Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[godless dave]

The sense of self is not a distinct, countable thing under H.

Even if we treat it like one it doesn't help his case.

 

[JayUtah]

Even if we treat it like one it doesn't help his case.

He thinks it does because he's on a quest for the Big Denominator. The thing he taps out as the "self" for the purposes of falsifying H must be countable so that it can number as infinity.

 

[Jabba]

Yes. Just like my brain would never exist again. Because two identical things are two things, not one.

Dave,
- So, scientifically speaking, you never had to exist at all -- and Bayesian thinking, the likelihood of your current existence is virtually zero.
,

 

[aleCcowaN]

Dave,
- So, scientifically speaking, you never had to exist at all -- and Bayesian thinking, the likelihood of your current existence is virtually zero.
,

Erase scientifically and Bayesian from that phrase, they have nothing to do with the rest. They just are embellishments you placed to make it look cool and thread-related.

That done, your phrase boils down to one of many corollary of John Paulos' law of coincidences.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- So, scientifically speaking, you never had to exist at all

Depends on how deterministic you think the universe is, but sure.

-- and Bayesian thinking, the likelihood of your current existence is virtually zero.
,

No. I don't see how that follows.

The banana I'm about to have for a snack didn't have to exist, but the likelihood of its current existence is not virtually zero. My existence is no different.

 

[The Sparrow]

Depends on how deterministic you think the universe is, but sure.



No. I don't see how that follows.

The banana I'm about to have for a snack didn't have to exist, but the likelihood of its current existence is not virtually zero. My existence is no different.

And the exact could be said for every banana that has existed and will exist.
OR any other fruit for that matter. I also don't get how he gets from one to the other. Once again, it is texas sharpshooter. Jabba's existence is not a target. It was not a target before he existed.

Jabba you are just repeating the same thing over and over again using slightly different words, and you aren't addressing or even reading the problems with it. Do you think after the 1000th time this strategy will work?
This particular iteration of the thread has over 2700 posts, and not a thing has changed or moved since the start of it.

 

[Pixel42]

Jabba the mistakes you are making have been explained to you patiently, in detail. and in the simplest possible terms, many many times. Why are you simply repeating them as if it was the first time you'd ever made them? Go back and read the responses you got any of the previous times you posted the same faulty arguments, and this time try to understand them.

 

[JayUtah]

So, scientifically speaking, you never had to exist at all

That's correct. There is no lottery to win, no overarching framework you can speculate exists if only so you can contrive countability. If you exist, the properties associated with existence necessarily arise. If you do not exist, the properties of existence have nothing in which to arise. Properties are not things.

...and Bayesian thinking, the likelihood of your current existence is virtually zero.

No, there's nothing validly Bayesian or logical about that. You're being shown the same reductio ad absurdum rebuttal you always get when you attempt this specious line of reasoning. One of these years you should consider it.

 

[Loss Leader]

Dave,
- So, scientifically speaking, you never had to exist at all -- and Bayesian thinking, the likelihood of your current existence is virtually zero.
,

Let me know if you ever decide to grasp the fact that there is no such thing as "virtually zero."

 

[godless dave]

And the exact could be said for every banana that has existed and will exist.
OR any other fruit for that matter. I also don't get how he gets from one to the other. Once again, it is texas sharpshooter. Jabba's existence is not a target. It was not a target before he existed.

It would be the Texas sharpshooter fallacy if Jabba were using anything like the actual odds of a specific individual existing under the scientific understanding of biology. But he doesn't even get that far: he uses some number where the numerator is, for some reason, the number of people alive now and the denominator is the number of possible human beings in the entire lifespan of the universe. The latter is based on his claim that each person's sense of self comes from nowhere, rather than being the result of biological processes.

 

[Mojo]

It would be the Texas sharpshooter fallacy if Jabba were using anything like the actual odds of a specific individual existing under the scientific understanding of biology. But he doesn't even get that far: he uses some number where the numerator is, for some reason, the number of people alive now and the denominator is the number of possible human beings in the entire lifespan of the universe.

Not quite: Jabba's denominator is the number of "potential selves", which he claims are infinite. He has to stick infinity in there to make his strawman "H" impossible.

But this doesn't work, even if we were to accept his infinite number of "potential selves". All we have here is an entity that claims it is Jabba. But whichever of these "potential selves" happened to inhabit Jabba's body would think it was Jabba. Once Jabba's body exists the probability of the result we see is 1.

On the other hand, Jabba's argument relies on the self inhabiting his body being the One True Jabba. The self inhabiting Jabba's body will no doubt say that it is the OTJ, but if there are, as Jabba claims, an infinite number of "potential selves" that it could be, only one of which is the OTJ, then the likelihood that it is correct when it says this is one over infinity.

This means that it would appear that the "self" occupying Jabba's body is not the OTJ. Jabba can therefore avoid committing the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, but only at the expense of conceding that the event he is relying on to falsify his H hasn't happened.

Even if the rest of his "proof" was valid, it would still require the coming of the One True Jabba.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I didn't understand what you meant...

Well that's because you don't listen.

Anyway, one step at a time.

You mean no steps at any time, ever. Just jog in place Jabba.

Do you accept that even if your self is only an illusion or process, it is still real?

Ah so now you're going to try to paint consciousness as a biological process as being "an illusion."

You say "only a process" as if that means anything. Fire is a process, a chemical reaction. It's real. Your hairsplit means nothing.

Your brain/body is alive, and it produces, or receives, a sense of continuous self?

It receives nothing. Your radio analogy is infantile.

This has all been explained to you before. Multiples times. Again and again.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Is there a name for a fallacy where one pleads ignorance, but still claims argumental integrity

It's called being willfully obtuse.

Hans

 

[aleCcowaN]

Is there a name for a fallacy where one pleads ignorance, but still claims argumental integrity

It's called being willfully obtuse.

Hans

I'd rather say malafides, chemically pure malafides.

 

[Mojo]

Is there a name for a fallacy where one pleads ignorance, but still claims argumental integrity

Truly Effective Debate.

 

[aleCcowaN]

With the tinsy detail there are no TED talks associated to it but TED Snow Jobs^®

 

[Jabba]

Depends on how deterministic you think the universe is, but sure.



No. I don't see how that follows.

The banana I'm about to have for a snack didn't have to exist, but the likelihood of its current existence is not virtually zero. My existence is no different.

Dave,
- I would say that your sense of self is different -- it is not the result of your chemistry. There is nothing about the banana that isn't reproducible, but your sense of self is not at all reproducible.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Dave,
- I would say that your sense of self is different -- it is not the result of your chemistry. There is nothing about the banana that isn't reproducible, but your sense of self is not at all reproducible.

Dave:
Be your sense of self different!!
Be it not the result of your chemistry!!
Be the banana reproducible!!
Be your sense of self not reproducible!!
Be, I, Jabba the Thunder-lord, right!! (biography on the web)

It doesn't work.

When will you learn that you can't hide the sun behind your thumb?

 

[Mojo]

Dave,
- I would say that your sense of self is different -- it is not the result of your chemistry.

Why would you say that?

 

[The Sparrow]

Dave,
- I would say that your sense of self is different -- it is not the result of your chemistry. There is nothing about the banana that isn't reproducible, but your sense of self is not at all reproducible.

Of course you would say that. All you need to do now is prove it.