Proof of Immortality, VII

[Monza]

Dave,
- I think that I've done the best I can to answer that question. But then, I do think that we're talking about the same experience, so I don't think that we have to agree upon exactly how it came about, and can move to the likelihood of its current existence -- I say less than 1/10¹⁰⁰.

Jabba,

I came up with a different number. Can you show your calculation so I can see where I went wrong?

Thanks!

 

[JoeMorgue]

- So Dave, I think that the likelihood of the current existence of my SSA -- given OOFLam -- is less than 1/10¹⁰⁰. Do you disagree?

YES! HE DISAGREES! I DISAGREE! WE ALL DISAGREE! REALITY DISAGREES!

 

[RoboTimbo]

- So Dave, I think that the likelihood of the current existence of my SSA -- given OOFLam -- is less than 1/10¹⁰⁰. Do you disagree?

Can you provide a link to anywhere that says the materialist model has such a thing as an "SSA"?

 

[Mojo]

- So Dave, I think that the likelihood of the current existence of my SSA -- given OOFLam -- is less than 1/10¹⁰⁰. Do you disagree?

The likelihood of your current existence -- given the hypothesis that your consciousness is a process of your brain -- is equal to the likelihood that your body exists.

You claim that this is so unlikely that if you currently exist the hypothesis must be wrong.

likelihood of your current existence -- given the hypothesis that you have a body and an independently existing soul, a "WHO", as you put it -- is equal to the likelihood that your body exists multiplied by the likelihood that your "SSA" will inhabit your body. It cannot possibly be greater than the likelihood of your existence under the former hypothesis.

If your "proof" falsifies the former hypothesis, then it also falsifies the latter hypothesis.

Do you really not see that this is a problem for your argument?

 

[JoeMorgue]

I love how after a dozen pages of Jabba renaming and adding modifiers to his "Specific Self" codeword for a soul he thinks he can sneak it by as an acronym.

 

[JayUtah]

I love how after a dozen pages of Jabba renaming and adding modifiers to his "Specific Self" codeword for a soul he thinks he can sneak it by as an acronym.

Because OOFLAM sounds so much more dignified, I suppose, than "stuff I made up," and SSA sounds so much more official and scientific than "soul." Indeed, the humor in the situation is not so much in Jabba's gravitation toward acronyms as in the perception that the distance the acronyms afford from the actual concepts is something his critics are liable to respect.

 

[sackett]

SAAOOFLAM! SAA! OOF! LAM!

DC Comics was never this much fun!

 

[Mojo]

I love how after a dozen pages of Jabba renaming and adding modifiers to his "Specific Self" codeword for a soul he thinks he can sneak it by as an acronym.

He's seen Kumar get away with it. A&F.

 

[jond]

He's seen Kumar get away with it. A&F.

Has OOFLam had mass presence since long?

 

[JayUtah]

He's seen Kumar get away with it. A&F.

Except that he didn't get away with it. He just got away.

 

[JayUtah]

Has OOFLam had mass presence since long?

Anyone who uses the word "odd" to mean "in error" is getting whomped with a tamping rod.

 

[abaddon]

It seems that poor old godless Dave is lumbered with the role of LCP for now. As usual, Jabba is fixating on a single respondent and ignoring all others.

 

[JayUtah]

It seems that poor old godless Dave is lumbered with the role of LCP for now. As usual, Jabba is fixating on a single respondent and ignoring all others.

And my guess is that Jabba will simply latch onto the first three words of his latest post and ignore all that follows.

 

[jt512]

- Here, my objective is to determine the likelihood of the current existence of my SSA, given OOFLam -- and, I think that you now agree that 1/10¹⁰⁰ is a reasonable estimate. If you don't agree, that's what we need to be talking about.

We've talked and talked, and you haven't listened. What you need to finally understand is that the probability of you, specifically, existing under any hypothesis that you formulate about your specific existence is 1. You know, that whole sharpshooter/HARKing/conditioning-on-the-evidence thing.

 

[abaddon]

And my guess is that Jabba will simply latch onto the first three words of his latest post and ignore all that follows.

That would be par for the dishonest course of things. If it were not for the MA, I would have frank and forthright things to say.

 

[The Sparrow]

It seems that poor old godless Dave is lumbered with the role of LCP for now. As usual, Jabba is fixating on a single respondent and ignoring all others.

He may be fixating on him, but from the way he is responding, he seems to be ignoring what Dave is saying as well.

 

[Jabba]

- So Dave, I think that the likelihood of the current existence of my SSA -- given OOFLam -- is less than 1/10¹⁰⁰. Do you disagree?

It probably is. Do you agree that given the materialist model, the likelihood of the current existence of your specific self awareness is exactly the same as the likelihood of the current existence of your living physical body?...

- I think so.

...From past experience I know that if I agree with this point, you will then go on to claim that this low likelihood is somehow significant, even though it's not significant for all the other highly unlikely things that happen all the time. When pressed on why, you won't have a good answer. We'll ask why this isn't an example of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, and you won't have a good answer...

- I'll get to the rest later -- but for now, you and most others here don't think I have a good answer, and Caveman might not like my answer, but I think he agrees with my conclusion. Hopefully, he's listening.

 

[jond]

- I think so.

- I'll get to the rest later -- but for now, you and most others here don't think I have a good answer, and Caveman might not like my answer, but I think he agrees with my conclusion. Hopefully, he's listening.

Really? Previously when we’ve pointed out that the likelihood of your body existing is the same as your self you’ve insisted that it isn’t. But i’m glad you finally agree.

Now let’s again look at the math:
1. The likelihood of your body existing is (x). (You can put whatever number you want in there, it doesn’t matter.)
2. The likelihood of your self existing as a separate entity that could exist without your functioning brain is . (Put whatever number you want there.)
3. The likelihood of a way for (x) and to work together the way that we know consciousness works is (z). (Put whatever number you want there.)

Now, do the math. Put some numbers in to x, y and z and calculate. You will find that (x) alone cannot be less likely than (x) X x (z).

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'll get to the rest later -- but for now, you and most others here don't think I have a good answer, and Caveman might not like my answer, but I think he agrees with my conclusion. Hopefully, he's listening.

Jabba even for you that's a blatant "I'm only going to listen to people who (I think) agree with me" copout.

What exactly are you waiting for? Some gushing sycophant to come along and heap praise on your nonsense?

 

[Mojo]

Dave,
- I think that I've done the best I can to answer that question.

"The best you could do" wasn't very good, was it?