Proof of Immortality II

[Giordano]

- Why I can be considered as a target prior to the shooting. I need to show that I can be legitimately “singled out,” or “set apart” from the “crowd.” I shouldn’t be counted as just someone/anyone.

1. According to the scientific model I, personally, did not have to ever exist.
2. In fact, according to that model, it was unimaginably unlikely that I, personally, would ever exist.
3. But then, if I had never existed, there “might as well” have never been anything -- ever. It would be “as if” nothing had ever existed, or would ever exist.
4. In fact, if I didn’t exist now, there “might as well” have never been anything.
5. And, in fact again, nothing makes sense! Nothing is the only thing that would make sense!
6. And then, I’m the only thing, process or illusion that I know does exist. I don’t know what I am, but I do exist in one form or another.
7. I do not know that you exist in the same way. I don’t know that you are a thing, process or illusionist. You could be just MY illusion.
8. These things may not totally set me apart, but, they do set me apart to some extent, and I don’t need to be totally set apart in order to be considered special enough to have been one of 7 billion tiny targets on an unimaginably large wall of an unimaginable barn.

- That ought to get us started.

1. Wrong. You exist now. The SM acknowledges that. But see number 2, below for essentially the same point.
2. I can imagine it, but let's say that you personally were fairly unlikely. Certain specifics are unlikely to occur in advance. Again pulling an ace of clubs from a standard playing deck is fairly unlikely (1:52). Pulling some card from a standard playing deck is very likely, close to 1:1. You are some card that after selection allowed that card to be assigned a name: an two of diamonds, or an ace of clubs, or an three of hearts. etc.
3. ?? Wouldn't the rest of everything still be here if somehow you weren't?
4. ?? Same point as #3. Do you think that repeating stuff makes it more true?
5. ??? I think this point #3 yet again, but I have no clue. Why do you think everything would be meaningless in your absence?
6. Why do you know that you exist more than you know that everyone and everything else exists? Isn't the only confirmation of anything existing, you included, obtained through our senses and perception? You feel no more solid to your touch than your wife feels to your touch. You see yourself in the mirror equal or less well than you see your wife when you look at her. If I use LSD and think that I am a rock, does that make me a rock?
7. Actually, you too might be only an illusion that you are having. But you were going to explain how you are different from me, or your brother, or any one else. How you are special. Do you not think that I, or they, have exactly the same experiences and limits and individualistic viewpoint as do you?
8. No, they don't set you apart in any way from anyone else. And even in the ways you are different from other people (fingerprints for example) can you explain how the target was chosen (your specific fingerprints, for example) before you were created? That is what you said you would do. Why there was a circle around you alone before the shotgun blast?

 

[godless dave]

Point #6 is valid, and has been the subject of philosophical discussion for a long time.

We are each aware of our own awareness, and that's the point from which we determine everything else.

 

[Giordano]

You know, I am sorry that I even bothered to reply to Jabba's "argument." Its not as if he is likely to change his mind about his "logic" in response, is it?

 

[Loss Leader]

- Why I can be considered as a target prior to the shooting. I need to show that I can be legitimately “singled out,” or “set apart” from the “crowd.” I shouldn’t be counted as just someone/anyone.

1.According to the scientific model I, personally, did not have to ever exist.
2.In fact, according to that model, it was unimaginably unlikely that I, personally, would ever exist.
3.But then, if I had never existed, there “might as well” have never been anything -- ever. It would be “as if” nothing had ever existed, or would ever exist.
4.In fact, if I didn’t exist now, there “might as well” have never been anything.
5.And, in fact again, nothing makes sense! Nothing is the only thing that would make sense!
6.And then, I’m the only thing, process or illusion that I know does exist. I don’t know what I am, but I do exist in one form or another.
7.I do not know that you exist in the same way. I don’t know that you are a thing, process or illusionist. You could be just MY illusion.
8.These things may not totally set me apart, but, they do set me apart to some extent, and I don’t need to be totally set apart in order to be considered special enough to have been one of 7 billion tiny targets on an unimaginably large wall of an unimaginable barn.

- That ought to get us started.

We are completely through the looking glass.

 

[Loss Leader]

1. According to the scientific model I, personally, did not have to ever exist.
2. In fact, according to that model, it was unimaginably unlikely that I, personally, would ever exist.

You're contradicting yourself. You argued that the scientific model should be viewed as unlimited - infinite in time and energy - to allow for an infinite number of people. If that were true, you would not have a zero chance of existing. You would necessarily have to exist. In fact, your combination of atoms would come into existence an infinite number of times.

3. But then, if I had never existed, there “might as well” have never been anything -- ever. It would be “as if” nothing had ever existed, or would ever exist.
4. In fact, if I didn’t exist now, there “might as well” have never been anything.
5. And, in fact again, nothing makes sense! Nothing is the only thing that would make sense!
6. And then, I’m the only thing, process or illusion that I know does exist. I don’t know what I am, but I do exist in one form or another.
7. I do not know that you exist in the same way. I don’t know that you are a thing, process or illusionist. You could be just MY illusion.

Jabba -

Are you now arguing that your proof is only logical from your frame of reference? Are you saying that your proof only works for you in your own experience?

If so, I agree with you completely. In fact, my proof of my own immortality rested on the concept that I could only know the universe from my perspective.

If you are arguing that we should accept your proof because of something that is true only from your frame of reference, that's complete nonsense. Why should any individual care about your subjective view of the universe any more than his or her own?

And if each person should be viewing the universe through his or her own perspective, aren't you really just saying that for each of us, our lives appear to be coextensive with the universe?

And if you are saying that, why didn't you say it on page one so we could all agree with you and close the thread?
8. These things may not totally set me apart, but, they do set me apart to some extent, and I don’t need to be totally set apart in order to be considered special enough to have been one of 7 billion tiny targets on an unimaginably large wall of an unimaginable barn.

- That ought to get us started.[/QUOTE]

 

[Toontown]

You're contradicting yourself. You argued that the scientific model should be viewed as unlimited - infinite in time and energy - to allow for an infinite number of people. If that were true, you would not have a zero chance of existing. You would necessarily have to exist. In fact, your combination of atoms would come into existence an infinite number of times.

You're kidding, right? After months and months of Jabba asking for clarifications, and his inquisitors, including yourself, repeatedly asserting that identical copies of Jabba would all be separate, distinct individuals...now you suddenly reverse course? They'd all be the one-and-only Jref Jabba now? Come to think of it, this is the second time today you've done this.

Are you now arguing that your proof is only logical from your frame of reference? Are you saying that your proof only works for you in your own experience?

He's been arguing that he's using the formula subjectively from day 1. One look at the formula should have told you that.

If you are arguing that we should accept your proof because of something that is true only from your frame of reference, that's complete nonsense. Why should any individual care about your subjective view of the universe any more than his or her own?

What, exactly, are you conceding "is true" from Jabba's frame of reference? Does this mean you are going to stop saying it's the Texas sharpshooter fallacy?

BTW, you are free to adopt a similar subjective perspective, and thereby know the same truth. Jabba doesn't have a patent on it.

But that wouldn't mean you would be constrained to arrive at the conclusion that you are an immortal soul that floats around in the Void between incarnations. It would simply tell you that the unique brain assumption is not likely to be fully explanatory.

 

[Toontown]

You know, I am sorry that I even bothered to reply to Jabba's "argument." Its not as if he is likely to change his mind about his "logic" in response, is it?

No more likely than you.

 

[Pixel42]

- Why I can be considered as a target prior to the shooting. I need to show that I can be legitimately “singled out,” or “set apart” from the “crowd.” I shouldn’t be counted as just someone/anyone.

1. According to the scientific model I, personally, did not have to ever exist.
2. In fact, according to that model, it was unimaginably unlikely that I, personally, would ever exist.
3. But then, if I had never existed, there “might as well” have never been anything -- ever. It would be “as if” nothing had ever existed, or would ever exist.
4. In fact, if I didn’t exist now, there “might as well” have never been anything.
5. And, in fact again, nothing makes sense! Nothing is the only thing that would make sense!
6. And then, I’m the only thing, process or illusion that I know does exist. I don’t know what I am, but I do exist in one form or another.
7. I do not know that you exist in the same way. I don’t know that you are a thing, process or illusionist. You could be just MY illusion.
8. These things may not totally set me apart, but, they do set me apart to some extent, and I don’t need to be totally set apart in order to be considered special enough to have been one of 7 billion tiny targets on an unimaginably large wall of an unimaginable barn.

- That ought to get us started.

Jabba, not only could every other person who has ever lived make the same argument but so could every other person who might have lived if circumstances had been different in any way whatsoever. There is consequently nothing about it that makes you special. So no, it doesn't get us started.

 

[Mojo]

They'd all be the one-and-only Jref Jabba now?

He isn't saying that. He's saying that there would be infinite identical Jabbas. They wouldn't all be the same Jabba because there would be more than one of them. We're back to the point that Jabba (and now you) has such trouble grasping: if you have more than one identical item there is more than one of them.

In an infinite universe, Jabba will almost surely exist. He isn't special in that regard.

 

[godless dave]

Jabba, not only could every other person who has ever lived make the same argument but so could every other person who might have lived if circumstances had been different in any way whatsoever. There is consequently nothing about it that makes you special. So no, it doesn't get us started.

This sums it up nicely.

 

[Toontown]

Jabba, not only could every other person who has ever lived make the same argument but so could every other person who might have lived if circumstances had been different in any way whatsoever. There is consequently nothing about it that makes you special. So no, it doesn't get us started.

None of those others you all keep talking about have any bearing whatsoever on Jabba's unique perspective.

It is the unique perspective that is 'special'. But not to anyone else. Not even to another identical Jabba.

 

[Akhenaten]

None of those others you all keep talking about have any bearing whatsoever on Jabba's unique perspective.

It is the unique perspective that is 'special'. But not to anyone else. Not even to another identical Jabba.

This proves immortality, does it?

 

[Mojo]

None of those others you all keep talking about have any bearing whatsoever on Jabba's unique perspective.

It is the unique perspective that is 'special'. But not to anyone else. Not even to another identical Jabba.

Are you claiming that Jabba is the only person in the universe who has a unique perspective?

 

[Toontown]

They'd all be the one-and-only Jref Jabba now?

He isn't saying that. He's saying that there would be infinite identical Jabbas. They wouldn't all be the same Jabba because there would be more than one of them.

That's right, they wouldn't be the same Jabba, any more than a random grain of sand on Mars is the same Jabba. So why do you all keep bringing them up as if they are somehow relevant to this Jabba's unique, conditional perspective?

We're back to the point that Jabba (and now you) has such trouble grasping: if you have more than one identical item there is more than one of them.

No. I'm not the one who has trouble grasping the fact that other Jabba doppelgangers would not be the same Jabba you're talking to.

There is only one Jabba you are talking to. And that Jabba has a unique perspective, giving rise to a unique conditional probability.

In an infinite universe, Jabba will almost surely exist. He isn't special in that regard.

The probability that the Jabba you are talking to would have come to exist is not increased in the slightest by the existence of any number of other Jabba doppelgangers. Because, you see, they are not this one.

If I am sitting at a poker table needing an ace, and an ace is dealt from another deck at another table, that other ace does not help me in the slightest, just because it looks like the one I need. That is not the ace I'm looking for. That's because the ace I'm looking for has a unique conditional probability which is unrelated to the ridiculously combined probabilities of aces that might be dealt from other decks at other tables.

It has been my forlorn hope that some of you might eventually snap to this plain, simple fact of conditional probability. But not nemore. I am now laying heavy odds against it.

 

[Toontown]

Are you claiming that Jabba is the only person in the universe who has a unique perspective?

What a ridiculous question. Why did you bother to ask me this?

NO. I am pointing out the plain, simple fact that the Jabba you have been arguing with for lo, these many months has a unique perspective, completely independent of the perspectives of any other doppelgangers.

 

[Toontown]

This proves immortality, does it?

I dunno. People were talking about it, so I tried clearing them up on their fundamental logical errors. Youse got a problem wit dat?

 

[Jabba]

Dave,
- Do you accept the following?
- In Bayesian statistics, all the necessary preceding events to my current existence are treated as random. Nowhere in the Bayesian formula are they otherwise taken into account.

 

[Akhenaten]

I dunno. People were talking about it, so I tried clearing them up on their fundamental logical errors. Youse got a problem wit dat?

Then he said, "You will undoubtedly quote me this proverb: 'Physician, heal yourself'"

- Luke 4:23

 

[Akhenaten]

Dave,
- Do you accept the following?
- In Bayesian statistics, all the necessary preceding events to my current existence are treated as random. Nowhere in the Bayesian formula are they otherwise taken into account.

If that's the case then you quite obviously can't use Bayes to prove your silly claim(s).

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- Do you accept the following?
- In Bayesian statistics, all the necessary preceding events to my current existence are treated as random. Nowhere in the Bayesian formula are they otherwise taken into account.

I accept that, but random means they each have a likelihood of occurring.

If they weren't random we wouldn't bother with probability or likelihood.