Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

[Steve]

Yet here I am, and......I have a banana with me.

I have a bunch of 6 bananas, but they are on the other side of the room. Is the likely hood of that 6 times less than a single banana?

 

[caveman1917]

Wouldn't you agree that if H is correct, our current existences are exactly as unlikely as any given set of bananas?

Or more to the point: wouldn't he agree that if H is correct, our current existences are exactly as unlikely as if H is not correct.

 

[Jabba]

Dave,
- OK. I didn't say it right anyway.
- Let's go with H being that the self is entirely physical.
- Therefor, ~H is that the self is not entirely physical.
- Wouldn't you agree that if H is correct, our current existences are extremely unlikely?

Not any more unlikely than the existence of a particular blade of grass.

- Anyway, we've fouind a couple of points of agreement. I.e., there must be an infinity of potential selves -- and given H, our current existences are extremely unlkely.
- We still disagree upon how unlikely our current existences are; but, how unlikely are we if we invoke what the probability was 'before' the big bang?

 

[Belz...]

- Anyway, we've fouind a couple of points of agreement. I.e., there must be an infinity of potential selves -- and given H, our current existences are extremely unlkely.

No, I don't think you found those points of agreement at all. Nobody's agreed with you.

 

[godless dave]

how unlikely are we if we invoke what the probability was 'before' the big bang?

That's a meaningless question.

 

[JoeMorgue]

- Anyway, we've fouind a couple of points of agreement. I.e., there must be an infinity of potential selves -- and given H, our current existences are extremely unlkely.

Literally no one has agreed to that. Stop putting words in people's mouth.

Please learn to debate without being dishonest.

 

[jond]

- Anyway, we've fouind a couple of points of agreement. I.e., there must be an infinity of potential selves -- and given H, our current existences are extremely unlkely.
- We still disagree upon how unlikely our current existences are; but, how unlikely are we if we invoke what the probability was 'before' the big bang?

How odd that you refuse to address his actual comment, and instead post this nonsense.

Wait, it's not odd for you at all. Just your usual attempt to run away from the obvious flaws in your argument and pretend you actually are saying something deep.

 

[abaddon]

- Anyway, we've fouind a couple of points of agreement. I.e., there must be an infinity of potential selves -- and given H, our current existences are extremely unlkely.
- We still disagree upon how unlikely our current existences are; but, how unlikely are we if we invoke what the probability was 'before' the big bang?

Give it up with the dishonest misrepresentations.

If the only sad tactic you have is to pretend that people have said things that they plainly did not, what does that tell us about the integrity of your "argument"?

 

[CriticalThanking]

- Anyway, we've fouind [sic] a couple of points of agreement. I.e., there must be an infinity of potential selves -- and given H, our current existences are extremely unlkely. [sic]

The quotes in no way say "there must be an infinity of potential selves" - you made that up out of whole cloth.

You continue to lie about the definition of H, despite most everyone repeatedly telling you H does not include a soul or other "untraceable" thing.

I'm glad we have come to the agreement that you are willing to lie about everything.

 

[JayUtah]

- Anyway, we've fouind a couple of points of agreement. I.e., there must be an infinity of potential selves -- and given H, our current existences are extremely unlkely.

No.

It's one thing to ignore what was said, even when it's said in very large, bold, red letters. Most of us have become quite accustomed to your utter negligence and are not even speaking directly to you anymore but to the world at large.

But it's another thing to brazenly lie about what was said. This is entirely despicable, as it goes beyond negligence and commits a deliberate act of dishonesty. But as I wrote earlier, this is why I post. You are trying to recast the debate, and I and others have made it so that you must overtly lie in order to do so. And so you have.

We still disagree upon how unlikely our current existences are...

No, and you can't say in one sentence that your critics agree your existence under H is "extremely unlikely" and in the next sentence admit there's no actual quantitative agreement. That's not even a very well thought out lie.

...but, how unlikely are we if we invoke what the probability was 'before' the big bang?

Making the barn wall as big as possible doesn't fix your Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

 

[jsfisher]

... given H, our current existences are extremely unlkely ...

Existence and not sense of self? Please pick one and stay with it.

 

[Loss Leader]

- Anyway, we've found a couple of points of agreement. I.e., there must be an infinity of potential selves

Anyway, Jabba and I know agree that The best episode of BTVS was "The I In Team."

Jabba - Nobody agrees with that premise. Nobody here has really shown agreement that there is a "self," let alone an unchanging one, let alone a potential one, let alone an uncountable non-numerical concept of them.

Also, there was no "before the Big Bang." That is not a concept. How many unverses existed or currently exist outside of our own? What are their rules? If you can't answer these questions, you can't compute probability.

 

[John Jones]

- Anyway, we've fouind a couple of points of agreement. I.e., there must be an infinity of potential selves -- and given H, our current existences are extremely unlkely.

You don't get to tell people what anyone else agrees to. You've been less than honest too many times.

 

[Mojo]

Or more to the point: wouldn't he agree that if H is correct, our current existences are exactly as unlikely as if H is not correct.

Jabba isn't actually trying to distinguish between H and ~H, because he has defined two alternative hypotheses rather than allowing ~H to be defined as everything other than H. Jabba's H is the hypothesis that he is mortal and has a soul (or as he calls it, an "immaterial self"), and his alternative hypothesis (I'll call it J) is that he has an immortal soul but (by implication from his argument) "immaterial selves" don't exist. While ~H includes J, it also includes, for example, the hypothesis that consciousness is the result of brain processes and will cease when the brain ceases to function. His calculations of likelihoods under H can't get him any closer to his goal as long as his H is a strawman.

 

[Mojo]

- Anyway, we've fouind a couple of points of agreement. I.e., there must be an infinity of potential selves

Your memory is playing tricks on you again.

 

[Dancing David]

Dave,
- OK. I didn't say it right anyway.
- Let's go with H being that the self is entirely physical.
- Therefor, ~H is that the self is not entirely physical.
- Wouldn't you agree that if H is correct, our current existences are extremely unlikely?

That would make ~H zero, until you demonstrate 'the self is not entirely physical' part

 

[Dancing David]

- Anyway, we've fouind a couple of points of agreement. I.e., there must be an infinity of potential selves -- and given H, our current existences are extremely unlkely.

Where exactly did GodlessDave say that?

Exact post and exact words.

 

[JayUtah]

Jabba isn't actually trying to distinguish between H and ~H, because he has defined two alternative hypotheses rather than allowing ~H to be defined as everything other than H.

Yep, that's what I meant above by:

[Y]ou haven't dealt with the fact that ~H is not a single proposition but is, in fact, a set of several propositions, not all of which are mutually compatible.

His calculations of likelihoods under H can't get him any closer to his goal as long as his H is a strawman.

Or as long as it's the blatantly false dilemma. What's worse is that he was patiently instructed on how that works -- that ~H had to be a set of hypotheses whose individual constituents had to be evaluated. And seemingly in response he started naming possibilities for hypothesis within ~H. And now he's all but dropped that practice. It's one thing to stick to one's guns, but it's another thing to acknowledge the error in one's argument and attempt to correct it, but then just fall back later to the admittedly wrong position.

 

[The Norseman]

- Anyway, we've fouind a couple of points of agreement.

Dave,

Dave,

Dave,

- So, let's give that hypothesis a try.

Dave,

Dave,

You're deliberately ignoring everyone but one person which on a public forum is disgustingly rude.

I'm going to ask GodlessDave to please stop responding until Jabba decides to be more polite.

 

[Jabba]

- Anyway, we've fouind a couple of points of agreement. I.e., there must be an infinity of potential selves -- and given H, our current existences are extremely unlkely.
- We still disagree upon how unlikely our current existences are; but, how unlikely are we if we invoke what the probability was 'before' the big bang?

That's a meaningless question.

Dave,
- I'm thinking that our basic dispute has to do with something raised in the distant past (January), when I claimed that there was an aspect of our beings for which we don't have a clue as to its causation.


Proof of Immortality, the IV league, #3498
Originally Posted by Jabba
Dave,
- I must admit that I'm still confused -- though, I'm still sure I'm right...
- I guess that my basic problem still has to do with the definition of "who." I'm claiming that while we can estimate the characteristics of the person coming out fairly well -- through science -- there is an aspect of the person coming out (their "identity"?) for which we don't have a clue. And, according to science, this who can never exist again. This person can never be reincarnated. Neither you nor I can ever be reincarnated. We can only exist once at most.
- That's how a banana has us beat. There is no such aspect to a banana.
- How's that?

Originally Posted by godless dave
The problem is that H includes no such aspect. Under H, the what is the who.

- But anyway, when the sperm and ovum that made me came together, they produced something amazing -- awareness! It would seem that awareness naturally 'takes on' a "self," an "identity," the 'thing' that reincarnationists believe keeps returning to life -- specific self awareness. It is this "who" for whom I claim that we don't have a clue, that we can't reproduce, and that the likelihood of whom has to be assigned to chance -- not to chemistry. That's why I claim that my likelihood of current existence is analogous to my likelihood of winning the lottery, and why that likelihood is something over infinity, and why the same logic is not applicable to a blade of grass.

- So anyway, H doesn't allow for such an aspect, and under H,we can only have one finite existence, and the likelihood of that existence being right now is extremely small, and in fact, only 7 billion over infinity.