Proof of Immortality, VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dave Rogers said:
Your initial intent was to offer a proof of immortality. How, exactly, is this achieved by ignoring the fatal flaws in your line of argument? Until you've understood H, you cannot make any deductions based upon it; or, looking at it a different way, since your definition of H is incorrect, no conclusions can be drawn from a line of argument starting with that definition. That's not a minor flaw to be cleared up later on; disproving H is the central plank of your thesis. In effect, you're trying to build a tower, realizing you don't have the right materials to build the first storey, and saying "Never mind, let's go on to the second and fill that bit in later."
Click to expand...

And, even if he could, by some miracle, disprove H, that wouldn't prove immortality since ~H includes every possibility that isn't H, not just the one he has fixated on.
 
RoboTimbo said:
How is it that you are unable to grasp simple concepts, Jabba?
Click to expand...

He understands them perfectly they just don't fit into his script.

What we are watching are retcons.

Eventually it will be "Bayesian Statistics can Prove Immortality because Superboy Prime punched reality during the Crisis on Infinite Earths."

Proof of Immortality VII: One More Day
Proof of Immortality VIII: Flashpoint.

And so on.
 
Jabba said:
- And I've tried to answer it a dozen times. If it isn't ME, it is not just separate, it's different.
- And again, the emergent property of consciousness/self provides a new dimension that unifies the pieces, and that Mt Rainier doesn't have. It is with this dimension that the copy is different than the original.
Click to expand...

What is the difference between a duck?
One of its legs are both the same!
 
Dave Rogers said:
Well, yes. But we're trying to allow Jabba to address just one fatal flaw at a time; apparently even that's one too many.

Dave
Click to expand...

Of course, he also knows full well that this current issue is the fatal flaw from which there is no point in continuing. If his self isn't a separate entity, then OMG HE'S GOING TO DIE. Which is what he simply will not accept under any circumstances.
 
godless dave said:
Again, H doesn't have this dimension.
Click to expand...
- I understand your implication here is that I'm not properly representing H in the formula.

- But, that H doesn't have such a dimension is where OOFLam enters the fray -- OOFLam clearly implies that there is no such dimension. ~OOFLam clearly implies that there is. That's how the formula represents the issue. That's how the formula is supposed to represent the issue.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Well, yes. But we're trying to allow Jabba to address just one fatal flaw at a time; apparently even that's one too many.

Dave
Click to expand...

Maybe we should ask him to define 'fatal flaw', given the success he's had with 'emergent property', 'Texas Sharpshooter fallacy' and 'identical'.
 
Jabba said:
- I understand your implication here is that I'm not properly representing H in the formula.

- But, that H doesn't have such a dimension is where OOFLam enters the fray -- OOFLam clearly implies that there is no such dimension. ~OOFLam clearly implies that there is. That's how the formula represents the issue. That's how the formula is supposed to represent the issue.
Click to expand...


What is the difference between 'H' and 'OOFLam'?
 
Jabba said:
- I understand your implication here is that I'm not properly representing H in the formula.

- But, that H doesn't have such a dimension is where OOFLam enters the fray -- OOFLam clearly implies that there is no such dimension. ~OOFLam clearly implies that there is. That's how the formula represents the issue. That's how the formula is supposed to represent the issue.
Click to expand...

Then you're back to the problem that the likelihood of your existence is exactly the same as the likelihood of your body. Which, as you know, and have agreed, is far more likely than the existence of your body AND a self (soul) AND a means of the two connecting.
 
I'm reminded of that scene on the Simpsons where Mr. Burns has a physical and the doctor informs him that he literally has every single disease, including some that were just discovered in him.

The Board: Mr. Jabba, I'm afraid you are the wrongest man in the United States. Your arguments are wrong about everything.
Jabba: You mean I have the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy?
The Board: Yes.
Jabba: Assuming the conclusion?
The Board: Yes.
Jabba: Bootstrap fallacy??
The Board: Uh, a little bit, yes. You also have several logical fallacies that have just been discovered - in your argument.
Jabba: I see. You sure you haven't just made thousands of mistakes?
The Boar: Uh, no, no, I'm afraid not.
Jabba: This sounds like bad news.
The Board: Well, you'd think so, but all of your fallacies are in perfect balance. Uh, if you have a moment, I can explain.
Jabba: Well...
[looks at his watch]
[the Board puts a tiny model house door on his desk]
The Board: Here's the door to your argument, see?
[bring up some small fuzz balls with goofy faces and limbs from under the desk]
The Board: And these are oversized novelty logical fallacies.
[points to a different one up as he names each disease]
The Board: That's Distinction without Difference, that's a Fringe Reset,
[holds up one]
The Board: and this cute little cuddle-bug is Rules Lawyering. Here's what happens when they all try to get through the door at once.
[tries to cram a bunch through the model door. The fallacies get stuck]
The Board [Stooge-like] Woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo. Move it, chowderhead.
[normal voice]
The Board: We call it, "Three Stooges Syndrome".
Jabba: So what you're saying is, my argument is airtight?
The Board: Oh, no, no, in fact, even a slight fact could...
Jabba: Airtight.
 
jond said:
Then you're back to the problem that the likelihood of your existence is exactly the same as the likelihood of your body. Which, as you know, and have agreed, is far more likely than the existence of your body AND a self (soul) AND a means of the two connecting.
Click to expand...
- Where do you find that agreement?
 
JoeBentley said:
I'm reminded of that scene on the Simpsons where Mr. Burns has a physical and the doctor informs him that he literally has every single disease, including some that were just discovered in him.

The Board: Mr. Jabba, I'm afraid you are the wrongest man in the United States. Your arguments are wrong about everything.
Jabba: You mean I have the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy?
The Board: Yes.
Jabba: Assuming the conclusion?
The Board: Yes.
Jabba: Bootstrap fallacy??
The Board: Uh, a little bit, yes. You also have several logical fallacies that have just been discovered - in your argument.
Jabba: I see. You sure you haven't just made thousands of mistakes?
The Boar: Uh, no, no, I'm afraid not.
Jabba: This sounds like bad news.
The Board: Well, you'd think so, but all of your fallacies are in perfect balance. Uh, if you have a moment, I can explain.
Jabba: Well...
[looks at his watch]
[the Board puts a tiny model house door on his desk]
The Board: Here's the door to your argument, see?
[bring up some small fuzz balls with goofy faces and limbs from under the desk]
The Board: And these are oversized novelty logical fallacies.
[points to a different one up as he names each disease]
The Board: That's Distinction without Difference, that's a Fringe Reset,
[holds up one]
The Board: and this cute little cuddle-bug is Rules Lawyering. Here's what happens when they all try to get through the door at once.
[tries to cram a bunch through the model door. The fallacies get stuck]
The Board [Stooge-like] Woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo. Move it, chowderhead.
[normal voice]
The Board: We call it, "Three Stooges Syndrome".
Jabba: So what you're saying is, my argument is airtight?
The Board: Oh, no, no, in fact, even a slight fact could...
Jabba: Airtight.
Click to expand...
Joe,
- Must admit, that's cute...
 
Jabba said:
- I understand your implication here is that I'm not properly representing H in the formula.

- But, that H doesn't have such a dimension is where OOFLam enters the fray -- OOFLam clearly implies that there is no such dimension. ~OOFLam clearly implies that there is. That's how the formula represents the issue. That's how the formula is supposed to represent the issue.
Click to expand...

So now you do agree that H doesn't have that dimension. That means under H, two identical bodies would have two identical selves. Or are you going to change your mind again?
 
Jabba said:
- Where do you find that agreement?
Click to expand...

I will hunt it down if I need to, but you agreed that:

The existence of your body/brain is B.
The existence of your self/soul is S.
The connection between them is C.

Whatever number you assign to the probability of B, it will also be there as you figure the probability of S & C. Because the one thing we know is that B exists and S requires B to communicate.

We even ran the numbers for you.
 
Jabba said:
- But, that H doesn't have such a dimension is where OOFLam enters the fray -- OOFLam clearly implies that there is no such dimension. ~OOFLam clearly implies that there is.
Click to expand...

No, ~H implies no such thing. ~H is not a single hypothesis, it's all hypotheses that aren't H.

But now that you admit that H doesn't have this dimension, you therefore agree that there is no difference between the two jabbas.
 
Jabba said:
- OOFLam clearly implies that there is no such dimension. ~OOFLam clearly implies that there is.
Click to expand...

That's the most perfect statement of the fallacy of denying the antecedent that it's possible to give. You're claiming that, because H => ~D, where D is your extra dimension, therefore ~H => D. An equivalent fallacy would be to say that, because worms have no legs, everything that is not a worm has legs.

Dave
 
Jabba said:
But, that H doesn't have such a dimension is where OOFLam enters the fray -- OOFLam clearly implies that there is no such dimension. ~OOFLam clearly implies that there is. That's how the formula represents the issue.
Click to expand...

You're arguing that such a dimension exists in the data. You want to say that H doesn't explain that dimension while ~H does. But that dimension you "see" in the data is actually a conclusion drawn by ~H, not some factor of the data. As I've been telling you, but you haven't been listening, you don't know what the various parts of your formula represent. Remember the part where you confessed you didn't know how that formula worked? You were right -- you don't.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom