Proof of Immortality, VII

[Belz...]

You just don't understand the math.

Your usual meek persona is showing cracks, jabba. Now the real you is shining through.

No, the problem isn't with anyone else. You have no idea how to mathematically prove anything, least of which a theory that makes no logical sense to begin with.

You lose.

 

[RoboTimbo]

You just don't understand the math.

You've proven that you don't understand the math or the concepts and you are willing to lie about them.

Do as you were instructed.

 

[John Jones]

- You just don't understand the math. "

Hahahahahaha!

Oh, That's rich!

 

[carlitos]

Jabba enjoys winding up sceptics, he's very good at it

A mocktail recipe:

• Jay Utah
• A Big Bong
• Some tasty weed
• A 6-pack of domestic light beer
• Jabba¹
• Jabba²
• DVD of Scooby Doo, the complete series

Stir and enjoy. Repeat endlessly.

 

[Dave Rogers]

- You just don't understand the math.

Getting a bit snippy here, Jabba. If someone said that to you, you'd call them rude and never respond to them again.

"Likelihood," here, is the probability of an event (the current existence of my self) given reincarnation, and given OOFLam.

Except that you're actually comparing the probability of your current existence, given that your soul exists, with the probability of your current existence given materialism. The existence of an immortal soul that calls itself Jabba is not the complement of materialism, and your entire argument is based on the fallacy that it is.

Dave

 

[Jabba]

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.

Argumemnon,
- Thanks.

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.

Monza,
- You were right. I made a mistake. I was answering the wrong questions. I was answering, "But do you remember have you ever observed your self without your body present? Do you remember Have you observed yourself prior to the existence of your body? Say, in the year 1888?"
- For your actual questions, I should have said, "Given my argument above, I assume that I have -- I just don't remember such things.

 

[Belz...]

Argumemnon,
- Thanks.

You're welcome. If only you could integrate that information and learn.

 

[halleyscomet]

- 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.

So you're Mormon. Got it.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Argumemnon,
- Thanks.



Monza,
- You were right. I made a mistake. I was answering the wrong questions. I was answering, "But do you remember have you ever observed your self without your body present? Do you remember Have you observed yourself prior to the existence of your body? Say, in the year 1888?"
- For your actual questions, I should have said, "Given my argument above, I assume that I have -- I just don't remember such things.

LOL, then what's the point? You aren't talking about your "self" at this point.

 

[Dave Rogers]

- For your actual questions, I should have said, "Given my argument above, I assume that I have -- I just don't remember such things.

So, starting from your assumption that you possess an immortal soul, you are able to conclude that you possess an immortal soul. Got it.

Dave

 

[JoeMorgue]

Jabba,

Please for the love of God make words come out of your mouth that aren't:

"I'm right if you assume I'm right."
"I'll begin to make my argument once you assume I'm right."
"You're being unfair by not assuming I'm right."
"I'm mad because you won't assume I'm right."
"It's unfair to argue with me if you won't assume I'm right."

 

[The Norseman]

LOL, then what's the point? You aren't talking about your "self" at this point.

Oh, I dunno. Such a transparent attempt at backpedaling is kind of amusing in this instance.

 

[halleyscomet]

Oh, I dunno. Such a transparent attempt at backpedaling is kind of amusing in this instance.

It's a shame he can't backpedal like that on a unicycle. He'd have a decent circus act.

https://imgur.com/gallery/tJ4gC

 

[JoeMorgue]

I won't get an answer because... well bloody of course I want but I'd love for Jabba to explain to me what the "now" Jabba and the Jabba of 1888 share in quality or factors.

 

[JayUtah]

You were right. I made a mistake. I was answering the wrong questions. I was answering, "But do you remember have you ever observed...

What a steaming pile of crap. You avoided answering the question for several days, as usual. Only when it became clear Monza wasn't going to give up did you finally give him a one-word blow-off answer. Then Monza tried to get you to face the implications of that answer, and you ignored him. Then when it became clear you couldn't just let that die a natural death, you played all your typical evasive tricks -- "Show me where I said that," "I may or may not have said that," "Did you show me where I said that?" hoping that it would be too much of a burden for people to remind you of your claims. At long last, after failing in your typical methods of evasion, you're trying to tell us you were really somehow thinking of some other question that you thought Monza had asked.

No, Jabba. This is a well-worn pattern of evasion with you. You can't be trusted anymore to commit innocent errors. It's more likely, given all your past admissions, that you simply don't want to have to face up to the implications of your answers for your proof.

For your actual questions, I should have said, "Given my argument above, I assume that I have -- I just don't remember such things.

That would be a consequent of your hypothesis, if your hypothesis were true. When a person assumes that the consequent is true as part of proving the antecedent hypothesis, he is engaged in ____________________ reasoning. I bet every poster here except you can fill in the blank with the proper term.

 

[godless dave]

OK, we've established that Jabba assumes he observed his self in 1888 but does not remember doing so.

Now we can come back to this discussion:

- This seems to be at least one of our points of communication failure. You accept that your particular sense of self would not be brought back to life by the perfect copy. So, in that sense, I'm saying that the new self would not be you. Also in that sense, I'm saying that we wouldn't have any idea who the new self would be.
- We seem to be passing in the night re "in that sense"...

Maybe you should explain what you mean by "in that sense".

Also it seems like you missed this:

Emergent properties aren't magical entities for which the concept of "copy" does not mean the same thing as it does for everything else. Everything about an emergent property is determined by the system it emerges from. Two identical systems under identical conditions will produce identical emergent properties.

In the materialist model, "who" isn't some property a sense of self has. The who and the what are the same thing. If you know the what, you know the who.

 

[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.

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

Monza,
- You were right. I made a mistake. I was answering the wrong questions. I was answering, "But do you remember have you ever observed your self without your body present? Do you remember Have you observed yourself prior to the existence of your body? Say, in the year 1888?"
- For your actual questions, I should have said, "Given my argument above, I assume that I have -- I just don't remember such things.

Jabba, this is incredibly rude. When you denied what you had said, you were provided by more than one person a link to the post. Even after seeing this you denied it again. Then when you finally agree that you said what you said, you now claim it was in response to a question that was never asked.

Your statement that started my questions is posted above. Nowhere does it talk about remembering observations.

 

[halleyscomet]

Thread summary so far:

Jabba insists he can use math to prove he has an immortal soul. He has hilariously and catastrophically failed at every attempt to provide any evidence. Even actual statisticians have told Jabba his "equation" is nonsense. Despite this, Jabba perseveres, repeating the same questions and evasions over and over again with minimal variation.

Predicted future of the thread:

Jabba will continue to do the same thing until he dies, at which point he will cease to exist. He will never realize he has ceased to exist, as realizing he has ceased to exist would require some component of his existence to still be around to do the realizing. The only real question is if his final moments will be filled with the conviction that there is an afterlife awaiting him, or terror at the prospect of oblivion. My suspicion is, based upon his behavior in this long running thread, he will be griped with the terror of oblivion. People who actually believe in an afterlife don't spend this much time desperately, deceptively, and pathetically tying to prove it exists.

 

[Belz...]

People who actually believe in an afterlife don't spend this much time desperately, deceptively, and pathetically tying to prove it exists.

True. People who are confident in their beliefs rarely spend this much time thinking about them, and people who constantly try to preach I suspect are more interested in convincing themselves than those they address.

 

[JoeMorgue]

That's always been the weirdest part of this. At any point Jabba could just invoke a religious belief in a soul and.... sorta win.