Nonpareil
The Terrible Trivium
Proof of Immortality, VII
- Thread starter abaddon
- Start date
- Status
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
No physicist would agree with you because it is IMPOSSIBLE for your hypothesis about souls to have a higher probability than materialism.
A has a likelihood.
B has a likelihood.
A+B cannot have a likelihood greater than either A or B (whichever is less).
A = People's bodies develop out of matter after a long series of circumstances.
B = souls exist
A+B = People are composed of bodies developed out of matter after a long series of circumstances AND souls exist.
You are claiming that A+B is more likely than the smaller of A or B.
That is wrong. It's completely wrong. It cannot be made right. Effectively, your debate is over.
Okay Jabba here's something else for you to ignore/misconstrue.
If our physical bodies aren't required for our "Sense of..." soul. Soul. It's a soul.
What purpose do our physical bodies serve?
You're entire argument is that you isn't you but you+soul. So what's the body and mind for if the soul is not only required for a full and complete "you" but the soul survives the death of your body and mind?
If your soul is gonna live forever what is going to change when your body dies?
I look forward to you ignoring me.
If our physical bodies aren't required for our "Sense of..." soul. Soul. It's a soul.
What purpose do our physical bodies serve?
You're entire argument is that you isn't you but you+soul. So what's the body and mind for if the soul is not only required for a full and complete "you" but the soul survives the death of your body and mind?
If your soul is gonna live forever what is going to change when your body dies?
I look forward to you ignoring me.
We've already tried this. It's been explained to Jabba that if his entire argument is based on "X is too unlikely to happen" he can't just go "Therefore X + Y" because that makes it even less likely.
Jabba completely ignored it and one of the thread nannies took us to task for it.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Joe,
- Wouldn't you agree that most combinations of your Dad's sperm cells and your Mom's ovum were only potential selves?
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
None of your dishonest bait and switch tactics. Define what you mean when you say "selves".
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
Why are you asking JoeBentley something he already clearly answered in the post you quoted?
Belz...
Fiend God
You've already agreed that there are no such things as potential selves 4 years ago.
You've lost. Without potential selves you cannot claim to calculate prior odds of your existence. Your entire bayesian claim is defeated.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
No, I don't agree.
First, as others have already noticed, you're relying upon ambiguous, general words such as "selves" in hopes you can swap definitions after someone expresses some sort of agreement. Second, you insist on treating human reproduction and genetic development as some sort of special cases in materialism. That's special pleading. Third, you're trying to conjure up a new philosophical notion out of "combinations" of things that are not, in fact, combined.
Most importantly, materialism has no concept of potentiality as you're trying to invent here by imagining combinations that don't exist, and which you previously agreed don't exist in any operative way. It just doesn't. Just because material exists doesn't mean there is an infinite number of "potential" anythings that gives rise to the role of a discrete quantization that you're trying to foist. By your same line of reasoning I can construe every chunk of iron ore as a "potential" Volkswagen and then assert that since most ore doesn't become a Volkswagen, any given Volkswagen has a very small probability of existing. That such an argument would be absurd for Volkswagens under the materialist hypothesis is why it's absurd for babies under the same hypothesis.
No, Jabba, you don't get to wave your hands and tack onto materialism the very thing you say you need it to have in order to falsify it. That is exactly begging the question.
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
Jab,
- Wouldn't you agree that your begging for consensus is the lowest form of argument?
Last edited:
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
Jabba, - Wouldn't you agree that your straw man arguments are dishonest and sleazy?
Last edited:
jond
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 3,440
Quoted so Jabba can again ignore this very relevant post.
No Jabba I don't agree to the thing I JUST SPECIFICALLY DIDN'T AGREE TO!
Could you please at least act like you're pretending to try and care what your opponents are saying?
We spent a goddamn year on the "How many 'Going 60 mphs' are there?" with you.
Furthermore it doesn't matter if I did agree there was a "Pool of potential selves" and quoted some number, any number to you. You would just turn around and beg that into your "Virtually infinite" weasel word.
Further, furthermore I already answered this before, making up some widely hypothetical combination of variables that one could, if you want to squint, look sideways, use a LOT of terms very loosely and so forth, could be called in extreme non-technical layman terms "Potential selves" and spent several paragraphs explaining why it still wouldn't work plugged into the made up equation you've made up out of made up madeupedness. That post is still there, you can put the effort into going to find it if you want an answer but I'm done baby bird feeding you answers. We've grown our answers, harvested them, chopped them up, put them in the oven at 350 for 45 minutes, put them on a plate, and put the plate directly under your nose and I'll be goddamned if you're going to sit there and demand we chew it for you as well.
It is incredibly, massively, way beyond reasonably rude to keep asking for answers that have already been provided multiple times.
Last edited:
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
You know he's laughing at us right? Chuckling to himself and patiently willing to prolong this on for another 5 years while moving actually nowhere. Thinking to himself that the more passionately we argue, the more we secretly realize he is right.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Just as we're laughing at him, except we get to wear our laughter on our sleeves. Jabba gives us so little actual engagement that we get to spend most of our time these days expressly chuckling over the his childish behavior. Oh sure, he might not feel any shame over it. And that's his prerogative. But it only makes his "neutral jury" protests all the funnier.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Jabba still hasn't figured out that not every quotient is a probability. He's that innumerate.
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2012
- Messages
- 10,259
No. They are potential alternate people. Your mother could have had a girl for example.
Now, what does ANY of that have to do with immortality or reincarnation? What the flying gluten free fudge are you trying to get at?
Mojo
Mostly harmless
The problem is that he's making up the numbers to force his desired conclusion. This was made perfectly obvious in part one of the thread when he responded to being asked what his formula would look like if H was the hypothesis that he is immortal by making up a different set of numbers that resulted in H being quite likely.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
How many times do you have to be told, Jabba, that under materialism consciousness is a process in the brain, not a constant thing determined by genetics?
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
No. They were not that. A self is the product of a functioning organism.
They were not even potential organisms (since they never met).
Hans
- Status