Proof of Immortality, VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
95a75be55b1aeccee3d779b3707127b6d838d279687c7e3b2bad5c4411688f1e.jpg
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- What would you like to add as responses to the following?
Others,
- If you want to add your responses to this beginning of the map, let me know what they were, or are, and I'll try to add them to the official map.

1. According to modern science, we each should have Only One Finite Life (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.
3.1. "At most" is redundant.
Click to expand...


So, you just skip over objections to your first bullet? What's the point? If #1 is rejected, the rest just collapse.

#1 is rejected.
 
Toontown said:
Seriously?

T'was a man who would not desist
Because the odds said he shouldn't exist
But no one believed him
And claimed he'd deceived them
"It's the sharpshooter fallacy!", they hissed

"I've drawn no target!" he insisted
But they said he should be blacklisted
For just happening to be here
Just like Mount Rainier
And claiming that "H" must be twisted

"Depends on perspective" was my line
Which made the objectivists whine
But Rainier ain't got nary
And yours is arbitrary
So I'll just be sticking with mine
Click to expand...

Hey! Be gentle, it was my first time!

;)

(btw, I liked both yours and The Sparrow's better)
 
Jabba said:
It's a different site. It shouldn't have any problems other than what I mentioned...
Click to expand...

But the problem is that you don't have a history of being a competent webmaster. Implanting, or through your carelessness allowing others to inject, malware into sites you own and to which you direct people is not acceptable in the 21st century. Given your past incompetence, what makes your assurance above credible? What steps have you actively taken to ensure your visitors' safety?

But more to the point, you don't have a history of being a competent editor of content. In fact, there is evidence you are a malicious editor. As the linked warning states, we must necessarily bring in or refer to outside material in order to facilitate our discussions here. What you propose is the reverse: you want to remove the discussion here to an outside venue that you control. We know why.

That is not part of the process, Jabba. You presented your proof here. You agreed to discuss it here. While you give lip service to the debate here, your behavior is more consistent with simply wanting to write these fantasy sagas that misstate the contributions of other real people toward the goal of extolling your personal wisdom and prowess at their expense. These other people you use to further those selfish ends may not want to be co-opted in such a fashion, and need to know your honest intent before they decide whether or not to give you fodder for it.

Since you ignore almost everything that's said to you here, the question of whether you intend to debate honestly and seriously here remains vital. Please fix that.
 
Jabba said:
Why do you reject it?
Click to expand...

First, you don't speak for science. Let your critics speak for themselves and you speak for yourself.

Second, the proposition itself is plausible enough. But you cast it as a hypothesis in your model when it is more properly the consequent of the hypothesis. The prevailing scientific view is materialism. One consequent of materialism is that life, as an emergent property of the material organism, endures only as long as the organism. This may seem a trivial difference, but it's actually vital in your choice of syllogism. You have a history of improper syllogistic reasoning, and this is another example. You propose to refute the hypothesis, thinking that will also refute the consequent it gives rise to. It does not. This is why your critics call it a straw man.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
js,
Why do you reject it?
Click to expand...

As you acknowledged, your H bears no relationship with the scientific model. That you are attempting to include the scientific model there is pointless. Also, you've ignored all the responses which show you why. Just as you will ignore JayUtah's response to this same question.
 
I'm preparing my own map of this discussion. It will be complete and presented in a fair and accurate manner. To avoid errors, everyone will be quoted verbatim and these will be presented in strict chronological order. So that everyone will have access, I hope that International Skeptics will host the map. :)
 
Jabba said:
js,
Why do you reject it?
Click to expand...

The same reason I provided before that you simply ignored. But in the interest of discussion of the point, here is a recap of one of my objections to "1. According to modern science, we each should have Only One Finite Life (at most) – 'OOFLam'."

Science makes no such claim.

'Life' and 'being alive' may be only softly defined, but the important thing is that life and being alive are properties of functioning organisms. Properties, not things, of on-going life processes. Certainly not countable things. It is meaningless to speak of "only one finite life", at most or otherwise. An organism can be alive until it isn't, but at no point is there an 'alive' thing that can be identified and counted.

Life and being alive are emergent properties of a functioning organism, so it is the organism that determines the nature of the life the organism has. Replicate the organism exactly, and you have replicated the life exactly.

Science does not prohibit the exact replication of an organism. It nearly happens every time an amoeba reproduces. For human beings, whether by currently unknown technology or by freakish sequence of natural events, replication remains a possibility.​
 
Hey guys I have a theory:

1. According to Jabba, we each should have only one specific sense of self, at most -- "OSSoSam."
2. This sense of self is linked with a *specific* physical form when that form is alive.
3. The sense of self is a specific configuration of an infinitely-divisible grand conciousness.
4. Under that hypothesis, Jabba's current existence is EXTREMELY unlikely.
5. But here he is!
6. Given the "right" conditions, the fact that Jabba does currently exist is EXTREMELY strong evidence that OSSoSam 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 Jabba's current existence to be evidence against OSSoSam, he needs to be set apart in a way meaningful to OSSoSam.
10. That is the case.
11. To formally re-evaluate OSSoSam, 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.

What do you think?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom