Proof of Immortality III

[JoeMorgue]

Do you sense an aspect of your self that seems to be non-physical, but that you think is just an illusion?

Begging the question.

He's not even begging the question. He's just begging.

 

[Mojo]

My point was that Jabba and you are both engaged in the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. You look at Jabba's existence after the fact as some sort of near miraculous confluence of events. Meanwhile, had Jabba never existed, in four years there might be a user called "Boba" who makes the same argument. And you would be right there saying how amazingly small the chance is that "Boba" came to exist when he did.

And in both realities, you would be wrong.

Playing cards against him must be quite an experience given that whatever hand his opponent draws, Toontown will consider it so unlikely that the game must be rigged.

 

[AdMan]

You have completely misunderstood me. My point was not that Jabba specifically could have been created at any time or place. My point was that there is nothing special about Jabba being here now. What he should be calculating is the chance that anything ever could come into existence anywhere in the universe that has the capacity to type on a computer.

My point was that Jabba and you are both engaged in the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. You look at Jabba's existence after the fact as some sort of near miraculous confluence of events. Meanwhile, had Jabba never existed, in four years there might be a user called "Boba" who makes the same argument. And you would be right there saying how amazingly small the chance is that "Boba" came to exist when he did.

And in both realities, you would be wrong.

^This.

Who cares what we sense or think? My senses tell me the earth is flat. My senses tell me that wine in an expensive-looking bottle tastes better than the same wine in a cheep bottle. My mind tells me that my sons are the two most important people who have ever lived in the tide of times. In all cases, it's not necessarily real. It is only what we can test that matters.

Do you have a test for a non-physical self? Or even a functional definition?

And ^this too.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Let's be honest people. The entire concept of probability is so improbable that probability probably doesn't work, probably.

 

[Toontown]

You have completely misunderstood me. My point was not that Jabba specifically could have been created at any time or place. My point was that there is nothing special about Jabba being here now. What he should be calculating is the chance that anything ever could come into existence anywhere in the universe that has the capacity to type on a computer.

I may have misunderstood what you meant, but I have not misunderstood what you actually said.

Of course there is nothing "special" about Jabba's particular sentient experience - from your (irrelevant) perspective. Or mine. Or anyone (except Jabba's). That's the part you've apparently never understood, as evidenced by the absence of any argument against it after years of useless word-bandying.

My point was that Jabba and you are both engaged in the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. You look at Jabba's existence after the fact as some sort of near miraculous confluence of events. Meanwhile, had Jabba never existed, in four years there might be a user called "Boba" who makes the same argument. And you would be right there saying how amazingly small the chance is that "Boba" came to exist when he did.

And in both realities, you would be wrong.

Your illusory "point" is irrelevant to Jabba's formula. Doesn't even address it.

As explained N times, I don't consider the existence of Jabba's particular brain any more miraculous than the existence of a random grain of sand on Mars. Or yours. Or anyone else's. I don't find anything in the universe out of place or unexpected, except for one thing - the part I should find out of place and unexpected (if your version of materialism is correct on the matter) .

I find the existence of my particular brain the result of a "near miraculous confluence of events" (at least you got that right). You see, I am using the subjective perspective that Jabba's formula requires if you're even going to discuss it at all with any level of comprehension.

That doesn't mean you have to agree with the subjective perspective. Nor do you have to accept Jabba's alternatives. But you can't very well argue against the perspective itself if you're not even aware of it. And the fact that none of you have ever acknowledged the perspective or offered up an argument against it suggests you don't grasp it, even after staring at the formula for two years.

 

[Jabba]

Dave,

- I guess it doesn't look like it, but that's what I've been trying to do!

- I'll keep trying -- but I need to ask at least one question first. Do you sense an aspect of your self that seems to be non-physical, but that you think is just an illusion?

No.

Dave,
- That's a shame.
- Do you accept that many credible scientists studying consciousness disagree with you?

 

[Toontown]

Mmm oh, welcome back.

Note the word predictability. It is different from probability.


The chances of creating a given person is not small, but predicting the event is.

Hans

Yes, I am aware of your irrelevant word-bandying. But obviously I am not trying to 'predict' my existence, because, as has been stupidly and irrelevantly pointed out N times, that's already happened. What I am using is something perhaps best described as "prior probability". Which is different from "predictability".

I am also keenly aware of the utter stupidity of claiming that a particular organization of zillions of elementary particles, occurring at particuluar spacetime coordinates, as a long term result of a universe-wide quantum shuffle beginning at t = 10 ^-43, is a confluence of events which can be sensibly described as something for which the chances are "not small".

 

[Loss Leader]

Yes, I am aware of your irrelevant word-bandying. But obviously I am not trying to 'predict' my existence, because, as has been stupidly and irrelevantly pointed out N times, that's already happened. What I am using is something perhaps best described as "prior probability". Which is different from "predictability".

I am also keenly aware of the utter stupidity of claiming that a particular organization of zillions of elementary particles, occurring at particuluar spacetime coordinates, as a long term result of a universe-wide quantum shuffle beginning at t = 10 ^-43, is a confluence of events which can be sensibly described as something for which the chances are "not small".

Let's try it this way; you have a trillion sided die. Which number would you expect to roll? Which number would cause you to think there was Antin wrong with the die?

 

[Loss Leader]

Dave,
- That's a shame.
- Do you accept that many credible scientists studying consciousness disagree with you?

Name three.

 

[Toontown]

Playing cards against him must be quite an experience given that whatever hand his opponent draws, Toontown will consider it so unlikely that the game must be rigged.

You're not even in the ball game. Never have been.

I don't suspect a game is rigged unless I lose (or win) at a rate significantly inconsistent with the probabilities and the number of trials.

 

[The Sparrow]

Dave,
- That's a shame.
- Do you accept that many credible scientists studying consciousness disagree with you?

Shoot, even dumb-ass guys like me can spot an argument from authority.

Jabba, do YOU accept that many credible scientists studying consciousness disagree with YOU?

 

[Toontown]

Let's try it this way; you have a trillion sided die. Which number would you expect to roll? Which number would cause you to think there was Antin wrong with the die?

Another irrelevant analogy, demonstrating that you still don't understand that perspective matters in probability.

I wouldn't think anything about the die, because you've given me no reason to think anything about it.

However, I would have a reason to think something about the die if one particular number had to come up before I could see the die at all. And that particular number came up. I would have questions about that utterly ludicrous coincidence.

But not you. You apparently wouldn't find anything suspicious about that coincidence at all. And that's your problem, not mine.

 

[Mojo]

I don't suspect a game is rigged unless I lose (or win) at a rate significantly inconsistent with the probabilities and the number of trials.

Not on the evidence of this thread. You have concluded that Jabba's game is rigged on the basis of a single win.

 

[Mojo]

However, I would have a reason to think something about the die if one particular number had to come up before I could see the die at all. And that particular number came up. I would have questions about that utterly ludicrous coincidence.

The question is not whether you can see the die, but whether you are there to see it.

And, if another number came up, what someone else seeing the die would think about it.

 

[John Jones]

Dave,
- That's a shame.
- Do you accept that many credible scientists studying consciousness disagree with you?

The Appeal to Popularity Fallacy. No debating points for you!

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- That's a shame.
- Do you accept that many credible scientists studying consciousness disagree with you?

No. I've never heard a scientist describe any aspect of human experience as seeming to be non-physical.

 

[sackett]

Has Jabba invented a new logical fallacy, the Argument from Incoherence?

Yeah, probably. Hell, even predictably.

 

[Toontown]

Not on the evidence of this thread. You have concluded that Jabba's game is rigged on the basis of a single win.

False.

I have not concluded that the universe is rigged. I have concluded that your understanding of it's fundamental nature is so lacking that you cannot adequately account for your own existence.

 

[JayUtah]

That's a shame.

Why is it? Were you fishing for a particular answer? Or were you never interested in Dave's honest opinion?

Do you accept that many credible scientists studying consciousness disagree with you?

Why, when previously asked for evidence, haven't you presented the findings of these anonymous scientists? Why now do you refuse to name them?

And even worse, in what way can you claim that "credible scientists" disagree with the subjective impression and interpretation you asked Dave to provide? Why did you utterly refuse to answer all the questions put to you about how a person -- scientist or otherwise -- could determine a subjective experience was "non-physical?"

In other words, can you explain why a reasonable reader would not conclude that you're simply finding any way you can to tell Dave he got the "wrong" answer? But now since you've insinuated that there is credible scientific evidence for "non-physical" being, present it so that it can be discussed.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Dave,
- That's a shame.
- Do you accept that many credible scientists studying consciousness disagree with you?

Jabba, scientists do not study physical vs. non-physical. There is no branch of science that even has the potential to address the supposed nature of immaterial objects. It is a branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, and while you may find it difficult to find the words, I assure you, philosophers have been discussing these issues for centuries. If you want to get into the topic, then study it.

Here's a fun problem to get you thinking:

Prominent among these is the problem of accounting for mental causation. If thoughts and sensations belong to an immaterial or non-physical portion of reality—if, for example, they are changes in immaterial or non-physical substances—how can they have effects in the physical world? How, for example, can a decision or act of will cause a movement of a human body? How, for that matter, can changes in the physical world have effects in the non-physical part of reality? If one's feeling pain is a non-physical event, how can a physical injury to one's body cause one to feel pain? Both questions have troubled “two realm” philosophers—or ‘dualists’, to give them their more usual name. But the former has troubled them more, since modern physics is founded on principles that assert the conservation of various physical quantities. If a non-physical event causes a change in the physical world—dualists are repeatedly asked—does that not imply that physical quantities like energy or momentum fail to be conserved in any physically closed causal system in which that change occurs? And does that not imply that every voluntary movement of a human body involves a violation of the laws of physics—that is to say, a miracle?