Proof of Immortality, VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
SOdhner said:
Wheee! Fringe reset!



I mean, kinda. I'll interpret this in the most charitable way and say I agree... but then wait! You want to say that *you* are set apart somehow, and you have literally zero justification for this. Essentially you say "I must be set apart somehow because otherwise it would be devastating to my case!" which... is not how this works. What makes you special, Jabba? Especially since you've already said that this argument remains true regardless of who uses it?



But you're not "new info". I mean, "The person formulating this argument exists" is by definition not new info. It can't be, ever. You're so totally and obviously wrong. If you think I'm wrong, you would need to point to all the arguments made by people who *don't* exist as a rebuttal. I would love to see that.



Again, giving you the most charitable reading I'll agree with this. It also has nothing to do with your actual argument because you fail to honestly evaluate probabilities or examine the probabilities under alternate hypothesises(ses)*



What do you mean by "at best"? Can I live a half life? Can I live zero times? if so, what would "I" be? Can I live a negative number of times? Why, when you know we all object to the "at best" thing, do you insist on still using it?

Also it depends on what you mean by a lot of those other words. Sometimes you use "us" or whatever to mean our sense of consciousness, but we often stop having that and then start again. Sometimes we even lose brain function to the point where we would say someone has died, and then get going again. The "singular" thing - maybe? Really depends on how you define it. I could argue that if you're really focused on my sense of self then I'm just one of a long chain of "me"s that will exist as emergent properties of this body (with this body also gradually changing over time). So I'm not prepared to agree with the singular thing. But I'll give you "temporary".



Aaaaand you've gone off the rails. Badly. Critically. You said this was for the non-religious version. So no, you're totally wrong with the above. Do not pass go. This is a total halt.



No, that's wrong. You're one hundred percent guaranteed to be here, because the person talking about the likelihood of existing always exists. If you're saying that's not the case then we also have to look at your argument and see if it holds up when presented by a person that doesn't exist. Let's use my old friend Gazorpazorp Washington.

Oh man! Gazorpazorp is unlikely to exist and in fact doesn't exist, therefore confirming the non-religious model! So I guess you're not immortal. In fact, I have another eleventy-squintillion people that don't exist, and it turns out none of them exist either so you're just one in elevnty-squintillion which about matches your predicted likelihood. So that's solved.



It's not. Also "SSA" isn't a thing.



This logic requires you to exist and is therefore circular reasoning. You're using blatant circular reasoning, Jabba. Look at it for like one second.



We decided that having four aces is important to the game of poker *before* that hand was dealt. If you want to use that comparison for your thing we need to pick a person that doesn't exist right now and see if they come into existence.

Okay that's plenty. It's not like he'll learn anyway. Plus I went to lunch with this window open so probably like a hundred people have already replied better than me in the meantime anyway.


*Just... a total brain fart trying to write that word. I could fix it but at this point I kinda like it.
Click to expand...

Jabba: it would be really great if you read this post, and tried to respond to each of SOdhner’s points.
 
jond said:
Jabba: it would be really great if you read this post, and tried to respond to each of SOdhner’s points.
Click to expand...

I agree, it would be. However, we've determined that Jabba can't or won't do any such thing.

He reserves the right to post a comprehensive statement of his argument whenever he wants. That nearly always engenders a comprehensive rebuttal such as I've done and such as SOdhner has done. And when we ask for a comprehensive rejoinder, we get nothing but simpering excuses: he doesn't have time, he can't be bothered, his critics are too much for him, his critics are meanies -- and on and on and on. What he will promise to do, however, is to delve into the first dictionary definition of the first word of the first rebuttal and vow to stay focused on that sub-sub-sub-sub-issue until it's fully resolved. Or, as has been more likely, until he gets cornered on an obvious error and needs to change horses to escape it.

His arguments here demonstrate that Jabba has none of his vaunted talents in mathematics, logic, or debate. They demonstrate that actually proving his proof is the last thing on his mind.

But he'll be back.
 
godless dave said:
But when we're talking about the non-religious hypothesis we are not talking about drawing a sample from a population. Bayesian statistics can be used to evaluate hypotheses that don't involved drawing samples from populations.
Click to expand...
- It appears that you're just not familiar with the terminology...
- Here, my current existence is the "sample" "drawn" from the "population" of existing humans. The hypothesis being re-evaluated is OOFLam. The terminology does seem misleading.
 
OK. Then we still have all the other times you misrepresented the non-religious hypothesis, which I shouldn't need to remind you of since we were just discussing some of them a few days ago.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- It appears that you're just not familiar with the terminology...
- Here, my current existence is the "sample" "drawn" from the "population" of existing humans. The hypothesis being re-evaluated is OOFLam. The terminology does seem misleading.
Click to expand...

No, Jabba. Stop blaming your critics for everything. Stop playing obvious word games and then trying to accuse your critics of not being "familiar with the terminology." You're being deliberately misleading, obtuse, and vague with your language. You have never deployed an argument on this forum that has gone beyond trying to trick skeptics into agreeing with a vaguely-worded statement and then yelling "gotcha!" You've never made an argument that has risen above foisting your fiat definitions on people and asking them to agree with your peremptory declaration of victory.

"OOFLAM" is your straw man. It is not a hypothesis. It is one of many observations that would follow from the materialist hypothesis. It would also conceivably follow from other hypotheses that aren't materialism. But in the materialist hypothesis there is no pool of as-yet nonexistent organisms -- finite or infinite in number -- from which samples are drawn. That's simply not part of the model. Your argument requires it to be, simply so that you can play these pseudo-mathematical games and pretend to compute a likelihood. It has heretofore had nothing to do with the world's living population, even if that were now to somehow have anything to do with your proof. This is how you misrepresent the "non-religious" hypothesis. Your need to do this is why godless dave, I, and several others here object to your entire approach.

Here is a summary of what's wrong with your approach. You've told us you cannot answer it, but now for some reason it's everyone else's fault for supposedly being too dense to appreciate your special genius. What a pathetic, insulting showing.
 
Last edited:
godless dave said:
OK. Then we still have all the other times you misrepresented the non-religious hypothesis, which I shouldn't need to remind you of since we were just discussing some of them two days ago.
Click to expand...
Dave,
- I'll look, but you could speed things up by pointing to specifics.
 
Jabba said:
I'll look, but you could speed things up by pointing to specifics.
Click to expand...

Knock it off, Jabba. You've been at this for five years, with zero progress. You have no interest in speeding things up. You're just trying to make work for other people, which they have no obligation to do, so that when they justifiably don't do it you can absolve yourself by claiming your critics are uncooperative.

If you can't be bothered to keep track of the thread, or to scroll back on your own initiative to recap what you may have forgotten, then you don't deserve to be taken seriously in this forum. Stop being such a prima donna and start responding to people's arguments when they make them, so that it doesn't become an issue whether they have an obligation to repeatedly remind you of what you refuse to address.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- I'll look, but you could speed things up by pointing to specifics.
Click to expand...

Here:

Jabba said:
Dave,
- Here, I'm trying to communicate a particularly subtle -- but exciting -- concept. Fortunately, its recognition is probably not necessary for determining that the posterior probability of OOFLam is unimaginably small. The concept is about the "self" coming out of nowhere, and therefore, being totally unpredictable and infinitely unlikely...- Each new 'clump' of consciousness naturally involves a brand new self. It naturally creates a brand new self. There was no pool of potential selves to draw from.
Click to expand...

And here:

Jabba said:
- Good.
- I think that you agree that
1. Consciousness naturally entails a self,
2. A perfect copy of your body/brain would not reproduce your particular self -- there would be a difference between the two selves.
3. This difference would not be the result of body chemistry -- the chemistry of the two bodies would be exactly the same.
4. The bodily difference between the two would be in location and specific molecules.
5. We have no idea if, and how, these differences would determine "who" the new self would be.6. The who/self to which I'm referring is the thing/process/experience that reincarnationists think returns.

- Where, exactly, do we run afoul?
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
- To me, there is a sense of "who" or "identity" that we could not predict from your perfect copy -- and, in that sense, we wouldn't know who the new self would be. Wouldn't materialists agree with that?
Click to expand...


The discussion left off here:

Jabba said:
- So, the new body would not be you.
Click to expand...

godless dave said:
Exactly what I said, yes.
Click to expand...
 
godless dave said:
OK. Then we still have all the other times you misrepresented the non-religious hypothesis, which I shouldn't need to remind you of since we were just discussing some of them a few days ago.
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
Dave,
- I'll look, but you could speed things up by pointing to specifics.
Click to expand...

godless dave said:
Here:
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
- Here, I'm trying to communicate a particularly subtle -- but exciting -- concept. Fortunately, its recognition is probably not necessary for determining that the posterior probability of OOFLam is unimaginably small. The concept is about the "self" coming out of nowhere, and therefore, being totally unpredictable and infinitely unlikely...
- Each new 'clump' of consciousness naturally involves a brand new self. It naturally creates a brand new self. There was no pool of potential selves to draw from.
Click to expand...
- Here, I was trying to communicate an interesting, but subtle, concept that I didn't need to... You had already accepted the number (10-100) I was trying to support with that argument.
 
godless dave said:
...
And here:
Click to expand...
Jabba said:
- Good.
- I think that you agree that
1. Consciousness naturally entails a self,
2. A perfect copy of your body/brain would not reproduce your particular self -- there would be a difference between the two selves.
3. This difference would not be the result of body chemistry -- the chemistry of the two bodies would be exactly the same.
4. The bodily difference between the two would be in location and specific molecules.
5. We have no idea if, and how, these differences would determine "who" the new self would be.6. The who/self to which I'm referring is the thing/process/experience that reincarnationists think returns.

- Where, exactly, do we run afoul?
Click to expand...
Dave,
- Here again, I was trying to communicate a concept that I didn't need to.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- Here again, I was trying to communicate a concept that I didn't need to.
Click to expand...

Why? Godless Dave has already said he didn't agree with you.

To the best of my recollection, nobody here has ever agreed with you on any point where you claimed they did, you prevaricating prevaricator who prevaricates.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom