Proof of Immortality III

[Hlafordlaes]

You can't say that there is no proof of immortality because we cannot devise a scientific experiment to provide evidence for or against the hypothesis. Even if we found evidence, it is not proof. All we can say in that case is we have no scientific evidence. But that does not say we disprove immortality.

Evidence, proof, etc seem to be terms used loosely. Cannot respond to this.

I cannot do any scientific experiment to prove or even provide evidence for your subjective experience but that does not disprove the reality of your subjective experience.

Oh, but you can! There is sensory deprivation, psychotropic drugs, sedation, electrical stimulation with probes, magnetic stimulation without probes, and so on. Were the mind not a physical phenomenon, it would be odd that any of these methods listed could alter inner subjective experience, as reliably reported by a vast number of subjects in many trials. (Can't remember which experiment it was, maybe one with a probe, that leaves you feeling there is a presence in the room with you. Spooky. And induced, not real.)

 

[Mojo]

Dave,
- That isn't what I mean by "identity." The "self," or "identity" to which I'm referring, is the one that people who believe in reincarnation refer to. They believe that their particular consciousness/self will exist in a later life, but not with the physical or mental characteristics of their current lives. That's the "identity" I'm trying to communicate, and it doesn't communicate readily.

You might be able to communicate it better if you used the word people usually use for this concept. Why not just call it the "soul"?

You cannot use this concept in your attempt to disprove "the scientific model" because it is not part of the scientific model, at least as far as is generally accepted by scientists.

Introducing this concept as part of your premises is begging the question, because the existence of an "identity" that can survive the death of the body is precisely what you are trying to prove.

Even if you could disprove some "scientific model", and even if this model was one generally accepted by scientists (which yours isn't) it would not prove immortality because it fails to disprove all the possible scenarios other than your "scientific model" in which people are not immortal.

 

[Toontown]

The difference between the 2 groups is that the appearance of a member of one group strongly supports a rigged game, and an appearance of a member of the other group strongly suggests otherwise.

You say this.

You have yet to provide any justification for it other than "I don't buy that a one could come up by chance".

The analogy is the justification. That's what it was for.

Think very carefully, as if your life depends upon correctly answering whether the game was rigged or not.

1. Your captors specified that you must roll a (1) on a 10 ^80! - sided die, or they kill you.

2. You promptly tossed a (1). With that die.

We know what you did. True to form, you immediately refused to entertain any notion that you didn't roll that (1) by blind, staggering luck, and died with your horse shoes on, true to your incorrect principles to the end.

The question is, what should you have done?

I guess it was just too bad for you that the (1) did come up. Had any other number come up, then answering that the game was not rigged would not have violated your incorrect principles. After all, your captors hardly needed to go to the trouble to make sure that die would not turn up (1). After all, even if the (1) did miraculously turn up, you have argued long and stubbornly that you wouldn't be able to make heads or tails of it anyway. besides, after all, a random guess would have given you a 50% chance.

But the (1) did come, prompting you to inexplicably clam up and die with your horse shoes on.

 

[Toontown]

You're making a fundamental mistake, here, which is to assume that it occured by chance. It didn't. Physics limit the possibilities, and in fact will tend towards a certain number of outcomes. The end result was all but inevitable given the universe we're talking about.

No, you're making the fundamental mistake, on 2 levels.

1. You wrongly cling to 19th century determinism.

2. You wrongly think 19th century determinism invalidates probability.

You're not even being a good 19th century determinist. Even 19th century determinists knew that probability works in a clockwork universe. That's because incomplete knowledge about an event or series of events has the same probabilistic effect as true randomness.

And they even used probability, after inventing it. Gregor Mendel, for example, used observation and probability to work out the basics of heredity and to infer the existence of the "gene".

All of the above remains true even if you refuse to accept the standard cosmological model and quantum mechanics, which conspire to theorize a quantum stew emerging at 0 + 10 ^-43 seconds after the big bang, at which point elementary particles began to emerge. This was the beginning of a universe-sized quantum shuffle. Everything that came off the deck thereafter came off a randomly shuffled deck.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

... Everything that came off the deck thereafter came off a randomly shuffled deck.

And?

And with that plus a tad of spice you get mass uniqueness.

Say things are not deterministic. Fine, easy direct step to treating each instance of a class as having unique properties, be it a mountain or a human.

Say things are highly deterministic. Fine, then we know that the configuration of spacetime is never precisely the same from one instant to the other; therefore, any and all processes are affected by a truly unique starting set of conditions... and so every instance of a class has unique properties, be it a mountain or a human.

What's really going on here is the attachment to some ineffable, immaterial quality of one's own existence, not marveling at what is commonplace: uniqueness, methinks. I don't want to die, either. Sucks.

 

[Nonpareil]

The analogy is the justification. That's what it was for.

It failed.

Think very carefully, as if your life depends upon correctly answering whether the game was rigged or not.

The scenario does not contain any requirement for the game to be rigged or not. This is the point that you continuously fail to address, or even acknowledge.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

A simpler and less dangerous method I discovered accidentally. My wife got a new video camera. She recorded me sleeping for a few minutes without my knowledge and showed it to me after. Very strange experience. There I was existing, but I had no sense of it. I was simply not existing during that time, but there I was, snoring away!

It is disconcerting when self regards self-as-object dispassionately, fusing subject and object. Vibey weirdness. Maybe that's why my dogs really hate mirrors ~ they don't want to wake up to selfhood and have to deal with all the hangups(?).
/aside

 

[zooterkin]

The analogy is the justification. That's what it was for.

Think very carefully, as if your life depends upon correctly answering whether the game was rigged or not.

1. Your captors specified that you must roll a (1) on a 10 ^80! - sided die, or they kill you.

2. You promptly tossed a (1). With that die.

What is that supposed to be an analogy for, exactly?

 

[Mojo]

There is no "just as easily" rolling a 1 with that die, if it isn't rigged. Irrespective of any added conditions which do not include a rigged die. You simply are not going to roll a 1 with that die. If it isn't rigged.

The die had 10 ^80! sides. That's factorial 80. That's 10 with roughly 7 ¹¹⁸ zeros added.

Rolling a 1 with that die is a multi-trillion year enterprise. You are not going to roll a 1 with that die in 1 toss.

How many tosses would it take to roll a number between 1 and 10^80!?

 

[Jabba]

What you're referring to doesn't exist in the scientific model.

Dave,
- You're right -- currently, our science is based upon reductive materialism, and reincarnation assumes something immaterial. Could science be wrong? Could science be missing something important?
- I've said this before, but I am referring to what I would call a soul, but using that word would seem to be begging the question...
- I'll try using it and see what happens. I'm just saying that OOFLam being wrong would strongly suggest that the "self" is immaterial -- and soul does refer to an immaterial self...

 

[Mojo]

- I've said this before, but I am referring to what I would call a soul, but using that word would seem to be begging the question...

If your argument relies on it existing, you're begging the question whatever you call it.

 

[Mojo]

Seriously, Jabba, when it comes to spotting fallacies your argument is a target-rich environment.

 

[Nonpareil]

You're right -- currently, our science is based upon reductive materialism, and reincarnation assumes something immaterial. Could science be wrong? Could science be missing something important?

It could be.

But it isn't.

I've said this before, but I am referring to what I would call a soul, but using that word would seem to be begging the question...

Yes, basing your argument for the existence of an immortal soul on the idea that the soul already exists is begging the question.

I'll try using it and see what happens.

Your argument fails. That is what happens.

I'm just saying that OOFLam being wrong would strongly suggest that the "self" is immaterial

Well, yes. The soul existing would suggest that the soul exists.

Your problem is that you have utterly failed to establish any reason to believe that it does, and your inability to grasp the basics of probability isn't even the primary issue here. Your problem is that you think pulling arbitrary numbers out of the air is an appropriate substitute for actual evidence.

It is not. This entire probability discussion is entirely pointless to you. It could not even begin to provide evidence for the existence of a soul even if you weren't completely ignorant of probability mathematics.

This argument does not work, will never work, and never could work. It is fundamentally broken at the most basic level. Its premises are false and based on demonstrable logical fallacies and failures in your understanding of probability. Its conclusion does not follow, and cannot be made to follow. No amount of rephrasing or alterations can make this argument function. Even if there is such a thing as an immaterial self, this argument cannot help you to establish that.

Scrap it.

 

[abaddon]

No! I am having to learn a bit about mouse models but I am getting there!

The internet does not forgive, nor forget.

I could post links but I won't because I am in a good mood today. I certainly would not want you be embarrassed, would I?

 

[I Am The Scum]

What is that supposed to be an analogy for, exactly?

God is the executioner?

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- You're right -- currently, our science is based upon reductive materialism, and reincarnation assumes something immaterial. Could science be wrong? Could science be missing something important?
- I've said this before, but I am referring to what I would call a soul, but using that word would seem to be begging the question...
- I'll try using it and see what happens. I'm just saying that OOFLam being wrong would strongly suggest that the "self" is immaterial -- and soul does refer to an immaterial self...

So OOFLam, the model you're trying to disprove, does or does not include the immaterial entity you called an "identity" above?

If it does, that would mean that you're trying to prove The scientific model is wrong about mortality by assuming it's wrong about the existence of souls.

 

[JayUtah]

You're right -- currently, our science is based upon reductive materialism, and reincarnation assumes something immaterial. Could science be wrong? Could science be missing something important?

Standard woo argument. Science is incomplete and limited, therefore science can't prove or disprove my made-up belief, therefore science is useless and should be discarded in favor of just believing whatever you want.

The problem is that you say you can prove immortality mathematically. Like so many well-intentioned souls before you, you aren't satisfied with the subjective nature of your belief and you now want to show that all those benighted skeptics have to agree with you because you can prove -- using their tools -- that your beliefs are valid. But you can't, and so now you're left with paradoxically trying to curse the tools.

I've said this before, but I am referring to what I would call a soul, but using that word would seem to be begging the question...

Not using that word would be equivocating. You do that a lot.

It's common among fringe theorists to try to disguise behind contrived or ambiguous language what they're trying to prove. Creationists try to hid their concept of God behind the new word "intelligent design." And you're groping for a new way to describe "soul." Why do religious people work so hard to keep disguising their beliefs? Just put them out there and let them be judged. This constant redefinition makes it seem like you're deliberately out to deceive.

I'm just saying that OOFLam being wrong would strongly suggest that the "self" is immaterial

No. OOFLam could be wrong in a way that doesn't allow for your concept of a "soul." All your arguments are fallaciously formed the same way -- as a false dilemma -- and fail for the same reason. You say can prove immortality mathematically. But you can't. You think you can set up a false dilemma and prove the converse is false. That's logically flawed from the get-go.

soul does refer to an immaterial self...

"Soul" is an abstract, contrived concept. If you want to define "soul" a priori as an "immaterial self" then go right ahead. It doesn't help your math any. Math doesn't tolerate a lot of ambiguity or invention, even statistics.

 

[Jabba]

So OOFLam, the model you're trying to disprove, does or does not include the immaterial entity you called an "identity" above?

If it does, that would mean that you're trying to prove The scientific model is wrong about mortality by assuming it's wrong about the existence of souls.

Dave,
- OOFLam assumes, or at least implies, that an immaterial soul (what I called one's "identity") does not exist. I'm not quite sure how that relates to your assertion. Try again?

 

[ComfySlippers]

Dave,

- OOFLam assumes, or at least implies, that an immaterial soul (what I called one's "identity") does not exist. I'm not quite sure how that relates to your assertion. Try again?

You've spent years trying to convince yourself that your god and jesus are real.
You fail with every post you make here, and elsewhere.
Admit defeat. You've wasted a large portion of your life on this nonsense.
Heaven and immortality are fantasies.
Soul are fish.

 

[Jabba]

- The following quote seems to get at the basic issue here. I'm proposing the answer to what I think is a "gap" in our understanding of reality.

Gaps are the mother lode of scientific discovery. Most of the great scientific advances of the past began with gaps and ended with new presuppositions that put our whole comprehension of the world in a new light. The presuppositional argument, in other words, is not some sleight-of-hand way of postulating unseen entities to account for seen ones. Rather, it illustrates precisely the way that science operates and how scientists make their greatest discoveries. Copernicus, for example, set out to address the gaps in Ptolemy’s cosmological theory. As historian Thomas Kuhn shows, these gaps were well recognized, but many scientists did not consider their existence to be a crisis. After all, experience seemed heavily on the side of Ptolemy: the earth seems to be stationary, and the sun looks like it moves. Kuhn remarks that many scientists sought to fill in the gaps by “patching and stretching,” by adding more Ptolemaic epicycles.4 Copernicus, however, saw the gaps as an opportunity to offer a startling new hypothesis. He argued that instead of taking it for granted that the earth is at the center of the universe and the sun goes around the earth, let’s suppose instead that the sun is at the center and the earth and the other planets all go around the sun. When Copernicus proposed this, he had no direct evidence that it was the case, and he recognized that his theory violated both intuition and experience. Even so, he said, the presupposition of heliocentrism gives a better explanation of the astronomical data and therefore should be accepted as correct. Here is a classic presuppositional argument that closes a gap and in the process gives us a completely new perspective on our place in the universe.

D'Souza, Dinesh (2009-11-02). Life After Death: The Evidence (pp. 169-170). Regnery Publishing. Kindle Edition.

- And then, there was Newton, Einstein, and Heisenberg...
- What's that? I feel a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in laughter!
- But then, if I'm right, this is a revolutionary idea. What'r'ya'gonna'do?