Proof of Immortality III

[Mojo]

Why would an immaterial self necessarily be immortal?

It wouldn't. Hence Jabba's argument relies on a false dilemma.

 

[JayUtah]

My reasoning for OOFLam being incorrect is that if OOFLam were reasonably possibly incorrect...

Asked and answered a dozen times at least. You present no reason why it would be incorrect. Once again you're trying to parlay your critics' open-mindedness into an excuse for you to beg the question.

...the likelihood of OOFLam being correct would be unimaginably small (when applying the Bayesian formula).

Asked and answered a dozen times at least. Made-up numbers put into a formul -- even Bayes' Theorem -- do not convert "reasonably possibly incorrect" into "false."

Today's pointless daily restatement of Jabba's claims has been brought to you by a three-legged burial shroud.

 

[carlitos]

Do you not see the problem with that?

Come on, seriously?

 

[JayUtah]

Why would an immaterial self necessarily be immortal?

It wouldn't. But an immortal soul would necessarily be immaterial, or so we've all agreed is reasonable to presume. Hence he has to prove immateriality as a premise to immortality. But he knows he can't do it. So he tries to prove that mere materiality isn't likely to produce life as we know it, hence can't be the case. Having proved (in his mind) immateriality of life, he can then go on to argue that the immaterial aspect of life is immortal.

One of the things Jabba chronically doesn't understand is the difference between necessity and sufficiency in an argument. This leads him to commit the false-dilemma fallacy in almost every argument he makes.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Dave,
- Almost.
- My reasoning for OOFLam being incorrect is that if OOFLam were reasonably possibly incorrect, the likelihood of OOFLam being correct would be unimaginably small (when applying the Bayesian formula).

You essentially say that if something might be wrong, it must be wrong. Are you sure you wanna claim that?

Hans

 

[Mojo]

"Might be wrong" is all he has.

 

[JayUtah]

You essentially say that if something might be wrong, it must be wrong. Are you sure you wanna claim that?

He balances it out later by saying that even if there's the tiniest possibility that something might be right, it must be right. That is, if he's the one believing that it's right.

 

[Jabba]

1506

So your reasoning for OOFLam being incorrect is that if OOFLam were incorrect, the likelihood of OOFLam being correct would be unimaginably small. Have I got that right?

1515

Dave,
- Almost.
- My reasoning for OOFLam being incorrect is that if OOFLam were reasonably possibly incorrect, the likelihood of OOFLam being correct would be unimaginably small (when applying the Bayesian formula).

1518

Do you not see the problem with that?

Dave,
- I see what would appear to be a problem, but isn't.
- Using the Bayesian formula for the posterior probability, we're ultimately comparing the prior probability of non-OOFLam to the likelihood of me -- given OOFLam -- and, the former (though, only 1%) easily wins.

 

[JayUtah]

I see what would appear to be a problem, but isn't.

No, you don't see the problem. You're missing the huge circle in your reasoning.

Using the Bayesian formula for the posterior probability...

How many experts now have told you that you can't solve this problem using Bayesian inference?

...we're ultimately comparing the prior probability of non-OOFLam to the likelihood of me -- given OOFLam...

...for which you have simply made up a number. That's your circularity.

We know what your argument is, Jabba. Stop wasting your precious single daily post restating it ad nauseam. Instead, prove that it works or admit you cannot.

 

[godless dave]

1506

1515

1518Dave,
- I see what would appear to be a problem, but isn't.
- Using the Bayesian formula for the posterior probability, we're ultimately comparing the prior probability of non-OOFLam to the likelihood of me -- given OOFLam -- and, the former (though, only 1%) easily wins.

Leaving aside that you have no justification for that 1% number, you already admitted that you're not using the likelihood of you given OOFLam. You're assuming OOFLam is incorrect in order to get a very small likelihood for you, and then calling it "given OOFLam" even though it relies on OOFLam being incorrect.

 

[Mojo]

- I see what would appear to be a problem, but isn't.
- Using the Bayesian formula for the posterior probability, we're ultimately comparing the prior probability of non-OOFLam to the likelihood of me -- given OOFLam -- and, the former (though, only 1%) easily wins.

Remember, Jabba, that it has been demonstrated that your current existence given that you have an immaterial self is even less likely than your current existence given "OOFLam".

So, if your argument is valid, using the Bayesian formula for the posterior probability of there being immaterial selves, we would be comparing the prior probability of "no immaterial selves" to the likelihood of your existence given immaterial selves, and the former (to which you have assigned a figure of 99%) would easily win.

Your argument is set up so that it "disproves" whichever hypothesis you feed into it.

Either you have managed to simultaneously prove and disprove the existence of immaterial selves, or your argument is invalid. Which do you think is more likely?

 

[Loss Leader]

- Using the Bayesian formula for the posterior probability, we're ultimately comparing the prior probability of non-OOFLam to the likelihood of me -- given OOFLam -- and, the former (though, only 1%) easily wins.

How in the world can you do this calculation without knowing how likely your existence is given the scientific explanation of the universe? Perhaps this is a clockwork universe in which all things, given the starting circumstances, have to happen. Perhaps this is a fertile universe in which life is assured under some very common circumstances. Perhaps this is an infinite universe in which absolutely everything that can possibly happen does eventually happen.

The only way you can say that the chances of you coming into existence are infinitesimally is if there's something special about you that doesn't apply to every single other thing anywhere ever. The only way you can consider yourself special is by assuming that you have some sort of predestined "soul." But having a predestined soul is EXACTLY THE THING YOU ARE TRYING TO PROVE.

Your math is wrong. Your concepts are wrong. You cannot find a single mathematician, statistician, philosopher or nursery school teacher who agrees with you. You should just ... just stop. Really.

 

[JayUtah]

You cannot find a single mathematician, statistician, philosopher or nursery school teacher who agrees with you.

In fact the mathematician Marcus du Sautoy has gone to some length to explain the dilemma between determinism and predictability. Chaos theory is fun, if you have enough single-malt scotch to keep your mind lubricated.

You should just ... just stop. Really.

His dad told him not to.

 

[Jabba]

Leaving aside that you have no justification for that 1% number, you already admitted that you're not using the likelihood of you given OOFLam. You're assuming OOFLam is incorrect in order to get a very small likelihood for you, and then calling it "given OOFLam" even though it relies on OOFLam being incorrect.

Dave,
- I'm not assuming that OOFLam is incorrect -- I only need to assume that it might reasonably be incorrect.
- 1% is what I'm suggesting as the prior probability of OOFLam being incorrect -- but then, I could suggest .0001% and it would still be much larger than the likelihood of my current existence -- given OOFLam.

 

[zooterkin]

1506

1515

1518

Did you reset so hard this time that you've reverted to the superfluous quoting of post numbers?

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- I'm not assuming that OOFLam is incorrect -- I only need to assume that it might reasonably be incorrect.

Even if you do, you still have to use OOFLam to get the likelihood of a particular self given OOFLam, and that likelihood would be figured out the same way as figuring out the likelihood of Mount Rainier existing in its current form.

 

[Loss Leader]

Even if you do, you still have to use OOFLam to get the likelihood of a particular self given OOFLam, and that likelihood would be figured out the same way as figuring out the likelihood of Mount Rainier existing in its current form.

It would be the same as the likelihood of anything forming anywhere ever.

 

[JayUtah]

1% is what I'm suggesting as the prior probability of OOFLam being incorrect...

The erroneous assumption arises in your wild guess for whether you can have arisen in your present form as the result of one finite life. You simply declare one-finite-life as incapable of producing you as a person. As has been copiously pointed out, when you do this you can put literally any probability into your model as a prior and claim to have disproven it. That's what makes it a broken model.

 

[Jabba]

1490

Whether there is a soul or not would not change that numerator and that denominator...

1501

js,
- I didn’t mean to claim that it would. I meant to claim just that OOFLam being incorrect would imply that there are immaterial souls.
- Once again, I’m not sure that I understand your point -- but if I do, my answer is the same as before: OOFLam is, in effect, addressing the possibility of an immaterial soul, and implying that there is no such thing. And therefore, OOFLam being wrong would imply that there is such a thing as an immaterial soul.

1504

Your claim is false...
The point is that your probability calculation for your existence (as presented) does not change. It would be the same with or without souls.
In addition, your base logic is wrong. If A then ~B does not lead you to if ~A then B.

js,
- I think that you're technically correct -- I shouldn't have used the word "therefore" in my last sentence above. I should have said "it so happens that."
- In our situation, ~A implies B. This is not simple deduction. It so happens that in this case, most of the ways that would allow for ~A would seem to require B -- would seem to require an immaterial soul.

 

[Mojo]

If we had some ham, we could have ham sandwiches if we had some bread, but this is not evidence that we have ham or bread.