Cont: Proof of Immortality VIII

Jabba said:
- ~H does not require that my current brain exist. ~H includes the possibility of different states of being, of a "spiritual" (non-physical, in at least our current understanding of "physical") being.
Click to expand...

You contemplate your self. Does your brain exist? Have you any experience of contemplating your self while your brain did not exist?

Hans
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- Your [U]brain[/U] is a given in our problem
Click to expand...
And under materialism, your "self", as you've been calling it, is a process of that brain.

-- and in that sense, its "[U][U]probability[/U][/U]" is 1 for both H and ~H. The [U]likelihood[/U] of your [U]brain[/U] existing is less than 10[SUP]-100[/SUP] for both H and ~H.
Click to expand...
No, as you've already explained. The probability of your "self", if the brain is a given, is 1.

- Under ~H, the [U]likelihood[/U] of your [U]self[/U] existing is .0062,
Click to expand...
Well, it's your made up nonsense, so you can assign whatever made up number you want to it.

while the likelihood of your [U]self[/U] existing under H is still 10[SUP]-100[/SUP].
Click to expand...
What you don't get to do is make up numbers for materialism, any more than you get to plunk a soul onto it.

1 > .0062 (or whatever number you've made up for your made up nonsense)
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- Your brain is a given in our problem -- and in that sense, its "probability" is 1 for both H and ~H. The likelihood of your brain existing is less than 10-100 for both H and ~H.
Click to expand...

You're playing with words to try to avoid the fact that you agreed that the brain is a GIVEN, and that the self is from the brain, ergo also a given. That means the likelihood is 1. You can't escape this now that you've admitted to these other things.

- Under ~H, the likelihood of your self existing is .0062
Click to expand...

Show your source for this number, please.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- ~H does not require that my current brain exist. ~H includes the possibility of different states of being...
Click to expand...

But your characterization of those others states as being devoid of perception and memory contradicts any ability to observe your existence. Further, you've modeled each incarnation as a discrete event, thereby requiring a new "current brain" at each incarnation in order to make the observation. Not only does ~H require your current brain under the conditions you've stipulated for reincarnation, your desire to lump all those incarnations together as some magical class of events, for the sake of your numerator, will actually require a series of individual "current brains," not just one.

It's pretty much time for you to realize that your critics can easily see you're just making all this up on the fly, not really thinking through it, and thus visibly floundering. Frantically throwing a bunch of pseudo-philosophy against the wall does not fix your math.
 
JayUtah said:
But your characterization of those others states as being devoid of perception and memory contradicts any ability to observe your existence. Further, you've modeled each incarnation as a discrete event, thereby requiring a new "current brain" at each incarnation in order to make the observation. Not only does ~H require your current brain under the conditions you've stipulated for reincarnation, your desire to lump all those incarnations together as some magical class of events, for the sake of your numerator, will actually require a series of individual "current brains," not just one.
Click to expand...

Yes. Jabba has defined himself into a corner. He's basically defeated his own argument about the multiple "now" centuries, because he's admitted that only his "current" self could ever make the observation of his existence, whatever the current one is. Therefore the solution is identical whether we consider H or ~H, and that line of argument can be discarded as superfluous.
 
Belz... said:
As Jabba agreed to here.
Click to expand...

Oh, indeed he did. I made -- or tried to make -- a big point out of this being the watershed week when all of the key concessions we needed to extract from Jabba have all been made at the same time. He has previously conceded to them one at a time. But here, at last, people have been able to pinion him to a set of key concessions, all with undeniable quotations and links to where they were made.

Sadly, that doesn't mean Jabba won't just revoke whichever of those concessions he needs to go away in order to have another five years of "effective debate," one of whose principles -- as Jabba practices it -- is that concessions can simply be dispelled by saying he made a mistake by agreeing to it. It doesn't matter whether the proposition is an inevitable outcome of cogent reasoning. If it becomes too inconvenient, Jabba has previously found a way to make it invalid.

Put bluntly, he doesn't care in the least that his critics can point to stuff he said that he no longer wants to be responsible for.
 
...Or, now that I think about it, he's just as likely to try to play some word game (as usual) to escape from the notion that "self" means self and "brain" means brain, as those words are used today in this debate. "These are really difficult concepts." You know, that thing he says when he has to go make up new meanings for words.
 
Jabba said:
js,
- It's certainly a confusing element -- but, in P(E|H), H is the given and we're asking how likely is E, if H is true. And, we can ask that even if E has not occurred.
Click to expand...

That does not change what I said. You have told us that P(B) = 1. If the brain exists, then P(E|H) must be one because under H, the brain is sufficient for E.
 
Jabba said:
js,
- It's certainly a confusing element -- but, in P(E|H), H is the given and we're asking how likely is E, if H is true. And, we can ask that even if E has not occurred.
Click to expand...

No. Given either H or ~H, you can only ask if E occurred if E had occurred, becasue E is you. That is the fundamental flaw in your argument.
 
Mojo said:
Jabba, you have admitted that, if H is true, souls don't exist and your consciousness is produced by your brain, and therefore that your consciousness is determined by the state of your brain. That means that the existence of your brain and the existence of your consciousness are a single event under H; there is no additional "self". You have no business multiplying their probabilities together to come up with the likelihood of your "current existence".

On the other hand, you would get the same answer by doing so because since you have admitted that the probability of your brain existing is 1, so is the probabity of your consciousness existing, and 1 multiplied by 1 is 1.

You have conceded that the likelihood of your existence under H is 1. You lose.
Click to expand...
Mojo,

- You're right in your first, and (I think) second paragraph -- under H there's no multiplier.
- But under ~H, the multiplier is 1 -- which is why ~H is not automatically less probable than H.

- Regarding your third paragraph, I have 'conceded' that the probability of my existence -- either brain or self -- is 1, but I have not conceded that the likelihood of my existence -- either brain or self -- is 1.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
But under ~H, the multiplier is 1 -- which is why ~H is not automatically less probable than H.
Click to expand...

But it cannot be more probable than H. Your claim is that it's vastly more probable. Do you concede now that this cannot be the case?

...but I have not conceded that the likelihood of my existence -- either brain or self -- is 1.
Click to expand...

You conditioned that likelihood on an additional, contrived event that does not occur under H.
 
Jabba said:
Mojo,

- You're right in your first, and (I think) second paragraph -- under H there's no multiplier.
Click to expand...

And since you agreed here that the brain is a given under H and here that the self is generated by the brain, the self's also a given.

- But under ~H, the multiplier is 1
Click to expand...

Only if the soul is a given. 1x1 = 1, after all. But then Occam's Razor still defeats you.

- Regarding your third paragraph, I have 'conceded' that the probability of my existence -- either brain or self -- is 1, but I have not conceded that the likelihood of my existence -- either brain or self -- is 1.
Click to expand...

Your words games are irrelevant. You're after the fact, so likelihoods are beyond the scope of this topic. You lose.
 
- All of your numbers are made up. Rearranging the equation for the 90th billionth will not change that.
- You've been told this countless times. You are being rude by continuing to ignore it.

- You can't use "probability" to make things that have already happened impossible. Death has already been proven as a concept... a whole lot of times. You making up alternatives to it and applying made up probabilities to them is a waste of time.
- You've been told this countless times. You are being rude by continuing to ignore it.

- You've already admitted your ulterior motives, dishonest debating tactics, and desire to misquote and misuse the people in this thread.
- You are being rude by continuing to argue as if those facts are not already known.

- Underline, bolding, scare quoting, italicizing, or otherwise changing the formatting of words does not magically chance their meaning.
- You've been told this multiple times. You are being rude by continuing to ignore it.

- We've made it clear that we recognize the "Befuddled Old Man" routine as a dishonest stalling tactic. None of us buy it.
- You've been told this multiple times. You are being rude by continuing to ignore it.

- "Stating a claim" is not providing evidence, arguments, facts, reasons, or justification for a claim.
- You've been told this multiple times. You are being rude by continuing to ignore it.

- Arguing that something works "Under a hypothesis" where the hypothesis is some nonsense you made up is asking us to simply agree you are right because we agree you are right.
- This has already been explained to you multiple times. You are being rude by continuing to ignore it.

- You consistently ask for answers to questions you've already been given multiple times, only to ignore them yet again and plow ahead as if every aspects of your nonsense has been addressed a dozen times from every possible answer.
- You have already been called on this behavior multiple times. You are being rude by continuing to repeat it.

- You will ignore this post, just as you ignore all posts that don't fit into your script or that you can dishonestly pretend agree with you.
- You have already been called on this behavior multiple times. You are being rude by continuing to repeat it.
 
Jabba said:
Mojo,

- You're right in your first, and (I think) second paragraph -- under H there's no multiplier.
- But under ~H, the multiplier is 1 -- which is why ~H is not automatically less probable than H.
Click to expand...


But your 'argument' requires your existence under H to be much less likely than it is under ~H. You are now saying that they are, at best for you, equal.

- Regarding your third paragraph, I have 'conceded' that the probability of my existence -- either brain or self -- is 1, but I have not conceded that the likelihood of my existence -- either brain or self -- is 1.
Click to expand...


Your failure to understand the implications of your own claims doesn't alter them.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom