Proof of Immortality III

[Mojo]

Mojo,
- The necessary assumption is that if bodies are receivers, my self can be 'received' by any body that receives the right 'wavelength.' IOW, if bodies are receivers, MY self is not dependent upon the existence of one particular body.

Your current existence, in which your consciousness is associated with your particular body, is dependent on your body existing. And if any self can be received by any body, then the likelihood of your current existence if the body is a receiver of your self is less likely than your current existence if the self is produced by the body by a factor of at least seven billion.

And you have provided no evidence to support your claim that the self is received by the body.

- (Whereas previously, we were thinking that producing MY self required a particular body -- a totally specific biological signature.)

Your current existence as Jabba is totally dependent on Jabba's body existing.

 

[Mojo]

- The necessary assumption is that if bodies are receivers, my self can be 'received' by any body that receives the right 'wavelength.'

How many bodies are there that can receive your particular 'wavelength'?

 

[Jabba]

That's not evidence. That's just restating your proposal.

Dave,
- Can a logical argument act as good evidence?

 

[Mojo]

Dave,
- Can a logical fallacy-riddled argument act as good evidence?

FTFY.

 

[Loss Leader]

Dave,
- Can a logical argument act as good evidence?

Never. Never, never, never. Evidence is a fact that tends to make a proposition more trite out less true. A logical argument is something which is necessarily true given the demonstrated facts.


If Tom goes to the movies, Jerry will go.

Can we prove that Tom went to the movies? No. Our argument is logical, but the facts are unknown. We must rigorously test whether Tom's at the movies.

Where is your rigorous test that the soul is separate from the body?

 

[Jabba]

Your current existence, in which your consciousness is associated with your particular body, is dependent on your body existing...

Mojo,
- It appears that this episode of my 'worldly' existence is dependent upon this body -- though, it could be that I have had and/or will have more than one episode.

 

[Mojo]

Mojo,
- It appears that this episode of my 'worldly' existence is dependent upon this body -

That's the existence we're talking about. You have no evidence of any other existence.

- though, it could be that I have had and/or will have more than one episode.

That's what you are supposed to be trying to prove here. Introducing your conclusion as an unsupported assertion gets you nowhere.

 

[John Jones]

Dave,
- Can a logical argument act as good evidence?

you misspelled 'fallacious'.

 

[Loss Leader]

Mojo,
- It appears that this episode of my 'worldly' existence is dependent upon this body -- though, it could be that I have had and/or will have more than one episode.

But you have no evidence that there is any soul to experience such a second episode. In fact, all testable evidence points to the concept that the soul is an illusion of a functioning, integrated neurosystem.

Provide evidence of your soul. And get it notarirized just in case.

 

[Giordano]

Can we get the name of this thread changed to, "Feeble and desperate hope (contrary to all evidence) that I personally will never really die, even if I cannot explain what about me will be reincarnated"?. Or perhaps, "Extended hobby that provides significant personal entertainment-MMDDCCLLXXVVII"?

 

[Jabba]

Mojo,
- It appears that this episode of my 'worldly' existence is dependent upon this body -- though, it could be that I have had and/or will have more than one episode.

That's the existence we're talking about. You have no evidence of any other existence...

Mojo,
- My current existence is evidence against only-one-finite-life-at-most.
- If something happened that could not happen given a particular hypothesis, the hypothesis has to be wrong. If something happens that is unimaginably unlikely to happen given a particular hypothesis, that degree of unlikeliness has to be weighed against the prior probability of the particular hypothesis in order to evaluate the posterior probability of the hypothesis. In other words, it is evidence.

 

[zooterkin]

Mojo,
- My current existence is evidence against only-one-finite-life-at-most.

The fact that you know of only one life, that is likely to be finite, is evidence against one finite life?

 

[Mojo]

Mojo,
- My current existence is evidence against only-one-finite-life-at-most.
- If something happened that could not happen given a particular hypothesis, the hypothesis has to be wrong. If something happens that is unimaginably unlikely to happen given a particular hypothesis, that degree of unlikeliness has to be weighed against the prior probability of the particular hypothesis in order to evaluate the posterior probability of the hypothesis. In other words, it is evidence.

Whatever particular result occurred would be equally unlikely. You are once again employing the Texas sharpshooter fallacy: your existence wasn't specified as a special result until after it had already happened.

All you have here is a result that is compatible with your existence being the result of chance.

The fact that your existence being the result of chance and whether you have a finite life are two completely different issues is yet another problem for you, of course. It makes your argument irrelevant to the point you are trying to prove. What you are actually arguing for is a designed universe. There is no reason to suppose that you would be immortal in such a universe.

 

[Jabba]

- A slight refinement of what I said previously.

1. If OOFLam is incorrect, consciousness, and the self, have to be non-physical/immaterial.
2. And, while consciousness is different than anything we would normally call material -- and appears to be what we would call immaterial -- it also seems to be always connected to something material…
3. But, if OOFLam is incorrect, consciousness cannot be produced by something physical either.
4. But then, maybe (as a presuppositional consideration – such as “relative time”!) the physical connection could be as a receiver – as a radio is with radio waves.
5. IOW, there seems to be another way to explain a necessary physical connection besides “production.”
6. Also, there doesn’t seem to be any other potential explanation for an immaterial self being always connected to something material.
7. And for now, we can’t eliminate the possibility that the self is immaterial.
8. And consequently, my current existence being so unlikely if OOFLam is correct becomes significant evidence that 1) the self is immaterial and 2) our brains act as receivers for our selves.

 

[JoeMorgue]

By chance I'm listening to "Welcome to Night Vale" as I'm typing this and I'll let Cecil handle this one.

"Death is only the end if you assume the story is about you."

 

[Mojo]

8. And consequently, my current existence being so unlikely if OOFLam is correct becomes significant evidence that 1) the self is immaterial and 2) our brains act as receivers for our selves.

Your existence is at least as unlikely if your brain is a receiver of consciousness as it is if your brain produces your consciousness. Even if, once your body exists, the probability that it receives your particular consciousness is one, then the probability of both is equal to the probability that your body exists, so you have two hypotheses of equal probability, one of which involves the assumption of the existence of of an entity and a phenomenon for which there is no evidence. And given that there are currently over seven billion human consciousnesses, the probability of your body receiving your particular consciousness is likely very much lower than one.

In any case, as you have repeatedly been told, the likelihood of "the scientific model" being correct given your existence is not equal to the likelihood of your existence if "the scientific model" is correct.

 

[Loss Leader]

Mojo,
- My current existence is evidence against only-one-finite-life-at-most.
- If something happened that could not happen given a particular hypothesis, the hypothesis has to be wrong. If something happens that is unimaginably unlikely to happen given a particular hypothesis, that degree of unlikeliness has to be weighed against the prior probability of the particular hypothesis in order to evaluate the posterior probability of the hypothesis. In other words, it is evidence.

Keep saying it. It is not evidence. A method of interpreting evidence is not, in itself, evidence. Evidence is any fact that makes a proposition more or less true. You have presented no facts.

The only facts we have are that people die. Before they do, physical processes cause thoughts in their brains. If you have any other facts - facts- I would love to hear them.

Incidentally, you still haven't explained why a brain can be influenced by the immaterial but can't influence it the other way. Why make up one completely imaginary rule but not another?

 

[Mojo]

Mojo,
- My current existence is evidence against only-one-finite-life-at-most.
- If something happened that could not happen given a particular hypothesis, the hypothesis has to be wrong. If something happens that is unimaginably unlikely to happen given a particular hypothesis, that degree of unlikeliness has to be weighed against the prior probability of the particular hypothesis in order to evaluate the posterior probability of the hypothesis. In other words, it is evidence.

If this argument is valid, then your current existence is also evidence against the brain being a receiver of consciousness, because your existence is also unimaginably unlikely under that hypothesis.

 

[jsfisher]

The fact that you know of only one life, that is likely to be finite, is evidence against one finite life?

That would be consistent with his whole argument. Select something known to exist then speculate on the probability of its existence.

 

[ferd burfle]

Mojo,

- It appears that this episode of my 'worldly' existence is dependent upon this body --

Please link to the post where you provided evidence your existence is episodic

though, it could be that I have had and/or will have more than one episode.

Begging the question just never gets old for you, does it?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk