Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[John Jones]

Then why wouldn't we be able to reason about potential selves under H? Under the scientific understanding the self is a property of a substrate (brain, but also possibly computer or something else). Then we can reason about the set of potential selves by reasoning about the set of potential substrates which induce a self.

Jabba's H is actually a straw man argument.

 

[Loss Leader]

- You seem to be accepting "particular awarenesses" as an acceptable definition for "selves." Is that correct?

Jabba, you keep trying to sneak in words that make me think that you still don't understand what awareness is. It is not a thing that can be counted. Six people sitting in a room do not have six "particular awarenesses." Awareness is the constantly changing operation of working brains.

Do you have the same particular awareness of Jabba 30 years ago. Was he aware of your grandchildren or how your back hurts or the Y2k scare? Was he aware of the car you're driving now? Did he even eat the same foods?

Stop playing. How many "going 60 mph" are there?

Jabba's H is actually a straw man argument.

It always has been. And it always will be. Things that happen in the universe are possible. He wants science to tell him that something that happened (his existence) was impossible. Therefore miracle, god, immortality, whatever.

The entire Bayesian equation is a red herring. It doesn't actually form any part of his logic.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Jabba.

I throw a bottle full of gasoline and stuffed with a flaming rag into a room.

Can you count the "individual fires" it produces?

There is seriously no way to explain this more, better, clearer. What you are hiding behind when you talk about a soul (And for God's sake man just flippin' call it that!") doesn't exist. There is no singular thing that makes you you.

This has been explained to you countless times. The only "infinity" you've managed to show any evidence for is the number of times a simple concept has to be explained to you before you'll get it.

 

[Loss Leader]

What you are hiding behind when you talk about a soul (And for God's sake man just flippin' call it that!") doesn't exist.

What makes it all the more odd is that I recently went to take a look at Spiritual Forums. Forget counting by threads, one can count all of the subforums where Jabba's ideas would fit right in: Reincarnation; Science and Spirituality; Astral Projection; Death and the Afterlife; et cet. The sub-forum titled "Non-Duality" is packed with people agreeing that there is duality.

And they seem like a very polite and supportive bunch.

Jabba could lay out his entire thought process there and he'd get much more positive feedback. He'd get insights helpful to him in a language he shares with believers. For someone with a spiritual heart, it appears to be the perfect way to connect, spread your message and learn from others.

And yet Jabba stands firmly here despite receiving no support. He is the subject of derision. And he cannot adapt to criticism.

It is, as I said at the top, odd.

 

[Mojo]

- You seem to be accepting "particular awarenesses" as an acceptable definition for "selves." Is that correct?

Jabba,
- You seem to be using "particular awarenesses" as a synonym for "souls".

 

[Mojo]

Dave,
- Yes.
- You seem to be accepting "particular awarenesses" as an acceptable definition for "selves." Is that correct?

Jabba,
- How many seeming to be accepting "particular consciousnesses" as an acceptable definition for "selves" are there?

 

[MRC_Hans]

You could count reds by counting the possible ways in which something can be red, such as counting the number of frequencies of EM radiation which we define as "red".

Would that be potential reds?

Would that change the probability that something be red?

Would defining an increasing amount of potential reds mean that the probability of something being red is reduced?

Because that is the point, here: Obviously, with a suitable definition (and since any definition is arbitrary, such a definition can be made) of 'self', 'selves' and 'potential selves' might be countable. And this count may be virtually infinite (that is just a question of which, also arbitrary, graduation we use).

However, the claim made by Jabba is that using such an (arbitrary) definition, we can somehow argue that a given self is virtually impossible (and must therefore have some other explanation).

Is this what you are also arguing? If not, you might want to bark up another tree.

Hans

 

[theprestige]

Would that be potential reds?

Would that change the probability that something be red?

Would defining an increasing amount of potential reds mean that the probability of something being red is reduced?

Because that is the point, here: Obviously, with a suitable definition (and since any definition is arbitrary, such a definition can be made) of 'self', 'selves' and 'potential selves' might be countable. And this count may be virtually infinite (that is just a question of which, also arbitrary, graduation we use).

However, the claim made by Jabba is that using such an (arbitrary) definition, we can somehow argue that a given self is virtually impossible (and must therefore have some other explanation).

Is this what you are also arguing? If not, you might want to bark up another tree.

Hans

More specifically, Jabba is arguing that the scientific model of consciousness is wrong, because if consciousness were a countable thing there would be too many of them for any particular one to ever incarnate.

This argument is fractally wrong, not least because consciousness is not a countable thing in the scientific model. It's a process, and is therefore immune to the probabilistic dog's breakfast Jabba is trying to apply.

 

[abaddon]

More specifically, Jabba is arguing that the scientific model of consciousness is wrong, because if consciousness were a countable thing there would be too many of them for any particular one to ever incarnate.

This argument is fractally wrong, not least because consciousness is not a countable thing in the scientific model. It's a process, and is therefore immune to the probabilistic dog's breakfast Jabba is trying to apply.

He is also claiming that the only possible resolution is an immortal soul (or whatever his term du jour happens to be).

 

[MRC_Hans]

More specifically, Jabba is arguing that the scientific model of consciousness is wrong, because if consciousness were a countable thing there would be too many of them for any particular one to ever incarnate.

This argument is fractally wrong, not least because consciousness is not a countable thing in the scientific model. It's a process, and is therefore immune to the probabilistic dog's breakfast Jabba is trying to apply.

It is wrong even if consciousness is defined in a way that makes it countable. Countable entities do not become unlikely by being numerous (obviously).

What Jabba assumes is that his exact self is somehow predestined. If that were the case, it would be very unlikely to occur from materialistic causes.

Where he fails is when he tries to use that to argue against materialism (his OOFLAM, his H), because the hypothesis for materialism is exactly that his self is not predestined, but just one that came from partly random circumstance.

So it really boils down to a simple strawman fallacy, and there is no reason to bother discussing count-ability with him..


Hans

 

[Pixel42]

What Jabba assumes is that his exact self is somehow predestined. If that were the case, it would be very unlikely to occur from materialistic causes.

Where he fails is when he tries to use that to argue against materialism (his OOFLAM, his H), because the hypothesis for materialism is exactly that his self is not predestined, but just one that came from partly random circumstance.

Yes, all his other mistakes are red herrings. That mistake is the fundamental one, and it's a humdinger.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I have mentioned this before, but it was ... snowed under, and, of course, ignored by Jabba:

Predictability and probability are different things. You might say there is a one-way relationship as something has to have some probability to be predictable, but not the other way around: Something can be totally unpredictable, but still quite probable. If you roll a dice, it is quite unpredictable if you'll roll a six, but the probability is quite fair (1/6).

How my exact self turned out was entirely unpredictable, but that a self would exist to more or less fill my slot in the world was highly probable, in fact virtually certain. Thus, Jabba, in your formula for the probability of OOFLAM, you will have to multiply with the number of potential selves.

Hans

 

[The Sparrow]

....
What Jabba assumes is that his exact self is somehow predestined....

Bingo! Texas sharpshooter.

Jabba, how many "Going 60 mph" are there?

 

[Jabba]

Dave,
- Well at least, you think that my wordplay is clever...
- But, you believe that if we could somehow duplicate your body, your particular, personal, awareness would not return.
- And, if time is infinite, and entropy is not the destiny of reality, the number of potential, particular, awarenesses should be infinite.
- And then, if something came to exist in the first place, would everything disappear/evaporate and never exist again?

I also believe that if I strike a match and let the flame burn out, that particular flame will never return even if I strike an identical match in the same way under the same conditions. Do you?...

Dave,
- Yes.
- Just that in the case of the flames, the only difference between the two would be their times of existence. In the case of your body and its duplicate, their particular awarenesses, their selves, would also be different.
- For the moment, I'm just trying to show that the potential number of selves is infinite -- and that if so, the likelihood of your current existence -- given OOFLam -- is virtually zero.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- Yes.
- Just that in the case of the flames, the only difference between the two would be their times of existence.

They wouldn't be two different flames?

In the case of your body and its duplicate, their particular awarenesses, their selves, would also be different.

And the only difference between the two selves would be their times of existence.

- For the moment, I'm just trying to show that the potential number of selves is infinite -- and that if so, the likelihood of your current existence -- given OOFLam -- is virtually zero.

Isn't the potential number of flames infinite? For that matter, isn't the potential number of matches infinite?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Dave,
- Yes.
- Just that in the case of the flames, the only difference between the two would be their times of existence. In the case of your body and its duplicate, their particular awarenesses, their selves, would also be different.
- For the moment, I'm just trying to show that the potential number of selves is infinite -- and that if so, the likelihood of your current existence -- given OOFLam -- is virtually zero.

And as we keep telling you, this is wrong. Given that the self is an emergent property of your bodily existence, it is very likely. And the more bodily existences exist, the more likely it gets.

Hans

 

[Jabba]

- You guys are fast!

 

[Pixel42]

- You guys are fast!

It doesn't take long to point out the same mistake you've pointed out a dozen times before.

 

[MRC_Hans]

- You guys are fast!

Dude, compared to you, a one-legged millipede is fast.



Hans

 

[JayUtah]

For the moment, I'm just trying to show that the potential number of selves is infinite...

Under H there is a sense of self. It is a property. It is not a countable thing.