Proof of Immortality, VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
- That the earth revolves around the sun is also a hypothesis.
Click to expand...

It's really not.

"The earth revolves around the sun in an ellipse as if some force were pulling it toward the sun" would be closer to a hypothesis.

The problem with your OOFLam is that it doesn't specify why each person only lives one finite life. When you started the thread all those years ago we assumed you meant a model where each person lives one finite life because in that model people are entirely physical, and we know bodies don't rise from the grave. That's why most of us in this thread believe we each have one finite life. But it eventually became clear that you were talking about a model where immaterial "selves" exist and are somehow connected to bodies, and those selves disappear at the same time the bodies die, and never come back. Those two models would have different prior probabilities and different likelihoods for a particular person existing.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
Obviously. But not under H you don't.
Click to expand...
Jabba's H includes souls because there is "no way" consciousness could "just" be a product of the brain.

The words "emergent property" mean "tuned into a clump of soul" for jabba. Thats why he says "going 60 mph is not an emergent property". Its because no soul is involved. That...and reasons.

Again I know you all know this. Like Jabba, I am just talking to myself via this thread.
 
Jabba said:
That the earth revolves around the sun is also a hypothesis.
Click to expand...

No. Without context it's a statement. It becomes a hypothesis when it is proffered to explain some observation, such as that the sun moves in the sky as seen from Earth. "The sun moves in the sky as seen from Earth" is also a statement, but is an observation in this context. That statement in turn might become a hypothesis in a different context, such as in trying to explain why shadows are different from hour to hour. The Earth revolving around the sun is a hypothesis that proposes a testable mechanism for how the observation arises that the sun changes position in the daytime sky. Other hypotheses to explain the same phenomenon might include its being pulled by the chariot of Apollo.

In the context of your argument, the statement that life appears to be singular and finite is an observation. One hypothesis to explain that observation might be that life -- the sensation of self-awareness -- is a product of a properly operating physical organism. Another hypothesis might be that a separate life force requires incarnation in a physical organism in order to be operative. These each propose testable mechanisms to explain the same observation.

None of this quibble matters, since you already conceded the debate at its most fundamental level.
 
Jabba said:
Thermal,
- Virtual proof, and yeah.
Click to expand...

So, no proof then.

That's very surprising after five years of promising, but never delivering, ANY evidence or proof of your claims.

mcwGflx.jpg
 
Belz... said:
I'll say. The number I like for OOFLAM is 1.

What do you have to say about that?
Click to expand...

We've tried this before. Jabba invites people to submit other numbers for his model, and when people submit numbers they like -- i.e., which shift the model to a foregone conclusion in their favor -- Jabba wants to know all about the rationale that produced that number. In other words, Jabba has no burden to give us a rational basis for his estimates, but everyone else has for their numbers. It's just a rather transparent attempt to shift the burden of proof.
 
SOdhner said:
You're having a serious reading comprehension problem. Let's try one more time because I literally have nothing better to do.

I'm going to set up an experiment. I've got a bag full of blocks - ten in all. Nine are painted red, and one is painted blue. (Imagine the usual controls are in place to make it so people can't tell which block is which by feeling them or whatever, the bag is opaque, etc.)

We pull a block out at random. What are the odds that the block is the blue one?

I'll wait here.

...

Okay by now hopefully you've answered. I'm going to be generous and assume you even got the correct answer. Now I'm going to give you another scenario.

This scenario has nothing to do with the other one. This is a brand new scenario.

I'm going to set up an experiment. I've got two bags full of blocks - ten in each bag. Nine in each bag are painted red, and one is painted blue. (Imagine the usual controls are in place to make it so people can't tell which block is which by feeling them or whatever, the bags are opaque, etc.)

We pull a block out of each bag at random. What are the odds that both of the blocks are the blue ones?

Again, take your time.

...

Got it? Good.

Okay, now I have a question. Which was the more likely - getting the blue block in the first experiment, or getting both blue blocks in the second experiment?
Click to expand...
SOdhner,
- The more likely was getting the blue block in the first experiment.
 
Jabba said:
Thermal,
- Virtual proof, and yeah.
Click to expand...

Jabba:

By 'virtual proof', I take this to mean a logical or mathematical proof, as opposed to physical evidence. All well and good. If that assumption is wrong, please correct me.

Your arguments seem to rely heavily on the exquisitely small chance of a particular outcome from 'the beginning', and the comparison to billions of known human lives. Agreed, assuming a chaos model. But any particular outcome of any kind is, as you say, vanishingly small. That's a testament to the size of the observable universe, and an awesome one at that. One could use those vanishingly small probabilities to virtually prove that a hammer likely has sentience. The vanishingly small probabilities are just a byproduct of the immensity and complexity of the observable universe, like a pack of cards that statistically is never shuffled in the same order.
 
godless dave said:
But it eventually became clear that you were talking about a model where immaterial "selves" exist...
Click to expand...

Years ago it was stipulated that any hypothesis that resulted in immortality would need an immaterial component. Thus if materialism were true, there simply could be no immortality. Jabba converted that, resulting in his wrong belief that if he can just refute materialism, he could prove immortality. He even went so far as to say all he would dare to prove here would be the fact of immateriality, and that a proof beyond that for immortality would come later. As he did in the Shroud thread, he tried to invent a third condition where immateriality would be "supportive" of immortality. "Supportive," with respect to evidence, is Jabba's code word for, "I know this doesn't prove anything, but I need you to let me claim it does."
 
Jabba said:
- How is OOFLam not clearly defined?
- ~OOFLam is simply anything but OOFLam.
- Pointing out the specific possible hypotheses is tricky, but adding "some other explanation" (which I did) should solve that problem.
Click to expand...

Here is Mickey Mouse dressing up in blackface by using a firecracker: https://i.imgur.com/mmwsnyW

Your argument is invalid.

The sad thing is that old "your argument is invalid" gag is on roughly the same ideological and debate level at the entirety of Bjarne's arguments. On the bright side, the natural irrationality of his claims leaves us a LOT of leeway for absurdist responses to his absurdist claims.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
At this point we're never going to get anything rational out of him so we might just as well have fun.
Click to expand...

True, but then he takes this as mean-spiritedness. Proving that skeptics are mean-spirited, among other negative traits, is really why he's here. He obviously has no real interest in mathematical proofs, or in the Shroud of Turin, or any of the other topics he's raised here. His goal is to prove that skeptics are moral and intellectual frauds. Part of that endeavor is to create a situation where it looks like people should be limiting themselves to the behaviors required by rational debate, but which lacks any sort of intellectual integrity once you look closely. It's obvious by now that Jabba's participation in this thread is anything but sincere, but as soon as you call him out on that, then you're a mean ol' skeptic who can't take anything seriously and only want to trash good honest religious folk like him.
 
Thermal said:
By 'virtual proof', I take this to mean a logical or mathematical proof, as opposed to physical evidence. All well and good. If that assumption is wrong, please correct me.
Click to expand...

You'll soon learn Jabba's code words. When Jabba says "virtual," he means a made-up concept that magically and vaguely lies somewhere conveniently near a valid concept. When Jabba says he has "virtual proof," that means he doesn't actually have a proof, but he needs you to pretend for his sake that what he's provided is just as good as a proof and he should be given credit for it.

Earlier in the debate, "virtual zero" meant a concept he'd apparently invented for mathematics that has all the properties of zero that he needed for his proof, yet somehow all the properties of a non-zero number that he needed for his proof. He'd argued that a certain number should be close to zero, but the proof he provided for this required that the result be exactly zero. Hence "virtual zero."

"Potential" and "supportive" are other Jabbaspeke code words that relate to similar travesties.
 
Jabba said:
Monza,
- If I understand your question, I should be looking out two sets of eyes.
Click to expand...


No, you didn't understand. In the scenario of making a copy of you: you would look out one set of eyes, and the other you would look out of the other set of eyes.
 
Belz... said:
He takes disagreement as mean-spiritedness. There's nothing you or I can do to stop that because he started with that as an axiom. Who cares what he thinks at this point?
Click to expand...

I agree his criteria for mean-spiritedness is irrational. I'm merely pointing out that his approach here is aimed at baiting comments he can cherry-pick to support a claim that skeptics are a sad, sorry lot. "I went to ISF with a serious proof and all they did was mock me." I'm assuming not everyone will want to rise to the bait. I'm cautioning, not arguing.
 
JayUtah said:
Earlier in the debate, "virtual zero" meant a concept he'd apparently invented for mathematics that has all the properties of zero that he needed for his proof, yet somehow all the properties of a non-zero number that he needed for his proof. He'd argued that a certain number should be close to zero, but the proof he provided for this required that the result be exactly zero. Hence "virtual zero."
Click to expand...

Jabba not only has his cake and is eating it, but the cake is immortal and in several copies being eaten by several sets of eyes and... I've completely lost the analogy, there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom