Proof of Immortality, VI

[MRC_Hans]

Dave and others,
- Here's what I think. Maybe, this organization will help us to identify our exact disagreements -- which I think would be very useful.

1. According to modern science, we each should have only one finite life to live, at most -- "OOFLam."

OOFLAM is your construct. Science just assumes that we live (and die).

2. The "we each" to which I refer is the sense of self that we all, apparently, have.

There is nothing special about a sense of self. "All" it requires is a sufficiently complex brain. Just how complex is not clear, and really depends on our entirely arbitrary definition of "sense of self". However it is clear that a sense of self is not limited to human beings.

3. Most scientists would include "at most" because they don't think that any of us ever had to exist.

No, they would not. Since science sees "self" as an emergent property of a brain, it follows that only entities with a brain have it. Science does not cater for your idea of "potential selves".

4. Under that hypothesis, my current existence is EXTREMELY unlikely.

No it is not. Your exact situation might be unpredictable, but it is not unlikely.

5. But here I am!
6. Given the "right" conditions, the fact that I do currently exist is EXTREMELY strong evidence that OOFLam is wrong.

No, that is false. Texas sharpshooter fallacy: While nobody, a priori, could predict your exact existence, it is very likely that someone like you would exist.

7. Often, however, all of the alternative possible results/events produced by the particular situation are extremely unlikely -- in such a case, the unlikelihood of the particular event produced is not evidence against the hypothesis.

I don't think that statement really means anything. In other words, it is basically word salad.

8. In such a case, in order to be evidence against the hypothesis, the particular event needs to be "set apart" from most of the other possible results in a way that is meaningful to the particular hypothesis. A good example is when a lottery is won by the second cousin of the lottery controller.

No, that is not a good example. In fact, it is entirely irrelevant.

9. Consequently, in order for my current existence to be evidence against OOFLam, I need to be set apart in a way meaningful to OOFLam.

More word salad. First of all, "OOFLAM" is your own construct. Secondly, it does not, even as you have constructed it, posit any prior requirements or prediction of your existence.

10. That is the case.

- I think that we disagree to some extent in regard to #4 (you may not agree with the extent to which I think I am unlikely) and totally in regard to #10 (you figure that I am not meaningfully set apart from most other existing selves.)

Please explain how YOU think you are set apart from other selves. Remember that your explanation must also apply to all other selves.

Feel free to ignore this as you do everything that you cannot answer.

Hans

 

[Belz...]

- Here's what I think.

Jabba, what part of "stop telling us what you think and what your definitions are, and get to the demonstration of your claim" do you not understand?

 

[The Sparrow]

Geeze I thought we were finally getting a tiny bit of traction. We were getting to the core of what a sense of self was, then, WTF, Jabba goes and reverts to a couple hundred posts pack and re-states his position all over again.

Yo, Jabba, you left a dangling end. Right where we agreed on the sense of being an 'observer' was something we all agreed upon. Then you were asked why that could not be copied and exist as a second distinct identical sense of observer.

You're not just running away from that question are you? Hoping none of us would notice?

Can we go back to that question? Please? Can we actually finish one of your sub-issues?

 

[sackett]

Taoism didn’t last long, but then mysticism is always a dead end – right, Jabba? Right?

But, clever people, those Chinese: They came up with the I Ching! I’m sure you’ve heard of it. It’s a book of oracular answers related to six-line figures called hexagrams. (They aren’t actual hexagrams and they don’t hex anything, but anyway.) You ask the book a question, and then throw down some coins or sticks, or, if you’re lazy, just poke a pin in the table of hexagrams to get your reading.

And you get an answer to your question EVERY! TIME! And there’s more! With sticks or coins (pin doesn’t work for some reason) you get what are called “movable lines,” which give alternate readings. With alternates, you not only get answers, but your answers are all right EVERY TIME! (Ask anybody, especially I Ching newbies.)

That’s not mysticism, now is it? I mean, those sticks and stuff are material! Material objects, Jabba!

So get an I Ching (try any junk book store) and paraphernalia and ask it if you have an immortal soul. Go on. Dare ya.

 

[Belz...]

Geeze I thought we were finally getting a tiny bit of traction.

You're adorable.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Here's what I think.

Jabba, and I mean this with 100% across the board seriousness, do you honestly not know how to communicate?

I refuse to believe that an adult human who operates as a functioning member of society has never had to actually defend a claim, even badly or poorly, beyond the "Stating it over and over" position.

This discussion has swung in the 5+ gorram years it has been going on between funny and depressing pretty wildly.

 

[John Jones]

Dave and others,
- Here's what I think. Maybe, this organization will help us to identify our exact disagreements -- which I think would be very useful.

[...]

I'm not going to read that any more than you have read the criticisms of your interlocutors after these 5 years.

Can you think of any reason why we should? You have never approached your critics' arguments with any measure of rhetorical or logical respect.

The reason I'm still here is to see how it all ends.

Your position nose-dived 5 years ago. You couldn't possible redeem your argument after all this time.

See my .sig

 

[John Jones]

Dave and others,
- Here's what I think. Maybe, this organization will help us to identify our exact disagreements -- which I think would be very useful.

1. According to modern science, we each should have only one finite life to live, at most -- "OOFLam."
2. The "we each" to which I refer is the sense of self that we all, apparently, have.
3. Most scientists would include "at most" because they don't think that any of us ever had to exist.
4. Under that hypothesis, my current existence is EXTREMELY unlikely.
5. But here I am!
6. Given the "right" conditions, the fact that I do currently exist is EXTREMELY strong evidence that OOFLam is wrong.
7. Often, however, all of the alternative possible results/events produced by the particular situation are extremely unlikely -- in such a case, the unlikelihood of the particular event produced is not evidence against the hypothesis.
8. In such a case, in order to be evidence against the hypothesis, the particular event needs to be "set apart" from most of the other possible results in a way that is meaningful to the particular hypothesis. A good example is when a lottery is won by the second cousin of the lottery controller.
9. Consequently, in order for my current existence to be evidence against OOFLam, I need to be set apart in a way meaningful to OOFLam.
10. That is the case.

- I think that we disagree to some extent in regard to #4 (you may not agree with the extent to which I think I am unlikely) and totally in regard to #10 (you figure that I am not meaningfully set apart from most other existing selves.)

Fringe Reset #99

 

[jond]

Dave and others,
- Here's what I think. Maybe, this organization will help us to identify our exact disagreements -- which I think would be very useful.

1. According to modern science, we each should have only one finite life to live, at most -- "OOFLam."
2. The "we each" to which I refer is the sense of self that we all, apparently, have.
3. Most scientists would include "at most" because they don't think that any of us ever had to exist.
4. Under that hypothesis, my current existence is EXTREMELY unlikely.
5. But here I am!
6. Given the "right" conditions, the fact that I do currently exist is EXTREMELY strong evidence that OOFLam is wrong.
7. Often, however, all of the alternative possible results/events produced by the particular situation are extremely unlikely -- in such a case, the unlikelihood of the particular event produced is not evidence against the hypothesis.
8. In such a case, in order to be evidence against the hypothesis, the particular event needs to be "set apart" from most of the other possible results in a way that is meaningful to the particular hypothesis. A good example is when a lottery is won by the second cousin of the lottery controller.
9. Consequently, in order for my current existence to be evidence against OOFLam, I need to be set apart in a way meaningful to OOFLam.
10. That is the case.

- I think that we disagree to some extent in regard to #4 (you may not agree with the extent to which I think I am unlikely) and totally in regard to #10 (you figure that I am not meaningfully set apart from most other existing selves.)

Why do you think you'll get a different response this time as opposed to all the other times you've stated this? In 5 years you haven't taken on board a single thing anyone has said to you. You still insist that the self is a thing, an entity, and refuse to even consider the actual meterialistic model which indicates that the self is merely a process that the brain does. Until you attempt to understand this, you're never going to get anywhere.

 

[Belz...]

You know guys, if you stopped humouring him, and just asked him to move on, he'd either do that or leave.

 

[John Jones]

You know guys, if you stopped humouring him, and just asked him to move on, he'd either do that or leave.

It never worked before. You ask him to move on, and he just keeps doing that fringe reset thing.

The only reason he abandoned his shroud thread was because his close ally surrendered the fight and closed his own pro-authenticity shroud web site.

 

[Loss Leader]

Dave and others,
- Here's what I think. Maybe, this organization will help us to identify our exact disagreements -- which I think would be very useful.

1. According to modern science, we each should have only one finite life to live, at most -- "OOFLam."
2. The "we each" to which I refer is the sense of self that we all, apparently, have.
3. Most scientists would include "at most" because they don't think that any of us ever had to exist.
4. Under that hypothesis, my current existence is EXTREMELY unlikely.
5. But here I am!
6. Given the "right" conditions, the fact that I do currently exist is EXTREMELY strong evidence that OOFLam is wrong.
7. Often, however, all of the alternative possible results/events produced by the particular situation are extremely unlikely -- in such a case, the unlikelihood of the particular event produced is not evidence against the hypothesis.
8. In such a case, in order to be evidence against the hypothesis, the particular event needs to be "set apart" from most of the other possible results in a way that is meaningful to the particular hypothesis. A good example is when a lottery is won by the second cousin of the lottery controller.
9. Consequently, in order for my current existence to be evidence against OOFLam, I need to be set apart in a way meaningful to OOFLam.
10. That is the case.

- I think that we disagree to some extent in regard to #4 (you may not agree with the extent to which I think I am unlikely) and totally in regard to #10 (you figure that I am not meaningfully set apart from most other existing selves.)

Super Stupid Reset Power: Activate!

 

[godless dave]

You know guys, if you stopped humouring him, and just asked him to move on, he'd either do that or leave.

It's like picking a scab. I know I shouldn't but I can't help it.

 

[abaddon]

Dave and others,
- Here's what I think. Maybe, this organization will help us to identify our exact disagreements -- which I think would be very useful.

sure. but so far you have nothing to offer despite years of effort.

1. According to modern science, we each should have only one finite life to live, at most -- "OOFLam."

Really? How many people can you name who have had, say, 0.6 of a life?

2. The "we each" to which I refer is the sense of self that we all, apparently, have.

So what? It is a process of a living brain.

3. Most scientists would include "at most" because they don't think that any of us ever had to exist.

We didn't. What makes you think we did?

4. Under that hypothesis, my current existence is EXTREMELY unlikely.
5. But here I am!

Wrong. Just Wrong. Suppose you draw a random card from a deck and it turns out to be the Ace of Spades. Is that more significant than the nine of clubs? Or the four of diamonds? You are claiming it is.

6. Given the "right" conditions, the fact that I do currently exist is EXTREMELY strong evidence that OOFLam is wrong.

Explain why?

7. Often, however, all of the alternative possible results/events produced by the particular situation are extremely unlikely -- in such a case, the unlikelihood of the particular event produced is not evidence against the hypothesis.

False. There must be a result. One cannot claim that one is special simply because one is that result.

8. In such a case, in order to be evidence against the hypothesis, the particular event needs to be "set apart" from most of the other possible results in a way that is meaningful to the particular hypothesis. A good example is when a lottery is won by the second cousin of the lottery controller.

It isn't remotely relevant. Why you think a random event is evidence for anything is bizarre.

9. Consequently, in order for my current existence to be evidence against OOFLam, I need to be set apart in a way meaningful to OOFLam.

No you don't. OOFLAM is entirely your creation. It has as mich to do with anything as unicorns.

10. That is the case.

No, it really isn't.

- I think that we disagree to some extent in regard to #4 (you may not agree with the extent to which I think I am unlikely) and totally in regard to #10 (you figure that I am not meaningfully set apart from most other existing selves.)

Nobody agrees with your nonsense. Stop pretending that anyone does. #4 is your conclusion, not your premise and #10 is the sentence fragment "10. That is the case."

That is not a point in favour of anything.

 

[jsfisher]

Dave and others,
- Here's what I think. Maybe, this organization will help us to identify our exact disagreements -- which I think would be very useful.

1. According to modern science, we each should have only one finite life to live, at most -- "OOFLam."

This would be an excellent place to STOP. Science says no such thing. Science has a general definition of living. There is nothing about life and lives in the sense you are using the terms.

You, jabba, are living. At some point you will not be. Just like the sense of self is an emergent property of a functioning brain, life is an emergent property of a functioning organism. Neither is a thing.

 

[John Jones]

You know guys, if you stopped humouring him, and just asked him to move on, he'd either do that or leave.

Let's see.


Jabba, move on.

 

[Hokulele]

This would be an excellent place to STOP. Science says no such thing. Science has a general definition of living. There is nothing about life and lives in the sense you are using the terms.

You, jabba, are living. At some point you will not be. Just like the sense of self is an emergent property of a functioning brain, life is an emergent property of a functioning organism. Neither is a thing.

It would entertaining to see Jabba attempt to define "life".

 

[jsfisher]

It would entertaining to see Jabba attempt to define "life".

"Life" is what a thread participant considers the sentence this thread imposes.

 

[JoeMorgue]

He hasn't been able to put together a convincing argument that he understands numbers are numerical, I'm not holding out hope for a good definition of "life."

This argument would need a minimum of 3 months of solid arguments from Jabba just to get back to a place we could even begin to argue that actual point.

At this point I think we just call in the "Jabba Length." It's like a Planck Length in physics but it is the point at which an argument cannot be subdivided anymore.

This thread is the Large Hadron Collider of discussions. We keep finding smaller and smaller basic particles of argumentative disagreement and whenever we go "That's it, it's the smallest possible argument" we get proven wrong. Eventually we'll find the Higgs Boson of "Wrong" and that will be it, the universe will end.

 

[Toontown]

Q: Why do we need a definition of something we all experience every day?

The Tao that can be described is not the true Tao anyway. So don't even try. You either know what it is or you don't. If you don't know what it is, you don't need to be arguing about it, because you don't know what you're arguing about.

And if you're just tired of the whole merry-go-round, get off. You don't have to wait for it to stop. Jump.