Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

[jond]

And we're back to solipsism, as though it's never been discussed before...

Sorry, Jabba: you are not important to the universe. You're only important to yourself and those close to you. Deal with it.

Meanwhile, your self is a process, not an entity.

And you still refuse to acknowledge not only this point but the very obvious point that your existence under H (the proper, scientific version of H in which there is only your body) is far ore likely than your existence under Jabba's H (the one where you have not only a body, but a body and a soul).

 

[Slowvehicle]

- This will take a while -- if at all.

- I’ve said it before, and must admit that the logic seems to be missing something…

1) You are the only thing (or process) that you know for sure actually exists!
2) The likelihood of you currently existing – given OOFLam – is one/∞, or virtually zero!
3) If you didn’t currently exist, it would be as if there was nothing at all!
4) If you never existed, there might as well never be anything at all...

- This is what I mean by “target meaningfulness.” I’m claiming that targets don’t require red and white circles, that you and I make for real targets, that Mt Rainier is impressive, but it’s not nearly as meaningful as we are.
- I’m pretty sure that this is why toontown thinks that your perspective is so important.

- Your importance and likelihood, together, are really coincidental and impressive. And my current existence and importance, together, are even more so.

How many "going 60 mph" are there?

 

[Jabba]

Caveman,
- Will you talk with me?

 

[Loss Leader]

- This will take a while -- if at all.

- I’ve said it before, and must admit that the logic seems to be missing something…

1) You are the only thing (or process) that you know for sure actually exists!
2) The likelihood of you currently existing – given OOFLam – is one/∞, or virtually zero!
3) If you didn’t currently exist, it would be as if there was nothing at all!
4) If you never existed, there might as well never be anything at all...

Jabba, are you then willing to admit that the entire universe may only just have arisen ten minutes ago and may disappear ten minutes from now?

Are you willing to admit that the physical laws that seem to govern the workings of the universe (like gravity) are not knowable and may have reversed themselves ten times in the last 20 seconds?

Are you willing to admit that you were created in a tank by superinteligent aliens as part of some biological computer or something, that you are in that tank now, and that they will kill you when you become obsolete without you ever finding out about the simulation?

That's what solipsism means.

- Your importance and likelihood, together, are really coincidental and impressive.

No, no, no. You've mixed up your solipsism and the material universe. If you are important because you are the only thing that you know exists, then you cannot determine how likely you are. All you know is that you exist. Your likelihood is 1. If you didn't exist, you wouldn't know you
didn't exist and there would be (to you) no universe at all.

In a material universe, you can calculate the likelihood of you being born or of you having lived events exactly as you did. It's a wildly large number which gets rapidly smaller as limits are set. The likelihood of your DNA being combined from your parents, for example, was far greater than the likelihood of each of their DNA being combined by their parents (and then growing up as they did, meeting, having children when they did).

But in a material universe, people exist. Your solipsistic argument for your importance goes away.

You've mixed two unmixable things.

 

[Loss Leader]

Caveman,
- Will you talk with me?

Sigh. You've found your new Least Critical Poster, have you?

Where in your patented rules for debate does it say that you get to pick your opposition's spokesperson?

 

[jond]

Caveman,
- Will you talk with me?

Why? You have plenty of people responding to you with very reasonable, thoughtful and complete answers.

 

[John Jones]

-
[...] I’m claiming that targets don’t require red and white circles, that you and I make for real targets, that Mt Rainier is impressive, but it’s not nearly as meaningful as we are.

How is Mt Rainier less meaningful than us?

 

[caveman1917]

Caveman,
- Will you talk with me?

No. I think I'm pretty much done with this thread for now.

 

[JayUtah]

- This will take a while -- if at all.

No, it won't take long at all. All you've done today is what you have always done: come up with a new word or phrase to express the same begged question as before and try to get people to agree it forms part of H. You romanticize about your sense of self and on that basis alone demand that your subjective view must make you an objectively different living creature. That has nothing to do with the scientific model of consciousness, so it has no bearing on H or P(E|H).

I’ve said it before, and must admit that the logic seems to be missing something…

The essence of a begged question is that it's missing something, in this case evidence for the proposition you're trying to establish. You want to say there's something especially "meaningful" about your existence as opposed to, say, a banana or a mountain. What's missing is the evidence that this is the case under H. You give us only a solipsist plea.

You are the only thing (or process) that you know for sure actually exists!

Stop trying to equivocate between an entity and property. And no, we discussed and refuted your solipsism months ago. Don't just run it up the flagpole again as if it's a new idea.

The likelihood of you currently existing – given OOFLam – is one/∞, or virtually zero!

Not by any valid argument. This is the conclusion you're trying to prove. Repeatedly stating it over and over again as if it were an axiom doesn't help you.

Further, you can't seem to decide whether only you exist or whether seven billion people exist or whether an unknown number of people exist across all dimensions of space and time. And your newfound solipsism defeats the notion that there must be an actual number of "potential" selves besides your one solipsistic self. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

It's one thing when you're simply making up numbers to put into an equation and pretending some useful information comes out of it. It's another thing when variables start the computation with one value and then arbitrarily acquire different values as needed in the midst of the computation. Shall we dispense with the notion that mathematics has anything whatsoever to do with what you're trying here?

If you didn’t currently exist, it would be as if there was nothing at all!
If you never existed, there might as well never be anything at all...

- This is what I mean by “target meaningfulness.”

And what you've defined that as is simply your unsupported assertion that there's objectively "something" special about you because you feel there is. We went through all this angsty hogwash months ago and dispelled it. You're just trying to bring it up again.

I’m claiming that targets don’t require red and white circles, that you and I make for real targets, that Mt Rainier is impressive, but it’s not nearly as meaningful as we are.

No. "Impressive" and "meaningful" are not concepts under H, let alone quantified ones. They have absolutely no bearing on H or P(E|H).

I’m pretty sure that this is why toontown thinks that your perspective is so important.

...and why Toontown is just as wrong as you are, and why he can't shoehorn all this touchy-feely nonsense into a statistical argument any better than you can.

 

[JayUtah]

Caveman, Will you talk with me?

Are you looking for substantive feedback regarding your hypothesis? Or are you just scrambling to find someone to agree with you?

 

[JayUtah]

How is Mt Rainier less meaningful than us?

Duh, it doesn't have a soul angsty, insecure sense of self.

 

[John Jones]

No. I think I'm pretty much done with this thread for now.

Good choice. It's five years old now, and has gone precisely nowhere.

Jabba? Have you any comment?

 

[Loss Leader]

Good choice. It's five years old now, and has gone precisely nowhere.

Jabba? Have you any comment?

Maybe he wants to go back around and tell us how he excluded everything except immortality from ~H. We haven't done that one in a while.

 

[abaddon]

Good choice. It's five years old now, and has gone precisely nowhere.

Jabba? Have you any comment?

I shall self censor and decline to post what I really think.

 

[John Jones]

"I want to go back and do it all over
But I can't go back I know"

 

[Mojo]

Maybe he wants to go back around and tell us how he excluded everything except immortality from ~H. We haven't done that one in a while.

Has he done that ever?

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Can someone summarize the results of this discussion? Is the proof complete yet?

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Can someone summarize the results of this discussion? Is the proof complete yet?

Yes, the proof was perfect on day one. Getting everyone to see its perfection is taking a little time.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Can someone summarize the results of this discussion? Is the proof complete yet?

Complete and airtight. We're all going to live forever, the Shroud of Turin is real, and spending half a decade not talking to one arbitrary spokesperson for the other side at a time is the best form of debate.

 

[The Sparrow]

I am continually baffled Jabba.
You come here to this "hall of skeptics", presumably under some misunderstanding that if you can "win" an argument here, with the harshest of critics, then you must be correct.

But then, you ignore all 99% critics and instead desperately seek 1 person who might say yes to you in a field of dozens saying no.
Quoting Toontown as if he's fully on your side and he's a skeptic, therefore we lose, is kinda silly.

Why are you posting here again? I just don't understand. Who is it you are trying to fool?