Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

[JayUtah]

That makes no sense. How can you be potential and currently existing?

You have not yet answered the crucial question: how do you know that there are potential selves at all?

That latest slip makes it fairly apparent that by "potential selves," Jabba is really thinking of pre-animate souls. Sorry, there just isn't any such concept in "modern science." It is expressly contradicted by materialism, H.

 

[The Norseman]

- I'm a potential self that currently exists. Most potential selves do not currently exist (under modern science).

Most potential selves do not currently exist? Which potential selves do, pray tell?

 

[Mojo]

- I'm a potential self that currently exists. Most potential selves do not currently exist (under modern science).

Jabba, you are currently up a ladder, painting a target around a hole in a barn wall.

 

[sackett]

BTW, Jabba, you said that I don't seem to be taking your "challenge" (didn't know it rose to that, but woddever) seriously.

How can you tell?

 

[JoeMorgue]

*Sighs* I wonder why I'm wasting my time even trying but...

*And yes I am way, massively oversimplifying neurology here to make a point...*

Let's say there is X number of neurons, glia cells, neural stems cells, and so forth in an average human brain.

Let's say there is Y number of ways those neurons, glia cells, neural stem cells, and so forth can be arranged in a functioning brain.

X times Y gives up a (just for the sake of this argument) a total number of possible neurological configurations for a human brain. We could, if we squint sideways and really, really stretch the definition, call these "potential selves" if we want to speak really off the cuff, non-technically and not very usefully.

So (X times Y) is this... *scoffs* mythical pool of "potential selves." This number is massive. It is not infinite nor practically infinite or any other meaningless begging the question special pleading term but let's say it's just mind boggingly huge, fine.

So we compare (X times Y) to Z where Z is the total number of "People" who have ever existed which (and yes this is a totally nearly meaningless term I know bear with me...) let's use the 107 billion figure that the BBC used to answer the "Do the dead outnumber the living?" question.*

So the ratio of Z to (X times Y) does fit working definition of the useless, made up, pointless equation Jabba keeps alluding too.

(And yes I know there is a crap ton wrong with this, I know, I know)

Even given all that and ignoring the career anyone with even a layman's knowledge of neurology or statistics could make out of listing everything wrong with that... even given all that..

IT STILL DOESN'T WORK!

Out of all those "Potential selves" there is nothing that makes "Selves" of me, Jabba, Hitler, Churchhill, or every other Tom, Dick, and Harry currently or previously alive any more or less likely then all the potential "selves" that didn't exist.

How this is an after the fact rationalization and a Texas Sharpshooter fallacy has been explained to Jabba multiple times.

I've dismissed Jabba's nonsense several times as reducible to "If accept that I am right, then I am right" but it doesn't each reach that level.

Even if I agree with him, I can't agree with him. He has a false pretense that doesn't even lead to his false conclusion.

*http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-16870579

 

[Jabba]

3189

...
5. For another thing, in many situations, the specific event is only one of NUMEROUS possible results (millions?) -- and for unlikelihood to be of consequence in such a case, the specific result has to be meaningfully set apart from most other possible results...

...
You never managed to set apart your existence from any of the other possible results...

Dave,
- I don't set apart my existence from any of the possible results. I set apart my existence from most of the possible results

And how do you do that?

- I'm a potential self that currently exists. Most potential selves do not currently exist (under modern science).

Before you existed, what set your potential self apart from the potential selves that didn't end up existing?

- Good question.
- I think that what really sets a result apart is there being a reasonable possibility that it wasn't the result of the hypothesis being evaluated -- and here, that applies to everyone who exists.

 

[Mojo]

Are you now claiming that you can prove the materialist hypothesis wrong if you are allowed to assume that it is wrong?

 

[Jabba]

BTW, Jabba, you said that I don't seem to be taking your "challenge" (didn't know it rose to that, but woddever) seriously.

How can you tell?

sackett,
- Your responses are not arguments for OOFLam.

 

[godless dave]

- I think that what really sets a result apart is there being a reasonable possibility that it wasn't the result of the hypothesis being evaluated -- and here, that applies to everyone who exists.

That doesn't help you avoid the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.

 

[Mojo]

- I think that what really sets a result apart is there being a reasonable possibility that it wasn't the result of the hypothesis being evaluated -- and here, that applies to everyone who exists.

It applies to anyone who exists, whoever they are, simply because they exist.

 

[The Norseman]

sackett,
- Your responses are not arguments for OOFLam.

You're the one who made up that term. It's not anyone else's fault for not using your made-up term. It's incumbent upon you to use the correct terms.

 

[Mojo]

sackett,
- Your responses are not arguments for OOFLam.

Why do you expect anyone to argue for OOFLam? It is a strawman you have invented to fit your 'proof'.

I could note that your posts are not arguments for WOOHoo, which is a hypothesis I have just invented under which you are immortal and bright green, and it would have as much relevance.

 

[Mojo]

Jabba,
- Are you bright green?
- If not, WOOHoo is refuted, which means that you must be mortal.

 

[Jabba]

That doesn't help you avoid the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.

Dave,
- In this case, all he had to do was hit the barn.

 

[Belz...]

- I think that what really sets a result apart is there being a reasonable possibility that it wasn't the result of the hypothesis being evaluated -- and here, that applies to everyone who exists.

Do you understand the distinction between musings and reasoning?

 

[Mojo]

Dave,
- In this case, all he had to do was hit the barn.

But he hasn't done that, he has just hit something, and painted a target round it.

That is all you have: one of the possible outcomes has occurred (as is inevitable), and you are claiming that it is special because it has occurred. It wasn't prespecified, and nothing sets it apart from all the other possible outcomes other than the fact that it has occurred.

 

[godless dave]

But he hasn't done that, he has just hit something, and painted a target round it.

That is all you have: one of the possible outcomes has occurred (as is inevitable), and you are claiming that it is special because it has occurred. It wasn't prespecified, and nothing sets it apart from all the other possible outcomes othe than the fact that it has occurred.

What Mojo said.

 

[Hokulele]

Dave,
- In this case, all he had to do was hit the barn.

No, if you parse your claim, all he had to do was fire a gun in any random direction. It would be a hit no matter what happens, or doesn't happen. That is the problem with your line of argument here.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Jabba, can you explain the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy to me and give some examples of it?

Dave,
- In this case, all he had to do was hit the barn.

Ok, thanks. That's a good example. Can you explain it now?

 

[Belz...]

Dave,
- In this case, all he had to do was hit the barn.

Playing with the analogy won't make your claim any less fallacious.