Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[Jabba]

Then you're not talking about H. Under H my self is the result of my chemistry, and is in principle reproducible just as much as the banana is, as we just discussed a few posts back. To reproduce is to make a copy. Making a copy of the banana would result in a second banana identical to, but separate from, the first. Making a copy of my body would result in a second body, with a sense of self, identical to but separate from the first.

Under H, everything about the sense of self depends on the physical body. That's why H results in each of us having one finite life, no more and no less.

Dave,
- I am talking about H -- I just claim that H is wrong.
- I claim that there is an aspect of your self that does not depend upon your chemistry. I claim that scientifically speaking, your self, your awareness of existence, would not be reincarnated by reproducing your exact chemistry. You would not be brought back to life...
- And, you agree with me.

- The thing is, if you can only exist for one short time, at most, the Bayesian likelihood of your current existence approaches zero -- is virtually zero. That fact suggests that OOFLam is wrong.

https://www.google.com/webhp?source...=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=reincarnation definition
re·in·car·na·tion
ˌrēənkärˈnāSH(ə)n/
noun
the rebirth of a soul in a new body.
synonyms: rebirth, transmigration of the soul, metempsychosis; More
a person or animal in whom a particular soul is believed to have been reborn.
plural noun: reincarnations

 

[The Sparrow]

Dave,

- I claim that there is an aspect of your self that does not depend upon your chemistry.

Yes we know, and you have no basis, evidence or proof to support that. you just keep claiming it over and over again.

I claim that scientifically speaking, your self, your awareness of existence, would not be reincarnated by reproducing your exact chemistry.

Yes we know, and you have no basis, evidence or proof to support that. you just keep claiming it over and over again. You can try all you want to sneak in "reincarnated" rather that "copied", but we catch that error and you fail.

You would not be brought back to life...
- And, you agree with me.

I'm pretty sure this is a complete mischaracterisation of his position.

- The thing is, if you can only exist for one short time, at most, the Bayesian likelihood of your current existence approaches zero -- is virtually zero. That fact suggests that OOFLam is wrong.

HOw many more times will you ignore why this is wrong?

https://www.google.com/webhp?source...=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=reincarnation definition
re·in·car·na·tion
ˌrēənkärˈnāSH(ə)n/
noun
the rebirth of a soul in a new body.
synonyms: rebirth, transmigration of the soul, metempsychosis; More
a person or animal in whom a particular soul is believed to have been reborn.
plural noun: reincarnations

That's nice. Are you trying to prove something is true by defining the word?

Griffin | Define Griffin at Dictionary.com
www.dictionary.com/browse/griffin
1. a fabled monster, usually having the head and wings of an eagle and the body of a lion.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

You used the word "fact" in a way that suggests you are unfamiliar with its meaning. Perhaps look that one up next

 

[Pixel42]

Dave,
- I am talking about H -- I just claim that H is wrong.
- I claim that there is an aspect of your self that does not depend upon your chemistry. I claim that scientifically speaking, your self, your awareness of existence, would not be reincarnated by reproducing your exact chemistry. You would not be brought back to life...
- And, you agree with me.

- The thing is, if you can only exist for one short time, at most, the Bayesian likelihood of your current existence approaches zero -- is virtually zero. That fact suggests that OOFLam is wrong.

https://www.google.com/webhp?source...=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=reincarnation definition
re·in·car·na·tion
ˌrēənkärˈnāSH(ə)n/
noun
the rebirth of a soul in a new body.
synonyms: rebirth, transmigration of the soul, metempsychosis; More
a person or animal in whom a particular soul is believed to have been reborn.
plural noun: reincarnations

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.

 

[Mojo]

- I am talking about H -- I just claim that H is wrong.

Your H ("OOFLam") is a strawman. The actual hypothesis you need to defeat is the hypothesis that consciousness is produced by the brain.

- I claim that there is an aspect of your self that does not depend upon your chemistry.

Because you have provided no evidence for this assertion we can apply Hitchens's razor.

I claim that scientifically speaking, your self, your awareness of existence, would not be reincarnated by reproducing your exact chemistry. You would not be brought back to life...
- And, you agree with me.

What he, and everyone else here, has been saying is that reproducing your "exact chemistry" wouldn't bring you back to life but would create a second consciousness exactly the same as yours.

I realise that this is a concept that you have extreme difficulty understanding, so I will explain it to you again: if you have two identical things, there are two of them. Two identical entities are not the same entity, because there are two of them, not one. Two things are not one thing even if they are identical, because there are two of them, not one. Not one, but two.

Two, not one.

Got that now?

- The thing is, if you can only exist for one short time, at most, the Bayesian likelihood of your current existence approaches zero -- is virtually zero. That fact suggests that OOFLam is wrong.

Under the hypothesis that your consciousness is produced by your brain the likelihood of your current existence is equal to the likelihood of your body existing. The likelihood of your current existence under a hypothesis in which you have a "self" that is independent of your body cannot possibly be greater than it is under the hypothesis that your consciousness is produced by your brain. You don't get to add in a factor of one over infinity to one side just because it happens to suit your argument, because your infinite number of "potential selves" are not part of the actual hypothesis you need to attack (although they are, of course, potentially part of your favoured hypothesis).

 

[Mojo]

https://www.google.com/webhp?source...=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=reincarnation definition
re·in·car·na·tion
ˌrēənkärˈnāSH(ə)n/
noun
the rebirth of a soul in a new body.
synonyms: rebirth, transmigration of the soul, metempsychosis; More
a person or animal in whom a particular soul is believed to have been reborn.
plural noun: reincarnations

Oh, and copying and pasting a definition of something doesn't make it real.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- I am talking about H -- I just claim that H is wrong.

This whole exercise is about you trying to prove H is wrong using Bayesian statistics. To do that, you need a value for P(E|H) to compare with a value for P(E|~H). Your value for P(E|H) has to be based on H being right. That's how Bayesian formulas work.

- I claim that there is an aspect of your self that does not depend upon your chemistry. I claim that scientifically speaking, your self, your awareness of existence, would not be reincarnated by reproducing your exact chemistry. You would not be brought back to life...

Because to reproduce is to make a copy. Two is more than one. I would not be brought back to life because all aspects of my self are determined by my brain. Making a copy of my brain after my death would not being me back to life, it would create a copy of me who would think it was the original me brought back to life.

- And, you agree with me.

The only way you could think I agree with you is if you didn't read any of my posts.

Here, try this one again: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11632079#post11632079

- The thing is, if you can only exist for one short time, at most, the Bayesian likelihood of your current existence approaches zero -- is virtually zero.

That can't be right. The universe is full of things that only exist for a short time, many of them much shorter than a human lifespan.

 

[Loss Leader]

- I claim without any evidence or logic whatsoever that there is an aspect of your self that does not depend upon your chemistry.

Fixed that for you.

https://www.google.com/webhp?source...=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=reincarnation definition
re·in·car·na·tion
ˌrēənkärˈnāSH(ə)n/
noun
the rebirth of a soul in a new body.
synonyms: rebirth, transmigration of the soul, metempsychosis; More
a person or animal in whom a particular soul is believed to have been reborn.
plural noun: reincarnations

What is the purpose of quoting this definition? You still haven't provided a working definition of the "soul." What is it exactly that is reborn or transmigrated? What memories does it have? What is its functional description?

Just because a word has a generally agreed-upon meaning doesn't mean that the concept behind the word exists, ever existed or ever could exist. "Unicorn" and "Dragon" are in the dictionary, too.

 

[Mojo]

That can't be right. The universe is full of things that only exist for a short time, many of them much shorter than a human lifespan.

Bananas, for example.

 

[Mojo]

What is the purpose of quoting this definition? You still haven't provided a working definition of the "soul." What is it exactly that is reborn or transmigrated? What memories does it have? What is its functional description?

Just because a word has a generally agreed-upon meaning doesn't mean that the concept behind the word exists, ever existed or ever could exist. "Unicorn" and "Dragon" are in the dictionary, too.

All of these clearly need to be added to Father Dougal's list.

 

[MRC_Hans]

- The thing is, if you can only exist for one short time, at most, the Bayesian likelihood of your current existence approaches zero -- is virtually zero. That fact suggests that OOFLam is wrong.

No, it is not 'virtually' zero. It also does not 'approach zero'. It has a very low prior probability, when defined as the exact image that currently exists of you. If just defined as a human male of your approximate appearance, it has a quite good probability. In fact, several thousand probably exist.

This is important because your definition of 'you' includes you, and thus implies that you exist. Therefore, the probability must be greater than zero.

If you didn't happen to exist, nobody would miss you and your spot would just be taken by somebody else. (I don't mean if you had died, but if you had never existed).

Hans

 

[aleCcowaN]

That can't be right. The universe is full of things that only exist for a short time, many of them much shorter than a human lifespan.

Bananas, for example.

Now I get why, when Jabba plays with his spurious Bayesian thingies and tells one of them is almost 0, we say he went bananas.

 

[jond]

Hey Jabba--

Merry Christmas! I wonder: if we cloned this banana, would it be the same yellow as the original? Or would it be a different yellow? And does the yellow change over time? Does the yellow exist when the banana has rotted or been eaten?

 

[The Sparrow]

Hey Jabba--

Merry Christmas! I wonder: if we cloned this banana, would it be the same yellow as the original? Or would it be a different yellow? And does the yellow change over time? Does the yellow exist when the banana has rotted or been eaten?

The 'yellow' moves on to another banana. The 'yellow' is immortal.
I get this by dividing the 6 billion existing banana/yellows over the infinity of possible banana yellows, and get a number of virtually zero. So yellows have to be immortal to exist.

This disproves oofyam

 

[aleCcowaN]

The 'yellow' moves on to another banana. The 'yellow' is immortal.
I get this by dividing the 6 billion existing banana/yellows over the infinity of possible banana yellows, and get a number of virtually zero. So yellows have to be immortal to exist.

This disproves oofyam

That is good, almost the kind of Bayesgasms one can find in Jabba's.

 

[Jabba]

This whole exercise is about you trying to prove H is wrong using Bayesian statistics. To do that, you need a value for P(E|H) to compare with a value for P(E|~H). Your value for P(E|H) has to be based on H being right. That's how Bayesian formulas work...

- Dave,
- Once again, I don't understand...
- I'm just trying to show that if OOFLam is correct, I really shouldn't currently exist. Given OOFLam, the likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam, is virtually zero. But since I do currently exist, OOFLam must be wrong...
- My basic question is whether or not we can say that an hypothesis is probably wrong, if the likelihood of an event -- given the hypothesis -- is virtually zero, and the event occurs. If the likelihood is something over infinity, would seem like we could.

 

[Hokulele]

- Dave,
- Once again, I don't understand...
- I'm just trying to show that if OOFLam is correct, I really shouldn't currently exist. Given OOFLam, the likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam, is virtually zero. But since I do currently exist, OOFLam must be wrong...
- My basic question is whether or not we can say that an hypothesis is probably wrong, if the likelihood of an event -- given the hypothesis -- is virtually zero, and the event occurs. If the likelihood is something over infinity, would seem like we could.

The big problem is that you are still misrepresenting the hypothesis. You are arguing against something that doesn't exist.

 

[John Jones]

- Dave,
- Once again, I don't understand...
- I'm just trying to show that if OOFLam is correct, I really shouldn't currently exist. Given OOFLam, the likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam, is virtually zero. But since I do currently exist, OOFLam must be wrong...
- My basic question is whether or not we can say that an hypothesis is probably wrong, if the likelihood of an event -- given the hypothesis -- is virtually zero, and the event occurs. If the likelihood is something over infinity, would seem like we could.

Your argument's failings have been explained to you again and again these last 5 years in the simplest of all possible terms, and you keep ignoring the explanations

 

[abaddon]

- Dave,
- Once again, I don't understand...

You don't need to restate the obvious.

- I'm just trying to show that if OOFLam is correct, I really shouldn't currently exist. Given OOFLam, the likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam, is virtually zero. But since I do currently exist, OOFLam must be wrong...

An you have failed to show it. Miserably. For four years. What does that tell you?

- My basic question is whether or not we can say that an hypothesis is probably wrong, if the likelihood of an event -- given the hypothesis -- is virtually zero, and the event occurs. If the likelihood is something over infinity, would seem like we could.

That is not your question. Not even remotely. In fact, you didn't even start this thread with a question. You started this thread with a claim that you had mathematical proof of immortality.

Where is that proof? Four years and nothing. If you had such, you would have presented it at the outset. Four years later? Nothing.

 

[godless dave]

- Dave,
- Once again, I don't understand...
- I'm just trying to show that if OOFLam is correct, I really shouldn't currently exist. Given OOFLam, the likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam, is virtually zero.

Yes, but when asked to explain why the likelihood of your current existence given OOFLam is "virtually zero", you eventually get to this:

- I am talking about H -- I just claim that H is wrong.
- I claim that there is an aspect of your self that does not depend upon your chemistry.

In the real scientific models of consciousness, every aspect of your self depends on your brain, so the likelihood of your current existence given H is exactly the same as the likelihood of your body existing and being alive. And that likelihood isn't calculated by taking the number of humans currently alive and dividing by infinity.