Proof of Immortality III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
My current existence is evidence against only-one-finite-life-at-most.
- If something happened that could not happen given a particular hypothesis, the hypothesis has to be wrong. 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.
Click to expand...


A one hundred percent complete and total reset! With absolutely nothing gained or altered, we are back to Jabba's very first post. Don't believe me? Here it is:


Jabba said:
- I think that I can essentially prove immortality using Bayesian statistics.
- If this belongs in a different thread, or has already been done, please let me know. Otherwise, I'll present my case here.
--- Jabba
Click to expand...


An absolute masterwork of nothing.
 
Jabba said:
- A slight refinement of what I said previously.

1. If OOFLam is incorrect, consciousness, and the self, have to be non-physical/immaterial.
2. And, while consciousness is different than anything we would normally call material -- and appears to be what we would call immaterial -- it also seems to be always connected to something material…
3. But, if OOFLam is incorrect, consciousness cannot be produced by something physical either.
Click to expand...

You still haven't given any reason to think OOFLam is incorrect.

Nor have you explained what you mean by consciousness appearing to be immaterial.
 
Mojo said:
Your existence is at least as unlikely if your brain is a receiver of consciousness as it is if your brain produces your consciousness. Even if, once your body exists, the probability that it receives your particular consciousness is one, then the probability of both is equal to the probability that your body exists, so you have two hypotheses of equal probability, one of which involves the assumption of the existence of of an entity and a phenomenon for which there is no evidence. And given that there are currently over seven billion human consciousnesses, the probability of your body receiving your particular consciousness is likely very much lower than one.

In any case, as you have repeatedly been told, the likelihood of "the scientific model" being correct given your existence is not equal to the likelihood of your existence if "the scientific model" is correct.
Click to expand...
Mojo,
- Do you accept that given OOFLam, the likelihood of my current existence is unimaginably small?
 
Jabba said:
Mojo,
- Do you accept that given OOFLam, the likelihood of my current existence is unimaginably small?
Click to expand...


No, because there's no connection between the two. In a designed universe, in which your existence was a design parameter and therefore has a probability of 1, there is no reason to suppose that you would necessarily not have a finite lifetime. In such a universe, given 'OOFLam', the likelihood of your existence would not be unimaginably small, would it?

You are supposed to be proving that you are immortal; you are arguing that it is impossible that your existence is the result of chance. Your argument is irrelevant to what you are supposed to be trying to prove.

What you need to do is to provide some evidence that consciousness can survive the death of the body. So far you have nothing.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Mojo,
- Do you accept that given OOFLam, the likelihood of my current existence is unimaginably small?
Click to expand...


Jabba,
- Do you accept that given the scenario in which your consciousness is an external entity received by your particular body, the likelihood of your current existence is unimaginably small?
 
Jabba said:
- A slight refinement of what I said previously.

1. If OOFLam is incorrect, consciousness, and the self, have to be non-physical/immaterial.
2. And, while consciousness is different than anything we would normally call material -- and appears to be what we would call immaterial -- it also seems to be always connected to something material…
3. But, if OOFLam is incorrect, consciousness cannot be produced by something physical either...
Click to expand...

godless dave said:
1) You still haven't given any reason to think OOFLam is incorrect...
Click to expand...
Dave,
- That's in 4 through 8 (and, beyond).

Jabba said:
4. But then, maybe (as a presuppositional consideration – such as “relative time”!) the physical connection could be as a receiver – as a radio is with radio waves.
5. IOW, there seems to be another way to explain a necessary physical connection besides “production.”
6. Also, there doesn’t seem to be any other potential explanation for an immaterial self being always connected to something material.
7. And for now, we can’t eliminate the possibility that the self is immaterial.
8. And consequently, my current existence being so unlikely if OOFLam is correct becomes significant evidence that 1) the self is immaterial and 2) our brains act as receivers for our selves.
Click to expand...

- 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.
 
Jabba said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why do you think an external self which the brain receives is more likely than the self being a process generated by your brain?
 
Loss Leader said:
A one hundred percent complete and total reset! With absolutely nothing gained or altered, we are back to Jabba's very first post. Don't believe me? Here it is:

An absolute masterwork of nothing.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call all his various threads and their constituent splits "nothing." They are a vast testament to the power of sheer intransigence. It is, however, especially amusing to see this near-verbatim reset just after he tried to take me to task for holding him to it. He thought that was unfair of me, since according to him his arguments and approach had changed since then.
 
Mojo said:
Jabba,
- Do you accept that given the scenario in which your consciousness is an external entity received by your particular body, the likelihood of your current existence is unimaginably small?
Click to expand...
Mojo,
- Yes. But my way out is the possibility that my consciousness is not received by only one particular body.
 
Jabba said:
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.
Click to expand...

And that's wrong.
 
Jabba said:
The point is that if there is a reasonable possibility that OOFLam is incorrect (which, I claim is established in 1 - 7)...
Click to expand...

No, you're just begging the question. The proposition in question is merely what you need in order for your beliefs to hold. You have no evidence that it exists. You're trying to wish it into existence.

...the fact that something happened that is so unlikely, given OOFLam, is significant evidence that OOFLam is not correct.
Click to expand...

False dilemma -- the same sort of equivocal false dilemma you tried to foist in the circumstantial evidence thread and in the shroud thread. You cannot prove that something must exist by guessing that the probability that some other thing exists instead as near zero.
 
Jabba said:
Mojo,
- Yes. But my way out is the possibility that my consciousness is not received by only one particular body.
Click to expand...

And yet there isn't a single documented piece of evidence which suggests this is the case. Every single instance of consciousness is confined to the brain in which it is happening.
 
Jabba said:
Yes. But my way out is the possibility that my consciousness is not received by only one particular body.
Click to expand...

So your "way out" is simply to continue making stuff up and trying to wish it into existence by some sort of pseudo-statistical handwaving?

Have you ever considered the possibility you may simply be wrong?
 
Mojo said:
No, because there's no connection between the two. In a designed universe, in which your existence was a design parameter and therefore has a probability of 1, there is no reason to suppose that you would necessarily not have a finite lifetime. In such a universe, given 'OOFLam', the likelihood of your existence would not be unimaginably small, would it?...
Click to expand...
Mojo,
- You're suggesting that, maybe, whoever exists had to exist?
 
Jabba said:
Can a logical argument act as good evidence?
Click to expand...

No. A logical argument works on evidence. It does not substitute for it. And in any case, you don't have a logical argument. It has been laboriously described to you exactly in what way your arguments commit classic fallacies.
 
Jabba said:
You're suggesting that, maybe, whoever exists had to exist?
Click to expand...

How on Earth are you getting that from his post? His showing that even in the best case scenario for your scenario, your conclusion simply does not follow from the premises in the way you insinuate. Probabilities of existence do not have any connection whatsoever to duration or mode of existence.
 
Jabba said:
Mojo,
- You're suggesting that, maybe, whoever exists had to exist?
Click to expand...


Try reading what I wrote: it is your argument that leads to this conclusion, because you are claiming that your existence is too unlikely to have happened by chance. I do not accept this because your argument is no valid.

I'm pointing out that your argument is irrelevant to your desired conclusion.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom