Proof of Immortality, VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
Waterman,
- I basically agree with all that except that according to OOFLam my 'movie' never played before, will never play again and never had to play in the first place -- so, according to OOFLam it's pretty damned unlikely that my movie would happen to be playing in 2017 (Gregorian calendar).
Click to expand...

Under H this is the only time it could play. The likelihood of you existing in 2017 might have been low (calculated before you were born) but the likelihood of you existing in 1817 was zero, because your existence depends on your parents' existence, and their existence depended on their parents', etc. I don't know why you think the time period you exist is relevant at all. It's the only time you could have existed.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Waterman,
- I basically agree with all that except that according to OOFLam my 'movie' never played before, will never play again and never had to play in the first place -- so, according to OOFLam it's pretty damned unlikely that my movie would happen to be playing in 2017 (Gregorian calendar).
Click to expand...

Jabba, however unlikely your existence may be, the materialistic model of OOFLam (in which the self is nothing more than an emergent property of your brain) is far more likely than your model of OOFLam (which includes the same unlikely brain, and an unlikely separate self, and a means by which the two connect.

Further, now is the only time you could be happening in the materialistic model, because you are the result of your parents copulation.

You will, of course, ignore this because you have no answer. But the jury will still see it.
 
Jabba said:
SOdhner,
- OOFLam is the hypothesis that we each have only one finite life at most. The "we each" refers to our senses of self.
Click to expand...

But there's no logical connection. There's nothing about your actual argument that hinges on having or not having any sense of self. Your actual argument is "it's really unlikely for me to exist", and that argument works the exact same way whether or not you have any sense of self.

I've seen you re-state your case a bunch of times and in none of them have you established any link between your actual argument (which is based on probability) and having or not having a sense of self.

Jabba said:
More recently, I concluded that the prior probability of that hypothesis/possibility wasn't large enough to worry about.
Click to expand...

And why not conclude the same about your own hypothesis? What specifically makes the one more likely than the other?

Jabba said:
I basically agree with all that except that according to OOFLam my 'movie' never played before, will never play again and never had to play in the first place -- so, according to OOFLam it's pretty damned unlikely that my movie would happen to be playing in 2017 (Gregorian calendar).
Click to expand...

I'm going to try this again.

1. Under H, there's no soul. Our sense of self is just an emergent property of our body, and is nothing special.

2. Since (under H) our sense of self isn't anything special, it has zero impact on whether or not something is or isn't likely. It's just a particular property of a thing in the same way that an object can have velocity, or electric charge, or whatever.

3. H does not see a person as fundamentally different than a rock when it comes to the grand scheme of things. Both are physical objects with various properties. Under H, neither has a soul.

4. If you're going to talk about the likelihood of something existing under H, that same logic can apply to both people and rocks because H doesn't distinguish between them in any significant way.


Please try to understand. I know that, to you, your sense of self is something very important because you think it's the immortal part of you. I get it. But your argument starts by talking about the expectations under H, and under H that's simply not a concern. Because of that your argument works equally well on rocks.
 
Jabba I would very much like you to answer a question for me please?

Lets say we get a hypothetical poster called Tom come to the forum. Tom thinks the moon is made from cheese and starts a thread discussing if it's a cow's milk cheese or a goats milk cheese. Then let's say we have a poster called sue. Sue responds to Tom by saying that his underlying assumption that the moon is made from cheese is completely wrong, so there is no point arguing what kind of cheese it is.

Is sue being rude?
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Jabba I would very much like you to answer a question for me please?

Lets say we get a hypothetical poster called Tom come to the forum. Tom thinks the moon is made from cheese and starts a thread discussing if it's a cow's milk cheese or a goats milk cheese. Then let's say we have a poster called sue. Sue responds to Tom by saying that his underlying assumption that the moon is made from cheese is completely wrong, so there is no point arguing what kind of cheese it is.

Is sue being rude?
Click to expand...


Mark,
- That depends on what kind of cheese it is made of.
- I'll be back.
 
Oh, and Jabba, since you're back to insisting that you might have been Napoleon:

How would you differentiate between being
- Jabba now, and who used to be Napoleon despite having no memories, thoughts, or anything else that would connect Jabba and Napoleon and:

- Jabba now, whose self is an emergent property of his brain and who thinks he might have been Napoleon?

- Also, which is more likely? (And why?)
 
Jabba said:
Waterman,
- I basically agree with all that except that according to OOFLam my 'movie' never played before, will never play again and never had to play in the first place -- so, according to OOFLam it's pretty damned unlikely that my movie would happen to be playing in 2017 (Gregorian calendar).
Click to expand...

FFS JABBA "OOFLAM" IS SOMETHING YOU MADE UP AND HAVEN'T SUPPORTED! YOU CANNOT POINT TO ITS DEFINITION AS EVIDENCE!

Nobody cares what "OOFlam" says because "OOFlam" is absolute gibberish that you made up.
 
Mojo said:
Yes, my great-aunt. Towards the end she was almost completely incapable of assimilating new information, or remembering what people had said. Visiting her involved repeatedly having the same conversation and answering the same questions.
Click to expand...

I think I see what you did there. If you didn't do it, I apologize.
 
Jabba said:
SOdhner,
- I gotta say, in its frustration, this is really interesting -- we just keep passing in the night...
- I can't seem to communicate what I'm trying to communicate...
- I keep thinking that somewhere out there are better words that would actually communicate...
- But so far, no luck.
[...]
Click to expand...

Jabba, we understand you. There has never been a time when we didn't understand you.

Your arguments make no ******** sense. They never have. YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE RIDICULOUS -- especially your ludicrous and annoying claims about looking out of two sets of eyes.
 
Jabba said:
SOdhner,
- OOFLam is the hypothesis that we each have only one finite life at most. The "we each" refers to our senses of self.
Click to expand...

OOFLam is some trash-rationalization you keep regurgitating when you realize that you have lost this debate.

Everybody knows it. The American people know it. The English speaking world knows it. You know it. Bob Dole knows it.
 
Jabba said:
Monza,
- Way back when, I took that possibility into account. More recently, I concluded that the prior probability of that hypothesis/possibility wasn't large enough to worry about.
Click to expand...

But that hypothesis/possibility is only one of a near infinity of other possibilities, none of which are immortality. My point is that you cannot equate ~H with immortality.
 
Jabba said:
SOdhner,
- OOFLam is the hypothesis that we each have only one finite life at most. The "we each" refers to our senses of self.
Click to expand...


If you wish, but you still will need to face that problem that "life" is not a thing, but an emergent property of a functioning organism.

The version of H you are insisting you want does not include the materialistic reality hypothesis. Materialism, wherein you are not immortal and you do not have a soul, is one of the possibilities in ~H.
 
Last edited:
Okay, Jabba, I accept all your assumptions, priors, hypotheticals, how-about-if-maybes, and Bayesian formulations.

Now what?
 
sackett said:
Okay, Jabba, I accept all your assumptions, priors, hypotheticals, how-about-if-maybes, and Bayesian formulations.

Now what?
Click to expand...

I mentioned to Jabba several years back (give me a second to cry over that fact) that essentially he's made a statement that is so devoid of intellectual meat that I even if I accept all of his assumptions I can't agree with him because even granting all that he hasn't explained himself well enough to understand what the hell he's talking about even outside the context of a debate or argument.

In Jabba's story he's written us into apparently we're all just supposed to start nodding and agreeing with him even though he has actually told us anything.
 
theprestige said:
OOFLam is a parody of the scientific explanation for the sense of self.
Click to expand...

In fact, it's yet another fatal flaw in Jabba's line of argument that hasn't been stressed very much as far as I can see (probably due to the fact that fatal flaws aren't in short supply). OOFLam is not, in fact, a necessary result of the materialistic hypothesis; in principle there is no reason why the process that gives rise to a sense of self could not be re-started after having halted, nor any reason why this process must necessarily terminate. So Jabba's repeated insistence that H => OOFLam is no more defensible than his repeated implication that ~H => immortality.

Dave
 
Hokulele said:
Ah, so your H isn't materialism after all, but you are simply comparing one fantasy to another to find out which is more likely. Got it.

Do Superman vs. Spiderman next, please!
Click to expand...

Well Superman would win, but if Spiderman can bring a friend in he could tag in Doctor Strange because Supes is weak to magic.
 
Originally Posted by SOdhner
You've missed the main point of my post, which is that regardless of how you want to define it you HAVE TO use our definition in your premise...

Originally Posted by Jabba...
- The basic question right now is whether or not H and ~H are referring to the same experience of "self."...

Originally Posted by godless dave
That is not the question. We already know the answer to the question. The answer is "yes". We are talking about the same experience...

Jabba said:
Dave,
- Isn't that SOdhner's question?
Click to expand...

godless dave said:
I don't see how. SOdhner was talking about the nature of the self, not the experience.
Click to expand...

- So SOdhner is implying that I'm not involving the materialist definition in H?
 
Included for Reference:

In the materialist view the self (self-awareness) is the result of a continuing process of biology and memory that gradually shifts with time which allows for a feeling of continuity. Trauma, drugs or disease can radically alter this process. When the body is no longer functioning in a manner to allow this process to continue, self-awareness is either suspended (sleep or coma) or ceases (death or vegetative state). This is supported by the available evidence...
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
Waterman,
- I basically agree with all that except that according to OOFLam my 'movie' never played before, will never play again and never had to play in the first place -- so, according to OOFLam it's pretty damned unlikely that my movie would happen to be playing in 2017 (Gregorian calendar).
Click to expand...

Bolding mine
Ok….???
So you agree that:
The self is a process
This process may be altered through various mechanisms
This process may be suspended or halted

Your primary disagreement is defended by asserting that we are unlikely. Most people have agreed that the further back in time you go the more unlikely our individual existence becomes. However as time moves forward that probability converges on 1 with your birth and continued existence. The person you have become is shaped by your biology and experiences you were not predestined to have any of those. The unlikelihood of our individual existence has no bearing on the existence of an immaterial component of our being or immortality.

Do you understand the sentient puddle logical fallacy where in the puddle marvels at how well he fits the hole he finds himself in? You are marveling at the complexity of your life and all the factors had to come together to make you who you are. But you were not made to fit a Jabba shaped hole that was waiting for you. You were shaped by myriad of forces in world to be who you are. Circumstances provided an opportunity for a being to form in an available niche and the being that emerged happened to designate itself as Jabba.
 
Jabba said:
Originally Posted by SOdhner
You've missed the main point of my post, which is that regardless of how you want to define it you HAVE TO use our definition in your premise...

Originally Posted by Jabba...
- The basic question right now is whether or not H and ~H are referring to the same experience of "self."...

Originally Posted by godless dave
That is not the question. We already know the answer to the question. The answer is "yes". We are talking about the same experience...





- So SOdhner is implying that I'm not involving the materialist definition in H?
Click to expand...

He's not implying it he's saying it. So am I. As soon as we agree we're talking about the same experience you tack on something that is part of the nature under ~H. When someone objects you take the discussion back to whether we're talking about the same experience.
 
godless dave said:
He's not implying it he's saying it. So am I. As soon as we agree we're talking about the same experience you tack on something that is part of the nature under ~H. When someone objects you take the discussion back to whether we're talking about the same experience.
Click to expand...
- Still, just trying to understand exactly where we disagree. To what do I tack that on?
 
Jabba said:
So SOdhner is implying that I'm not involving the materialist definition in H?
Click to expand...

He's saying it. We're all saying it. Moreover, you admitted to it not more than a few days ago -- what you're proposing as H is lip service to materialism, liberally contaminated with your insistent on a soul. Not even your careful choice of words -- "involving" -- makes this any sort of mystery. Stop pretending to be befuddled. We're not buying it.

Not only that, it's Fatal Flaw no. 8 in this list you're desperately trying to pretend doesn't exist.
 
Jabba said:
- So SOdhner is implying that I'm not involving the materialist definition in H?
Click to expand...

You could just reply to my post, rather than debating with someone else about what I'm saying. I laid it out pretty clearly for you, used a numbered list and everything.
 
Jabba said:
- Still, just trying to understand exactly where we disagree. To what do I tack that on?
Click to expand...

Nice try. Asking whether you are "involving" the materialist hypothesis in H doesn't save you. You start with materialism and then you tack on the idea of a soul. When we point out that this is what you're doing, you run back to the starting point and insist that you've "involved" materialism and beg people to agree that you've properly represented H. You assume the existence of a soul at every point in your argument. You just call it by different names -- and admit that you do this -- in order to try to hide the begged question.

See, Jabba, you're not really very good at equivocation. You're not at all skilled at debate, but you're not even very skilled at pretending to have a debate. Your tactics are way too transparent and ham-fisted. You get attention from critics only because they hold out hope that you can at some point be shamed into realizing just how obviously ridiculous your argument is, as well as for your stubbornness in holding onto it by these means. There's no nuance for you to hide in on this one. You frankly admitted you were adulterating H with your own ideas. Move on.

You know this list of points upon which we disagree exists. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11871278&postcount=3198 . When you say you're continuing the discussion in order to discover where we disagree, we know that's a lie. You already know the points of disagreement. You just have no answers.
 
Jabba said:
- Still, just trying to understand exactly where we disagree. To what do I tack that on?
Click to expand...
Enough with the equivocation and dodging, Jabba.

Simple question. Do you support reincarnation, yes or no?

If you do, you are no christian.

If you do not, then your argument is false.

After years of the shroud nonsense, where you claim that jesus effectively reincarnated, are you now claiming it to be commonplace?

Are you tossing christianity out the window?
 
Jabba said:
- Still, just trying to understand exactly where we disagree. To what do I tack that on?
Click to expand...

As has been pointed out an infinite number of times, you tack on an extra thing you call the self (soul) when the materialist model is that the self is an emergent property of a functioning brain. Not a thing, a process. Brain stops, process stops is the materialistic model.

And, of course, you acknowledged just a couple weeks ago that your model is not the materialistic model. Do you need us to pull up th quote again?
 
Jabba said:
Still, just trying to understand exactly where we disagree.
Click to expand...

Jabba do you think we're all stupid? I'd appreciate an answer.

Even you can't possibly be maintaining in your head the delusion that we haven't been clear with our disagreement.
 
godless dave said:
He's not implying it he's saying it. So am I. As soon as we agree we're talking about the same experience you tack on something that is part of the nature under ~H. When someone objects you take the discussion back to whether we're talking about the same experience.
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by Jabba
- Still, just trying to understand exactly where we disagree. To what do I tack that on?

godless dave said:
Here's one example:
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by godless dave
I still don't understand what sense that is. They are "different" in the same way the bodies are "different". There are two of them.

Originally Posted by Jabba
- So, you don't know what reincarnationists think comes back to life.

Dave,

- I am learning a lot about the difficulty that we humans have when trying to discuss disagreements...

- Try this. I involve reincarnationists because I assume that they would believe that there is a difference between the particular, individual, sense of awareness in the original body and that in the perfect copy.
- I think they would think that the original sense would not be brought back to life. It is the sense of self that they think does come back to life in reincarnation that they think would not come back in the perfect copy -- and, that's how the original and the perfect copy would be different.
- And, you should agree with them when it comes to the original and the perfect copy -- that particular, individual, sense of self awareness would not be brought back to life in the copy.
 
Jabba said:
I am learning a lot about the difficulty that we humans have when trying to discuss disagreements...
Click to expand...

Bull. You are fully admitted that your goal here is to create a wizard's duel way of "arguing" where you can twist everything your opponents say into either them agreeing with you or a win for you

You have aren't learning anything about disagreements. You trying to find a way to learn how to disagree in a way that your nonsense isn't proven wrog.

The rest of your post is just you rudely AND YET AGAIN IN DEFIANCE OF ALL LOGIC just repeating the same thing.

I ask you again Jabba. Do you think we are stupid?
 
Jabba said:
Originally Posted by Jabba
- Still, just trying to understand exactly where we disagree. To what do I tack that on?



Originally Posted by godless dave
I still don't understand what sense that is. They are "different" in the same way the bodies are "different". There are two of them.

Originally Posted by Jabba
- So, you don't know what reincarnationists think comes back to life.

Dave,

- I am learning a lot about the difficulty that we humans have when trying to discuss disagreements...

- Try this. I involve reincarnationists because I assume that they would believe that there is a difference between the particular, individual, sense of awareness in the original body and that in the perfect copy.
Click to expand...

And that's where you're talking about the nature of the experience and not the experience itself.

Jabba said:
- I think they would think that the original sense would not be brought back to life. It is the sense of self that they think does come back to life in reincarnation that they think would not come back in the perfect copy -- and, that's how the original and the perfect copy would be different.
Click to expand...

And this is our disagreement. I think that two identical things can exist that are not different from each other.

Jabba said:
- And, you should agree with them when it comes to the original and the perfect copy -- that particular, individual, sense of self awareness would not be brought back to life in the copy.
Click to expand...

I agree the original would not be brought back to life because an identical copy is separate from the original even if there is no difference at all between the original and the copy.

When you assert that there would be difference between the two selves is when you tack on something about the nature of the self. We both agree that we experience a sense of self. Where we disagree is on the nature of that experience.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
I am learning a lot about the difficulty that we humans have when trying to discuss disagreements...
Click to expand...

Nonsense. You're deliberately obfuscating and ambiguating simple statements, and deliberately trying to entrap your critics into "gotcha!" semblances of agreement. Please answer JoeBentley's question: do you literally think we're stupid and can't see what you're doing? This is not rhetorical. In the past you have accused your critics of being incapable of a particular kind of thought you say is required to appreciate your argument. Do you honestly think you're actually getting away with anything?

I involve reincarnationists...
Click to expand...

You can "involve" whatever you want when you're discussing your hypothesis and the probability of your existence under it. You may not impose that on the data. You may not impose that on your critics. You may not impose that on a hypothesis that explicitly disallows it.

And, you should agree with them when it comes to the original and the perfect copy -- that particular, individual, sense of self awareness would not be brought back to life in the copy.
Click to expand...

No. Proponents of the materialist hypothesis should have to agree to no such thing just because you choose to "involve" it. You are blatantly begging the question and blatantly constructing a straw man. We are telling you how the materialist hypothesis would approach that hypothetical situation. You don't get to say otherwise. It's not your theory. You don't get to do with it as you please or reformulate it to make this debate possible for you to win.

This is elementary thinking, Jabba, not some farfetched or nuanced complaint. You are literally trampling over some of the simplest rules of rational thinking.
 
Jabba said:
- I am learning a lot about the difficulty that we humans have when trying to discuss disagreements...
Click to expand...
No, you've pretty much written the book on how to introduce difficulty where none exists otherwise.

- Try this. I involve reincarnationists because I assume that they would believe that there is a difference between the particular, individual, sense of awareness in the original body and that in the perfect copy.
Click to expand...
No, you use them because then you feel absolved from defending whatever you attribute to their beliefs. It's dishonest.

- I think they would think that the original sense would not be brought back to life. It is the sense of self that they think does come back to life in reincarnation that they think would not come back in the perfect copy -- and, that's how the original and the perfect copy would be different.
Click to expand...
No, a sense isn't a separate living thing that comes back to life or not. Continuing to pretend it is is dishonest.

- And, you should agree with them when it comes to the original and the perfect copy -- that particular, individual, sense of self awareness would not be brought back to life in the copy.
Click to expand...
No, senses aren't separate living things that come back to life. Continuing to say they are is dishonest.
 
Jabba said:
- Try this. I involve reincarnationists because I assume that they would believe that there is a difference between the particular, individual, sense of awareness in the original body and that in the perfect copy. I think they would think that the original sense would not be brought back to life. It is the sense of self that they think does come back to life in reincarnation that they think would not come back in the perfect copy -- and, that's how the original and the perfect copy would be different.
Click to expand...


Jabba -

With respect, this is extraordinarily easy. Try this: Go talk to reincarnationists (Hindus an Buddhists and others). Read up on their individual religious beliefs. Join a forum like https://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com and http://www.hindudharmaforums.com.

Find out exactly what they believe from their own words. There is absolutely no need to guess about anything. This isn't like the Shroud. We don't have to use indirect evidence and guesswork. Reincarnationists are alive and easily available for consultation.

Take a week off and learn their beliefs.
 
Jabba said:
- Try this. I involve reincarnationists because I assume that they would believe that there is a difference between the particular, individual, sense of awareness in the original body and that in the perfect copy.
Click to expand...


Just to get this straight: are you invoking "reincarnationists" here because you think they believe the same thing as you do, or because you think they believe the same thing that materialism claims?

- I think they would think that the original sense would not be brought back to life. It is the sense of self that they think does come back to life in reincarnation that they think would not come back in the perfect copy -- and, that's how the original and the perfect copy would be different.
Click to expand...


Yes, but this is not the materialist position.

- And, you should agree with them when it comes to the original and the perfect copy -- that particular, individual, sense of self awareness would not be brought back to life in the copy.
Click to expand...


WHY should we agree with them that there would be a difference between you and a perfect copy of you? Remember, the materialist position here is not that you would not be brought back to life because of a difference between you and the copy, but simply because a perfect copy, while identical to the original in all its properties, would be a second entity. It would not be you, but a second person identical to you at that particular point in time.

And why does it matter whether or not we agree with them? Even if we did, it would just mean that we disagree with the materialist hypothesis that you are trying to disprove. It wouldn't alter that hypothesis so that it includes the existence of souls. You still wouldn't be able to factor souls into your calculation of P(E|H).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom