Proof of Immortality II

[Akhenaten]

Mojo,
- you are not taking the bayesian formula into account.

Perhaps because it's meaningless until you include proper values in your implementation of it.

Including a properly derived value for the allegedly immortal "me" that you've so far refused to even discuss.

 

[Akhenaten]

You know, I think exactly the same things. So are there at least two of us who are special. Anyone else think that too?

- As noted above, many times, yes,yes.

So you're not special?

This is the complete opposite of what you've been claiming.

 

[Jabba]

Jabba -

For the fourth or fifth time: Are you saying that your proof only applies to you from your perspective?

- For the 10th time, No.

Or are you saying that I, from my perspective, should accept your proof as well?

- Yes.

Each of us exists in his/her own bubble of knowledge. For each of us, this bubble is the entire universe. So every person's experience is coextensive with that person's universe. Are you saying that your experience should color my view of my universe?

LL,
- No, but your experience should.

 

[Jabba]

Solipsism rules, baby!!!

- No. You guys probably are conscious. And if so, you guys are also extremely lucky -- according to the scientific model.

 

[Akhenaten]

- No. You guys probably are conscious. And if so, you guys are also extremely lucky -- according to the scientific model.

Are the different degrees of luckiness defined by this scientific model?

Is "extremely lucky" more or less lucky than "unimaginably lucky"?

How is the "out there somewhere" containing the immortal tyrannosauruses defined by the scientific model?

 

[Mojo]

- It doesn't. We are all the same in this regard.

So, as far as "the scientific model" is concerned, there is no difference between your "self" and all the other "selves" that could have existed.* It doesn't make any prediction about which one of those "potential selves" is going to exist, so the existence of a particular self has no bearing on the likelyhood of "the scientific model" being correct.







*Not that "selves" actually exist in the way Jabba claims, of course.

 

[Mojo]

- No. You guys probably are conscious. And if so, you guys are also extremely lucky -- according to the scientific model.

But that doesn't mean that the scientific model is extremely lucky -- according to us.

 

[Mojo]

Mojo,
- you are not taking the bayesian formula into account.

I could put that into a "bayesian formula" in exactly the same way you have put your assertions into one. It's exactly the same as your argument, but with a three on the die substituted for your particular "self" and "the die produces a random result" substituted for your "scientific model".

 

[John Jones]

- No. You guys probably are conscious. And if so, you guys are also extremely lucky -- according to the scientific model.

Proof of immortality?

 

[Mojo]

- No. You guys probably are conscious. And if so, you guys are also extremely lucky -- according to the scientific model.

The only reason that we are "set apart" from all the potential people who don't exist is that we exist. That doesn't make us "special" in the way your argument requires.

 

[Jabba]

To put this another way, Jabba, here's an example:

1. A is the hypothesis that a particular six-sided die produces a random result.
2. If A is correct, the odds of it producing a particular number is one in six.
3. You throw the die, it comes up as a three.
4. You then conclude that the odds of A being correct are one in six.

Do you see the non-sequitur there?

Yeah. Your analogy does not follow.

Did you bet your house on the three? If so, You are either very lucky, or your six sided die did not produce a random result.

 

[jsfisher]

Jabba,

Is there a reason you continue to ignore the question of P(me)??

If P(me|A) is reasonably estimated to be 1/(10^80!), that would P(me) be?

 

[Mojo]

Yeah. Your analogy does not follow.

It is the same non sequitur that you have in your argument.

Did you bet your house on the three? If so, You are either very lucky, or your six sided die did not produce a random result.

Did anyone bet anything on your existence?

But that isn't relevant to the point I was making, which was that the likelyhood of the die being random isn't necessarily equal to the likelyhood of a particular side coming up if the die is random.

You can't tell anything about the truth of the hypothesis that the die is random from a single throw.

 

[Loss Leader]

- For the 10th time, No.

- Yes.


LL,
- No, but your experience should.

But that's the opposite of what you just said. You just said that you're "special" because your universe is coextensive with your experience. You said that if you weren't here, the universe might as well not exist.

So why should anyone but you be at all impressed by that definition? How does that definition work for anything that isn't you?

I suspect that the answer lies in your unsupported assertion that consciousness is a different kind of existence than unconsciousness. So, anything that does not experience the world is somehow lesser than anything that does? How does that work? Consciousness is a process caused by a running system.

How is it different from running? Runners experience speed. Does speed not exist when you're not running?

How is it different from being dead? A dead person has no consciousness, although he once had one. Does your proof only work for the currently living?

How is it different from being in a persistent coma. Sonny Von Bulow didn't experience the world at all. She just lay there. Is she excused from your proof?

Life is amazing to you. How do you know that cycling isn't amazing to a Schwinn? You can say that a bike is just a bunch of metal tubes and wheels and gears, each without consciousness, but the human brain can be deconstructed into component parts, each without consciousness as well.

The only logic I can see is that you think that God has endowed you with a soul (which you have now reasoned is immortal). Aren't you assuming the consequent? Haven't you assumed your conclusion in constructing your proof?

 

[jond]

- No. You guys probably are conscious. And if so, you guys are also extremely lucky -- according to the scientific model.

Yes it is: when you claim that if you didn't exist neither would the universe, it is exactly solipsism.

Now how about you address the rest of the flaws in your argument?

 

[carlitos]

People posting in this thread are conscious. If you have to qualify that with "probably," then you are probably mental.

 

[Jabba]

So, as far as "the scientific model" is concerned, there is no difference between your "self" and all the other "selves" that could have existed.* It doesn't make any prediction about which one of those "potential selves" is going to exist, so the existence of a particular self has no bearing on the likelyhood of "the scientific model" being correct...]

Unfortunately, My reasoning seems to require that the very existence of consciousness defies the scientific explanation... I hadn't noticed that implication before... I'll have to think about that...

 

[Loss Leader]

Unfortunately, My reasoning seems to require that the very existence of consciousness defies the scientific explanation... I hadn't noticed that implication before... I'll have to think about that...

Yrs, you've been affirming the consequent since your first post. Yet things have been alive, with varying levels of consciousness, for three billion years.

 

[Mojo]

Unfortunately, My reasoning seems to require that the very existence of consciousness defies the scientific explanation... I hadn't noticed that implication before... I'll have to think about that...

I wouldn't worry too much about that. As far as the scientific model of consciousness is concerned "selves", as you define them, don't exist: consciousness is an emergent property of a system, not (as you claim) a thing. If your reasoning "seems to require that the very existence of consciousness defies the scientific explanation" it is most likely because your "scientific explanation" is a strawman.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Unfortunately, My reasoning seems to require that the very existence of consciousness defies the scientific explanation... I hadn't noticed that implication before... I'll have to think about that...

Have you any idea how often this has been pointed out to you?

Why not simply present your evidence that the "soul" exists, and is "immortal", and ha'e doe wi' it?