heck you're talking about?

[SirPhilip]

What in the world are you talking about? Who are "they"? How are "will" and "mind" different? Technically, they aren't, but they are subjectively different. Will is ambiguous as the id, and what you actually make decisions from (assuming deeply held sentiments are the precursor to thoughts and actions). Mind is really a balance of thought and emotion and the gate of the five senses.

What are the four primary functions? Please explain yourself or give some sort of link to somebody who can. It's just a way I came up with to reduce a complex thing in freudian terms. I imagine it would make more sense as an illustration. It was mostly borne out of a need to cold read people in nightclubs here. I'm still in the process of making it concise in scope. But there appear to be twelve common interdependent factors, although I'm not sure what the common definition of each should be, due to constant interaction. :)

[SirPhilip]

Are you ever going to explain what in the honking heck you're talking about? Maybe.

[SirPhilip]

So it's a theoretical construct that need not have any correspondence with reality. Since nature is comprised of form, and form with function, I'd say the idea works well. In the sense of platonic solids, you have perfect order.

..in much the same way that a triangle as a planar solid can not be said to exist? Can you at least describe this form? Platonic solids are notorious for being well defined. Does the whole have intrinsic meaning, or do the parts? Sort of like if you go through an auto-parts catalog and try to find a car. Someone might say the engine is really the car, but the engine is dependent on other subsystems and connections. When they work, we can call it a car. When they break down, we can still call it a car. When removed, we can no longer call it a car, just a body. In the same way as you could have a blueprint for a car, you could have a genetic blueprint of a rabbit. But unless you seriously modified the genetic code and threw whatever natural balance existed, the rabbit would still retain a degree of autonomy and independence. You could also enhance the rabbit, but like a supercar, it would still be just that, a car.

[Cuddles]

Does the whole have intrinsic meaning, or do the parts?

Both. A car is made of parts, yes, as is a human. I can point to every part of a car and say what it is, how it works, where it is connected to everything else and so on (or at least I could if I knew anything about cars). I can also do the same to a human (probably not legally). At no point is there a soul in either one. The analogy with a car is a very good one, since it is completely contradictory to your claim that we have a soul.

Also, define meaning.

[Jekyll]

Since nature is comprised of form, and form with function, I'd say the idea works well. In the sense of platonic solids, you have perfect order.
But nature isn't composed of platonic solids, there is no object that is a perfect triangle, cone or sphere, just some close approximations.

Does the whole have intrinsic meaning, or do the parts? Sort of like if you go through an auto-parts catalog and try to find a car. Someone might say the engine is really the car, but the engine is dependent on other subsystems and connections. When they work, we can call it a car. When they break down, we can still call it a car. When removed, we can no longer call it a car, just a body. In the same way as you could have a blueprint for a car, you could have a genetic blueprint of a rabbit. But unless you seriously modified the genetic code and threw whatever natural balance existed, the rabbit would still retain a degree of autonomy and independence. You could also enhance the rabbit, but like a supercar, it would still be just that, a car.
I can't tell exactly what you're talking about but I think you are confusing platonic solids (primitive shapes that are well defined by geometry) with platonic forms which are some kind of idealised essence of a class of objects. Either way the criticism still stands, there is no reason to think that platonic forms physically exist and your concept of 'soul' is nothing more than the tautological description "that which makes a human human".

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Too late! I've already found a very accurate model for reincarnation, and I've found someone to help you modify the model:
http://www.wildlife-pictures-online.com/image-files/dung-beetle_8470_blog.jpg

Hope this helps.

LLH

[SirPhilip]

But nature isn't composed of platonic solids, there is no object that is a perfect triangle, cone or sphere, just some close approximations. Right. You have an condition of absolute disorder as well as an ideal order.


I can't tell exactly what you're talking about but I think you are confusing platonic solids (primitive shapes that are well defined by geometry) with platonic forms which are some kind of idealised essence of a class of objects. Either way the criticism still stands, there is no reason to think that platonic forms physically exist and your concept of 'soul' is nothing more than the tautological description "that which makes a human human". Oh, I was simply using platonic solids as an analogy. My point was that body and 'soul' could only define each other, although both are distinct. People generally look at others as ghosts controlling a machine, with varying degrees of competency. ;)

[SirPhilip]

Both. A car is made of parts, yes, as is a human. I can point to every part of a car and say what it is, how it works, where it is connected to everything else and so on (or at least I could if I knew anything about cars). I can also do the same to a human (probably not legally). At no point is there a soul in either one. The analogy with a car is a very good one, since it is completely contradictory to your claim that we have a soul. Also, define meaning. Snuggles, you soulless misquoting naughty little nosy wosy pucker poo. What I ever so did point out was that 'soul' is interchangable with whole. In the case of living things anyway. I used the analogy of a platonic solid because it illustrates part, whole, and a third quality: meaningful order. Since meaning is self-defining. Bam! Soul.

[Jekyll]

Right. You have an condition of absolute disorder as well as an ideal order.

I'm not sure about this, if the real world was absolutely disordered there wouldn't be any correlation with platonic stuff and it wouldn't be very useful. I only see the 'ideal order' of the platonic world as an easy approximation that sweeps a lot of the unwanted details of the real world out the way.
Oh, I was simply using platonic solids as an analogy. My point was that body and 'soul' could only define each other, although both are distinct. People generally look at others as ghosts controlling a machine, with varying degrees of competency. ;)
I disagree with this. It's possible to define the body in purely materialistic terms just using 'what you see is what you get'. Your body is 'just' the lump of meat sitting in front of the computer. In this framework the soul being what ever makes us human is just the intrinsic properties of the meat and not an independent entity needed to define the body. Looking at it in this way, the ghost in the machine is just the machine itself, however competent or incompetent it might be.

Looking at the world, I don't see anything to make me think that the soul is anything but a sometimes useful abstraction. Occasionally it is a useful device for considering peoples behaviour, but quite frequently(just look at Terri Schiavo) it's just a line drawn in the wrong place making it hard to see what is going on.

[Cuddles]

Snuggles, you soulless misquoting naughty little nosy wosy pucker poo.

What the hell are you talking about? Misquoting? Are you trying to claim I quoted something that wasn't exactly what you wrote as the first sentence of your post? I suggest you withdraw that accusation.

What I ever so did point out was that 'soul' is interchangable with whole. In the case of living things anyway. I used the analogy of a platonic solid because it illustrates part, whole, and a third quality: meaningful order. Since meaning is self-defining. Bam! Soul.

You pointed nothing out and still have not. What you have said is that something is made out of its parts. That is all. You then say that the whole has meaning, and therefore souls exist. Without defining what you mean by this your whole argument is simply gibberish. If you define meaning, I will then prove you wrong, but that is irrelevant until you come up with something coherent.

Edit : Jekyll sums it up in the above post.

[SirPhilip]

What the hell are you talking about? Misquoting? Are you trying to claim I quoted something that wasn't exactly what you wrote as the first sentence of your post? I suggest you withdraw that accusation. Whacha' gonna do, snuggles, if I don't.

You pointed nothing out and still have not. What you have said is that something is made out of its parts. That is all. I also said that, in the case of living things, we have a condition of a whole, which relates to function, which relates to idealism, which relates to purpose, which relates to more ambiguous things. When people refer to a "soul", they are talking about an ambiguous personal quality distinct, yet supported by the body. Humans don't aspire to be platonic, ideal forms with a fixed purpose (ok, fine, I'm lying (http://www.gceleb.com/pictures-2/paris_hilton/paris-hilton-7.jpg)).

You then say that the whole has meaning, and therefore souls exist. Soul, being a (bad) placeword for what we call purpose, which stands apart from the body, which is form. Function arises out of form, which is formless.
:bunpan

Without defining what you mean by this your whole argument is simply gibberish. If you define meaning, I will then prove you wrong, but that is irrelevant until you come up with something coherent."Soul" is an ambiguity, so no, there wasn't an argument on my part. Just semantics. Meaning is a human interpretation of order. As meaning is not fundamentally defined, it is more of a consensus. Especially when you consider (meaningful) idealism.

[SirPhilip]

I disagree with this. It's possible to define the body in purely materialistic terms just using 'what you see is what you get'. Your body is 'just' the lump of meat sitting in front of the computer. Living tissue is simply a form of matter which carries a self-ordering variable. It's the configuration it takes which establishes the degree of meaningful order. Hence the platonic analogy. There are other living things which have five senses, and even others which are hominids. So no, you can't define soul in unambiguous terms. You can however, identify it as a condition of meaningful order. I may be completely out of context here, because "soul" generally only relates to ethical constitution. Sentience then.

In this framework the soul being what ever makes us human is just the intrinsic properties of the meat and not an independent entity needed to define the body. Looking at it in this way, the ghost in the machine is just the machine itself, however competent or incompetent it might be. Machine assumes only logic processing. Living things aren't simple switching systems any more than they are platonic solids. Even intelligent machines would require enviornmental cues to think, and this could not be identified as a form of introspection, which occupies the same ambiguous context the 'soul' does. Yet without it, there would be no reason or impetus to self-develop.

Looking at the world, I don't see anything to make me think that the soul is anything but a sometimes useful abstraction. Occasionally it is a useful device for considering peoples behaviour, but quite frequently(just look at Terri Schiavo) it's just a line drawn in the wrong place making it hard to see what is going on. It's an abstraction, but a practical one, as it exists as a seperator from the function of parts, and the function of purpose.

[Jekyll]

Living tissue is simply a form of matter which carries a self-ordering variable. It's the configuration it takes which establishes the degree of meaningful order. Hence the platonic analogy. There are other living things which have five senses, and even others which are hominids. So no, you can't define soul in unambiguous terms. You can however, identify it as a condition of meaningful order. I may be completely out of context here, because "soul" generally only relates to ethical constitution. Sentience then.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'meaningful order' but that aside you seem to be agreeing with me that the soul sentience is just what the body does by nature of its meaningful order.
Machine assumes only logic processing. Living things aren't simple switching systems any more than they are platonic solids.
I would say they are complex switching devices, do you have reason to say they are something more?

Even intelligent machines would require enviornmental cues to think, and this could not be identified as a form of introspection, which occupies the same ambiguous context the 'soul' does. Yet without it, there would be no reason or impetus to self-develop.
This isn't true. Putting things in an evolutionary context not being eaten and finding something to eat are excellent reasons for self-development. We can go further than this and say that these are excellent reasons to develop introspection. When hunting an elephant is not a good time to be making mistakes.Second guessing yourself and double checking your estimates before the hunt is an excellent thing to do.
It doesn't seem too hard to imagine the development of an introspective thinking machine in some manor along these lines.

It's an abstraction, but a practical one, as it exists as a seperator from the function of parts, and the function of purpose.
Do you agree that it's just an abstraction or do you think it is an abstraction and something more?

The way I see it, is if it's just an abstraction it may be the wrong abstraction for some problems and guide you in the wrong direction.It's only if it points to something more than that, that you can say you'll always need to take it into consideration.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I also said that, in the case of living things, we have a condition of a whole, which relates to function, which relates to idealism, which relates to purpose, which relates to more ambiguous things. When people refer to a "soul", they are talking about an ambiguous personal quality distinct, yet supported by the body.
Posting gibberish does not serve to clarify preceding gibberish.

~~ Paul

[Foster Zygote]

...and if there is one god or many gods.

Anyone else notice that? T'ai appears to be ignoring the 'no gods' possibility.

[CFLarsen]

Anyone else notice that? T'ai appears to be ignoring the 'no gods' possibility.

It isn't a slip, that's for sure.

[SirPhilip]

I would say they are complex switching devices, do you have reason to say they are something more? In the case of animals, not really. In the case of humans, the ability to control base instincts gives rise to varying degrees of free will. We can also willfully increase or hamper this. Sometimes even circumstances occur which cause it, as in the case of Stephen Hawking.

This isn't true. Putting things in an evolutionary context not being eaten and finding something to eat are excellent reasons for self-development. That is mechanical though; animals are almost entirely, with few exceptions, driven by instinct. In fact, instinct is what opposes what one could consider free will. Humans, by contrast, have a degree of control that animals don't. It could be argued that intelligent introspection is simply a result of evolved social behavior, but this breaks down when intelligent life evolves to the point where the enviornment no longer is a survival hazard.

Do you agree that it's just an abstraction or do you think it is an abstraction and something more? Both. It's a practical abstraction. Although I'm not going to attempt to argue whether we have a soul distinct from the body; just that, for whatever reason, we evolved this dualism as a part of ego development. Viewing yourself entirely as a mindless machine is oxymoronic; even though a wide range of common behaviors are deterministic, it is this ambiguous quality interacting with our instincts.

The way I see it, is if it's just an abstraction it may be the wrong abstraction for some problems and guide you in the wrong direction. It's only if it points to something more than that, that you can say you'll always need to take it into consideration. Well, if you walked around all day thinking life was a pinball game and you were one of many pinballs, that wouldn't be correct either. So which absurdity is it: being a strangely self-aware pinball, or a self-suspicious soul.

[SirPhilip]

Posting gibberish does not serve to clarify preceding gibberish. ~~ Paul We'll see about that.

[Tanstaafl]

In my past life I was a mold spore in 121,000 BC.

All I remember is the dinosaur foot coming down...

Does that help?

[Jekyll]

In the case of animals, not really. In the case of humans, the ability to control base instincts gives rise to varying degrees of free will. We can also willfully increase or hamper this. Sometimes even circumstances occur which cause it, as in the case of Stephen Hawking.
I don't see that there is anything more to free will than an ability to make mistakes and second guessing yourself. Perhaps you could provide an counter-example?

That is mechanical though; animals are almost entirely, with few exceptions, driven by instinct. In fact, instinct is what opposes what one could consider free will. Humans, by contrast, have a degree of control that animals don't. It could be argued that intelligent introspection is simply a result of evolved social behavior, but this breaks down when intelligent life evolves to the point where the enviornment no longer is a survival hazard.

OK there's a couple of false assumptions here: Firstly we don't need to show that stuff is useful now, just a gradual path of increasing usefulness to explain how it arrived, otherwise we wouldn't have appendixes.
Secondly, intelligence and introspection are now far more important skills than they have ever been. Sure a *insert-politically-correct-word-here* might be able to survive due to societies good graces but it will severely restrict their choice in mate and their ability to provide for their children.

Both. It's a practical abstraction. Although I'm not going to attempt to argue whether we have a soul distinct from the body; just that, for whatever reason, we evolved this dualism as a part of ego development. Viewing yourself entirely as a mindless machine is oxymoronic;
You can scratch the oxy part of the above sentence. No one actually thinks that. They just disagree about the meaning of the word mind.

even though a wide range of common behaviors are deterministic, it is this ambiguous quality interacting with our instincts.
Yup, and I'm arguing that this ambiguous quality is due to our tendency to make mistakes and our ability to second guess ourselves.

Well, if you walked around all day thinking life was a pinball game and you were one of many pinballs, that wouldn't be correct either. So which absurdity is it: being a strangely self-aware pinball, or a self-suspicious soul.
I don't know that the pinball analogy is incorrect. I can see it possibly being unhelpful in some cases, but not misleading. On the other hand while the idea of the soul is often a convenient shorthand, "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak." it can be incredibly misleading in others.

[Big Les]

Sorry SirPhilip, but your posts read like a rejected "Matrix" script. You're saying very little, of very little import, with many, many words.

[SirPhilip]

I don't see that there is anything more to free will than an ability to make mistakes and second guessing yourself. Perhaps you could provide an counter-example? What, having a degree of free will? Unless you believe in hard determinism, then we aren't in disagreement.

"Don't call me a mindless philosopher,
you overweight glob of grease.." - C-3PO

Secondly, intelligence and introspection are now far more important skills than they have ever been. Sure a *insert-politically-correct-word-here* might be able to survive due to societies good graces but it will severely restrict their choice in mate and their ability to provide for their children. The problem is, what constitutes "human" is an exchange (http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=2526134) between base instincts (http://www.defamer.com/hollywood/paris-hilton/paris-hiltons-yellow-cab-ride-149798.php) and more recently developed behaviors (http://www.defamer.com/hollywood/gossip/paris-hilton-bathroom-stall-etiquette-edition-37784.php). In a far flung brave new world (http://cache.defamer.com/assets/resources/2006/10/paris-hilton-baggie.jpg) scenario, issues of motivation would arise also, even if we became cyborgs (http://jornada.wordpress.com/files/2006/07/paris-hilton.jpg).

You can scratch the oxy part of the above sentence. No one actually thinks that. They just disagree about the meaning of the word mind. Yup, and I'm arguing that this ambiguous quality is due to our tendency to make mistakes and our ability to second guess ourselves. Making mistakes and second guessing is only simple learning gymnastics (http://www.thesuperficial.com/images/2006/06/paris-hilton-stavros-niarchos-dvd-shopping-01.jpg), and could be simulated by home computers today. In humans, you have complex social/sexual motivations, as well as even higher philsophical factors which influence your behavior. The higher the intelligence, the less deterministic behavior becomes. Keep in mind here we're not talking about absolutes, rather degrees and catalyst. Yes, intelligent human behavior is deterministic, but less so than, for example, an orangutan. Nonlinear creative thinking requires a fine interplay between intuitive/associative thinking and logic, which are mutually exclusive. Intelligence isn't as simple as evolving faster (http://www.virginia.edu/insideuva/2006/09/finals_smith.html) information storage and cognition.


I don't know that the pinball analogy is incorrect. I can see it possibly being unhelpful in some cases, but not misleading. On the other hand while the idea of the soul is often a convenient shorthand, "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak." it can be incredibly misleading in others.Well, if human behavior is ultimately deterministic, that is, impelled by rational causes, what explains irrational ideas and behavior? Also, determinism has a direct relationship to time-variance. You could only, if you had a degree of omnisciencent intelligence, predict with a reasonable degree of probability into the near future. Like a light cone, the farther into time you attempted to make a determination, the higher the degree of uncertainty.

[SirPhilip]

Sorry SirPhilip, but your posts read like a rejected "Matrix" script. You're saying very little, of very little import, with many, many words. The more ambiguous the topic, the less clear and volumous the dialogue. Determinism and free will is a classic philosophical issue, and indeterminism difficult to conceptualize. I'll try to be more concise - do you have anything to add, though?

[Jekyll]

What, having a degree of free will? Unless you believe in hard determinism, then we aren't in disagreement.

"Don't call me a mindless philosopher,
you overweight glob of grease.." - C-3PO

The problem is, what constitutes "human" is an exchange (http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=2526134) between base instincts (http://www.defamer.com/hollywood/paris-hilton/paris-hiltons-yellow-cab-ride-149798.php) and more recently developed behaviors (http://www.defamer.com/hollywood/gossip/paris-hilton-bathroom-stall-etiquette-edition-37784.php). In a far flung brave new world (http://cache.defamer.com/assets/resources/2006/10/paris-hilton-baggie.jpg) scenario, issues of motivation would arise also, even if we became cyborgs (http://jornada.wordpress.com/files/2006/07/paris-hilton.jpg).

Making mistakes and second guessing is only simple learning gymnastics (http://www.thesuperficial.com/images/2006/06/paris-hilton-stavros-niarchos-dvd-shopping-01.jpg), and could be simulated by home computers today. In humans, you have complex social/sexual motivations, as well as even higher philsophical factors which influence your behavior. The higher the intelligence, the less deterministic behavior becomes. Keep in mind here we're not talking about absolutes, rather degrees and catalyst. Yes, intelligent human behavior is deterministic, but less so than, for example, an orangutan. Nonlinear creative thinking requires a fine interplay between intuitive/associative thinking and logic, which are mutually exclusive. Intelligence isn't as simple as evolving faster (http://www.virginia.edu/insideuva/2006/09/finals_smith.html) information storage and cognition.

Well, if human behavior is ultimately deterministic, that is, impelled by rational causes, what explains irrational ideas and behavior? Also, determinism has a direct relationship to time-variance. You could only, if you had a degree of omnisciencent intelligence, predict with a reasonable degree of probability into the near future. Like a light cone, the farther into time you attempted to make a determination, the higher the degree of uncertainty.

I think you're confusing things being deterministic (http://www.answers.com/deterministic&r=67) with them being predictable (http://www.answers.com/topic/predictable-3). Pinball is an excellent analogy here; just because the behaviour of the ball on a fixed table (no flippers) is fixed in stone as soon as the ball is released onto the table, that doesn't mean we know where it's going to go without watching.
Irrational ideas and behaviour can be summed up as mistakes which you have already agreed could be demonstrated by deterministic computers.

[Cuddles]

Whacha' gonna do, snuggles, if I don't.

I'll assume you're a lying idiot who is incapable of forming a coherent argument.

The more meaningless the topic, the less clear and volumous the dialogue. Determinism and free will is a classic philosophical issue, and indeterminism difficult to conceptualize. I'll try to be more concise - do you have anything to add, though?

Fixed it for you.

[T'ai Chi]

Too late! I've already found a very accurate model for reincarnation, and I've found someone to help you modify the model:
http://www.wildlife-pictures-online.com/image-files/dung-beetle_8470_blog.jpg

Hope this helps.

LLH

Well, it helped clarify your position on reincarnation, but sadly did nothing whatsoever to discuss peoples' claims of reincarnation.

[SirPhilip]

Well, it helped clarify your position on reincarnation, but sadly did nothing whatsoever to discuss peoples' claims of reincarnation. Well, if it makes you feel better, I'm starting to believe previously you existed as a mainframe used in statistical analysis from the 1970's but posessed by a retarded ghost.

[SirPhilip]

Irrational ideas and behaviour can be summed up as mistakes which you have already agreed could be demonstrated by deterministic computers. They can also serve as the precusor to rational insight, as in the case of Einstein imagining himself riding on a lightwave before ever formulating a coherent theory, and without which intelligence wouldn't be possible. Of course, Einstein riding on his bike at the time in the sun could have been the cause - that doesn't change the context or make it's essence deterministic.

[SirPhilip]

When I unplug my computer, it loses its "mind." I figure something similar happens with humans. A computer can be turned back on. Humans can't.

[SirPhilip]

I'll assume you're a lying idiot who is incapable of forming a coherent argument. Snuggles, you gutless womble. Tell me my cuddly bottom quivering mass of a pretty purple gelatin cuteness, what you have contributed here. Lest I spank your botsy-wotsy purple bottom and hurl you into the abyss of unlimited unspecialness for an indeterminate amount of time. Yes.

[Flushy-flushy]

Fixed it for you.That's enough, quiggly wiggly. Apologise right now. No hugs for you today.

(If this is a chick, I'm going to crack up..)

[Yahzi]

Snuggles, you gutless womble. Tell me my cuddly bottom quivering mass of a pretty purple gelatin cuteness, what you have contributed here. Lest I spank your botsy-wotsy purple bottom and hurl you into the abyss of unlimited unspecialness for an indeterminate amount of time. Yes.

[Flushy-flushy]

Finally!

Man, I was beginning to think you'd never make any sense.

But I can comfortably state that the above paragraph is the most meaningful, insightful, and conceptually sound thing you've said in this entire thread.

[SirPhilip]

Finally! Man, I was beginning to think you'd never make any sense. But I can comfortably state that the above paragraph is the most meaningful, insightful, and conceptually sound thing you've said in this entire thread. Well, if what I wrote was conceptually unsound, what is a conceptually sound alternative? Keeping in mind that free will being an actual illusion must imply by extension, the universe operates only by newtonian mechanics.

[Cuddles]

Well, if what I wrote was conceptually unsound, what is a conceptually sound alternative? Keeping in mind that free will being an actual illusion must imply by extension, the universe operates only by newtonian mechanics.

Only if you ignore relativity, quantum mechanics and chaos theory.

No hugs for you today.

No hugs? :cry1

Found some. :grouphug5

[Jekyll]

They can also serve as the precusor to rational insight, as in the case of Einstein imagining himself riding on a lightwave before ever formulating a coherent theory, and without which intelligence wouldn't be possible. Of course, Einstein riding on his bike at the time in the sun could have been the cause - that doesn't change the context or make it's essence deterministic.

Regarding Einstein's thought experiments, and taking the most generous view possible towards your argument; he speculated and then went back and filled in the details of the speculation confirming it. That's taking a chance that you might make a mistake and then testing your idea. There is no magic of irrationality going on here.

Taking a more precise view of it, his speculation arose from a noted contradiction between Newtonian physics and the properties of light as described by the Lorentz transformations (namely whether standing EM waves can exist or not) and was an inspired attempt to create a seamless fusion of the two systems.

[SirPhilip]

Only if you ignore relativity, quantum mechanics and chaos theory. You can't have it both ways, you naughty purple bottom. Absolute determinism implies a conceptual and computational absolute. This is like saying there is a finite limit to the size of a number because 350,2320 comes after 2,335. You also have the question of this universe not accomodating all possible states of matter, which brings us to random radioactive decay. Yes.

[SirPhilip]

Regarding Einstein's thought experiments, and taking the most generous view possible towards your argument; he speculated and then went back and filled in the details of the speculation confirming it. That's taking a chance that you might make a mistake and then testing your idea. There is no magic of irrationality going on here. It just served to illustrate nonlinear and linear thinking. Or using linear thinking to focus it. Whether we choose to use abstraction to complement logic or the opposite falls to personal motivation. It seems far more reasonable to assume it's existence simply correlates to how the universe ultimately behaves. If intelligence was only linear, it would be impossible to act without instructions given, or conceptualize abstraction.

[Cuddles]

You can't have it both ways, you naughty purple bottom. Absolute determinism implies a conceptual and computational absolute. This is like saying there is a finite limit to the size of a number because 350,2320 comes after 2,335. You also have the question of this universe not accomodating all possible states of matter, which brings us to random radioactive decay. Yes.

Now you've completely lost me. You claimed that free will implies that the universe is entirely Newtonian. I replied that this is not true because quantum physics and chaos theory allow free will while still being entirely deterministic. Your reply not only fails to address this, it fails to even be coherent.

[SirPhilip]

Now you've completely lost me. You claimed that free will implies that the universe is entirely Newtonian. I replied that this is not true because quantum physics and chaos theory allow free will while still being entirely deterministic. Your reply not only fails to address this, it fails to even be coherent. I can't figure out if this is a troll or another misquote on your part. So I won't. Yes.