halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2012
- Messages
- 10,259
Thanks for catching that. I've fixed my post.
Proof of Immortality, VII
- Thread starter abaddon
- Start date
- Status
Thanks for catching that. I've fixed my post.
That IS the entire point.
The equation isn't silly or dismiss-able (as many here would have it), instead it's a simple statement about conditional probabilities. The OBVIOUS problem is that justifying probabilities requires either empirical evidence or some more fundamental claim about relative certainties of the physical world).
So exactly HOW could we ever assert any P(~H) (probability of IMmortality). Is that even a claim about the physical world, or does it require some other domain ? How could we observe the 'event of immortality', except to spend literal eternity observing and AFTER ETERNITY then report the result ?!!? It seems preposterous - it's just an assault on definitions, not facts.
The problem isn't just that the numbers need to be justified, but it appears that no such numbers could ever by justified with empirical evidence. There are other non-empirical justifications, for example due to to Einstein's E=mc^2, we could posit that some energy//mass unit is 'immortal', except the theory is less that 100yrs old and seems likely to be revised/overturned at some future date. It's not like a logical tautology; it's NOT provable.
I've only reviewed this (massive/turgid) thread for 3 minutes, and that flaws seem obvious, Either define a practical measurement for immortality, or admit it's a merely a concept in need of a supportive theory.
"Proof of immortality" may as well be "Proof of floobydust" so long as we fail to define our terms in a concrete manner.
--toodles
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Worthless until you justify your numbers.
- In my formula, I allow that P(~H) is .01. In the past, I've presented what I consider to be "some evidence" for immortality (the official H is OOFLam, i.e. each of us "selves" has Only One Finite Life (at most)).
- I think that, in part, you're suggesting that even .01 is a big overstatement -- at least. Is that right?
Worthless until you justify your numbers.
stevea,
- In my formula, I allow that P(~H) is .01. In the past, I've presented what I consider to be "some evidence" for immortality (the official H is OOFLam, i.e. each of us "selves" has Only One Finite Life (at most)).
- I think that, in part, you're suggesting that even .01 is a big overstatement -- at least. Is that right?
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2012
- Messages
- 10,259
Your entire formula is nonsense. What part of that do you not understand?
Have you seen "Memento?" Your debate style, such as it is, seems to be modeled after someone suffering from a similar condition. You seem unable to remember the past points made about your bovine excrement.
Last edited:
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Define "selves". Out of one side of your mouth you've meant it to be souls. Out of the other side of your mouth you've used it to mean the organism. Out of a third side of your mouth you've used it to mean sense of self. You simply aren't going to be allowed to bait and switch that.
Define "selves" as you've been instructed.
jond
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 3,440
Jabba:
-You cannot put forth a mechanism by the process of self awareness can continue after the brain ceases functioning.
-This fact means that the only way to conceptually have immortality, or any sort of "immaterialsm" (or whatever it is you think you're proving today) is to have a separate entity in addition to your body/brain.
-It has been demonstrated that it is impossible for your separate entity and your body cannot be more likely than your body alone.
-Your refusal to address this problem is obvious to all neutral jurists. You have lost. Badly.
-Court is adjourned.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
According to materialism, does the sense of self have a separate existence? If not, why do you say that materialism claims that it won't "exist again"? It's that kind of dishonest crap that you won't be allowed to get away with here.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Belz...
Fiend God
No, JUSTIFY that number. WHY did you pick it?
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
- In my opinion, there was a very reasonable possibility -- prior to any inclusion of implications from my current existence -- that there would be something more than what we now consider to be physical. My opinion is that the probability of such is really much greater than .01, but using .01 still works in the formula. In fact, .0000001 would work.
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
Pulling numbers out of your rear does not constitute an estimation or an arrival at,
jond
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 3,440
Now multiply that number times whatever number you want to assign to the likelihood of your body existing and tell us which is more likely. (Your body alone or your body and this other entity)
Last edited:
Jabba,
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "STATING AN OPINION" AND "DEFENDING A POSITION" ON ANY LEVEL?
Do you understand how rude and anti-intellectual it is to just restate your opinion when asked to support it?
You are not the Lathe of Heaven. Your words don't create reality. You just stating an opinion isn't a valid argument.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "STATING AN OPINION" AND "DEFENDING A POSITION" ON ANY LEVEL?
Do you understand how rude and anti-intellectual it is to just restate your opinion when asked to support it?
You are not the Lathe of Heaven. Your words don't create reality. You just stating an opinion isn't a valid argument.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Robo,
- Most of us here have agreed that a perfect copy of my brain and body would not bring me (my sense of self) back to life.
jond
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 3,440
Can you show where ANYONE has agreed to that?
I honestly don't think there's a single person here that does.
Yeah I was there for that, he didn't address this concern at all. He took issue with the way we tried to demonstrate it to you, but he was wrong and never actually refuted the core complaint anyway. This is still an unaddressed fatal flaw in your argument.
Jabba, you might want to read this quote a few more times. We've already done a lot of your homework for you but since you don't like the answers you just don't respond. At this point if you want to prove anything you need to step up and actually justify your numbers, address the fatal flaws in your arguments, etc. You can't just sit there and expect us to try and fix your flawed argument for you when it has so many flaws that not a single one of us has been able to suggest it's even fixable.
This is wrong. I've explained this to you MANY times, and you've never responded. Here it is again:
This is the Materialist view of the sense of self. It doesn't matter if you agree with it, for your argument to make any sense you need to calculate your probabilities as if this is the case:
We do experience consciousness, or a sense of self.
This is caused by our physical brains, by the electrical signals and neurochemistry and all that jazz.
If our brains are disrupted, so is the sense of self.
Our sense of self isn't a tangible thing, nor is it a thing at all. It's an emergent property of our brains.
If you duplicated someone perfectly, that duplicate would also have a sense of self. Since the person was duplicated exactly, both copies would have the same thoughts, feelings, and personality.
Our sense of self goes away every night when we get some good sleep. By most reasonable definitions it's just gone. When we wake up we once again have a sense of self.
Likewise, people have been pretty darn dead and have been brought back. During the time we are dead (or deeply sleeping, or in a coma, or whatever) our sense of self isn't somewhere else - it just is gone entirely. There is no persistent sense of self that survives outside our body.
We don't really call this a "new" sense of self, because it's an emergent property rather than a countable thing. Likewise if a chameleon was green, and then turned red, and then turned green again we wouldn't say it had a "new" green. It was green, then it wasn't, then it was. We are aware, then we're not, then we are.
When our brains break sufficiently that they can no longer generate this sense of self awareness ever again, it's just over. There's nothing to reincarnate because that sense of self isn't a countable thing and it's gone anyway. Nobody else will have "our" sense of self, or any part of it, because it's not a THING that can be passed around or divided up.
That feeling you have, that a copy wouldn't be you and that there's something special about the original that would be lost in translation - that's not an actual thing, it's more like sentimental value. It means something TO YOU but it's not an actual measurable or quantifiable value. If we DID replace you with a perfect copy and didn't tell you, you would never know.
Literally nobody here has agreed to that, though primarily because we don't agree with the premise (that "bring my sense of self back to life" even makes sense).
Last edited:
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
jond,
- If you figure likelihood from a singularity before the big bang, according to most scientific perspectives, the likelihood of either the current existence of a particular body, or a particular body plus a particular self, is virtually zero.
jond
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 3,440
Doesn't matter. Your body exists, demonstrably. And you need to account for that when talking about your current existence because your sense of self is directly tied to your existing brain. So however unlikely your body is, you have to that number as part of your equation. In order to achieve immortality you need a separate entity. So you need to multiply the one unlikely thing (your body) by the other unlikely thing (your soul) to address your current existence if you are talking about immortality. The materialistic model only requires your body. You lose.
- Status