Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[aleCcowaN]

That is what the deus ex machina is for: it attaches a soul to each conceived human being -conceived according to its plan, not randomly-. In sum "Jabba exists because of god, otherwise he is impossible"

Jabba has discovered another way to stick to the cannon and seems to be in religious awe.

The reality is "Jabba exists in spite of no god, but he is certainly impossible".

 

[aleCcowaN]

- And the particular now doesn't mean a whole lot if my soul is immortal.

Well, you have certainly granted on your death going back to the same state your soul was before you were conceived. Call it immortality if you like.

 

[Mojo]

Mojo,
- If I have an immortal soul, its existence doesn't depend upon a specific body, or even any body.
- And the particular now doesn't mean a whole lot if my soul is immortal.

Your current existence requires your current body, otherwise it would not be an observable event. And, remember, you have also claimed that the "self" (which is a term you admit to using as synonymous with "soul") has no characteristics of its own, and that these are supplied by the body. This means that if your soul didn't inhabit your body it wouldn't be you.

The fact remains that your current existence cannot be more likely under the hypothesis that you have an independently existing soul than it is under the hypothesis that your consciousness is the result of your brain processes. You claim that your argument proves that your existence is impossible under the latter hypothesis; if your argument is valid, than your existence must also be impossible under the former.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Mojo,
- If I have an immortal soul, its existence doesn't depend upon a specific body, or even any body.
- And the particular now doesn't mean a whole lot if my soul is immortal.

...but, by your continued (and, IMO, rude) silence in response to my questions, according to your own rules you have agreed that there is no evidence of any kind for any such thing as a "soul", much less an "immortal" one...so you do not have an "immortal soul".

Or is your argument only valid against others, not against your own posts?

 

[The Sparrow]

Mojo,
- If I have an immortal soul, its existence doesn't depend upon a specific body, or even any body.
- And the particular now doesn't mean a whole lot if my soul is immortal.

Ah, so you must have memories from before you were born then. I mean, if your soul is immortal, this shouldn't be the first body its inhabited. And if this body was your 'first' you still must have memories from before.

P.S. I don't expect you to honestly answer, just to think.

 

[Mojo]

Ah, so you must have memories from before you were born then. I mean, if your soul is immortal, this shouldn't be the first body its inhabited. And if this body was your 'first' you still must have memories from before.

P.S. I don't expect you to honestly answer, just to think.

His claim that the "immaterial self" has no characteristics until they are supplied by the body it is inhabiting was an attempt to dodge that very issue, IIRC.

 

[Mojo]

Jabba,
- Incidentally, how do you know that you are in fact "you", and not one of the infinite number of other potential "selves"?

 

[JayUtah]

According to OOFLam, my process, or illusion will stop and never happen again.

That doesn't mean consciousness has cardinality.

Your argument is extremely transparent. We know from your four-year odyssey that you're well aware of what needs to happen algebraically in order for your Bayes argument to produce the results you want. You need P(E|H) to be an infinitesimally small number so that P(H) doesn't matter. That means you need a ratio for which the denominator is astronomically large so that the numerator doesn't matter. Your latest appeal to infinity is not the first pseudo-philosophical nonsense you've tried to cast in the role of Huge Denominator. This time, however, there is simply no cardinality to appeal to. There is no enumerable set of "potential selves" any more than there is a vast semi-existent trove of "potential breathing" to accommodate respiration.

The question is how many examples of the absurdity of your argument will have to be mounted before you bounce off them and careen off in a new direction. You've already effectively promised you'll never concede, so we're just waiting for the next act in your comedy of errors.

 

[Nonpareil]

That doesn't mean consciousness has cardinality.

Your argument is extremely transparent. We know from your four-year odyssey that you're well aware of what needs to happen algebraically in order for your Bayes argument to produce the results you want. You need P(E|H) to be an infinitesimally small number so that P(H) doesn't matter. That means you need a ratio for which the denominator is astronomically large so that the numerator doesn't matter. Your latest appeal to infinity is not the first pseudo-philosophical nonsense you've tried to cast in the role of Huge Denominator. This time, however, there is simply no cardinality to appeal to. There is no enumerable set of "potential selves" any more than there is a vast semi-existent trove of "potential breathing" to accommodate respiration.

And even if there were, his argument would collapse, because all it becomes then is the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

Jabba is attempting to escape one fallacy into another fallacy.

I believe the term "fractal wrongness" applies pretty well, here.

 

[JayUtah]

I believe the term "fractal wrongness" applies pretty well, here.

Yes, accepting that is argument is either wrong or unsupported at every granularity of inquiry. At its broadest scope it is a false dilemma between two begged questions. And we have four years of Jabba's unwillingness to provide suitable evidence for any of its sub-sub-sub-issues.

Jabba explicitly confessed his deep and abiding emotional investment in his desired outcome. He would consider it emotionally devastating if he were unable to devise a mathematical proof for his belief. Hence he continues to pretend he can either do so or has already done so, if not for the hard-heartedness and closed-mindedness of his critics.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Jabba explicitly confessed his deep and abiding emotional investment in his desired outcome. He would consider it emotionally devastating if he were unable to devise a mathematical proof for his belief. Hence he continues to pretend he can either do so or has already done so, if not for the hard-heartedness and closed-mindedness of his critics.

That means he's the very embodiment (and posterboy) of epistemological hedonism.

 

[jsfisher]

Mojo,
- If I have an immortal soul, its existence doesn't depend upon a specific body, or even any body.
- And the particular now doesn't mean a whole lot if my soul is immortal.

Great!!

Now, you just need a definition for soul.


Oh, wait, you've been on this loop before....and you still have that pesky P(E) = 1 think to deal with.

 

[JayUtah]

If I have an immortal soul, its existence doesn't depend upon a specific body, or even any body.

But it's existence must manifest in some characteristic. There is no existence without characteristics, at least as far as goes the branch of philosophy that you're trying to apply. Hence it's up to you to tell us what those characteristics are and how you suggest we test for them when the soul does not inhabit a body. So far you can't do that without conflating the supposed properties of the soul with the known properties of the organism. If you say the soul cannot exhibit these characteristics without being bound to a body, then this is tantamount to admitting its nonexeistence.

And the particular now doesn't mean a whole lot if my soul is immortal.

Time exists. A soul must extend through time, if your claim has any meaning. Longevity is a characteristic of existence. Therefore the scope and span of its existence are necessary discussions.

 

[Jabba]

Your current existence requires your current body, otherwise it would not be an observable event. And, remember, you have also claimed that the "self" (which is a term you admit to using as synonymous with "soul") has no characteristics of its own, and that these are supplied by the body. This means that if your soul didn't inhabit your body it wouldn't be you.

The fact remains that your current existence cannot be more likely under the hypothesis that you have an independently existing soul than it is under the hypothesis that your consciousness is the result of your brain processes. You claim that your argument proves that your existence is impossible under the latter hypothesis; if your argument is valid, than your existence must also be impossible under the former.

Mojo,
- I assume that it requires a current body in order to be recognized in a physical world.

 

[jsfisher]

Mojo,
- I assume that it requires a current body in order to be recognized in a physical world.

...and how is it recognized?

 

[Mojo]

Mojo,
- I assume that it requires a current body in order to be recognized in a physical world.

Indeed, but what evidence do you have that it actually is currently occupying a body?

 

[Nonpareil]

My ultimate claim (as you must know) is that the current existence of my 'self' is so unlikely under the OOFLam hypothesis (that we each have only one finite life (at most)) that any reasonable possibility that OOFLam is wrong means that, according to Bayes, OOFLam virtually must be wrong.

And this is both wrong and irrelevant, as you know.

 

[jond]

Mojo,
- I assume that it requires a current body in order to be recognized in a physical world.

Don't ignore the second paragraph. It's important.

 

[marplots]

That means he's the very embodiment (and posterboy) of epistemological hedonism.

As confirmed by the avatar.

 

[jond]

bd,
- Wow!
- I couldn't follow the whole thing -- but, what I did follow seemed almost perfect (in my opinion).
- My ultimate claim (as you must know) is that the current existence of my 'self' is so unlikely under the OOFLam hypothesis (that we each have only one finite life (at most)) that any reasonable possibility that OOFLam is wrong means that, according to Bayes, OOFLam virtually must be wrong.
- I would sure appreciate a discussion about this with you.

Why do you continue to ignore the scientific model which indicates that your "self" and your body are the same thing?