Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Argumemnon said:
Under H, you can't have reincarnation. You keep confusing H and ~H.
Click to expand...

Remember, Jabba starts with his desired conclusion and then argues -- not reasons -- backward to find justification for what he's damn-all going to believe.
 
Jabba said:
So, I'll just ignore it again.
Click to expand...

As usual. Now who do you think that hurts most, you or I?

I'm thinking of the part where you commit the error of composition and argue that the composition can be more probable than the components individually. What's said is that I bumped that question at least once to make sure you saw it -- maybe even twice. When I've already gone to unnecessary lengths to make sure an important question reaches your attention, it's consummately unfriendly, rude, and disingenuous of you to demand it be repeated yet again. I will not coddle you.
 
Jabba,

You ignore replies. Will continue to ignore questions?

Are you reincarnated? What is your evidence?
  • Do you have memories from a past life?
  • Do you remember things from before you entered your current body while you were non-corporeal?
  • How can we reliably tell a reincarnated person from a "first-timer"?

And just because you ignore it from others...how would a perfectly replicated person differ from the "original" - would it be missing memories, intelligence, something else?
 
CriticalThanking said:
And there you have it, folks. Jabba once again admits he ignores responses that disagree with his. Chalk up another one for Effective Debate(tm).
Click to expand...

More specifically, he ignores people who don't coddle him and validate his silly, evasive behaviors. I've committed the brazenly "unfriendly" act of suggesting that if Jabba wants to know what I said, he should go back and read it.

I've told Jabba many times that I will not repeat arguments that he previous ignored and then suddenly takes interest in down the road. If he's going to engage me, he will have to remember that policy. When I've taken the time to put something in writing already in a persistent forum, someone who wants to know what it was can just go back and read it where I wrote it. It's not like posts erupt in flame as soon as they go past Jabba's "first unread post" pointer.
 
Jabba said:
Argumemnon,
- But, that's the point.
- My claim is that my current existence supports reincarnation, and essentially disproves H.
Click to expand...



You only manage to arrive at that conclusion by stacking the deck, by insisting that the hypothesis under which you are mortal includes immaterial souls and the one under which you are reincarnated doesn't.

You're begging the question, and the forty or fifty different expressions you have used to mean "soul" fail to disguise that.
 
Jabba said:
- Anyway, let's go back to the apparent singularity, 'before' the big bang. Supposedly, this was before time and cause and effect.
- What would be the likelihood, at that point, (accepting determinism from then on), of your current existence.
- Before determinism began, what was the likelihood of your current existence?
Click to expand...


Jabba,

I'm sorry to tell you that such a likelihood is impossible to calculate. The problem is that we have no idea how many universes have existed "before" ours - how many were too small and collapsed, how many were too big and completely came apart, how many had fatal flaws in their maths that led (like a fetus with a mutation) to their early demise.

If the chance that sentient life might somewhere exist at some time was only 1 in 1,000,000,000,000, that information would be of very little use if this is the 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 universe to exist. In fact, the chance of this universe coming into existence approaches 1.

So, I apologize for not being able to follow your hypothetical. There's simply too little information to begin to create a probability - either very small or nearly certain.
 
Mojo said:
...and then carried on insisting that they would be different.
Click to expand...

More specifically he equivocated on "not the same," to try to bridge the gap between "not the first specimen" and "distinct but identical."

Jabba argues there's no formula to create him with an appropriate sense of self. Under H there is. If the Jabba-making formula were invoked once, that first Jabba has some magical property of firstness that makes its sense of self the only one Jabba cares about. If we invoke the Jabba-making formula again and get an identical copy of the first, its position in the sequence of invocation somehow invalidates its claim to have a sense of self that matters. It wasn't the "original" and that's all Jabba chooses to regard.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- So, I'll just ignore it again.
Click to expand...


Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. On the evidence so far presented you would have ignored it whether he posted it again or not. You are implying a causal relationship where there is no evidence for one.
 
Last edited:
Hokulele said:
Your formula compared H to ~H, not H to reincarnation. You have basically abandoned that completely in favor of arguing specifically for reincarnation now.

And yet, have failed to provide any evidence for the position you are claiming is true.
Click to expand...
Hokulele,
- As you probably suspect, I just disagree.
- If, somehow, we do experience reincarnation, we are surely not entirely physical.
 
Mojo said:
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. On the evidence so far presented you would have ignored it whether he posted it again or not. You are implying a causal relationship where there is no evidence for one.
Click to expand...
Mojo,
- Where has Jay repeated the question/comment I asked for, and I didn't try to answer it?
 
Jabba said:
If, somehow, we do experience reincarnation, we are surely not entirely physical.
Click to expand...

And this is just more "If I'm right then I am right" argumentatives.

If you can't prove reincarnation you can't use that as evidence we are not entirely physical.

You've moved beyond begging the question or bootstrapping. You've achieved some weird double sided begging the bootstrapping.
 
Hokulele said:
So what about all the elements of ~H that do not include reincarnation? Like I said, you are apparently abandoning your Bayesian analysis in favor of raw assertions.
Click to expand...
Hokulele,
- Remember, my current ~H is that not everything is physical. If we actually have reincarnation, it must surely be that something is non-physical.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom