• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Proof of Immortality III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why would your current existence be unlikely if there is no immaterial self?
Dave,
- Because so many events have to occur first if I am to occur, and there are no natural laws that we know of determining who this immaterial self will be.

If the self is entirely material, then wouldn't you calculate the likelihood of a particular self existing the same way you calculate the likelihood of Mount Rainier existing in its current form, or any other material phenomenon?
- I would.
 
Last edited:
Dave,
- Because so many events have to occur first if I am to occur, and there are no natural laws that we know of determining who this immaterial self will be.

- I would.
Jabba -

Congratulations! This is officially the ten thousandth time you've assumed the existance of an immaterial self in order to prove the existence of an immaterial self.

The way I know that God didn't plan your soul is that God could never create someone so completely closed to the voices of reason.
 
Dave,
- Because so many events have to occur first if I am to occur, and there are no natural laws that we know of determining who this immaterial self will be.

- I would.

- Because so many events have to occur first if I am to occur,
so what, same for Mount Rainier

-and there are no natural laws that we know of determining who this immaterial self will be
says who? why not? what about the emergent process of self makes it different requiring 'special' laws?
 
Because so many events have to occur first if I am to occur...

Asked and answered repeatedly. You rely upon a statistical factoid rather than understanding the nature of the problem. You are a special snowflake just as every one of the billions of people who have ever been born is a special snowflake. Do not confuse the essential complexity of a system with its purported inability to produce an outcome. This is what the Mt Ranier analogy is meant to convey to you. You still haven't been able to reconcile that analogy without resorting to special pleading.

...there are no natural laws that we know of determining who this immaterial self will be.

Wrong. Every aspect of the self we are able to observe is determined to be caused by the brain. You've shown zero evidence to the contrary. That those factors act in complex ways and thus defy prediction toward any particular outcome does not change their ordinary nature.
 
Last edited:
Why would your current existence be unlikely if there is no immaterial self?
Dave,
- Because so many events have to occur first if I am to occur, and there are no natural laws that we know of determining who this immaterial self will be.

If there are no immaterial selves, then we don't need to worry about determining who an immaterial self will be because they don't exist. We only have to worry about the natural processes that result in a physical human being.

If the self is entirely material, then wouldn't you calculate the likelihood of a particular self existing the same way you calculate the likelihood of Mount Rainier existing in its current form, or any other material phenomenon?
- I would.

So in a model with material selves and no immaterial selves, a particular self existing is only unlikely in the same way that the current shape of Mount Rainier is unlikely.
 
Last edited:
- Anyway, in a sense, I'm claiming that if an immaterial self is reasonably possible, it must be a reality, as my current existence is so unlikely if there is no immaterial self.

I'm reminded of the convoluted arguments used to claim that this MUST be the best of all possible worlds, a notion based upon wishful thinking and not reality. "Candide" is probably my favorite mocking of that fanciful vision of reality.

Your thesis fails on many fronts, the two most obvious being:

1. You have yet to provide any reason for anyone to believe an immortal self, by any definition, is "reasonably possible."

2. The idea that anything "reasonably possible" "must be reality" is ignorant dross, wishful thinking on the order of a toddler.

You have no real thesis. You have no argument,. You have only verbal onanism in service of your desperate, yet understandable, terror of death. The irony is you're so consumed by the fear of death that you're wasting the time you have left on Earth arguing for some sort of existence after your brain rots into fertilizer.

You are squandering your life because you are afraid of death. Earlier in this saga of nonsense you said you had about an hour a day to dedicate to this "debate" here. Every one of those hours were slivers of your finite existence lost forever, squandered instead on arguing with people who think you a fool for using the logic of a toddler to beg a cold, uncaring universe for a stay on the inevitable execution we all face.
 
Bayesian analysis is inherently an iterative process. Which is to say, its strength in generating knowledge lies in its ability to adjust parametric distributions of probability based on new data, in ways that classical statistics can only model with random variables. The iteration is the key. Here, in this invocation, there is no iteration. There is simply the proposition. Jabba has grossly co-opted the language and intent of Bayesian methodology to propose what he insists divides the prior and posterior conditions in this case. But his proposition is not an informational event; it's just more of his numerical proctology.

Would you tell me what Bayesian methodology is used for?

I have read this thread for long time. (Maybe two years?)

I have learned a little about statistics and certain fallacies.

If Bayesian statistics can be explained to someone with little
to no knowledge of statistics?

If not, thanks to those who continue to educate.

:)
 
- Because so many events have to occur first if I am to occur, and there are no natural laws that we know of determining who this immaterial self will be.


The same sequence of events to produce your body is needed whether your consciousness is produced by your body or your "immaterial self" comes from elsewhere and somehow occupies your body, and the latter option also requires your particular self to get lucky enough to latch onto your body.

You are arguing that the former hypothesis must be rejected because it is too unlikely, and that it should be replaced by an hypothesis that is even more unlikely. Do you see the problem with this particular bit of your argument?
 
Dave,
- Because so many events have to occur first if I am to occur, and there are no natural laws that we know of determining who this immaterial self will be.

So?

Again you engage in verbal onanism and wishful thinking so primitive and inept as to not even reach the lowest levels of that chief mental onanism, philosophy.

You insist there is an "immortal self" because you want there to be one and are terrified by the prospect of their not being one. Your fear leads you to reject what reality can tell us and you retreat into your fantasy life, huddled in a ball of pseudo-argument that would have gotten any first year philosophy student flunked by any professor who had not suffered massive head trauma.

Your argument is, to be kind, a stupid one. You might as well be a toddler demanding an unrealistic Christmas present an insisting you WILL get it with the argument "I asked Santa for one!"

Just because you asked Santa for an "immortal self" doesn't mean you get one.
 
Because so many events have to occur first if I am to occur, and there are no natural laws that we know of determining who this immaterial self will be.

Oh jumped jiminy Jesus Christ. It's the Watchmaker argument from someone claiming they are the watch and proving they are the watch via the fact that a Watchmaker obviously made them.

You're so bloody special because you're so bloody unique, and so bloody unique because you're so bloody special and one proves the other.

This has transcended circular arguments. At least circular arguments go in a circle. This is the one legged man with one foot nailed to the ground argument. This isn't like watching paint dry, it's like watching paint.
 
If there are no immaterial selves, then we don't need to worry about determining who an immaterial self will be because they don't exist. We only have to worry about the natural processes that result in a physical human being.
- Correct.



So in a model with material selves and no immaterial selves, a particular self existing is only unlikely in the same way that the current shape of Mount Rainier is unlikely.
- Correct.
- Are you sure that there is no such thing as an immaterial self?
 
- Correct.



- Correct.
- Are you sure that there is no such thing as an immaterial self?

It doesn't matter.

If you're going to try to disprove a model, you need to use the givens of that model.

The model I - and I suspect most of the participants on this thread - subscribe to does not have immaterial selves. We could call this model OFLnmnl (One Finite Life No More No Less). If you want to show that that model is unlikely to be true, then you need to use the givens of that model to calculate the likelihood of something existing given that model.
 
Are you sure that there is no such thing as an immaterial self?


Immaterial. Belief is not proof. You're claiming to be able to prove the existence of some sort of ill-defined soul. Is there a point where you'll start making an articulate case for such an argument?
 
Immaterial. Belief is not proof. You're claiming to be able to prove the existence of some sort of ill-defined soul.

Actually he's not. He's assuming the soul exists, and then trying to prove that it's immortal.

When called out on this, his claim seems to be that if we concede souls *might* exist, then they do and he can prove they're immortal.
 
Last edited:
Would you tell me what Bayesian methodology is used for?

I can tell you what I use it for, but that would be a biased sample. Commensurately, telling you what to use it for is easy, without a background in statistics, as long as you don't ask how to use it.

The heart of the method is Bayes' theorem, which is one of several ways of looking at a conditional probability -- the probability of one outcome given the known outcome of a related event. If there are six glasses on the bar, one filled with vodka and the rest with water, what are the odds of picking the one with the vodka after I already picked one with water?

Statistics is the study of numbers that for whatever reason cannot be determined with certainty. There are different ways of describing such indeterminate numbers. Classical statistics uses one set of methods. Bayesian methods use a different set. Specifically, Bayesian methods let you make various guesses at what you think the number might be, without knowing anything at first about the number. You don't have to justify the guess to the nth degree, but you do have to figure out what the effect would be upon your guess if data came in about the number. That's where Bayes' theorem helps.

Much here has been made that your initial guesses about a number (the "prior probability") can be purely subjective beliefs. That is true. But as with any methodology, if you put garbage into it, you get garbage out of it. The most effective use of Bayesian inference comes when you put a great deal of thought into choosing your priors.

One of the most effective use of Bayesian methods is searching, and one of the success stories in the literature is finding flight recorders from airliners lost at sea. It lets us combine our prior belief about how easy or hard it would be to find "black boxes" at every point along the ocean floor with the results from actual search operations. We can base that belief on something scientific such as depth and murkiness of the water as long as it's external to the search at hand. We can say that if the water is deep, we will stand a greater chance of missing the recorder, if it's there. And we work this out numerically at first, without worrying about such things as where the plane actually went down or whether anyone has already searched that spot.

If you go up-thread a few days, you'll find another example of Bayesian inference used in computer network traffic analysis.

There is a controversy among statisticians over which method works best. I view it largely as a tempest in a teapot because both methods have valid applications and the only mistake you can make is to use one method when you should be using the other. That said, among fringe theorists Bayesian inference is attractive because they can posture it simplistically as a "rigorous" treatment of subjective beliefs. Since much of what constitutes the fringe is subjective belief, it is often erroneously claimed that Bayesian analysis can confirm the truth of a subjective belief without the use of evidence or data.
 

This is why you can't paste the notion of a soul onto the one-finite-life hypothesis you're trying to disprove, and then try to weasel out of its effect on that model by saying it's okay because the purported believers of that model don't believe in that aspect of it. That's pure equivocation.

Are you sure that there is no such thing as an immaterial self?

Begging the question, and we've been over this particular begged question a dozen times lately. You're trying to equivocate the notion of abstract allowances (i.e., the fact that the null hypothesis is, in fact, only a hypothesis) with your insistence that there is a "reasonable" possibility a soul exists. This is nothing more than pointless sophistry. You cannot premise your argument on the "reasonable" proposition that a soul exists without first showing that it's reasonable, and you can't escape that burden of proof by shifting that burden to your critics. Your critics don't have a burden to show that a soul is impossible. The non-existence of the soul you're argue for is merely the null hypothesis that arises necessarily from your hypothesis that it does. Don't pretend it's anything more than that.

You have said you can prove the existence of an immortal soul. Quit pointing to the null hypothesis and yelling "Gotcha! It's only a hypothesis!"
 
I can tell you what I use it for, but that would be a biased sample. Commensurately, telling you what to use it for is easy, without a background in statistics, as long as you don't ask how to use it.

The heart of the method is Bayes' theorem, which is one of several ways of looking at a conditional probability -- the probability of one outcome given the known outcome of a related event. If there are six glasses on the bar, one filled with vodka and the rest with water, what are the odds of picking the one with the vodka after I already picked one with water?

Statistics is the study of numbers that for whatever reason cannot be determined with certainty. There are different ways of describing such indeterminate numbers. Classical statistics uses one set of methods. Bayesian methods use a different set. Specifically, Bayesian methods let you make various guesses at what you think the number might be, without knowing anything at first about the number. You don't have to justify the guess to the nth degree, but you do have to figure out what the effect would be upon your guess if data came in about the number. That's where Bayes' theorem helps.

Much here has been made that your initial guesses about a number (the "prior probability") can be purely subjective beliefs. That is true. But as with any methodology, if you put garbage into it, you get garbage out of it. The most effective use of Bayesian inference comes when you put a great deal of thought into choosing your priors.

One of the most effective use of Bayesian methods is searching, and one of the success stories in the literature is finding flight recorders from airliners lost at sea. It lets us combine our prior belief about how easy or hard it would be to find "black boxes" at every point along the ocean floor with the results from actual search operations. We can base that belief on something scientific such as depth and murkiness of the water as long as it's external to the search at hand. We can say that if the water is deep, we will stand a greater chance of missing the recorder, if it's there. And we work this out numerically at first, without worrying about such things as where the plane actually went down or whether anyone has already searched that spot.

If you go up-thread a few days, you'll find another example of Bayesian inference used in computer network traffic analysis.

There is a controversy among statisticians over which method works best. I view it largely as a tempest in a teapot because both methods have valid applications and the only mistake you can make is to use one method when you should be using the other. That said, among fringe theorists Bayesian inference is attractive because they can posture it simplistically as a "rigorous" treatment of subjective beliefs. Since much of what constitutes the fringe is subjective belief, it is often erroneously claimed that Bayesian analysis can confirm the truth of a subjective belief without the use of evidence or data.
Long ago I read about the USS Scorpion and was intrigued by its description of how the sunken sub was found. I don't recall them using the term "Bayesian." Rather, it described going to the experts with a grid and asking each to rank the probability that the sub was in each section, then concentrating the actual search on the highest probability sections per the estimates. It worked.

Now going to the wiki article to confirm my memory, it says this was Bayesian. Pretty neat.
 
Actually he's not. He's assuming the soul exists, and then trying to prove that it's immortal.

When called out on this, his claim seems to be that if we concede souls *might* exist, then they do and he can prove their immortal.

The more accurate we get in summarizing his arguments, the less sense they make. The comparison to a man with a foot nailed to the floor earlier in the thread is an apt one.

He's not even using twisted logic. He's openly pleading with the universe to not obliterate him when his body gives out and he's so devoid of justifications as to WHY he should continue to exist he's falling back upon "because I want to live!"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom