Proof of Immortality III

[godless dave]

Dave,
- I don't quite understand your question. The model I'm trying to (virtually) disprove is OOFLam. OOFLam does imply that we are not more than matter.

Then why is the number you present for the likelihood of a particular self existing under OOFLam based on the premise that we are more than matter?

 

[jond]

- I probably asked this question before -- but, does anyone here think that there is a reasonable possibility that I am more than matter?

No.

 

[Jabba]

Then why is the number you present for the likelihood of a particular self existing under OOFLam based on the premise that we are more than matter?

Dave,
- The number I present for the likelihood of a particular self existing under OOFLam is not based upon the premise that we are more than matter -- in effect, it is based upon the opposite. The likelihood of a particular self currently existing is virtually zero if the self is only matter. If we were to conclude, somehow, that the self is more than matter, our likelihood would increase enormously.

 

[JayUtah]

The likelihood of a particular self currently existing is virtually zero if the self is only matter.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

If we were to conclude, somehow, that the self is more than matter, our likelihood would increase enormously.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Dave,
- The number I present for the likelihood of a particular self existing under OOFLam is not based upon the premise that we are more than matter -- in effect, it is based upon the opposite. The likelihood of a particular self currently existing is virtually zero if the self is only matter.

It has already been explained, many many times, why this is irrelevant once that particular self does in fact exist. Why do you keep ignoring this?

If we were to conclude, somehow, that the self is more than matter, our likelihood would increase enormously.

Please explain exactly why the addition of some extra factor required for the self should increase the probability.

Hans

 

[Nonpareil]

Assumes facts not in evidence.

And is irrelevant regardless.

Even taking both of those premises as true, Jabba is no closer to establishing that the soul actually exists.

 

[Loss Leader]

The likelihood of a particular self currently existing is virtually zero if the self is only matter....

... for certain values of "virtually zero."

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
The likelihood of a particular self currently existing is virtually zero if the self is only matter.

Why? Is the same true for Mt. Rainier?

 

[Mojo]

The likelihood of a particular self currently existing is virtually zero if the self is only matter. If we were to conclude, somehow, that the self is more than matter, our likelihood would increase enormously.

Nope. If your consciousness is an emergent property of your body, then the likelihood of it currently existing in your body is equal to the likelihood of your body existing. If your consciousness is some entity that exists independently of your body then the likelihood of it currently existing in your body is equal to the likelihood of your body existing multiplied by the likelihood of your particular consciousness inhabiting it. It cannot possibly be greater than the likelihood that your body exists.

 

[John Jones]

Dave,
- The likelihood of a particular self currently existing is virtually zero if the self is only matter. If we were to conclude, somehow, that the self is more than matter, our likelihood would increase enormously.

That's nothing but wishful thinking.

 

[carlitos]

That's nothing but wishful thinking.

/all of Jabba's threads, ever

 

[Jabba]

Dave,

- I’m changing my mind again…

- First, I need to re-establish the given re your Mt Rainier question...
- My latest conclusion is that the given in the Rainier case – analogous to the OOFLam in MY case -- would be the group of physical laws governing geology. What we wouldn’t have in the Rainier case is the nature of the matter being governed (worked upon) by the physical laws.
- Not having a clue about the matter being worked upon by the physical laws, the likelihood of Mt Rainier coming out, in every bit of its current grandeur, is also virtually zero (just like ME).

- And, my claim (for the moment at least) is ‘still’ that, the difference between ME and Rainier is that there is no reasonable doubt re the Rainier given; whereas for ME, there is.
- Unlikely effects, in the sense that Rainier is unlikely, happen ALL the time with no mathematical implications re the given. Unlikely effects, have mathematical implications re the given only when there is reasonable doubt re the given to begin with.

Dave,
- The number I present for the likelihood of a particular self existing under OOFLam is not based upon the premise that we are more than matter -- in effect, it is based upon the opposite. [1]The likelihood of a particular self currently existing is virtually zero if the self is only matter. [2]If we were to conclude, somehow, that the self is more than matter, our likelihood would increase enormously.

Why? Is the same true for Mt. Rainier?

Dave,
- To which claim are you referring?

 

[JayUtah]

To which claim are you referring?

Try answering the question as if he were referring to both.

 

[kyrani99]

The likelihood of a particular self currently existing is virtually zero if the self is only matter. If we were to conclude, somehow, that the self is more than matter, our likelihood would increase enormously.

Consciousness is outside of the material existence, from my experience. It is a quality of being and what we might call true self. The brain enables true self to have a conscious experience through the physical, the garment of matter.

There is scientific evidence that consciousness is not 'of the body', through examination of NDE and people who have reported things when they recovered that were not in the vicinity of the operating theatre or ER or where their body was physically.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjMZYXHuNsw
There was a longer video but I can't find it right now.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- To which claim are you referring?

Is the likelihood of Mt. Rainier currently existing virtually zero if Mt. Rainier is only matter?

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Consciousness is outside of the material existence, from my experience. It is a quality of being and what we might call true self. The brain enables true self to have a conscious experience through the physical, the garment of matter.

There is scientific evidence that consciousness is not 'of the body', through examination of NDE and people who have reported things when they recovered that were not in the vicinity of the operating theatre or ER or where their body was physically.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjMZYXHuNsw
There was a longer video but I can't find it right now.

Many people here prefer an argument for rebuttal and not a video. The commonalities in NDEs are best explained by what makes all brains similar; i.e., NDEs are a natural, not supernatural, phenomenon.

 

[Jabba]

Is the likelihood of Mt. Rainier currently existing virtually zero if Mt. Rainier is only matter?

- Yes.

 

[Jabba]

Many people here prefer an argument for rebuttal and not a video. The commonalities in NDEs are best explained by what makes all brains similar; i.e., NDEs are a natural, not supernatural, phenomenon.

Hlafordlaes,
- How do you know that?

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Hlafordlaes,
- How do you know that?

I got it from Bayesian statistics, only I cannot remember exactly how and am waiting for a lunch with a guy I've never spoken to to clear it up. Can't say more because these ideas are hard to express.

 

[godless dave]

- Yes.

So we can conclude that the materialist explanation for Mt. Rainier existing is false?