Proof of Immortality III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
LL,
- It still seems like we're not talking about the same "self"...
- Try this again. I think we all agree that if we were able to fully replicate my physical self, I would not begin looking through 2 sets of eyes. We simply would have created a different self. We would seem to have no physical way of recreating ME (the same self) -- or any other self, for that matter.
Click to expand...


Jabba -

You're addressing a totally different point than I am. You said that scientific knowledge accounts for Mt. Rainier and does not account for you. That is an incorrect claim. Scientific knowledge in both cases recognizes a series of low-probability events took place and are still taking place to shape the collection of cells we call "Jabba" and the collection of dirt, trees, rainwater, and all the other things we call Mt. Rainier.
 
JayUtah said:
Okay, if you now concede that you must redo your calculations to account for a clockwork universe on either H, ~H, or possibly both, will you stipulate that Loss Leader has already done those calculations and the result is fatal to your claim?
Click to expand...


I'll restate it: You have a deck of cards. Within the deck is at least zero fousr of clubs up to fifty-two fours of clubs. You have no idea how many fours of clubs there are. They are not randomly assigned - the chance of having two and only two fours of clubs may be zero or it may be 100%. The odds of having 52 fours of clubs may be 100%. You cannot know the chance of how many fours of clubs there are or even if there are any there at all.

What are the odds of choosing a four of clubs. To commit the gambler's fallacy, what would you risk on turning over a four of clubs?
 
jsfisher said:
Different how?

After an amoeba reproduces, which one is the original?
Click to expand...

Obviously the one that has the soul. Oh, wait, since amoebas don't have souls, it doesn't matter because they don't have a self in the uniquely special way that Jabba does. And it's that soul that makes it entirely impossible to create a new self, and why none of the analogies that try to compare humans to mountains or microbes can possibly shake Jabba's belief. See, all you have to do is assume the existence of a soul and then you can see why Jabba rejects the scientific explanation.

I'll be back.
 
Loss Leader said:
What are the odds of choosing a four of clubs. To commit the gambler's fallacy, what would you risk on turning over a four of clubs?
Click to expand...

No, no, no, you have it all wrong. What matters are the odds of turning over a four of clubs if the guy drawing from the deck is the cousin of the casino owner and has recently been released from incarceration.

P(E|~H), where E is the daily reformulation of analogy in terms of cards or mountains or microbes and a hotly disputed thought experiment, and ~H is the complement of how much one fervently believes in the four of clubs.
 
My. Rainier is conscious. It gets its consciousness by osmosis through its roots, which rest on the back of the great tortoise. I could virtually prove this by torturing Bayes, but I won't because I don't understand it and you haven't agreed to agree with me before we started.

But one thing is for sure. Tortoises have four legs.

QED




Tortoises have four legs!
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
jt,

- Unfortunately, that only confuses me further.

-In my understanding of the Bayes formula that I'm using, E is the event and H is the hypothesis.
Click to expand...

E is, or should be, the data. Yes, H a hypothesis. Both E and H are events (which just means subsets) of a sample space. They had better be, because probabilities can only be assigned to events (sets) in a sample space. If your problem is well posed, then exactly one of H and ~H is true—they are mutually exclusive (as are E and ~E).

What H and ~H have in common is the subject they're addressing -- i.e., something to the effect of human mortality.
Click to expand...

The notion of H and ~H having something or nothing "in common" is ill defined and should be forgotten about. In the form of Bayes' that you're using, what is necessary is that H and ~H partition the sample space (ie, be mutually exclusive (disjoint) and exhaustive). Furthermore, for H and ~H to be useful, them must make different predictions about E (otherwise, observation of E would do nothing to discriminate between H and ~H).1
- Currently, we are trying to figure out how the possibilities of freedom vs determinism, and multiverse vs universe relate to my claim that OOFLam is not true. My claim about my claim is that it applies whatever those variables -- though, the exact calculations would be affected.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid I don't have the requisite background in cosmology, philosophy, or theology to be of much help with that.

__________________

1 As I have tried to explain in older posts, I don't think that E does discriminate between H and ~H, and so your exercise is futile.
 
Last edited:
Pixel42 said:
The scientific explanation for your particular self is exactly the same as the scientific explanation for Mt Rainier, and we have no reason to doubt either.
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
Pixel,
- Mmmm...
- I'm now recognizing a question that I never really recognized before. For now, I don't have an answer...
- I'll be back.
Click to expand...
Pixel,
- I think the difference is that I am an emergent property. Mt Rainier is not.
 
Jabba said:
Pixel,
- I think the difference is that I am an emergent property. Mt Rainier is not.
Click to expand...

Define 'emergent property' and explain why you meet the definition and Mt Rainier does not.

[Assuming you manage to do this you'll then need to explain why the scientific explanation for things which are not emergent properties does not also account equally well for things which are. But one step at a time].
 
Wait... didn't we spend a good month a year or so ago trying to explain to Jabba what an emergent property was?
 
Jabba said:
Pixel,
- I think the difference is that I am an emergent property. Mt Rainier is not.
Click to expand...
Of course it is. Of course it is.

Mt. Raineir is a property of a functioning ecosystem. Wind and seismic activity and worms moving soil and birds dropping seeds and trees stopping erosion and animals digging burrows and rain cutting rivulets and lightning starting fires - Mt. Rainier is a general name we give for convenience to a general place that is constantly changing.

How can you not see that?
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Mt Rainier is not.
Click to expand...

Yes it is. That's why it has a collective name by which we can refer to the totality of its manifestation which isn't expressed in its constituents. If I take one rock or tree from Mt Ranier and bring it home, is that Mt Ranier? Does it possess all the properties to which we refer when we say Mt Ranier? If left by itself would it continue to behave and appear as it did on Mt Ranier? If I can use something to illustrate the fallacy of division, then the thing I'm referring to is an emergent property.
 
"Existential crisis via Ship of Theseus via arguments of definition therefore immortality."
 
HighRiser said:
My. Rainier is conscious. It gets its consciousness by osmosis through its roots, which rest on the back of the great tortoise. I could virtually prove this by torturing Bayes, but I won't because I don't understand it and you haven't agreed to agree with me before we started.

But one thing is for sure. Tortoises have four legs.

QED




Tortoises have four legs!
Click to expand...


:run:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom