Below I've linked to a photo of Mount Rainier. Consider the exact details of what it looks like, the position of each piece of rock. What do you think was the likelihood that it would look exactly like that at the time the photo was taken?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mount_Rainier_from_the_Silver_Queen_Peak.jpg
So we can conclude that the scientific explanation for how mountains are formed is probably wrong?
Dave,
- Not unless you have a potentially better explanation for the mountain's exact shape.
What if I propose that a powerful, intelligent entity designed it to have precisely that shape?
- I gotta admit that these are interesting questions...
- Try this.
- Your explanation doesn't really rule out the scientific explanation.
- And, for your hypothetical to be analogous to my question of individual consciousness, it has to do that...
- Your powerful entity could have used, or installed, the scientific explanation in order to get the specific mountain shape that It did.
- And then, the likelihood of that particular shape not involving the laws of science and being, instead, the whim of a powerful entity, mathematically has to be smaller than the likelihood of either stipulation by itself.
- In other words, your explanation of a powerful entity building this mountain without the use of the scientific explanation, has to be less probable than the scientific explanation itself. In this case, your explanation cannot be potentially more probable than the scientific explanation.
Dave,
- Sorry -- I've been grasping at straws (note "Try this," above) trying to explain why your Mt Rainier example is not analogous to my OOFLam example.
- What I was missing was that P(E|H) is an "estimate," and the estimate should be about 1.00 rather than .00...
- Not that we could accurately predict the exact shape from the scientific model and the relevant info we had prior to predicting the shape -- but that science has essentially proven how the making of mountains proceeds, and given the exact shape, we would be able to eventually figure out what specific components caused the shape, and before figuring that out, we'd estimate that the likelihood of that exact shape given the scientific model would be essentially 100%.
How is that different from human selves?
Dave,
- The likelihood of a particular human self currently existing -- given OOFLam -- is approx 7 billion over an unimaginably large number. The likelihood of Mt Rainier currently existing -- given the science of Geology -- is one over one.
- Keep in mind that these likelihoods are both estimates -- and geologists would expect/estimate that Mt Rainier would follow the same rules that every other mountain has followed, and geologists would very likely be able to explain scientifically each characteristic they encountered.
- However, the human self being judged here is not the physical body and brain of a particular human being -- biologists would estimate that the likelihood of such a physical 'self' currently existing would also be one over one. But the likelihood that my particular consciousness would currently exist is one over some unimaginably large number because science doesn't have a clue as to what determines the particular "identity" of this consciousness.
- Note how difficult it is to make sure that you and I have the same kind of "identity" in mind.
- I think there is some aspect of my logic here that I haven't been able to effectively express, but maybe the above will help. Whatever, I'll be back.
They have quite a few clues. There is a heck of a lot scientists don't understand about human consciousness but the scientific model is that it is produced by the brain. In the scientific model, one of the scenarios included in H, the human self is the physical body and brain of a particular human being. The "identity" is determined the same way the "identity" of the physical body is determined.
My point exactly. That's the model you are trying to disprove.
Dave,
- Do you think of the "identity" I'm referring to as the combination of all the person's characteristics?
That's the closest thing to an "identity" I can think of in the scientific model.
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.
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...
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,
- I'm claiming that the math pretty much proves that OOFLam is wrong. I then agree that if OOFLam is wrong, the most likely explanation is that our "identity" is not made of material. IOW, that our identities are probably immaterial is an implication of the mathematical conclusion; the belief that our identities are immaterial is a result of the conclusion that OOFLam is wrong -- it is not the cause of that conclusion.
Under OOFlam, the likelihood of me existing is 1, so I don't see how the math proves it wrong.
Dave,
- "Likelihood" is the probability of a particular event occurring if a particular hypothesis is true. I'm not sure how to express this properly, or effectively, but "likelihood" is not a simple 'post hoc' probability.
Right. If OOFlam is true, meaning there's no immaterial self:
then the likelihood of me existing is the same as the likelihood of my physical body existing, as you said here:
So under OOFlam, the likelihood of my physical body existing is 1, and thus the likelihood of my "self" existing is 1.
Dave,
- Wow.
- I think I see your point...
- I'll try again.
- We started out considering the exact characteristics of Mt Rainier. I said that the estimated likelihood of that exact shape would be virtually zero.
- But then, I decided that it must be 1.00.
- But then, I started to think I was right the first time...
- But now, I think I was right the second time...
- Sorry about that.
- Now, I think that using the same reasoning as I did for my self/soul, I need to consider
all the different events that had to occur in order to produce Mt Rainier's exact shape.
- However, in regard to "likelihood," I need a
given. And, regarding the exact shape of the mountain, my given must be current scientific understanding. And then, given current scientific understanding, the mountain seems to make perfect sense -- and, the
likelihood of its exact shape approaches 1.00.
- And then, the same can be said for my physical self.
- But then, it cannot be said for my
mental self -- for we have
no idea what determines my particular consciousness/identity/soul. All I'm
given in this case is that I have only one, finite, life (at most).
- We can think that since everything else seems to follow scientific rules, we should expect selves to follow them also. But then, we have to accept that there is something about selves that is totally different from anything else we're aware of -- awareness.
) Life is a lottery. Whether parents 'win' or not is another story.