Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[godless dave]

Dave,
- This is where chemistry loses control, and we have so much trouble communicating. While your chemistry could theoretically reproduce an identical you, it couldn't reproduce you. Scientifically speaking, therefore, you can exist only once in all of infinity.

How is this different than a banana?

That your time would happen to be the 21st century, Gregorian speaking, is an all too amazing coincident.

Why? What's so special about the 21st Century?

 

[jond]

Dave,
- This is where chemistry loses control, and we have so much trouble communicating. While your chemistry could theoretically reproduce an identical you, it couldn't reproduce you. Scientifically speaking, therefore, you can exist only once in all of infinity. That your time would happen to be the 21st century, Gregorian speaking, is an all too amazing coincident. Which would be more probable, your current existence given only one existence for all infinity, or ~OOFLam given your current existence?
- I think there's more to it (re Mt Rainier) -- but again, one step at a time

The difficulty, Jabba, lies entirely in your absolute refusal to consider yourself to be a process, and not an entity that exists separate from your brain. Until you finally start to consider this, you will never learn. (Of course, you have amply demonstrated that you have no interest in learning.)

 

[JayUtah]

This is where chemistry loses control, and we have so much trouble communicating. While your chemistry could theoretically reproduce an identical you, it couldn't reproduce you.

You've shown no evidence of any sort of "you" that cannot be reproduced under H by reproducing the organism. You gesticulate wildly about it not being "the same self," but that doesn't matter. "Chemistry" is your other straw man. There are many processes that produce an organism. One of the processes exhibited in that organism is high-order cognition, which results in a sense of self. That sense of self is a property of the organism that exhibits the process, just as yellow is a property of a banana that has undergone the process of ripening. In addition, the ability of cognition to respond to outside stimuli affects the sense of self that is manifest.

You seem inexorably mired in the completely wrong notion that H must be dualistic. It is not, and it does you no good to equivocate and play other word games that effectively keep insisting on that dualism. Any argument from you that amounts to H being a dualistic theory of the sense of self is ipso facto wrong.

Get it?

Which would be more probable, your current existence given only one existence for all infinity, or ~OOFLam given your current existence?

Right now the most probable explanation for existence is the one for which there exists actual evidence. You are proposing a mode of existence for which there is no evidence. By any reasonable estimate, that would be less probable.

You claim you can offer an alternative method of estimating probability that amounts to a mathematical proof that an immortal soul is a "virtual certainty." But you cannot provide a valid proof. You have tried for several years to make the proof work, but you refuse to address its fatal flaws. Instead, you keep playing silly games with words, logic, and rhetoric to make it seem viable.

...but again, one step at a time

You aren't taking the necessary steps. Several fatal errors have been identified in your proof, and you just carry on as if they didn't exist.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Dave,
- This is where chemistry loses control, and we have so much trouble communicating.

This is where you loose control of your own argumentation.

While your chemistry could theoretically reproduce an identical you, it couldn't reproduce you.

If 'you' is defined as the current incidence of you, then ... correct. Just as the current incidence of a banana, going 60mph, or a candle flame.

Scientifically speaking, therefore, you can exist only once in all of infinity.

Under tha above-mentioned definition, correct.

That your time would happen to be the 21st century, Gregorian speaking, is an all too amazing coincident.

Nonsense. Texas sharp-shooter fallacy. Of course, you will discuss this with poeple of your own time, who else?

Which would be more probable, your current existence given only one existence for all infinity, or ~OOFLam given your current existence?

They are equally possible. Why would some immortal soul happen to exist just now?

- I think there's more to it (re Mt Rainier) -- but again, one step at a time

Jabba, we all know you think that. What we are waiting for, for five years and counting, is for you to produce ANY hint of the logical argumentation you claim to want to make.

Hans

 

[Loss Leader]

That your time would happen to be the 21st century, Gregorian speaking, is an all too amazing coincident.

It's only a coincidence if the two things had independent meanings before we discovered them. It was a coincidence that Paul and Jamie were at the Museum of Natural History on the same day when they were 10 on that episode of "Mad About You." It is not a coincidence that one particular banana sits next to another in the same bunch.

And, still, bananas are a terrible analogy for the "soul." The exact size of a banana is a better analogy. I'm holding a banana that is exactly 8.412569013625378327942356108 inches long. What's the chance that in the infinite space between 4" and 12", my banana would be exactly that long? Is it zero. There are an infinite number of lengths it could be. So the chance of my banana having that exact length must be zero, right?

 

[Hokulele]

- I think there's more to it (re Mt Rainier) -- but again, one step at a time

I don't care what you think, I care why you think it.

I note that you are still avoiding the question of whether or not identical twins are one self looking out of two pairs of eyes...

 

[Loss Leader]

I sometimes wonder if you even know what you are trying to argue. H (OOFLAM) is the thing you are trying to disprove. H is not dualistic. Under H your sensation of self is a process of a functioning brain. Under H, the current state of a self is not improbable. It is unpredictable, but probable enough for this planet to hold nearly 7 billions of the human persuasion alone.

It's because Jabba's argument has nothing whatsoever to do with Bayes' Theorem. He is making the straightforward argument:

1. There are infinite times I could exist.
2. If I were mortal, I could not exist because 1/inf. = 0.
3. If I were immortal, my existence would be guaranteed.
4. Thus, I am immortal.

He just hides it in Bayesian terms so that he can introduce lots of made-up math to obscure his straightforward thinking. Of course, both 1 and 2 are wrong (limits) and 4 is a non sequitur. He needs Bayes the same way a magician needs a smoke bomb.

 

[The Sparrow]

....I'm holding a banana that is exactly 8.412569013625378327942356108 inches long.....

That's an impressive banana!

 

[Loss Leader]

That's an impressive banana!

I was very lucky that I'd booked time on the clean room MIT laser micrometer several months ago for just such an occasion. I don't think they're going to let me use it again.

 

[JayUtah]

I was very lucky that I'd booked time on the clean room MIT laser micrometer several months ago for just such an occasion. I don't think they're going to let me use it again.

I'm sure they use it all the time to measure their bananas.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Dave,
- This is where chemistry loses control, and we have so much trouble communicating. While your chemistry could theoretically reproduce an identical you, it couldn't reproduce you.

We're not having trouble communicating Jabba you just keep making statement that are wrong and refusing to listen to anyone explain to you why.

Scientifically speaking,

Never ever dare to use that term Jabba.

 

[theprestige]

That's an impressive banana!

It's a very *precise* banana.

 

[Hokulele]

It may be precise, but I wonder how accurate it is?

 

[John Jones]

Dave,
- This is where chemistry loses control, and we have so much trouble communicating. While your chemistry could theoretically reproduce an identical you, it couldn't reproduce you. Scientifically speaking, therefore, you can exist only once in all of infinity. That your time would happen to be the 21st century, Gregorian speaking, is an all too amazing coincident. Which would be more probable, your current existence given only one existence for all infinity, or ~OOFLam given your current existence?
- I think there's more to it (re Mt Rainier) -- but again, one step at a time

You're going to rehash all your crappy, ineffective, illogical arguments again??? How many resets have you done?

 

[Loss Leader]

It may be precise, but I wonder how accurate it is?

Are you accusing me of overstating the length of my banana?

 

[Dancing David]

I'm sure they use it all the time to measure their bananas.

"I am sorry but the banana radar says you were going 60 in a 30 mph zone"

 

[JayUtah]

"I am sorry but the banana radar says you were going 60 in a 30 mph zone"

How many bananas going 60 mph are there?

 

[Hokulele]

Are you accusing me of overstating the length of my banana?

When there are too many digits involved with your banana, there has to be a root cause...

Edit: I will admit, that was a pretty significant figure.

 

[theprestige]

You're going to rehash all your crappy, ineffective, illogical arguments again??? How many resets have you done?

There are an infinite number of potential resets. The probability of this reset actually happening is 1/infinity=0. Therefore Jabba has not, and never will, do a reset.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Dave,
- In a sense, the likelihood of an individual banana currently existing is probably (at least virtually) one. I doubt that there is anything mysterious about a banana, other than life itself.

How many "going 60 mph" are there?