Proof of Immortality, VII

[ferd burfle]

You think people are going to keep getting in that hamster wheel for your amusement?

He does. Sadly, he is correct.

 

[RoboTimbo]

- sure it is. It is always conscious.

We are akin to small blind moles underground who know little or nothing about the world. But we continue to learn. . . .

Rovelli, Carlo. Reality Is Not What It Seems: The Journey to Quantum Gravity (p. 196). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Some of us continue to learn. Some of you (particularly) refuse to.

 

[jsfisher]

Gee, if an immortal self were always conscious, wouldn't that prove Jabba is not immortal? Jabba is not always conscious.

 

[halleyscomet]

Gee, if an immortal self were always conscious, wouldn't that prove Jabba is not immortal? Jabba is not always conscious.

Yes. Yes it would.

It’s a shame Janadelle is long gone. The two of them seem to have compatible ideas about cosmology and the soul.

 

[Belz...]

Caveman,
- I am a currently existing human self. My claim is that this event is more likely if human selves are immortal than if each potential self has only one finite life at most.

We're well aware of your claim.

And two entities are less likely than one. You've defeated yourself.

 

[Belz...]

- I am claiming that P(me|NR) -- or X -- is equal to 1/10¹⁰⁰. I claim that because I think that the real likelihood of me currently existing -- given NR (or OOFLam) -- is virtually zero, but that 10^-100 is small enough to make my point.

Oh, it does make your point: it confirms that you picked the number out of your nether-regions to serve your pre-determined conclusion.

You keep defeating yourself.

- So far, I can't figure out why that logic doesn't work.

People have been telling you for five years why it doesn't work, so the only reason why you can't figure it out would be because you're simply not listening.

- My evidence is made up of premises.

You have no idea what we're talking about when we talk of evidence, do you?

Re a) They are if the jury agrees with them.

Reality is not a democracy.

 

[Belz...]

If human selves are immortal they always exist, and always includes now. If human selves have only one finite life to live during all of time, what is the likelihood that your time would be right now?

That sounds all very nice but the fact of the matter is that people are born and die, so that kind of ***** up your theory.

 

[Belz...]

- sure it is. It is always conscious.

The body exists and is conscious one way or another. You are proposing adding another entity to the mix. This necessarily makes the result LESS likely.

Again with the self-defeat.

 

[Belz...]

- I'll have to drop "human" for now.

Amusing.

- Obviously, I think it's my audience that doesn't understand these ideas.

You can stroke your ego all you want. You still lose.

It isn't my astonishment in noticing that I exist -- it's my astonishment that I do exist. There is a real difference.

No, no difference whatsoever. There isn't even a distinction.

He is a very stable genius.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Caveman,
- I am a currently existing human self. My claim is that this event is more likely if human selves are immortal than if each potential self has only one finite life at most. Do you still disagree?

... because? (something you have been dodging for 7 threads now...)

It's currently raining. My claim is that this event is more likely if rain showers are immoral than if each individual rain shower has one finite duration at most. Therefore, it will never stop raining and we're all going to drown.

 

[Pixel42]

It's currently raining. My claim is that this event is more likely if rain showers are immoral

Evil rain clouds!

 

[JoeMorgue]

... because? (something you have been dodging for 7 threads now...)

It's currently raining. My claim is that this event is more likely if rain showers are immoral than if each individual rain shower has one finite duration at most. Therefore, it will never stop raining and we're all going to drown.

Jabba answer this question. Stop ignoring people's valid complaints of your nonsense. It's incredibly rude.

The exact same "logic" you are using to prove you are immortal could be used to prove that no process could ever stop or start but all processes must be eternal.

It's raining? The rain must have been going forever and will continue forever because what are the odds that given the huge timscale of the universe I would be observing the rain at the time it was happening? Highly improbable. Much more likely is that the rain is eternal.

What's the difference? And I don't mean yet another lamb bleating "But it wouldn't be the sssssaaaaaaaaammmmmeeeee."

But you won't. You'll ignore this.

 

[zooterkin]

- Re a) They are if the jury agrees with them.
- Re b) If human selves are immortal they always exist, and always includes now. If human selves have only one finite life to live during all of time, what is the likelihood that your time would be right now?

Zoo,
- I'll have to drop "human" for now.

So you're just talking about 'selves' being immortal, now? Any chance you're going to define either of those terms?

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Evil rain clouds!

Oops...

 

[Jabba]

You seem to have missed this response, Jabba, so I'll post it again.

The "new information" on which you are basing your argument is the observation that you exist. If the likelihood of your body existing "right now" is less than 10^-100 then the likelihood that your existence is observed "right now" must also be less than 10^{-100, whether or not you have an immortal "self". The thing that is observed is your body, not your "self".}

^{Mojo, - I think that the answer is that others observe my body. It is only me that observes my self -- and, it's that observation to which I'm referring.}

 

[zooterkin]

Mojo,
- I think that the answer is that others observe my body. It is only me that observes my self -- and, it's that observation to which I'm referring.

And what is it about your self leads you to suppose it is immortal?

 

[zooterkin]

Mojo,
- I think that the answer is that others observe my body. It is only me that observes my self -- and, it's that observation to which I'm referring.

Oh, and you're completely missing the point, again.

 

[Monza]

Mojo,
- I think that the answer is that others observe my body. It is only me that observes my self -- and, it's that observation to which I'm referring.

But have you ever observed your self without your body present? Have you observed yourself prior to the existence of your body? Say, in the year 1888?

 

[jond]

Mojo,
- I think that the answer is that others observe my body. It is only me that observes my self -- and, it's that observation to which I'm referring.

And since we can alter your ability so observe your self by altering your brain, that means you have to account for the existence of your brain when talking about your current existence.

 

[Belz...]

Mojo,
- I think that the answer is that others observe my body. It is only me that observes my self -- and, it's that observation to which I'm referring.

Well I seem to be observing your self just fine.