Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[jsfisher]

- 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.

Jabba, please name one specific thing in this universe that, by your logic, wouldn't be infinitesimally unlikely.

 

[Loss Leader]

Jabba, please name one specific thing in this universe that, by your logic, wouldn't be infinitesimally unlikely.

Terrible question. According to Jabba, the shape of Mt. Rainier has a probability of 1 because of the laws of geology.

He doesn't see Rainier as ever-changing in shape due to wind or water erosion, plant growth, animal movement or humans just dumping dirt on it. Nor does he understand that, while Rainier might be a thing, it's shape is an ongoing process.

The difference between humans and mountains, according to Jabba? Humans have souls. And because humans have souls, it is possible for humans to outlive their bodies, thus proving we have souls.

There is no question you could ask, no rabbit warren you could explore that Jabba hasn't found a way to completely ignore.

 

[Slowvehicle]

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

But nothing new...

 

[Jabba]

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

But nothing new...

Somebody,
- Please point me to the post you would most like me to address.

 

[jond]

Somebody,
- Please point me to the post you would most like me to address.

Surely an effective debater such as yourself can easily figure out which posts are being referred to.

 

[godless dave]

Somebody,
- Please point me to the post you would most like me to address.

How about this one: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11625004#post11625004

 

[The Sparrow]

Excellent Jay. I would add that skimming posts to try to find a gap to wedge your beliefs into is hardly debate, investigation or honest inquiry.

We ALL know your goal is to try convince yourself that 'hardcore skeptics' ended up agreeing with you. You are fooling absolutely no one.

 

[Belz...]

You insist that your critics should place fewer demands on your eyes, ears, and brain. Written debate has the power to be more than just a volley of sound bites, but it seems that's all you want.

Not even that. I've been trying to be a concise as possible with him and he still ignores me.

This:

Want to debate effectively in any format? Pay attention to your critics.

Should've been the entirety of your post, assuming the soundbite theory is correct.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Somebody,
- Please point me to the post you would most like me to address.

My Dear Mr. Savage:

Given that, by your own rules, you have agreed that you have not a single bit of actual evidence for a "soul", to say nothing of its "immortality"; perhaps you would explain where that leaves your perfervid desire to be able to claim to be "immortal"...

I remain, fairly patiently, yours &ct.

 

[aleCcowaN]

- Can any of you guys direct me to such a site, or page?

Yes, I can. But I reckon you'll still be back.

 

[aleCcowaN]

where that leaves your perfervid desire to be able to claim to be "immortal"...

Wow! A wonderful word, new for me (A cognate of hervir).

I imagine it to be the state you reach when you eat burning church candles for breakfast every single day.

 

[Jabba]

Somebody,
- Please point me to the post you would most like me to address.

How about this one: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11625004#post11625004

Mojo,

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

- 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?

Dave and Sparrow,
- I see this as equivalent to the Mt Rainier and the Texas Sharpshooter arguments. Do you agree?
- If so, I agree that this issue deserves more consideration. And, for now at least, I also think that it is the weakest part of my argument.

 

[godless dave]

Dave and Sparrow,
- I see this as equivalent to the Mt Rainier and the Texas Sharpshooter arguments. Do you agree?

Yes.

 

[jond]

Dave and Sparrow,
- I see this as equivalent to the Mt Rainier and the Texas Sharpshooter arguments. Do you agree?
- If so, I agree that this issue deserves more consideration. And, for now at least, I also think that it is the weakest part of my argument.

Don't forget to address the fact that the scientific model is considerably more likely than your model.

 

[The Sparrow]

Dave and Sparrow,
- I see this as equivalent to the Mt Rainier and the Texas Sharpshooter arguments. Do you agree?
- If so, I agree that this issue deserves more consideration. And, for now at least, I also think that it is the weakest part of my argument.

Sorry, like you I am going to only respond to the posts that I can twist to meet my presupposed conclusion.

 

[Dancing David]

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

It isn't even weak evidence, it is a possibility lacking evidence. Until you eliminate confounding factors there is no evidence.

 

[JayUtah]

I also think that it is the weakest part of my argument.

I don't see the need to rank your errors. Any one of several that your critics have named would be fatal to your case, and you simply run in a circle evading a refutation of one by re-committing one of the others.

Your strategy is explicit. You have your formula all set up to give you the answer you want. It just needs a rationale for a small P(E|H) that you can con someone into believing. Consequently you're searching for some Big Denominator, regardless of whether it has any scientific or philosophical underpinning. Today it's the number of ways a bucket of sand can land. Tomorrow it will be something else.

The weak part of your argument we're discussing now is your blinkered idea that concepts which have no cardinality can somehow be wrangled to give you infinity for your denominator. That's as broken an idea for consciousness as it is for sand. What's worse, a number of people have given you the obligatory reductio ad absurdum refutation of that argument, which you have assiduously ignored in favor of rambling about how you can debate more effectively.

 

[Belz...]

Jay, what do you mean "the weak part of your argument"? Does Jabba has a strong part to his argument?

 

[JayUtah]

Jay, what do you mean "the weak part of your argument"? Does Jabba has a strong part to his argument?

I meant what Jabba defines as the weak part of his argument today -- namely the ridiculous justification for the Big Denominator that amounts to the Texas sharpshooter's fallacy. I'm sure later he'll identify something else as the weak part of his argument. Aside from that, no I don't consider his argument to have any strong points. I wrote previously that I don't feel the need to rank his errors, but even so I'm sure you'll agree a dry turd smells better than a wet one, be they both turds nonetheless.

 

[caveman1917]

I meant what Jabba defines as the weak part of his argument today -- namely the ridiculous justification for the Big Denominator that amounts to the Texas sharpshooter's fallacy.

That's not the problem though.

Let U be the set of possible "worlds", which we'll consider the set of possible physical configurations of a region in space, let's assume for simplicity that it is finite[*]. Assume we have a brain-counting function brain_count: U -> N which counts the number of human brains in a given world. Denote a chosen element of U as actual_world.

Define possible_brains as the sum over U of brain_count
Define actual_brains as brain_count(actual_world)
Let P(E | H) approximately be actual_brains / possible_brains, where E is "I exist" (as spoken by a certain brain) and H is the model above. This is indeed very small.

Assume there exists a set of souls and that a bijection exists between the set of souls and the set of brains. Then P(E | ~H) = actual_souls / possible_souls = actual_brains / possible_brains = P(E | H) where ~H is the immortal soul model.

* if you want a physical justification, by the earlier-mentioned Bekenstein bound the number of possible physical configurations within the Hubble horizon (and hence relevant, with "relevant" being "causally connected to us") is finite.