Cont: Proof of Immortality VIII

Jabba said:
- Reincarnation is only a fraction of the possibilities I suggested.
Click to expand...

And you managed to also prove that it was irrelevant to the issue of immortality. If you have no memory of past lives or any indication or evidence that those lives existed, then you are for all reasonable purposes a different "you" than you were in other lives. Ergo these "yous" no longer exist, and were not immortal, same as you.
 
This is another odd fetish that Woo Slingers often seem to develop; an utter obsession with trying to prove things by reducing them to complete meaninglessness. Like the idea of just being able to use the word "reincarnation" means so much to Jabba he's completely removed any defining quality or characteristic to the concept and just applied it to... literally nothing.

If the person and the person they are reincarnated into share no physical or mental qualities, no memories, no continuity of consciousness or experience, have different names, ethnicities, genders, opinions, beliefs, locations then, even in wank wank philosophy word salad mental masturbation context, is being reincarnated? What thing, process, factor, quality, bloody anything actually links these two people?

What's the difference between a soul that literally does nothing and no soul at all?

Jabba's so in love with the idea of reincarnation that he'll admit it doesn't actually do anything in order to just keep mouthing the word.

This isn't even the Ship of Theseus. This is just claiming that two totally different ships that share no parts, don't have the same name, and are in no way connected or related for no reason have some continuity between them because... reasons.

It's like me arguing that the greatest Jazz album of all time is Idlarba Didarflarx's The Horse Race on the Seashore which doesn't exist but sounds exactly, down to the note, like Miles Davis' The Birth of the Cool.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
If the person and the person they are reincarnated into share no physical or mental qualities, no memories, no continuity of consciousness or experience, have different names, ethnicities, genders, opinions, beliefs, locations then, even in wank wank philosophy word salad mental masturbation context, is being reincarnated? What thing, process, factor, quality, bloody anything actually links these two people?

[snip]

This isn't even the Ship of Theseus. This is just claiming that two totally different ships that share no parts, don't have the same name, and are in no way connected or related for no reason have some continuity between them because... reasons.
Click to expand...

...and by the same token, the same poster tells us that an exact copy of himself, which WOULD share all of the characteristics above, is not the same!
 
Belz... said:
...and by the same token, the same poster tells us that an exact copy of himself, which WOULD share all of the characteristics above, is not the same!
Click to expand...

And that truly is weird.

Jabba is adamant that some magical exact duplicate of him, totally indistinguishable in any way from him, still wouldn't be him.

While the lesbian architect from Nairobi he's going to be reincarnated into in 2057 and the German factory worker with the club foot and lazy eye he was reincarnated from in 1842 both... are somehow.

I'd ask Jabba to explain this is some, any context of objective identity but A) he won't and B) I don't hate myself that much yet.
 
JoeMorgue said:
What's the difference between a soul that literally does nothing and no soul at all?
Click to expand...


This is exactly what I keep wondering. I would like Jabba to simply explain the difference between an immortal person and a mortal one. Seems like a reasonable thing to do when one starts a thread to prove immortality.

So far, I can't see any difference based on his explanations so far. Maybe I am missing something, but what qualities does an immortal person have that a mortal person doesn't?
 
zooterkin said:
More specific? I've never seen anyone more specific than JayUtah.

:dl:
Click to expand...
Zoo,
- Sure. Jay has probably given hundreds of specifics just in Chapter VIII. But he refuses to be specific about the specific he's referring back to.
 
So Jabba, let’s recap:
- you agree that in the materialist model, the self is a process generated by the brain.
- you agree that in order to get to immortality (or reincarnation) you need a soul in addition to your body.
- you agree that adding a soul does not change the likelihood of your body existing.
- this means that your competing hypotheses are No Soul (materialist model) and Soul (immortality/reincarnation).
- under which hypothesis is your current existence more likely?
 
Jabba said:
Sure. Jay has probably given hundreds of specifics just in Chapter VIII. But he refuses to be specific about the specific he's referring back to.
Click to expand...

How's that gaslighting working for you, Jabba? Please, by all means keep falling all over yourself trying to tell people how unworthy I am of your attention.

If you post a question and I tell you that i posted the answer to it literally just a few minutes previously, how much more specific do you need that to be? You literally only had to scroll up the page to see it. But you refused to do even that. Instead you seem to expect to be coddled in some specific way that means your critics have to run around, constantly and repeatedly placing things at your feet they've said several times before, and which you've ignored several times before. None of your critics is obliged to indulge your wantonly selective attention. They've recognized it as your game for avoiding intellectual responsibility.

Your approach to the problem you're trying to solve is wholly wrong, from a statistical perspective and also from a logic perspective. Your critics have spend hours trying to explain to you exactly how you're wrong. In return they get only shifted blame and unsubstantiated accusations from you. Quit whining. You are not any sort of victim here. The evidence shows you simply can't hold your own in this discussion, or any similar discussion elsewhere, and so you're relying increasingly on rather ham-fisted social-engineering ploys to evade responsibility.
 
Monza said:
This is exactly what I keep wondering. I would like Jabba to simply explain the difference between an immortal person and a mortal one. Seems like a reasonable thing to do when one starts a thread to prove immortality.

So far, I can't see any difference based on his explanations so far. Maybe I am missing something, but what qualities does an immortal person have that a mortal person doesn't?
Click to expand...

Best guess is Jabba is trying to set up a very bad, very clumsy attempt at the "Foot in the Door" fallacy.

This is something I first noticed when arguing with the God Botherers. They'll define "God" in looser and looser, vaguer and vaguer, more and more meaningless terms until you're basically left with nothing until they trick somebody, anybody, into agreeing that God might exist if he's totally inert and impotent...

... and then immediately go forward as if you've agree their specific, much more active version of God has now been given some credence. I saw a dozen variations of this over hundreds of arguments all functionally reducible to:

Steve: Do you believe in my exact New Reformed Presbelutherian Church of the Cross (2nd Schism) version of God?
Ted: No.
Steve: Do you believe in the Judeo-Christian God at all?
Ted: No
Steve: Do you believe in God at all?
Ted: No
Steve: Do you believe in a watchmaker/first cause/prime mover God like force?
Ted: No
Steve: Do you believe in some over personified force in the universe?
Ted: No.
Steve: *Some variation on the 'God is Love' or 'God is a feeling' or 'God is subjective.*
Ted: Errrrr... I guess maybe. You don't really seem to be saying anything of...
Steve: Ah so you agree with me on some level! *Continues forward as if Ted has agreed to his original version of God...*

This sot of fits into Jabba's dishonest, farming for quotes, argumentative style. He thinks if he removes any actual meaning from the word "Reincarnation" somebody will agree to it, and he can pretend they agreed to his obvious implied meaning.

Again he's still talking a soul. He's openly admitted that. The difference between the two identical "Jabbas" is that one wouldn't have the magical, non-replicatable soul that God put in it while the other would. That's what all the "It wouldn't be the saaaaaame" and "But it wouldn't be meeeeeee" and "Looking out a different set of eyes" nonsense has always been about.

Jabba, the 19th century German with the club foot, and the 21st century Nairobi architect would all have the same soul.

For now Jabba is introducing that concept with zero other qualifying factors, that is anything that actually makes it functionally different than no soul at all, in vein attempts of getting somebody to make a surface level agreement with this meaningless, context-less version of a "soul" being possible so he can start bootstrapping stuff into the concept.
 
CriticalThanking said:
I've been dealing with things in real life (not sure whether the immortal or mortal one). Last I checked, Jabba was going to get with another stats expert. Did that happen?
Click to expand...
CT,
- I've emailed 2 different SUNY Professors. It's probably been a week since the last email and two since the first. I probably said too much about what I wanted to do...
- I tried to go back to one of the stat forums I had been on, but couldn't get my connection restored...
- I'll try them again, and go to a different forum if that doesn't work.
- I still believe that Bayesian inference virtually proves that OOFLam is wrong.
 
Jabba said:
Reincarnation is only a fraction of the possibilities I suggested.
Click to expand...

Reincarnation is only a fraction of the possibilities that aren't materialism. You don't know what fraction of things that aren't materialism result in immortality. This is the same problem you had with the Shroud debate and the same problem you had with the circumstantial evidence debate. All your arguments in this forum follow the same flawed pattern, which is merely a pseudo-statistical formulation of the false dilemma popular in most fringe argumentation. You can't prove what you assert, so you pretend to disprove a competing thing and insist that your assertion must therefore hold by default.

While you speak loudly of likelihoods, it's clear you don't know what they are or what power they have. What you are dealing with is probability, because only with probability can you say, "I've computed this one thing, so the probability of everything else is easily computed by subtracting it from 1." That is not a property of likelihoods. That is how you're misusing Bayes. That is the reason your specific formula does not work.

Several times I've explained the a more proper way of comparing likelihoods is to take their ratio. I've explained in detail several times how that's done. So has jt512, who just recently gave a more proper formula. You simply refuse to adopt that method, and I suspect it's because you simply cannot admit you have made a serious error. But you have, and it has been explained to you. Whining about how that explanation doesn't suit your fancy or conform to some mode of entitlement you expect doesn't fix your proof.
 
Jabba said:
I probably said too much about what I wanted to do...
Click to expand...

It's the second time you've alluded to "telling them too much," so it's the second time asking what exactly you mean by this. Why would "telling them too much" about your statistics problem be an issue?

I still believe that Bayesian inference virtually proves that OOFLam is wrong.
Click to expand...

Math doesn't care what you believe. And we've shown you at great length, with great patience, why your math doesn't work.
 
JoeMorgue said:
And that truly is weird.

Jabba is adamant that some magical exact duplicate of him, totally indistinguishable in any way from him, still wouldn't be him.

While the lesbian architect from Nairobi he's going to be reincarnated into in 2057 and the German factory worker with the club foot and lazy eye he was reincarnated from in 1842 both... are somehow.
Click to expand...

It's clear that the only thing remaining between the two is the "soul", but that this soul carries over zero features from one host to the next, so much so that the sense of self itself is different. Sounds like a totally different person to me, in addition to making souls entirely superfluous.
 
JayUtah said:
It's the second time you've alluded to "telling them too much," so it's the second time asking what exactly you mean by this. Why would "telling them too much" about your statistics problem be an issue?
Click to expand...

I smell a swing back to "Scientists are dishonest" territory.

Dollars to donuts "Too much" is he let it slip that he was trying to prove an absurdity. He probably meant to try and slide the question in under their radar by not directly referencing the Woo he is peddling but let some slip through and they are (rightfully) ignoring him because these are professionals who don't have time for that sort of nonsense.

Jabba will probably spin this into it being about them being "biased" against his insane ramblings.

And again this fits in with a guy who's openly admitted his goal is to trick people into just slipping up and saying anything that sounds like they agree with him.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom