Proof of Immortality III

[John Jones]

I never got an apology for being called stupid.

I'm sorry that someone called you stupid.

 

[JayUtah]

Jabba, the previous two posts are more important than my observation that the model you're trying to disprove is not the model materialists and most skeptics subscribe to.

Why am I not surprised that he read only the first line of my post and ignored everything that followed?

 

[Jabba]

Jabba, the previous two posts are more important than my observation that the model you're trying to disprove is not the model materialists and most skeptics subscribe to.

Dave,
- You're referring to the "at most" part when you say that OOFLam is not the model that materialists and most skeptics subscribe to?

 

[Loss Leader]

Dave,
- You're referring to the "at most" part when you say that OOFLam is not the model that materialists and most skeptics subscribe to?

Good lord, man. Stop thinking that changing a word or two will somehow magically fix your fundamental errors. You cannot use statistics to show something is possible. You need facts. Do you have any evidence that souls/selves can outlive a body? Start there.

 

[JayUtah]

Dave,
- You're referring to the "at most" part when you say that OOFLam is not the model that materialists and most skeptics subscribe to?

No, he's telling you to ignore what he's saying about your model being a straw man and pay attention to the posts that very loudly inform you that you can't use statistics to do what you're trying to do.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- You're referring to the "at most" part when you say that OOFLam is not the model that materialists and most skeptics subscribe to?

No, I'm referring to the immaterial souls that you said were part of OOFLam.

 

[Jabba]

No, I'm referring to the immaterial souls that you said were part of OOFLam.

Dave,
- Sorry about that.
- For me at least, this can certainly get confusing. I don't mean to say that OOFLam refers to immaterial souls directly. It refers to souls that I, and reincarnationists, think are immaterial. That's why we think that reincarnation is possible and why we think that OOFLam is wrong. OOFLam would seem to exclude the possibility of immaterial souls.

 

[godless dave]

- Here's the idea.
1. A certain physical state results in an emergent property we call consciousness.
2. Each new consciousness intrinsically involves what I've been calling a "self."
3. I 'sense,' or imagine, this self to be immaterial.
4. I assume that most humans who have thought about this self also sense, or imagine, it to be immaterial.
5. This is what reincarnationists believe is an immaterial and immortal "soul" that following bodily death returns to existence time after time.
6. Reincarnationists may be wrong, and an immaterial and immortal soul may be a null class -- but it is still a real "class."
7. Here, i"m claiming that it is not a null class, and that if it isn't a null class, science has no clue as to "who" this immaterial "self" will be.
8. Which is the big difference between ME and Mt Rainier.
9. And, is why the likelihood of my current existence (my self) given OOFLam is virtually zero, and why the likelihood of Rainier's exact shape given the natural laws governing geology is virtually one.

Dave,
- Sorry about that.
- For me at least, this can certainly get confusing. I don't mean to say that OOFLam refers to immaterial souls directly. It refers to souls that I, and reincarnationists, think are immaterial. That's why we think that reincarnation is possible and why we think that OOFLam is wrong. OOFLam would seem to exclude the possibility of immaterial souls.

If OOFLam excludes the possibility of immaterial souls, then why is the likelihood of my current existence (my self) given OOFLam virtually zero while the likelihood of Rainier's exact shape given the natural laws governing geology is virtually one?

If OOFLam is the model materialists like me subscribe to, then there should be no difference between calculating the likelihood of a particular self's current existence and the likelihood of Rainier's exact shape.

 

[JayUtah]

For me at least, this can certainly get confusing.

Then stop trying to muddy the waters. You have been repeatedly told in no uncertain terms by everyone in this thread who isn't you that the scientific model does not specify, require, allow for, or discuss any constituent that is immortal or immaterial.

It refers to souls that I, and reincarnationists, think are immaterial.

Then that is your model, not the scientific model. Stop trying to confuse the two.

That's why we think that reincarnation is possible and why we think that OOFLam is wrong.

And as has been belabored, the reasoning supporting that is entirely circular. You have had no success at showing it to be otherwise.

OOFLam would seem to exclude the possibility of immaterial souls.

No, it does not exclude the possibility. It simply fails to require it, in the sense that there is no observation you or anyone else can name that requires any component of the model to be immaterial or immortal in order to account for the observation. By the same token you can say that the scientific model excludes the possibility of transvestite alien space cows because there is no observation that would require such a cause.

Despite vigorous request, you can show no evidence that any component of life is immaterial or immortal. You simply declare that there is one. Despite vigorous request, you can name no observation that would require such a component. You simply rewrite the model to attribute observations that already have a cause to your newly imagined component.

Repeatedly describing your line of reasoning does not fix the problem that it is a circular argument.

 

[JoeMorgue]

You don't have an argument Jabba. You've already decided what you want to be true and are trying to wedge any special pleading, silly word game, argumentative rules lawyering, or other nonsense into it.

You have an unsupported irrational belief, you just won't admit it.

 

[JayUtah]

By the same token you can say that the scientific model excludes the possibility of transvestite alien space cows because there is no observation that would require such a cause.

I hasten to add that disproving a model that doesn't require some arbitrarily defined element is not tantamount to proving the necessity or existence of that element. This is the essence of your false dilemma, Jabba.

 

[Jabba]

If OOFLam excludes the possibility of immaterial souls, then why is the likelihood of my current existence (my self) given OOFLam virtually zero while the likelihood of Rainier's exact shape given the natural laws governing geology is virtually one?

If OOFLam is the model materialists like me subscribe to, then there should be no difference between calculating the likelihood of a particular self's current existence and the likelihood of Rainier's exact shape.

Dave,
- My contention is that natural law does not even begin to predict my particular self (the "who" I will be) -- whereas, natural law does virtually predict the exact shape of Mt Rainier. And then, I contend that if you think that natural law does virtually predict my particular self, you and I just aren't talking about the same kind of self.

 

[JayUtah]

My contention is that natural law does not even begin to predict my particular self...

A contention for which you have no evidence.

...whereas, natural law virtually predicts the exact shape of Mt Rainier.

In exactly the same way as natural law predicts the exact nature of any particular self.

...you and I just aren't talking about the same kind of self.

Indeed, you've invented your own private definition of a self for no reason other than to argue science doesn't explain it. Reasoning cannot get more circular than this.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- My contention is that natural law does not even begin to predict my particular self (the "who" I will be) -- whereas, natural law virtually predicts the exact shape of Mt Rainier. And then, I contend that if you think that natural law does virtually predict my particular self, you and I just aren't talking about the same kind of self.

My point exactly.

 

[Loss Leader]

Dave,
- My contention is that natural law does not even begin to predict my particular self (the "who" I will be) -- whereas, natural law does virtually predict the exact shape of Mt Rainier. And then, I contend that if you think that natural law does virtually predict my particular self, you and I just aren't talking about the same kind of self.

Once again, exactly how does natural law predict the movement of worms under the soil? How does it account for exactly where trees and other plants will take root? How does it account for me walking uphill with a shovel and throwing dirt around?

All of these this have an effect on Mt. Raineir yet none are predictable. The mountain changes unpredictably over time. Just like the person does.

 

[I Am The Scum]

And then, I contend that if you think that natural law does virtually predict my particular self, you and I just aren't talking about the same kind of self.

And here is a reminder of what Jabba means when he says "self."

- However, in my kind of self, the self, itself, has no characteristics (intelligence, skin color, whatever).

Nothing. Nothing at all.

 

[JayUtah]

Nothing. Nothing at all.

Indeed, however Jabba's model requires it to be an entity, albeit immaterial. So it's anyone's guess how such an entity can exist lacking both material properties (e.g., skin color) and immaterial properties (e.g., intelligence). Something articulable must give vitality to existence, even in the most esoteric philosophical sense. The self cannot be said to exist without defining in at least some actual terms what that existence entails.

I think the key to the conundrum is found in zooterkin's statement some days ago, wherein he notes that Jabba's false dilemma, rectified of its fallacy, amounts to Jabba claiming one-finite-life in one case and literally anything and everything else in the other case, no matter how prospectively contradictory. As before, Jabba wants to infer dog from non-cat, and he's stuck trying to get a table to play fetch.

 

[halleyscomet]

Dave,
- You're referring to the "at most" part when you say that OOFLam is not the model that materialists and most skeptics subscribe to?

The existence of an immortal soul is less likely than the thesis that Jabba is a quasi-sentient typing raccoon. We have direct evidence that raccoons exist. We even have photographs suggesting some of them may be able to type.

Or at least use a mouse.

At this point I have provided more evidence for Jabba potentially being a typing raccoon than Jabba has provided for the existence of a soul. Let's be blunt here, Jabba's "evidence" so far has amounted to word salad spiced with cherry picked, misused and out of context quotes from others.

This thread has provided evidence of immortality about as compelling as the evidence this image provides for the efficacy of prayer:

 

[Jabba]

Dave,
- My contention is that natural law does not even begin to predict my particular self (the "who" I will be) -- whereas, natural law does virtually predict the exact shape of Mt Rainier. And then, I contend that if you think that natural law does virtually predict my particular self, you and I just aren't talking about the same kind of self.

My point exactly.

Agatha,
- Do you agree with Dave?

 

[zooterkin]

Agatha,
- Do you agree with Dave?

About what, specifically?