Proof of Immortality II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Maybe he should wait a while, and re-enter the conversation when he is reincarnated with a fresh brain.
 
John Jones said:
Stop being preposterous. I'm not going to change your diapers either, in case you were going to ask.
Click to expand...

Still, Jabba continues in his persistent reversal of the burden of proof. It is to laugh.

Somehow, everyone must prove him wrong while he cannot prove himself right.

In some way, this makes sense in the Jabbaverse.
 
abaddon said:
...

In some way, this makes sense in the Jabbaverse.
Click to expand...

The next major update of Windows10, in the summer, includes JibberJabba™ as a language pack.

Installing the optional component will allow translation from JibberJabba™ to English.

Mac users received the feature in January.
 
Last edited:
abaddon said:
Somehow, everyone must prove him wrong while he cannot prove himself right.

In some way, this makes sense in the Jabbaverse.
Click to expand...

That's because the Jabbaverse is the same arguments, just parameterized with different specific subjects. The argument is not about the subject. The argument is about how skeptics are biased, closed-minded, unfair, and ideologically obsessed. The mechanism, as you've noted, is shifting the burden of proof, voodoo statistics, equivocation, fringe-resets, and question-begging -- no different from any other fringe theorist. Whether that mechanism is applied to shrouds, miracles, legal theories of evidence, or souls, the goal is simply to whine about how this forum is deplorably unique in not accepting his beliefs without question. He knows he can't prove any of the actual subjects; he's frankly admitted it in at least one case. So he shifts the argument to why he can't prove them. And his proposition is that skeptics are unfair.
 
Jabba said:
Jabba said:
- Since you guys all think that the opinion that we each have but one finite, life (at most) is possibly wrong, can you suggest a number for the prior probability of ~H?
Click to expand...

Agatha said:
Only if you provide us with evidence to support ~H. Do you have any such evidence?
Click to expand...
- It'll take me a while to find our previous discussion re circumstantial evidenced. Can someone help me?
Click to expand...

Circumstantial evidence isn't going to support ~H, the most it can do is not rule it out, but it also won't rule out H.

Do you have any evidence to support ~H over H? If not, then why on earth would you think ~H has any chance of being true, let alone 0.1?
 
I think maybe some clarification is in order.

Jabba, is H the scientific model of consciousness, where souls do not exist? Or is it some model of consciousness where souls exist but are mortal?
 
Either way, anybody trying to stick a number to the proposition is just making that number up. That's not how Bayesian analysis works.
 
I note, with no surprise, that Jabba completely ignored Agatha's post about the million pounds in her bank account.

Jabba, does Bayes prove Agatha has a million pounds in her bank account?
 
Agatha said:
Circumstantial evidence isn't going to support ~H, the most it can do is not rule it out, but it also won't rule out H.

Do you have any evidence to support ~H over H? If not, then why on earth would you think ~H has any chance of being true, let alone 0.1?
Click to expand...
Agatha,

- This should get me started.

1. There is no direct evidence for OFL (one, finite, life); the only evidence for OFL is circumstantial. We infer that there is no other life for each of us than the one each of us is currently experiencing because 1) we think we would remember them if there were – and because 2) we think there is nothing immaterial.
2. That the likelihood of your current existence given the one, finite, life (at most) scenario is 7 billion over an unimaginably large number is evidence itself that the one, finite, life (at most) scenario is wrong. Any actual number as the denominator of the likelihood of your current existence given ~OFL pales in comparison to the unimaginably large number as the denominator of the likelihood of your current existence given OFL.
3. Then there are black holes, dark matter, multiverses, singularities, quantum entanglement, the anthropic principle, consciousness, particle waves, the relativity of time, the curvature of spacetime, life, etc. -- and possibly 7 physical dimensions that we can’t see and “numinous.”

4. NDEs make for direct evidence for ~OFL, and some are credible.
5. OOBEs make for direct evidence for ~OFL, and some are credible.
6. Claims of reincarnation make for direct evidence for ~OFL, and some are credible.

7. We humans process data in two different ways – analytically and holistically. Each of us, especially we men, tend to be dominated by one way of thinking or the other. Western education teaches towards analytic thinking -- so those who are dominated by analytic thinking are more likely to do well in western schools than those who are dominated by holistic thinking. As the analytic thinkers advance through western schools, they become more dominated by analytic thinking. The belief in what we call “transcendence” is what makes a philosophy religious. Holistic thinking is responsible for our ‘sense’ of transcendence. It would appear that either analytic thinkers tend to be transcendence-blind or holistic thinkers hallucinate…
8. Many of our great thinkers of the past seem to have been ‘bilingual’ in regard to their thinking.
 
Jabba said:
Agatha,

- This should get me started.

1. There is no direct evidence for OFL (one, finite, life); the only evidence for OFL is circumstantial. We infer that there is no other life for each of us than the one each of us is currently experiencing because 1) we think we would remember them if there were – and because 2) we think there is nothing immaterial.
2. That the likelihood of your current existence given the one, finite, life (at most) scenario is 7 billion over an unimaginably large number is evidence itself that the one, finite, life (at most) scenario is wrong. Any actual number as the denominator of the likelihood of your current existence given ~OFL pales in comparison to the unimaginably large number as the denominator of the likelihood of your current existence given OFL.
3. Then there are black holes, dark matter, multiverses, singularities, quantum entanglement, the anthropic principle, consciousness, particle waves, the relativity of time, the curvature of spacetime, life, etc. -- and possibly 7 physical dimensions that we can’t see and “numinous.”

4. NDEs make for direct evidence for ~OFL, and some are credible.
5. OOBEs make for direct evidence for ~OFL, and some are credible.
6. Claims of reincarnation make for direct evidence for ~OFL, and some are credible.

7. We humans process data in two different ways – analytically and holistically. Each of us, especially we men, tend to be dominated by one way of thinking or the other. Western education teaches towards analytic thinking -- so those who are dominated by analytic thinking are more likely to do well in western schools than those who are dominated by holistic thinking. As the analytic thinkers advance through western schools, they become more dominated by analytic thinking. The belief in what we call “transcendence” is what makes a philosophy religious. Holistic thinking is responsible for our ‘sense’ of transcendence. It would appear that either analytic thinkers tend to be transcendence-blind or holistic thinkers hallucinate…
8. Many of our great thinkers of the past seem to have been ‘bilingual’ in regard to their thinking.
Click to expand...


More of your typically illogical, pathologically credulous, evidence-free musings.
 
Jabba said:
Agatha,

3. Then there are black holes, dark matter, multiverses, singularities, quantum entanglement, the anthropic principle, consciousness, particle waves, the relativity of time, the curvature of spacetime, life, etc. -- and possibly 7 physical dimensions that we can’t see and “numinous.”
Click to expand...

What do those have to do with anything?

Jabba said:
4. NDEs make for direct evidence for ~OFL, and some are credible.
5. OOBEs make for direct evidence for ~OFL, and some are credible.
6. Claims of reincarnation make for direct evidence for ~OFL, and some are credible.
Click to expand...

I've never heard of any that were credible.
 
Jabba said:
2. That the likelihood of your current existence given the one, finite, life (at most) scenario is 7 billion over an unimaginably large number is evidence itself that the one, finite, life (at most) scenario is wrong.
Click to expand...
No it isn't, for reasons which have been explained at length in this thread and its predecessor and which you have never refuted.
 
Jabba said:
There is no direct evidence for OFL (one, finite, life); the only evidence for OFL is circumstantial.
Click to expand...

Actual circumstantial evidence as the rest of the world understands the term? Or the nonsensical dressing-up of assumption you have attempted to foist as "circumstantial evidence?"

We infer that there is no other life for each of us than the one each of us is currently experiencing because 1) we think we would remember them if there were – and because 2) we think there is nothing immaterial.
Click to expand...

Speak for yourself. Your critics conclude there is no other life for each of us because no evidence has been shown for any other life. It's not an inference. It's the null hypothesis that you must overcome. You have failed to overcome it, and have the audacity to blame your critics for closed-mindedness for noting that you have not.

That the likelihood...
Click to expand...

Pseudo-Bayesian hogwash. Either learn how Bayesian analysis actually works or stop trying.

Then there are...
Click to expand...

Vague handwaving. You haven't shown any connection between the phenema you mention and life or mortality.

4. NDEs make for direct evidence for ~OFL, and some are credible.
5. OOBEs make for direct evidence for ~OFL, and some are credible.
Click to expand...

Pure speculation.

You have not shown that near-death experiences are an actual phenomenon independent of the brain, nor that any external phenomenology that may eventually be found cannot be contained in the OFL formula. To paraphrase Miracle Max, there's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead.

You have not shown that out-of-body experiences are an actual phenomenon independent of the brain, nor that any external phenomenology that may be eventually be found in them must necessarily transcend the OFL formula.

That many fringe claimants attribute these phenomena to the supposed existence of a soul independent of the brain does not prove the existence of such a soul, nor establish that such a soul would not be limited to a one-lifetime formulation.

6. Claims of reincarnation make for direct evidence for ~OFL, and some are credible.
Click to expand...

Arguments based on claims are not a substitute for evidence. Agatha, for example, can claim she has a million dollars in her bank account. She can even provide a pseudo-mathematical inference to that effect. You have no answer for her rebuttal, hence your latest post does nothing to rehabilitate it in the face of her refutation.

You clearly still do not understand what direct evidence means. Even granting arguendo that all your claimed phenomena actually exist and have the causation you attribute to them, the trier of fact must still infer from them that life somehow persists beyond death.

7. We humans process data in two different ways – analytically and holistically. Each of us, especially we men, tend to be dominated by one way of thinking or the other.
Click to expand...

Special pleading. You have specifically claimed you could provide a mathematically rigorous proof for your belief in immortality. That seems to indicate what you call analytical thinking. Postulating, in the wake of your inability to reason analytically, that some different way of thinking should apply merely doubles down on your accusation that your critics are somehow too closed-minded to accept your beliefs. Many fringe claimants eventually arrive at the claim that they are somehow blessed with a special intuition, insight, or gnosis that enables them to transcend the "limited" cogitation of their critics.

You have officially crossed over into full woo. I doubt that anything you say following this will matter much in this forum.

8. Many of our great thinkers of the past seem to have been ‘bilingual’ in regard to their thinking.
Click to expand...

You don't name any nor give any examples of this dual mode of thought. No, you are not a great thinker because you believe you think differently. No, your critics are not hobbled in their thinking because you believe they cannot think as you do. There is no magical "mode of thinking" that suddenly fixes your argument, makes it logical, or escapes the fallacy of special pleading.

You claimed you could prove mathematically that immortality was a thing. In fact you cannot. Finding creative ways to beg your critics to give you a pass does not mitigate your failure.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Agatha,

- This should get me started.

1. There is no direct evidence for OFL (one, finite, life); the only evidence for OFL is circumstantial. We infer that there is no other life for each of us than the one each of us is currently experiencing because 1) we think we would remember them if there were – and because 2) we think there is nothing immaterial.
2. That the likelihood of your current existence given the one, finite, life (at most) scenario is 7 billion over an unimaginably large number is evidence itself that the one, finite, life (at most) scenario is wrong. Any actual number as the denominator of the likelihood of your current existence given ~OFL pales in comparison to the unimaginably large number as the denominator of the likelihood of your current existence given OFL.
3. Then there are black holes, dark matter, multiverses, singularities, quantum entanglement, the anthropic principle, consciousness, particle waves, the relativity of time, the curvature of spacetime, life, etc. -- and possibly 7 physical dimensions that we can’t see and “numinous.”

4. NDEs make for direct evidence for ~OFL, and some are credible.
5. OOBEs make for direct evidence for ~OFL, and some are credible.
6. Claims of reincarnation make for direct evidence for ~OFL, and some are credible.

7. We humans process data in two different ways – analytically and holistically. Each of us, especially we men, tend to be dominated by one way of thinking or the other. Western education teaches towards analytic thinking -- so those who are dominated by analytic thinking are more likely to do well in western schools than those who are dominated by holistic thinking. As the analytic thinkers advance through western schools, they become more dominated by analytic thinking. The belief in what we call “transcendence” is what makes a philosophy religious. Holistic thinking is responsible for our ‘sense’ of transcendence. It would appear that either analytic thinkers tend to be transcendence-blind or holistic thinkers hallucinate…
8. Many of our great thinkers of the past seem to have been ‘bilingual’ in regard to their thinking.
Click to expand...

Nothing in this post hasn't already been thrashed though over the course of this interminable thread. If you have nothing new to offer, why not instead go back and read through from the beginning? This time reading the entire posts by people responding to your ill formed ideas.
 
Jabba,
Please answer godless dave's question:

godless dave said:
I think maybe some clarification is in order.

Jabba, is H the scientific model of consciousness, where souls do not exist? Or is it some model of consciousness where souls exist but are mortal?
Click to expand...
 
Jabba said:
Agatha,

- This should get me started.

1. There is no direct evidence for OFL (one, finite, life); the only evidence for OFL is circumstantial. We infer that there is no other life for each of us than the one each of us is currently experiencing because 1) we think we would remember them if there were – and because 2) we think there is nothing immaterial.
Click to expand...

Moot point, when you come up with any credible evidence of life not being all organic and ending with DOTB (death of the body), let us know, then we can discuss probabilities.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom