It seems to me one could keep themselves perpetually in the mindset that one's opponents are simply rejecting what you have to say "out of the gate" by constantly adjusting where "the gate" is, which seems to be the case here.
-
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
- Thread starter Humots
- Start date
- Status
It seems to me one could keep themselves perpetually in the mindset that one's opponents are simply rejecting what you have to say "out of the gate" by constantly adjusting where "the gate" is, which seems to be the case here.
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
Actually, I think the goal is, "if I can get my argument past a hardcore skeptic, then there is enough doubt and I can believe it", as if this board is the ultimate hurdle and measuring stick of truth.
What I cannot understand is the willful self deception. I actually wish there was some magic spiritual realm out there, but I can't fool myself into it.
What I cannot understand is the willful self deception. I actually wish there was some magic spiritual realm out there, but I can't fool myself into it.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Filippo Lippi
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2002
- Messages
- 5,555
Will you bring some evidence?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
That would be nice, but don't hold your breath. He doesn't have any, and he knows it -- hence the brush-off. ("just Google for some, but you probably won't believe any of it.") This is why he has to handwave through the pseudo-statistical argument.
He tried telling us P(X|~H) is unimaginably small
- because some infographic from some woo author said so.
- by committing various predictability fallacies.
- by stating his subjective belief to that effect and declaring that Bayes lets him do that without loss of rigor.
- by saying any statement to the contrary is invalid because science doesn't understand souls.
- and then demanding his critics supply and defend a different guess.
- by blatantly begging that question.
After this many years and this history of argumentation, is there really any reason to believe evidence is in the wings?
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
So I have spent the day attempting to take up Jabba's cause. I've been mulling over a method for making the argument for an immortal soul (or even just an immaterial one).
I have been unable to define a test that would be positive in the presence of an immaterial soul but negative in its absence.
The block that I cannot get past is that there is no working definition of a soul that differentiates it from a brain. Whatever LossLeader-soul is, it can't be informed by the fact that I've had 7 open-heart surgeries (my first at 7 months old). It can't be informed by the fact that I never learned to play sports or that I don't drink. It can't be informed by my love of Ticket To Ride, or Star Trek or any other event in my life. These have all shaped who I am, but the LossLeader-soul existed before all of that.
And if I were reincarnated, I wouldn't bring any of those memories with me. Even if we were to believe the handful of cases where children appear to know a lot about some dead person, it's clear that the vast majority of people retain no such memories. If the Loss-Leader soul lived before, I am unaware of how it informs any portion of my thought process.
I tried to find some safe harbor in what I know about babies. My two children, from nearly the moment of their birth, displayed very different personalities. All babies that I've observed have their own individual personalities long before they have the ability to process, let alone remember, all of the data around them. But why should I suspect that these differences are related to their souls and not slight differences in brain function, early neuron connections, diet, culture or anything else that acts on the processes of the physical brain?
So this is my challenge to Jabba and anyone who cares to take it up: Identify a method of demonstrating that an immaterial soul exists. Until we know if there is a soul, we certainly cannot speculate on its immortality.
I have been unable to define a test that would be positive in the presence of an immaterial soul but negative in its absence.
The block that I cannot get past is that there is no working definition of a soul that differentiates it from a brain. Whatever LossLeader-soul is, it can't be informed by the fact that I've had 7 open-heart surgeries (my first at 7 months old). It can't be informed by the fact that I never learned to play sports or that I don't drink. It can't be informed by my love of Ticket To Ride, or Star Trek or any other event in my life. These have all shaped who I am, but the LossLeader-soul existed before all of that.
And if I were reincarnated, I wouldn't bring any of those memories with me. Even if we were to believe the handful of cases where children appear to know a lot about some dead person, it's clear that the vast majority of people retain no such memories. If the Loss-Leader soul lived before, I am unaware of how it informs any portion of my thought process.
I tried to find some safe harbor in what I know about babies. My two children, from nearly the moment of their birth, displayed very different personalities. All babies that I've observed have their own individual personalities long before they have the ability to process, let alone remember, all of the data around them. But why should I suspect that these differences are related to their souls and not slight differences in brain function, early neuron connections, diet, culture or anything else that acts on the processes of the physical brain?
So this is my challenge to Jabba and anyone who cares to take it up: Identify a method of demonstrating that an immaterial soul exists. Until we know if there is a soul, we certainly cannot speculate on its immortality.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
You won't be able to, because Jabba has defined the "self" in such a way that it is completely unfalsifiable:
And, of course, in such a way that it would leave no evidence.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Therefore Jabba's defined self, being undetectable in any way might as well not exist at all.
After all, if that self had any effect on the real world, it would by definition be detectable.
Filippo Lippi
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2002
- Messages
- 5,555
It has undetectable effects
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Jabba says he "feels" like he has an immortal soul. He goes on to claim that Bayesian inference lets him transform this feeling into proof that it exists.
Then in contrast he claims science, on the other hand, has no power to discover the soul. Well, some power he admits. But it comes with incompetence or denial, so that it can't ever be exercised honestly.
It's the same old "intuition is better than knowledge" ploy used by every other fly-by-night fringe claimant.
Then in contrast he claims science, on the other hand, has no power to discover the soul. Well, some power he admits. But it comes with incompetence or denial, so that it can't ever be exercised honestly.
It's the same old "intuition is better than knowledge" ploy used by every other fly-by-night fringe claimant.
The useless, on the other hand...
Not just "might as well not exist," but cannot exist:
I'm no philosopher, but I'll go out on on a limb and posit that no thing which "has no characteristics" can exist. If I'm wrong, some one can maybe name such a thing.
Last edited:
HighRiser
Graduate Poster
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
The quote from The Man in my sig line seems appropiate in this case.
I think the other quote might apply too.
HighRiser
Graduate Poster
I think the other quote might apply too.
Indeed!
Filippo Lippi
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2002
- Messages
- 5,555
We're at that part of the cycle where Jabba observes, but doesn't join in; can a fringe reset be far behind?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Do you want that answered in terms of a probability? It's not a matter of if or when there will be a fringe reset, but what form it will take.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Jabba might just be trying, in his equivocal fashion, to say a soul has no material characteristics. After all, he's not so much trying to prove the reality of an immortal soul as he is trying to disprove materialism.
McTaggert's The Nature of Existence is helpful here, especially as it goes into great detail of a reasoned taxonomy of existence and reality. To save you a long read -- no, there cannot be a concept of existence or reality without particularized qualities or characteristics associated with an entity. Jabba's frantic equivocations seem aimed more at justifying a refusal to name the characteristics of a soul.
I'd say that's for two reasons. First, he's already asserted that whatever a soul is, science can't discover it. Hence he'd be hard-pressed to come up with a reasonable property of a soul that he's sure lies beyond science's ken. Second and most obvious, as soon as he says, "A soul must be thus," he'd have to tell us how he knows that. And he has no way of knowing any of that. So instead of a reasoned explanation for what a soul is and why he thinks they exist, we get the self-preservational, vacuous knee-jerk answer.
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
Ideally, a soul would be the person - memories and personality.
This presents terrible problems. Memory is very malleable. It also changes through a person's life. I no longer remember my high school locker combination, though I knew and used it thoroughly for three straight years. I do possess very vivid memories of the CICU, but whoever I was ten years ago did not.
So what memories does a soul have? Does it have perfect recall of everything the brain ever remembered? Does it only have the memories the brain held when it died? Does it somehow not have memories? When Jabba points to sources like reincarnation and seances, those have all been "verified" by comparing the supposed soul's memories with what people knew about him. So, according to Jabba, the soul should retain some sort of memory.
I'd be very pleased if Jabba could give me a working definition of the word "soul." It seems to be a necessary first step.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
1396
1403
1423
1433
1443
- One of my basic/critical claims is that there is a reasonable possibility that OOFLam is not correct.
- Another basic/critical claim is that the likelihood of my current existence is unimaginably small (seven billion over infinity?) when given OOFLam.
-My next claim is that if those two claims are true, OOFLam is surely incorrect -- insert the appropriate numbers into the formula, and the posterior probability of OOFLam is also unimaginably small. (The likelihood of my current existence, given non-OOFLam, isn't anything we have to worry about if the other two claims are true.)
- I think that you guys disagree with all three (four?) claims.
- With the immateriality issue, I was trying to show how closely those claims are tied to immateriality... If there is no such thing as an immaterial self, OOFLam is surely correct. I claim, however, that if there is even a reasonable possibility of an immaterial self, my current existence -- plus Bayesian statistics -- virtually proves that OOFLam is not correct.
- P(H|E) = P(E|H)*P(H)/(P(E|H)*P(H)+P(E|~H)*P(~H))
- P(H|E) = 7,000,000,000/∞*.99/(7,000,000,000/∞*.99+.0052*.01)
- Or, P(H|E) is something like virtually zero -- unimaginably small.
- I used "∞" above because there is no symbol (that I can find) for "unimaginably small," and if there is no pool of potential selves (which there surely isn't) infinity is the right concept -- each new self was brand new, and never a twinkle.
- PS -- I met with the SUNYA professor I was referred to, and he didn't agree with me either...
- If I get the chance, I'll try to convey what he said -- but then, I didn't really understand what he said... But, I'm not finished!
1403
1423
1433
(From1396) - If the prior probability of immaterial selves is .001, and the likelihood of ME, given no immaterial selves, is unimaginably small, since I do currently exist, there must be immaterial selves.
1443
- In trying to bring the immateriality issue into the spotlight, I screwed up.
- One of my basic/critical claims is that there is a reasonable possibility that OOFLam is not correct.
- Another basic/critical claim is that the likelihood of my current existence is unimaginably small (seven billion over infinity?) when given OOFLam.
-My next claim is that if those two claims are true, OOFLam is surely incorrect -- insert the appropriate numbers into the formula, and the posterior probability of OOFLam is also unimaginably small. (The likelihood of my current existence, given non-OOFLam, isn't anything we have to worry about if the other two claims are true.)
- I think that you guys disagree with all three (four?) claims.
- With the immateriality issue, I was trying to show how closely those claims are tied to immateriality... If there is no such thing as an immaterial self, OOFLam is surely correct. I claim, however, that if there is even a reasonable possibility of an immaterial self, my current existence -- plus Bayesian statistics -- virtually proves that OOFLam is not correct.
- P(H|E) = P(E|H)*P(H)/(P(E|H)*P(H)+P(E|~H)*P(~H))
- P(H|E) = 7,000,000,000/∞*.99/(7,000,000,000/∞*.99+.0052*.01)
- Or, P(H|E) is something like virtually zero -- unimaginably small.
- I used "∞" above because there is no symbol (that I can find) for "unimaginably small," and if there is no pool of potential selves (which there surely isn't) infinity is the right concept -- each new self was brand new, and never a twinkle.
- PS -- I met with the SUNYA professor I was referred to, and he didn't agree with me either...
- If I get the chance, I'll try to convey what he said -- but then, I didn't really understand what he said... But, I'm not finished!
- Status