Proof of Immortality, VII

[John Jones]

Caveman,
[...]
- At least superficially, it seems like you're making a conjunction fallacy fallacy like many of the others are doing.

I don't recognize in you any competence in spotting or understanding fallacies.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Jabba,

Do you understand that an argument can be wrong? Not just "worded" wrong but actually wrong?

 

[JesseCuster]

- At least superficially, it seems like you're making a conjunction fallacy fallacy like many of the others are doing.

I'm going to guess that you never heard of the conjunction fallacy until very recently, but because it's just been used in this thread in a side discussion, it's now your new buzzword that you can throw about, thinking it makes you seem you're far more sophisticated and knowledgable than you really are.

It's a common tactic of internet cranks to throw about jargon that they don't understand but have just come across for the first time in an attempt to give their ramblings the air of intellectual rigour. It's almost a defining quality of pseudoscience.

 

[Jabba]

Do you know what a circular argument is?

- Under which hypothesis is my current existence more likely, reincarnation or OOFLam?

 

[Monza]

Monza,
- Where did I confirm that I did not exist in1888?

It depends on how you're going to equivocate your way past this.

Thank you, Jay.

Jabba, really? That's the comment you make to my post?

 

[JayUtah]

- Under which hypothesis is my current existence more likely, reincarnation or OOFLam?

Do you really think the answer to this has changed since the last time you begged obnoxiously for agreement using exactly these same words?

 

[John Jones]

- Under which hypothesis is my current existence more likely, reincarnation or OOFLam?

Uh, no. That's not a circular argument - yet. I'm sure you'll make it a circular argument in the next post or two, then deny it, then change the subject, then it will be just in time for another fringe reset.

 

[Pixel42]

- Under which hypothesis is my current existence more likely, reincarnation or OOFLam?

If you're reading this then the probability of your current existence is 1, under every conceivable hypothesis.

 

[The Norseman]

- Under which hypothesis is my current existence more likely, reincarnation or OOFLam?

LOL

"Under which hypothesis is my current existence more likely, something I don't understand or something I made up?"

 

[Jabba]

Thank you, Jay.

Jabba, really? That's the comment you make to my post?

- Yeah.
- If I actually said what you said I said, I made a mistake. I believe that my self existed -- in one aspect or another -- in 1888.

 

[Monza]

- Yeah.
- If I actually said what you said I said, I made a mistake. I believe that my self existed -- in one aspect or another -- in 1888.

You also said you have never observed yourself without your body. But your body didn't exist until many years after 1888. Were you also mistaken about this?


ETA: And it wasn't what I said you said. Jay provided a link to your post. You don't have to take my word for what you said, just click on the link or scroll back a couple pages.

 

[JayUtah]

If I actually said what you said I said...

I linked to your post, where you wrote your answer in your own words.

...I made a mistake. I believe that my self existed...

A conclusion you reached only after the implications of your answer dawned on you. You do this enough times to make it a passable sport. It's fairly easy to lead you to a logical deduction that arises necessarily from your claims. It is nearly impossible to get you to incorporate those implications into your argument. It's almost as if you know you're full of crap.

 

[godless dave]

Quoting in case it's hard to follow links:

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.

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?

- No.

 

[Belz...]

- Under which hypothesis is my current existence more likely, reincarnation or OOFLam?

Asked and answered.

Prove that pools of selves exist.

 

[halleyscomet]

- Under which hypothesis is my current existence more likely, reincarnation or OOFLam?

Given the lack of evidence for reincarnation or a soul, the only demonstrable possibility is that your existence ends when you die.

The entirety of your math game is wishful thinking, wasting your finite time on wishing you had more time.

 

[zooterkin]

- Yeah.
- If I actually said what you said I said, I made a mistake. I believe that my self existed -- in one aspect or another -- in 1888.

This is the 'self' you identify with a bucket of consciousness? Not what most of us would call a self; the memories and identity of a person.

 

[Jabba]

You also said you have never observed yourself without your body. But your body didn't exist until many years after 1888. Were you also mistaken about this?


ETA: And it wasn't what I said you said. Jay provided a link to your post. You don't have to take my word for what you said, just click on the link or scroll back a couple pages.

Monza,
- Nah. Show me where I said these things, and I'll respond.

 

[Belz...]

Monza,
- Nah. Show me where I said these things, and I'll respond.

It was shown to you just a few posts ago. Stop being dishonest and rude. You're now denying things that are in front of your face.

Here

Is your only goal to grind the discussion to a halt so you never have to admit to being wrong?

YOU'RE STILL WRONG.

 

[Jabba]

Given the lack of evidence for reincarnation or a soul, the only demonstrable possibility is that your existence ends when you die.

The entirety of your math game is wishful thinking, wasting your finite time on wishing you had more time.

- No.
- You just don't understand the math. "Likelihood," here, is the probability of an event (the current existence of my self) given reincarnation, and given OOFLam. When you talk about evidence for reincarnation, you're talking about the "prior probability" of reincarnation.

 

[halleyscomet]

- No.

- You just don't understand the math.

Says the guy who has been told by actual statisticians that his “equation” is nonsense.

That’s adorable. It’s like a five year old trying to give his father a driving lesson based upon having watched his big brother play “Mario Cart” a few times.