Proof of Immortality, VI

[JoeMorgue]

Dave,
- I probably can't do any better than before.

So I take it that means you won't dishonestly present this whole trainwreck as an example of how you beat the close minded skeptics with your amazing debate skills somewhere else as was your original goal?

 

[Jabba]

- What I'm trying to do now is lay out all the different disagreements so that we can address them one at a time.

____1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17________________________|||____________________

- This is the first set of limbs/highways on my tree/map. There are further branches/roads off the first set of limbs/highways.

 

[The Sparrow]

Dave,
- I probably can't do any better than before -- but by duplicating 'me,' it would be as if I were a computer with a camera, and you're really just duplicating my camera. In this analogy, my "self" is the receiver of the info being gathered by the camera.

Dodge 315. "The brain is a radio" analogy.

 

[jond]

- What I'm trying to do now is lay out all the different disagreements so that we can address them one at a time.

____1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17____
____________________|||____________________

- This is the first set of limbs/highways on my tree/map. There are further branches/roads off the first set of limbs/highways.

They have all been addressed, individually and collectively. And you have ignored all of the points that show where and why you are wrong. Why should anyone think this time will be any different?

 

[The Sparrow]

- What I'm trying to do now is lay out all the different disagreements so that we can address them one at a time.

____1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17____
____________________|||____________________

- This is the first set of limbs/highways on my tree/map. There are further branches/roads off the first set of limbs/highways.

Address them? We were addressing one of them. The duplication of the 'observer'. Right when it got too difficult and you couldn't answer a post, you abandoned it. What is the point of once again saying we are 'going to' discuss it?

 

[JoeMorgue]

- What I'm trying to do now is lay out all the different disagreements so that we can address them one at a time.

____1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17____
____________________|||____________________

- This is the first set of limbs/highways on my tree/map. There are further branches/roads off the first set of limbs/highways.

No.

You don't get to "Lay out" anything else Jabba. You don't get create branches and limbs. You've had enough time to do so.

We aren't going to let you waste time arranging the parts anymore.

 

[The Sparrow]

Further proof that he doesn't give a damn what anyone says. He's just trolling for soundbites he can put in his map.

 

[JayUtah]

- What I'm trying to do now is lay out all the different disagreements so that we can address them one at a time.

I already did that for you Jabba. You know full well that list exists. You discussed using it in your side project, for which I refused you permission. You vowed that despite the side project, you would continue to discuss the errors in your proof here.

So far you have abjectly refused to do so.

Since I have already laid out the principal disagreements, please skip your organizational step. It is not necessary. Please, for each of the fatal flaws in your proof that I listed, write a few sentences describing how you plan to overcome that flaw, so that your critics have some basis of knowing that your ongoing belief in your conclusion is predicated on reason and not just angst and wishful thinking.

Get to it. Your critics have limited patience with your shenanigans.

 

[JayUtah]

Further proof that he doesn't give a damn what anyone says. He's just trolling for soundbites he can put in his map.

Indeed, it's quite clear he has no interest in the content of the debate and is simply researching his blog. I believe the moderators declared his forthcoming blog off-topic, even though he has referred to it at least twice since the de-moderation of the thread.

Jabba, please clarify your prior promise that you would debate the content of your proof in this thread on this forum. Please clarify that you are not, contrary to moderator instructions, simply trolling for material to copy elsewhere. Your critics have a right to know whether their contributions here will be answered here, or simply removed to a different place beyond their control.

 

[John Jones]

- What I'm trying to do now is lay out all the different disagreements so that we can address them one at a time.

____1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17________________________|||____________________

- This is the first set of limbs/highways on my tree/map. There are further branches/roads off the first set of limbs/highways.

They've all been done before x 5 years.

Why are you now suddenly abandoning your ludicrous notion of Truly Effective Debate?

 

[jsfisher]

- What I'm trying to do now is lay out all the different disagreements so that we can address them one at a time.

____1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17________________________|||____________________

- This is the first set of limbs/highways on my tree/map. There are further branches/roads off the first set of limbs/highways.

So, let's discuss the disagreements. Start with the objections to your very first tenet.

There is no point adding more branches; if your most fundamental tenet has no basis, then there is nothing branching from it.

 

[Loss Leader]

- What I'm trying to do now is lay out all the different disagreements so that we can address them one at a time.

____1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17________________________|||____________________

- This is the first set of limbs/highways on my tree/map. There are further branches/roads off the first set of limbs/highways.

Except that you defined the 17 points. Some of them aren't even sentences. Why should we debate each of the points the way you define them? Here, let me offer a counter-proposal:


1. All observable phenomena within this universe have a physical cause.
2. The feeling of consciousness is an observable phenomenon.
3. Thus: the feeling of consciousness has a physical cause.
4. Contrapositively: The lack of a physical cause cannot create a feeling of consciousness.
5. Dead people no longer have the capacity to physically cause thought.
6. Ergo, the feeling of consciousness dies with the body.


Now let's break those into sub-issues and debate them for five years.

 

[JoeMorgue]

There is no point adding more branches; if your most fundamental tenet has no basis, then there is nothing branching from it.

"My car has been crushed flat by a meteorite, time to take into the shop to make sure the belt timing is in good order."

 

[Belz...]

Dave,
- I probably can't do any better than before -- but by duplicating 'me,' it would be as if I were a computer with a camera, and you're really just duplicating my camera. In this analogy, my "self" is the receiver of the info being gathered by the camera.

Jabba, if you duplicate "you", you get the whole thing, computer AND camera included -- that is, body and 'self'.

You know this because this is at least the 3,944th time someone corrects you on this.

 

[Belz...]

- What I'm trying to do

No. Stop telling us what you're going to do and get to the demonstration of your claim.

...the problem, of course, is that it's been patently obvious for years that you can't do that. You've already thrown your best stuff at us years ago and it was swatted down like the poor arguments that they were, as Jay has just pointed out. Unable to admit it, you try to fool us by pretending that the problem is that we don't understand your premises, that the words you're using aren't quite right, that you just need to clarify your position for everything to fall into place, or that we're just plain meanies. In truth, your claim has been disproven years ago, and you just can't handle the revelation that you are, in fact, quite mortal.

 

[JayUtah]

Why should we debate each of the points the way you define them?

How do you expect him to win the debate unless he can lay out all the ground rules and instruct his critics what points they'll be defending? It's almost like you don't want the playwright to control the plot of the play and designate how each of the characters in it are going to behave?

 

[Belz...]

Your critics have limited patience with your shenanigans.

Evidence?

 

[Loss Leader]

How do you expect him to win the debate unless he can lay out all the ground rules and instruct his critics what points they'll be defending? It's almost like you don't want the playwright to control the plot of the play and designate how each of the characters in it are going to behave?

"This chick beith too high-maintenance.
I shall absent myself from her company
and maybe find that Rosalind girl
I mentioned once in Act 1."

- Romeo and Juliet


I murdered the king
And now have blood on my hands
That I can't wash off.
Which is fine with me
Because that was my actual plan.
Why do all women in Shakespeare plays
Have nervous breakdowns?

- "The Scottish Play"

 

[Mojo]

Dave and others,
- Moving right along -- hopefully, the rest of my premises:

11. To formally re-evaluate OOFLam, we can use the following formula from Bayesian statistics: P(H|E)=P(E|H)*P(H)/(P(E|H)*P(H)+P(E|~H)*P(~H)).
12. There are 3 variables in that formula -- we've already discussed P(E|H), the likelihood of the event occurring, given H (OOFLam).
13. Another variable is the prior probability of H (and ~H).
14. There is a reasonable probability of at least 1% for ~H -- and therefore, no more than 99% for H.
15. The remaining variable is P(E|~H), the likelihood of the event occurring, given ~H. For now, I'll suggest 99%.
16. Inserting the numbers, we get that the posterior probability of H, after adding E to the evidence is: P(H|E)=10-100*.99/(10-100*.99+.99*.01). And rounding off, we get P(H|E)=0/.099, or zero.
17. So, by adding this new info to the evidence for H and rounding off, we get that the probability of H being true is zero.

- That ought to give us some more disagreements to discuss.

How would this look if H was the hypothesis that you have an immortal "self"?

 

[Jabba]

Dave,
- I probably can't do any better than before -- but by duplicating 'me,' it would be as if I were a computer with a camera, and you're really just duplicating my camera. In this analogy, my "self" is the receiver of the info being gathered by the camera.

Why wouldn't it be possible to duplicate the receiver as well as the camera?

Dave,
- As often happens, it took me a while to understand (or think that I understand) at what you are getting...
- But first, it isn't an issue of "possible" -- I don't think that any of this is possible.
- I think that the issue has to do with the way I described the "self" a long time ago. I said that maybe the physical brain was just the receiver of the consciousness -- that it didn't actually produce the consciousness.
- Here, I'm saying that the same consciousness (inherently involving a particular self) would be received by two different receptors (cameras) in different places. So actually, we would be duplicating the physical receiver of the self. The self would then be analogous to the moving pictures received by the two cameras and played by the computer.

- Above I had said, "In this analogy, my 'self' is the receiver of the info being gathered by the camera." Here, I'm saying that my self is the motion picture being played by my computer...
- This is confusing stuff (at least for me) -- but so far, I suspect that both versions are correct, but simply represent different perspectives. For now, I'll stick with the latter analogy.