Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

[sackett]

Jabba's trying to fool himself, of course.

And succeeding.

 

[CriticalThanking]

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, while I would be sad if you ceased to existed, why would it be as if there was nothing at all? I certainly see the other parts of existence. If you never existed, my experience would not include Jabba, but the rest of existence would still be there.

My awareness of something does not change whether or not it exists. That is true for "souls" or someone's capability to use logic as well.

 

[Mojo]

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.

And if the only thing you know about something is that it has four legs, you can conclude that it is a dog.

 

[The Sparrow]

And if the only thing you know about something is that it has four legs, you can conclude that it is a dog.

Correction, there is a 1 over infinity chance that its "not-a-dog"

 

[Mojo]

Actually, I think I may have got that wrong. I think the argument was that if something has four legs, that is evidence that it is a dog even if it weighs 15,000lbs and has a trunk.

 

[Loss Leader]

Actually, I think I may have got that wrong. I think the argument was that if something has four legs, that is evidence that it is a dog even if it weighs 15,000lbs and has a trunk.

You're joking, but I spent three years in law school learning the difference between "evidence" and "proof." I have to dig out my old "John and Mary" hypotheticals from my Yrreg days.


ETA: Found it. The conversation starts here. But be warned <SNIP>

Edited by Locknar: 

Breach of rule 12 content removed.

 

[jsfisher]

You're joking, but I spent three years in law school learning the difference between "evidence" and "proof." I have to dig out my old "John and Mary" hypotheticals from my Yrreg days.

Proof is what you drink, right?

 

[John Jones]

Jabba, while I would be sad if you ceased to existed, why would it be as if there was nothing at all? I certainly see the other parts of existence. If you never existed, my experience would not include Jabba, but the rest of existence would still be there.

My awareness of something does not change whether or not it exists. That is true for "souls" or someone's capability to use logic as well.

Jabba is falling back on Solipsism for the ∞ argument for the hundredth time.

It has never worked for him before.

 

[JoeMorgue]

You're joking, but I spent three years in law school learning the difference between "evidence" and "proof."

Proof is what you drink, right?

IIRC that was the thread that spawned the "Proof is for whiskey, I'd settle for some evidence" quote.

 

[Jabba]

For now, here’s what I think.


1. We take our selves, our consciousnesses, totally for granted.
2. When, in truth, we are the very last things (or processes) we should take for granted.
3. This idea seems impossible to communicate effectively…
4. We simply shouldn’t be here; yet we take ourselves totally for granted.
5. Where in the hell did we come from?

6. Nothing makes sense.
7. Either there has always been something, or at one time there was nothing.
8. That at one time there was nothing certainly doesn't make sense.
9. However, that there has always been something doesn't make sense either…
10. And, that sometime there will be nothing, also doesn’t make sense.
11. My best guess is that time is infinite – that there has always been something, and will always be something.
12. But then, that’s a pretty weak guess, and maybe a better guess is that my parameters are somehow wrong to begin with.
13. How about multiverses?
14. But still, one way or another, infinity seems to make the most sense.
15. As does there being an infinity of potential selves, awarenesses or consciousnesses.
16. And if so, the likelihood of my current existence, and the posterior probability of OOFLam must both be virtually zero.

17. And then, I am the only thing (or process) that I know for sure actually exists!
18. I don’t think that I’m the only thing (or process) that exists – unless, we are (somehow) all the same.
19. This isn’t solipsism – it’s the truth.
20. But then, the likelihood of me currently existing – given OOFLam – is one/∞, or virtually zero!

21. Now, this doesn’t mean that OOFLam is necessarily wrong -- unless I’m a legitimate target, it only means that the likelihood of me currently existing – given OOFLam – is one/∞, or virtually zero!

22. If I didn’t currently exist, it would be as if there were nothing!
23. If I never existed, it would be as if there were(?) never anything...
24. This is what I mean by “target meaningfulness.”
25. There are different shades of target -- some targets are much more obvious than are others.
26. 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 Mt Rainier is not nearly as meaningful as are we.
27. My importance and likelihood, together, are really coincidental and impressive.
28. I suspect that the posterior probability of an hypothesis that claims the likelihood of an occurring event to be virtually zero should be considered probably wrong…
29. I suspect that modern science is well off the mark, and at some point we'll figure that what is now considered modern science will be compared to the science before Copernicus.

30. That’s all I can think of for now.

 

[godless dave]

But then, the likelihood of me currently existing – given OOFLam – is one/∞, or virtually zero!

You still haven't demonstrated that.

 

[jond]

So you continue to refuse to consider a single thing that anyone has ever said to you. Gosh, what a surprise.

 

[Hokulele]

3. This idea seems impossible to communicate effectively…

That is because you refuse to listen to what other people are saying.

 

[CriticalThanking]

1. We take our selves, our consciousnesses, totally for granted.
2. When, in truth, we are the very last things (or processes) we should take for granted.
3. This idea seems impossible to communicate effectively…
4. We simply shouldn’t be here; yet we take ourselves totally for granted.
5. Where in the hell did we come from?

6. Nothing makes sense.

All interesting discussion/questions, but not relevant to proof of immortality.

I'll be Bach.

 

[CriticalThanking]

7. Either there has always been something, or at one time there was nothing.
8. That at one time there was nothing certainly doesn't make sense.
9. However, that there has always been something doesn't make sense either…

Whether or not you can make sense of something has little bearing on its truth value. I have a math degree, but don't have a hope of doing the math around space-time without much, much more study. I am arrogant, but not arrogant enough to claim that because tensors don't make sense to me people who use/study them are wrong.

I'll be Beethoven.

 

[CriticalThanking]

10. And, that sometime there will be nothing, also doesn’t make sense.
11. My best guess is that time is infinite – that there has always been something, and will always be something.
12. But then, that’s a pretty weak guess, and maybe a better guess is that my parameters are somehow wrong to begin with.
13. How about multiverses?
14. But still, one way or another, infinity seems to make the most sense.

AS long as you admit you have no evidence for that, no one will challenge that you are free to say which answer "feels" best to you.

I'll be darned.

 

[CriticalThanking]

15. As does there being an infinity of potential selves, awarenesses or consciousnesses.
16. And if so, the likelihood of my current existence, and the posterior probability of OOFLam must both be virtually zero.

And we are finally to something on the thread topic! It may feel understandable/right to you, but to convince others, you need evidence and decent logic. Many in the thread have patiently pointed out the problems with what you have presented.

I recommend you look for the Skeptics Guide to the Universe or Quackcast episodes on P value and Bayes. They don't get into the math, but they bring up critical points - there must be prior plausibility before the results can be useful. A P value of 0.005 does not prove magic exists. At best it means more study (or better study definition and controls) might be warranted.

I'll be in my tent.

 

[JayUtah]

For now, here’s what I think.

Same pointless navel-gazing dump as before. Jabba, you're a mature adult. Start writing like one, not like an angsty teenager.

19. This isn’t solipsism – it’s the truth.

No, it's solipsism.

20. But then, the likelihood of me currently existing – given OOFLam – is one/∞, or virtually zero!

No. You have no Big Denominator to make this happen. Further, your new love affair with solipsism undermines the "potential selves" thing you were using for the past three months to try to get you Big Denominator to happen.

30. That’s all I can think of for now.

And it's garbage, Jabba. It's no better than the same woo-woo garbage you've been slinging for going-on five years now. There's no usable math anywhere in this post, and you've obviously settled into a long-term plan to repeat the same garbage over and over again regardless of what's said to you.

So the question you really need to answer at this point is why a rational person should listen to you?

 

[Beady]

For now, here’s what I think.


1.We take our selves, our consciousnesses, totally for granted.
2.When, in truth, we are the very last things (or processes) we should take for granted.
3.This idea seems impossible to communicate effectively…
4.We simply shouldn’t be here; yet we take ourselves totally for granted.
5.Where in the hell did we come from?

6.Nothing makes sense.
7.Either there has always been something, or at one time there was nothing.
8.That at one time there was nothing certainly doesn't make sense.
9.However, that there has always been something doesn't make sense either…
10.And, that sometime there will be nothing, also doesn’t make sense.
11.My best guess is that time is infinite – that there has always been something, and will always be something.
12.But then, that’s a pretty weak guess, and maybe a better guess is that my parameters are somehow wrong to begin with.
13.How about multiverses?
14.But still, one way or another, infinity seems to make the most sense.
15.As does there being an infinity of potential selves, awarenesses or consciousnesses.
16.And if so, the likelihood of my current existence, and the posterior probability of OOFLam must both be virtually zero.

17.And then, I am the only thing (or process) that I know for sure actually exists!
18.I don’t think that I’m the only thing (or process) that exists – unless, we are (somehow) all the same.
19.This isn’t solipsism – it’s the truth.
20.But then, the likelihood of me currently existing – given OOFLam – is one/∞, or virtually zero!

21.Now, this doesn’t mean that OOFLam is necessarily wrong -- unless I’m a legitimate target, it only means that the likelihood of me currently existing – given OOFLam – is one/∞, or virtually zero!

22.If I didn’t currently exist, it would be as if there were nothing!
23.If I never existed, it would be as if there were(?) never anything...
24.This is what I mean by “target meaningfulness.”
25. There are different shades of target -- some targets are much more obvious than are others.
26. 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 Mt Rainier is not nearly as meaningful as are we.
27.My importance and likelihood, together, are really coincidental and impressive.
28.I suspect that the posterior probability of an hypothesis that claims the likelihood of an occurring event to be virtually zero should be considered probably wrong…
29. I suspect that modern science is well off the mark, and at some point we'll figure that what is now considered modern science will be compared to the science before Copernicus.

30.That’s all I can think of for now.

Thank god! He ran out of numbers!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

 

[JoeMorgue]

1. We take our selves, our consciousnesses, totally for granted.

Meaningless.

2. When, in truth, we are the very last things (or processes) we should take for granted.

Equally meaningless.

3. This idea seems impossible to communicate effectively…

Other people would take that information in a different direction.

4. We simply shouldn’t be here;

Begging the question.

yet we take ourselves totally for granted.

Meaningless.

Where in the hell did we come from?

Answered multiple times.

Nothing makes sense.

To you maybe.

Either there has always been something, or at one time there was nothing.

Meaningless truism that has nothing to do with anything.

That at one time there was nothing certainly doesn't make sense.

Argument from incredulity.

However, that there has always been something doesn't make sense either…

Argument from incredulity / bad attempt in a making a force fake paradox.

And, that sometime there will be nothing, also doesn’t make sense.

Further argument from incredulity.

My best guess is that time is infinite – that there has always been something, and will always be something.

Evidence-less assertion.

But then, that’s a pretty weak guess, and maybe a better guess is that my parameters are somehow wrong to begin with.

Jabba how is it your primary argument is how much your arguments don't make sense because think don't make sense to you?

How about multiverses?

They are part of a balanced breakfast? They are a word you heard in a sci-fi movie and think you can drop into an argument despite not understanding it?

But still, one way or another, infinity seems to make the most sense.

You missed like... all the step in that argument.

As does there being an infinity of potential selves, awarenesses or consciousnesses.

Wrong.

And if so, the likelihood of my current existence, and the posterior probability of OOFLam must both be virtually zero.

Wronger.

And then, I am the only thing (or process) that I know for sure actually exists!

Congratulations you rediscovered solipsism for the billionth time.

I don’t think that I’m the only thing (or process) that exists – unless, we are (somehow) all the same.

Wronger than wrong.

This isn’t solipsism – it’s the truth.

Wronger still.

But then, the likelihood of me currently existing – given OOFLam – is one/∞, or virtually zero!

Not even wrong.

Now, this doesn’t mean that OOFLam is necessarily wrong -- unless I’m a legitimate target, it only means that the likelihood of me currently existing – given OOFLam – is one/∞, or virtually zero!

Fractally wrong.

If I didn’t currently exist, it would be as if there were nothing!

Self centered egotism. Also wrong.

If I never existed, it would be as if there were(?) never anything...

Even more self centered bordering on delusions of Godhood. Also wrong.

This is what I mean by “target meaningfulness.”

Word Salad.

There are different shades of target -- some targets are much more obvious than are others.

Time Cube.

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 Mt Rainier is not nearly as meaningful as are we.

Wronger than the wrongest wrong that has ever been wronged.

My importance and likelihood, together, are really coincidental and impressive.

Self center and wrong.

I suspect that the posterior probability of an hypothesis that claims the likelihood of an occurring event to be virtually zero should be considered probably wrong.

Wrong.

I suspect that modern science is well off the mark, and at some point we'll figure that what is now considered modern science will be compared to the science before Copernicus.

Wrong and self defeating since you, somehow with a straight face, keep claiming you are using science.

That’s all I can think of for now.

You'll be back.