Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[The Norseman]

If all that is required is immortality, then I wonder why he doesn't use more sciency - for lack of a better word - arguments to reach that conclusion. It's not like there aren't serious arguments which can be made which include immortality, rather than this mystical stuff packaged in bad math.

Maybe because the more sciency stuff is harder to do?

 

[The Norseman]

Mojo,

Caveman,

You forget about Susan there, Jabba? No fair ignoring my request and asking other members questions! Tisk tisk!

 

[caveman1917]

Maybe because the more sciency stuff is harder to do?

Not necessarily. For example he could argue that he believes he will live long enough for mind uploading to become a reality. Speculative, but not contradicting science and not doing all that "souls" and NDE stuff.

 

[The Norseman]

Not necessarily. For example he could argue that he believes he will live long enough for mind uploading to become a reality. Speculative, but not contradicting science and not doing all that "souls" and NDE stuff.

Good point.

 

[Mojo]

Mojo,

- Do you have a sense of self?
- If you do it will eventually cease to exist, according to OOFLam.

Correct.

- My main claim here is that there is an infinity of different potential senses of self, which means that the likelihood of the current existence of your particular sense of self -- given that you have one, and given OOFLam -- is infinitesimal.
- Which means that if you do have a sense of self, OOFLam is very likely wrong.

Nope, even if we accept your idea of the "infinity of different potential senses of self" whichever one of them happened to be occupying my body would be "me". Probability = 1.

 

[The Sparrow]

- My main claim here is that there is an infinity of different potential senses of self, which means that the likelihood of the current existence of your particular sense of self -- given that you have one, and given OOFLam -- is infinitesimal.
- Which means that if you do have a sense of self, OOFLam is very likely wrong.

I simply don't get this.
Think of dumping a bucket of sand on the floor. There are (unless you get to the quantum level of distances) literally almost an infinte number of ways the grains of sand can end up being arranged. Each time you dump it, it would be different. You could probably dump it a billion times and not get exactly the same arrangement.
You are looking at one of those dumped arrangements, and claiming it could not have possibly happened this way, or the odds of it coming out this way are so high as to be impossible.

Don't you see that?

 

[Mojo]

I simply don't get this.
Think of dumping a bucket of sand on the floor. There are (unless you get to the quantum level of distances) literally almost an infinte number of ways the grains of sand can end up being arranged. Each time you dump it, it would be different. You could probably dump it a billion times and not get exactly the same arrangement.
You are looking at one of those dumped arrangements, and claiming it could not have possibly happened this way, or the odds of it coming out this way are so high as to be impossible.

Don't you see that?

No, he doesn't.

To paraphrase Upton Sinclair, "it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his argument depends upon his not understanding it."

 

[Foster Zygote]

I simply don't get this.
Think of dumping a bucket of sand on the floor. There are (unless you get to the quantum level of distances) literally almost an infinte number of ways the grains of sand can end up being arranged. Each time you dump it, it would be different. You could probably dump it a billion times and not get exactly the same arrangement.
You are looking at one of those dumped arrangements, and claiming it could not have possibly happened this way, or the odds of it coming out this way are so high as to be impossible.

Don't you see that?

I was going to use a snowflake as an example, but your bucket of sand works just as well.

 

[Jabba]

Caveman,
- Please tell me what my mystical stuff is, and what's wrong with my math.

Your mystical stuff is NDE or a "soul" which exists without a body. I've already told you what's wrong with your math, your relative likelihoods are equal and not different like you claim.

caveman,
- Thanks.
- Re the mystical stuff, are you just saying that what I've presented and alluded to is very weak evidence?

 

[Jabba]

Caveman,
- Re the relative likelihoods (P(E|H) and P(E|~H)), I can't remember your argument. Would you repeat it?

 

[The Sparrow]

Hilarious!!!

 

[The Norseman]

caveman,

Caveman,

Some reason you're ignoring my requests? If you say Susan Blackmore states your beliefs accurately or what she says supports your beliefs, quote the page numbers from her book you referenced earlier. It's up right now on one of my monitors, just waiting patiently for you to answer.

 

[jond]

Ignoring all the posts that destroy your claims, Jabba? Effective debate at it's finest.

 

[caveman1917]

caveman,
- Thanks.
- Re the mystical stuff, are you just saying that what I've presented and alluded to is very weak evidence?

I'm saying it's mystical stuff, it has no connection whatsoever to known reality, even if only speculative like for example mind uploading would.

Caveman,
- Re the relative likelihoods (P(E|H) and P(E|~H)), I can't remember your argument. Would you repeat it?

In order for you to forget it again? No I'm not going to bother, especially since your response consisted of redefining - or rather "undefining" - a bunch of your terms.

 

[Loss Leader]

Not necessarily. For example he could argue that he believes he will live long enough for mind uploading to become a reality. Speculative, but not contradicting science and not doing all that "souls" and NDE stuff.

That argument would be that it is possible for a now-existing person to continue to live in one form or another.

Jabba's argument is that it is certain that he has always existed and always will. I'm not even sure he believes that he's bound by the birth or death of the universe.

 

[JayUtah]

My main claim here is that there is an infinity of different potential senses of self...

No. You aren't claiming this. You're simply scrambling frantically for anything you think will give you the Big Denominator, whether it makes sense or not. Every day you come up with a new "potential _______". Today its "senses of self." Tomorrow it will be something else, with no purpose other than trying to fool just one person into agreeing there must be an infinite number of them.

 

[Hokulele]

No. You aren't claiming this. You're simply scrambling frantically for anything you think will give you the Big Denominator, whether it makes sense or not. Every day you come up with a new "potential _______". Today its "senses of self." Tomorrow it will be something else, with no purpose other than trying to fool just one person into agreeing there must be an infinite number of them.

And he remains willfully ignorant that infinity isn't simply "really really lots".

 

[jond]

And he remains willfully ignorant that infinity isn't simply "really really lots".

Wait! It's not? Somebody should've told him a long time ago! (Oh, right, they did...)

 

[JoeMorgue]

Ignoring all the posts that destroy your claims, Jabba? Effective debate at it's finest.

It's really our fault for not providing him a "Designated Spokesperson" for our side who had already agreed to agree with him before the argument even started.

 

[Loss Leader]

It's really our fault for not providing him a "Designated Spokesperson" for our side who had already agreed to agree with him before the argument even started.

He abandoned me as spokesperson ... twice.