Proof of Immortality III

[Thor 2]

What exactly do you imagine is going on in this thread?

The thread is about Proof of Immortality is it not? I am introducing a concept that may give an explanation of this feat without the woo factor - no none material souls needed.

 

[Mojo]

The thread is about Proof of Immortality is it not?

Yes, and you are introducing a hypothetical situation in which it is possible to upload a person's consciousness to some sort of machine.

Jabba is trying, in this thread, to prove that he is immortal because he has an immortal soul. This is not remotely the same as your hypothetical, in which a duplicate consciousness is produced that might potentially be immortal. This would have no effect on Jabba's mortality.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

The thread is about Proof of Immortality is it not? I am introducing a concept that may give an explanation of this feat without the woo factor - no none material souls needed.

Needs more fallacious algebra

 

[Thor 2]

Yes, and you are introducing a hypothetical situation in which it is possible to upload a person's consciousness to some sort of machine.

Jabba is trying, in this thread, to prove that he is immortal because he has an immortal soul. This is not remotely the same as your hypothetical, in which a duplicate consciousness is produced that might potentially be immortal. This would have no effect on Jabba's mortality.

Yes true enough, but I am not addressing or trying to legitimize Jabba's position. I am just introducing the concept that immortality may be possible without the woo stuff. Mind you I don't give it a high degree of credibility, especially in the past. Just posing the question.

 

[Thor 2]

Needs more fallacious algebra

Needs more comprehension of what I am saying.

 

[Mojo]

Yes true enough, but I am not addressing or trying to legitimize Jabba's position. I am just introducing the concept that immortality may be possible without the woo stuff. Mind you I don't give it a high degree of credibility, especially in the past. Just posing the question.

Jabba's position (and indeed, fallacious algebra) is the subject of this thread.

 

[zooterkin]

Yes true enough, but I am not addressing or trying to legitimize Jabba's position. I am just introducing the concept that immortality may be possible without the woo stuff. Mind you I don't give it a high degree of credibility, especially in the past. Just posing the question.

If you want to start a discussion about immortality via synthetic consciousness, or whatever, you are welcome to go ahead and start a new thread on it.

 

[Jabba]

You have it completely backwards. Forget analogies, and start looking at facts. Your body exists. However unlikely that may be, it exists. Under H, your body and your "self" are the same thing. (I suspect this is the point that you refuse to accept.) Under ~H, you have to account for the existence of your body, and then you have to account for the existence of your "self" as a separate item, and then you have to account for some methodology by which your "self" enters and coexists with your body. It is IMPOSSIBLE for ~H to be more likely than H.

jond,
- If I understand your reservation, I'm claiming that the existence of my self does not require the existence of a specific body.
- If that doesn't address your reservation, maybe I should just say that I don't need to account for the existence of my body -- science does a good job of that.
- And, the method for the coexistence of my "self" and body could be somewhat analogous to radio waves and a radio.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Needs more comprehension of what I am saying.

Filippo was just making a tongue-in-cheek remark your posts are not in style here.

This thread is not about ways to reach immortality but about the immortality all of us enjoy according to some people who is more than terrorized of dying.

That is about its topic. This thread's methodology basically consists in Jabba riding a bicycle -his mortal nature- and arguing he's riding a car -he has some transcendent stuff in him-. He manages to show some static images of him on the bicycle and saying "look! it's a car; I'm not pedalling and the vehicle is still standing". Then he basically continues to pedal while he talks of mechanics as if he's Henry Ford, when in reality he can't tell a nail from a screw.

The essence of this thread is his pedalling. Pedalling -repeating the same flawed arguments once and again and trying to get other posters to agree with him by bogus means- is the only way to sustain his illusion of having a soul that is eternal.

 

[Jabba]

Oh my, every thread I visit lately has degenerated into a slanging match. Mind you Jabba's utterances do venture beyond my limit of comprehension. So be it.

I have something to suggest regarding the possibility of immortality so let's run it up the flagpole and see if someone salutes it, (something I borrowed from the movie "12 Angry Men", one of my favorites.)

My door is just slightly open to the possibility of surviving death as a conscious entity up until this point of time, but much more open to the possibility in the future.

If one's brain contents could be downloaded into someone else, or perhaps into a computer maybe, (one that had self awareness), would this not be surviving death? Of course the identity of self has to be simultaneously erased from the ailing body, as it is planted in the recipient, or there would be two of the same person.

I say only slightly open to the possibility that someone has pulled it off in the past, because that would have to mean that ESP, or thought transfer, may exist. A big ask.

Thor,
- Glad to have you aboard. Good luck.
--- Jabba

 

[Jabba]

- Next.

- In effect, I'm claiming that we are all "special cases."
- If we're here, we're special cases.

- I think that we're too quick to assign an event to chance and luck, given the existing scientific hypothesis -- even though we generally accept that it's only an hypothesis.
- My claim has been that all we need in order to avoid that conclusion (H) is a reasonably possible alternative hypothesis under which the event is more likely (RPAH(eml)) than it is under the existing hypothesis. Once the RPAH is applied, we have cross-hairs on the target -- whereas before, we had only a straight line that crossed the target.
- I tried to apply that claim to our lottery issue, and found that in my effort to make this claim work, I had unwittingly made E a special case... Which poked a hole in my bucket.

- But now, I'm wondering if the hole was just an illusion -- after all, I have always claimed that this conclusion applies to all of us. Or, in other words, we must all be special cases -- in, that we currently exist...
- And in fact, each of us that does exist is much more likely to exist given ~H, than given H. IOW, the likelihoods of our current existences, given OOFLam and ~OOFLam, should all be appropriate entries into the Bayesian formula, and all yield the same results...

- I must admit that this sounds wrong -- but so far, I can't figure out why.

- Just as a reminder -- if we are in fact reincarnated, in order to account for so many of us now, and so few of us a long time ago, we need that we are all part of an infinitely divisible 'bucket' of consciousness -- and more than one of us was Napoleon in a previous life...

- So, say we had a lottery in which all of the winners turned out to be far-flung relatives of the controller of the lottery (say that happened 10 times, then the controller and winners disappeared). Wouldn't that be analogous to everyone who currently exists being a special case, and the likelihoods of each, given H and ~H, be appropriate entries into our formula?
- If this is not correct logic, hopefully I can figure it out before you guys do...

jt and Caveman,
- I haven't figured it out yet.
- As far as I can tell, you guys haven't either.
- But then, I'm known to miss a lot...
- Do you have more to say about this? Is my claimed lottery analogy not analogous?

jt and caveman,
- From Vizzini of The Princess Bride: "I'm waiting...!"

 

[godless dave]

jond,
- If I understand your reservation, I'm claiming that the existence of my self does not require the existence of a specific body.
- If that doesn't address your reservation, maybe I should just say that I don't need to account for the existence of my body -- science does a good job of that.
- And, the method for the coexistence of my "self" and body could be somewhat analogous to radio waves and a radio.

What mechanism determines which body receives a particular self?

 

[JayUtah]

I'm claiming that the existence of my self does not require the existence of a specific body.

False on its face, and the highlighted portion is your straw-man argument.

If that doesn't address your reservation, maybe I should just say that I don't need to account for the existence of my body -- science does a good job of that.

Science does a good job of explaining the self. You've provided no observation that requires a non-scientific explanation. Further, your present formulation for the soul requires a body to meld with it or host it in order to create the self. Therefore you can't separate the probability. You've speculated that souls exist independently, but you don't factor that into your model. So you must deal with the fact that the event in your model commits the aforementioned fallacy and is necessarily less probable if you propose to factor in a soul.

And, the method for the coexistence of my "self" and body could be somewhat analogous to radio waves and a radio.

Asked and answered. You've shown no evidence that the "self" is an entity, much less a separate entity.

Around and around in circles we go, because you won't pay attention to your critics.

 

[JayUtah]

jt and caveman,
- From Vizzini of The Princess Bride: "I'm waiting...!"

What are you waiting for? Your arguments have all been addressed many times by many people, and you've just been repeating them unaltered for years while flagrantly admitting you don't read the responses.

Get over yourself.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Thor,
- Glad to have you aboard. Good luck.
--- Jabba

Oh God no... no.

He thinks someone agreed with him. We're doomed.

 

[JayUtah]

This thread is not about ways to reach immortality but about the immortality all of us enjoy according to some people who is more than terrorized of dying.

Specifically it is about Jabba's claim to be able to prove immortality mathematically. He has apparently taken a couple of statistics classes and believes Bayes' theorem lets him transform purely made-up probability and likelihood estimates into facts. He has attempted similar arguments in other threads, which are presently abandoned.

...repeating the same flawed arguments once and again and trying to get other posters to agree with him by bogus means- is the only way to sustain his illusion of having a soul that is eternal.

Indeed, the theme of all Jabba threads is a set of fairly ham-fisted social engineering ploys to get people to agree with him, or at least to keep arguing with him. He views the resignation of critics in frustration as a win for him, and occasionally displays the undercurrent of his disdain for skepticism in general and the skeptics at this forum in particular.

 

[jond]

jond,
- If I understand your reservation, I'm claiming that the existence of my self does not require the existence of a specific body.
- If that doesn't address your reservation, maybe I should just say that I don't need to account for the existence of my body -- science does a good job of that.
- And, the method for the coexistence of my "self" and body could be somewhat analogous to radio waves and a radio.

Yes, but your body exists which means under H that's the only thing you have to account for. Under ~H, your body still exists. But then you have to add the other unlikely factors to it, however you imagine those factors may play out. But you still have to account for the fact that your body exists. You cannot ignore that fact.

 

[Mojo]

- Next.

- In effect, I'm claiming that we are all "special cases."
- If we're here, we're special cases.

And it has repeatedly been explained to you that you are employing the Texas sharpshooter fallacy when you claim this.

- I think that we're too quick to assign an event to chance and luck, given the existing scientific hypothesis -- even though we generally accept that it's only an hypothesis.
- My claim has been that all we need in order to avoid that conclusion (H) is a reasonably possible alternative hypothesis under which the event is more likely (RPAH(eml)) than it is under the existing hypothesis. Once the RPAH is applied, we have cross-hairs on the target -- whereas before, we had only a straight line that crossed the target.

But your preferred hypothesis is not one under which your existence is more likely than it is under 'the scientific model': all that 'the scientific model' requires is that your body exists, because under it your consciousness is an emergent property of your body; your preferred hypothesis requires that your body exists and your immaterial soul exists. As has repeatedly been pointed out, your existence cannot possibly be more likely under an hypothesis under which it requires A+B than it is under an hypothesis under which only A is required.

- I tried to apply that claim to our lottery issue, and found that in my effort to make this claim work, I had unwittingly made E a special case... Which poked a hole in my bucket.

No, you were just using the Texas sharpshooter fallacy again.

- But now, I'm wondering if the hole was just an illusion -- after all, I have always claimed that this conclusion applies to all of us. Or, in other words, we must all be special cases -- in, that we currently exist...

And there you go again, selecting a result as "special" after the event. To make us "special" in the way your argument requires, you need us to have some special characteristic that is not shared by people who don't exist, other than the fact that we exist.

- And in fact, each of us that does exist is much more likely to exist given ~H, than given H.

Nope, see above. Remember also that ~H includes all possible scenarios other than 'the scientific model', including scenarios under which you are mortal.

IOW, the likelihoods of our current existences, given OOFLam and ~OOFLam, should all be appropriate entries into the Bayesian formula, and all yield the same results...

And there you go again, jumping from "H" to "OOFLam". "My existence is the result of chance" and "I have one finite lifetime" are different, and unconnected, hypotheses.

And if you're talking about hypotheses about the origin of consciousness rather than the origin of the universe, then once again you run into the problem that all the hypothesis that you are attacking requires is that your body exists; any hypothesis in which you have a body and an independent soul requires more than this.

 

[jond]

Jabba: do you understand that under H, the "self" is not a separate entity from your body?

 

[Mojo]

Oh God no... no.

He thinks someone agreed with him. We're doomed.

He already thought that Toontown agrees with him, despite the fact that Toontown has explicitly stated that he thinks Jabba is wrong.