Proof of Immortality III

[JayUtah]

My current existence is evidence against only-one-finite-life-at-most.

No, it's quite obviously evidence for it because the conclusion drawn from the evidence extends no further than the evidence, and the evidence does not suggest the finite-life conclusion is inadequate. If there is any other kind or duration of life, you would be expected to show evidence for it just as you can show evidence for your current existence. Since you obviously have no such evidence, you're trying to convert the argument into one that doesn't require evidence.

If something happens that is unimaginably unlikely to happen given a particular hypothesis, that degree of unlikeliness has to be weighed against the prior probability of the particular hypothesis in order to evaluate the posterior probability of the hypothesis. In other words, it is evidence.

No. You obviously didn't see fit to go back and read my tutorial on how properly to use Bayesian methods to generate knowledge in the face of uncertainty. This is not a branch of mathematics you understand. And it becomes deeply offensive to those who have tried to educate you that you insist on your private math.

Bayesian statistics does not generate evidence. By definition it cannot. Proper Bayesian statistics requires evidence. You have none, and you are trying to work the method backwards from "estimates" drawn from your nether orifice to try to create the illusion of evidence, or at least some semblance of rigor.

You need to understand that the typical fringe-theorist method of invoking obscure mathematics in the hopes that you can hoodwink your critics with math they don't understand will not work here. It may have proven successful for you elsewhere and for a different audience, but we are onto you here. Do not continue to insult us.

 

[JayUtah]

Can you explain why it's wrong?

Several people have explained it, including me at length in one of your prior threads. Please stop asking for explanations if you can't be bothered to acknowledge or remember them.

 

[Mojo]

Mojo,
- Yes. But my way out is the possibility that my consciousness is not received by only one particular body.

How many bodies, in your experience, has your consciousness inhabited?

 

[JayUtah]

Do you accept that consciousness is not an object?

Equivocation. You are using a different definition of consciousness than everyone else. Part of your private definition is that it is "immaterial." You need to provide evidence that supports your definition.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- That's in 4 through 8 (and, beyond).



- The point is that if there is a reasonable possibility that OOFLam is incorrect (which, I claim is established in 1 - 7), the fact that something happened that is so unlikely, given OOFLam, is significant evidence that OOFLam is not correct.

Dave,
- Can you explain why it's wrong?

Mount Rainier.

 

[Humots]

Mojo,
- Do you accept that given OOFLam, the likelihood of my current existence is unimaginably small?

No.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- Do you accept that consciousness is not an object?

I don't know if it's an object or not. It could be a particular part of the human brain. But things don't have to be objects to be material: gravity isn't an object.

 

[Loss Leader]

Dave,
- Do you accept that consciousness is not an object?

Fringe reset. "Not an object" dis not mean immaterial. Consciousnezz is many objects working together, communicating chemically. And those chemicals are objects.

Find something in the brain that is not composed of objects. I'll give you Anne Hathaway's Oscar.

 

[Jabba]

How many bodies, in your experience, has your consciousness inhabited?

Mojo,
- I have no idea.
- But reincarnation is only one of the possible alternatives.

 

[JayUtah]

I have no idea.

Let's rephrase the question. Do you have any evidence that any other body has housed your consciousness? Do you have any evidence that any other body is now sharing your consciousness via some transmissive mechanism? Do you have any evidence that any consciousness is or has been shared by any other organism, whether or not it's you?

But reincarnation is only one of the possible alternatives.

Let's rephrase the question. Do you have any evidence for any of the possible alternatives that you've alluded to, that are -- in your formulation -- somehow rendered viable by falsifying singular finite life?

Immortality and reincarnation could be considered different things, in the way that table and cat could be considered different expressions of not-dog. Do you see why your mode of argument most often results in a false dilemma?

 

[Mojo]

How many bodies, in your experience, has your consciousness inhabited?

Mojo,
- I have no idea.

Yes, you do. Be honest.

 

[Mojo]

Dave,
- Do you accept that consciousness is not an object?

Jabba, people have spent an inordinate amount of time explaining to you that consciousness is not an object, but a process. You were arguing that it is an object. It isn't; it is the result of your brain processes.

 

[Mojo]

Mojo,
- Yes. But my way out is the possibility that my consciousness is not received by only one particular body.

Nevertheless, your current existence, the only existence for which you have any evidence, requires your body to exist. You have no "get-out".

 

[Pixel42]

Mojo,
- Do you accept that given OOFLam, the likelihood of my current existence is unimaginably small?

The likelihood of the current existence of any specific thing (mountain, snowflake, planet, person) is unimaginably small. The likelihood of the current existence of any number of specific things up to (and possibly including) an infinite number of specific things is 100%.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Dave,
-
- The point is that if there is a reasonable possibility that OOFLam is incorrect (which, I claim is established in 1 - 7), the fact that something happened that is so unlikely, given OOFLam, is significant evidence that OOFLam is not correct.

You reasoning is faulty. Your existence was virtually unpredictable, but not unlikely.


Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Mojo,
- Yes. But my way out is the possibility that my consciousness is not received by only one particular body.

It is now (I sincerely hope). How is it more likely that you currently exist as a receiver than as a unique instance?

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Mojo,
- You're suggesting that, maybe, whoever exists had to exist?

No.

Hans

 

[I Am The Scum]

Jabba, how did you calculate the odds that your consciousness would be "received" by your brain?

 

[Jabba]

Dave,

- Since the likelihood of my current existence is unimaginably small if the specific brain produces the specific self (which has OOFLam) all I need to show is that there is a reasonable possibility that the brain is a receiver, rather than a producer, of consciousness.
- Then, if there is a reasonable possibility that the brain is a receiver of consciousness, the posterior probability of OOFLam has a numerator that is unimaginably small and a denominator that isn't.

- If you agree, I'll see how much evidence I can find that the brain could be a receiver rather than a producer.

I don't agree with those premises. A very small likelihood of something existing given a particular hypothesis is not evidence that hypothesis is wrong. To wit: Mount Rainier and geology...

Dave,
- I now think that my problem with Rainier is that the given is unclear. If we start with the singularity before the big bang, the likelihood of Mt Rainier's exact shape is virtually zero. If we start with the natural laws of science governing geology, the likelihood of Mt Rainier's exact shape is virtually one.
- If that doesn't make sense to you (and, I suspect that it won't), I'll try to explain. If it does make sense to you -- I just claimed that you're using the wrong given. And, I'll try to explain my claim.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- I now think that my problem with Rainier is that the given is unclear. If we start with the singularity before the big bang, the likelihood of Mt Rainier's exact shape is virtually zero. If we start with the natural laws of science governing geology, the likelihood of Mt Rainier's exact shape is virtually one.

Of course. You can't calculate a likelihood for an event like that without specifying a point in time for the likelihood, because the event depends on previous events. The likelihood will be different throughout history.

- If that doesn't make sense to you (and, I suspect that it won't), I'll try to explain. If it does make sense to you -- I just claimed that you're using the wrong given. And, I'll try to explain my claim.

The "given" should be the model we're testing. The "given" for Mount Rainier under the scientific model for the existence of mountains is the natural laws of science describing geology. The "given" for a human self under OOFLam is the natural laws of science describing biology, including human reproduction and development.