Proof of Immortality III

Status
Not open for further replies.
John Jones said:
If you agree with him on any small point, he will take that as a win against the skeptics. He will then likely quote you out of context on his web site.
Click to expand...

Ok, but how does that make immortality a FACT? Because somehow he outwitted someone like me who is a member here, but not a terribly skilled debater?
 
Toontown said:
That depends on how large the group of people you don't expect to win the lottery is. Of which your brother is presumably a member.

The larger the group, the less surprised you should be if one of them wins. You shouldn't be surprised at all if the usual "someone" wins. That's inevitable. You should be extremely surprised if you win. That's next to impossible.

Rule: the appropriate degree of surprise at the occurrence of an event should be inversely proportional to the magnitude of the probability of the event's occurrence.

This is the principle that is used in scientific statistical testing.

Why do you ask? Thinking about doing some statistical testing?
Click to expand...

I just did some testing, although not statistical, and the results are exactly as I expected they would be.
 
Nonpareil said:
No, it isn't. It is a very simple statement that, so long as there is a possibility of that result happening within the system, having that result turn up does not in any way act as proof against the system.
Click to expand...

Suppose I have this grand theory of physics, it basically says that there are a finite number of possible states of the universe and that at any moment in time a state is chosen randomly with equal probability for each possible state. If I were to present and defend that theory here, would you be as quick to say "this does not in any way act as proof against the theory" whenever a critic brings up a scientific experiment or something?

Rolling a one on a trillion-sided die, even n times in a row, does not establish that the die is loaded. In order to establish that the die is loaded, you must examine the die.

Improbable is not equivalent to impossible, and improbable results - even when they are staggeringly improbable - are not inconsistent with what we know of probability. They can provide a reason for you to investigate the system more closely and look for concrete evidence of the system being rigged, but they are not in and of themselves hard evidence.
Click to expand...

Suppose we bet on a coin toss, every toss we both put 1$ in the pot and if it lands heads I get the 2$ and if it lands tails you get the 2$. You examine the coin and find nothing wrong with it. It lands heads every time, and I've already taken 1k off you. You examine it again and again find nothing wrong with it. We continue, I take another 10k off you. You examine it again, and again find nothing wrong with it. You would keep this up until I have literally taken every last dollar you have? I don't believe that for a second.
 
Last edited:
The Sparrow said:
Ok, but how does that make immortality a FACT? Because somehow he outwitted someone like me who is a member here, but not a terribly skilled debater?
Click to expand...

He's not interested in establishing immortality as a fact. Jabba doesn't seem to mind losing the case-in-chief, as he admitted doing in the Shroud thread, so long as he can spend the next few years trying to show that his defeat required skeptics to somehow have behaved irrationally, or have ignored some clear truth such as Jabba's claimed superiority at "holistic data processing."

He's already admitted in this thread that he has had to move the goalposts in order to carry on the discussion. He's not trying to prove immortality anymore, just an "immaterial" source for consciousness. His overall goal, as it appears from the mini-meltdown he had a couple days ago, seems to be to demonstrate that woo-style handwaving is a better way of thinking that one based on evidence and reason.
 
caveman1917 said:
Suppose we bet on a coin toss, every toss we both put 1$ in the pot and if it lands heads I get the 2$ and if it lands tails you get the 2$. You examine the coin and find nothing wrong with it. It lands heads every time, and I've already taken 1k off you. You examine it again and again find nothing wrong with it. We continue, I take another 10k off you. You examine it again, and again find nothing wrong with it. You would keep this up until I have literally taken every last dollar you have? I don't believe that for a second.
Click to expand...

While we're waiting for Nonpareil's answer, I'm curious: What would you do, if you were on the money-losing side of this scenario?
 
theprestige said:
While we're waiting for Nonpareil's answer, I'm curious: What would you do, if you were on the money-losing side of this scenario?
Click to expand...

I'd calculate it out when I have to stop given a certain utility function. Crucially, here, is that I'd take into account my own fallibility - ie the probability that the coin is biased even though my examination failed to show so.
 
caveman1917 said:
I'd calculate it out when I have to stop given a certain utility function. Crucially, here, is that I'd take into account my own fallibility - ie the probability that the coin is biased even though my examination failed to show so.
Click to expand...


So here you would be considering whether it was more likely that a fair coin would come up heads that often or that the game was rigged in a way you couldn't detect.
 
Mojo said:
So here you would be considering whether it was more likely that a fair coin would come up heads that often or that the game was rigged in a way you couldn't detect.
Click to expand...

Basically, yes. Although specifically I'd be calculating the probability that the coin will land heads next time given all the available information I have, including the things you mention but also for instance the possibility that the coin isn't deliberately "rigged" but just happens to be doing that because of some physics that neither me nor my opponent (nor perhaps anybody else at that specific point in time) knows or understands.
 
Last edited:
Toontown said:
The paragraph also proves the point that perspective matters in probability. The probability that "someone" will win the lottery is very nearly 1. The probability that "you" will win is very nearly 0.
Click to expand...


No, nevermind. This is the most meaningless tautology I've ever read.
 
caveman1917 said:
Basically, yes. Although specifically I'd be calculating the probability that the coin will land heads next time given all the available information I have, including the things you mention but also for instance the possibility that the coin isn't deliberately "rigged" but just happens to be doing that because of some physics that neither me nor my opponent (nor perhaps anybody else at that specific point in time) knows or understands.
Click to expand...

I think there's some equivocation here. Jabba is explicitly trying to prove asserting that statistical probability equates to logical certainty. Toontown appears to be implicitly asserting the same thing.

Gambling is not the same as scientific experiment. Statistical likelihood is not the same as experimental proof. The level of risk we're willing to accept in a game of chance, based on our subjective perceptions of events, is not evidence for or against a hypothesis. The bets we place based on Bayesian analysis do not equate to factual statements about objective reality.

The coin toss analogy has limited usefulness here. Whether I would bet on an improbably-behaving coin doesn't actually tell us anything about what is actually going on with that coin. In order to make a scientific (as opposed to gambling) claim about the coin, we'd have to examine the coin. And in order to prove that claim, we'd have to publish the results of our examination, to some suitable degree of rigor.

This examination, this publication, this rigor, are exactly the things that Jabba (and Toontown) refuse to do. Instead, we get things like this bizarre doubling-down on a gambling analogy, as if that's some sort of gotcha that does an end-run around any requirement to properly apply logic and science to the claims.
 
theprestige said:
Jabba is explicitly trying to prove asserting that statistical probability equates to logical certainty.
Click to expand...

His words are "virtual certainty," but yes that is overtly what he has said he is trying to do.

Statistical likelihood is not the same as experimental proof.
Click to expand...

Which is virtually certain to be the reason why so many fringe claimants fall back on pseudo-statistical arguments when they know they lack the facts or empirical evidence to justify their subjective beliefs or claims about the world.

...as if [gambling's] some sort of gotcha that does an end-run around any requirement to properly apply logic and science to the claims.
Click to expand...

And indeed it's somewhat maladroitly relevant to the nominal topic, which is the attempt to prove immortality mathematically. A salient point of metadebate is whether such a thing can be proven mathematically, and whether a statistical conclusion of probability (whether well or poorly reasoned) constitutes a mathematical proof. Jabba is saying he can use mathematics to prove the existence of an immortal soul, whereas some reader may get the impression Jabba can prove the existence of a soul to a mathematical (i.e., deductively conclusive) degree of rigor.

Toward the former interpretation, Jabba has failed for years to do it and been told by quite a number of people -- including experts of his choosing -- that it's the wrong way to go about it.
 
Note: It’s possible this discussion with Toontown might be seen as off topic by the mods, if so feel free to split it out to another thread. I honestly don’t think it applies directly to Jabba’s “proof of immortality”, but does seem to relate as part of the discussion on how “likely” a given person is.

Toontown said:
Sorry. Can't help you. I'm using a perspective you refuse to take.

You don't accept the validity of your subjective perspective, or mine, so there is no use talking about it. I just talk about it sometimes for practice, in a sense. Nothing will come of it.
Click to expand...

This whole thing would be a lot easier if you came down off that high horse and tried to communicate unambiguously instead of working so hard to make it clear the heretics can’t possibly understand you.

But let me see if I can understand.
Toontown said:
Nor is there any simple analogy or math I can think of to clarify what I see as your categorization error when you lump yourself in with all the other brains and lose critical specific information in the bargain.

It isn't about being a "special snowflake". It is all about the fact that the lumping strategy loses information. The information loss is real, and I can explain the probabilistic side of it:

Probalistically, It is akin to trying to calculate your chance of winning the lottery by lumping yourself in with all other lottery players. All you can come up with is a near certainty that someone will win, and you are a someone, so there is a non-zero chance you will win. But that's very nearly meaningless. If you want to know what your specific chances are, you have to take the subjective perspective and calculate your individual odds. Or read the individual odds printed on the ticket. But those odds are relative to the narcissistic, verboten subjective perspective, so you will presumably become a thread heretic if you do so.
Click to expand...
I agree that the calculation shows that someone will probably win, and that it almost certainly won’t be me.

But here again I’m struggling to understand why you call this a subjective perspective. Isn’t this the standard way of calculating the odds? As you say it’s printed that way right on the ticket. If I’m going to calculate odds at all for myself winning, I have to be part of the group (lump in with?) of all the other possible winners. If I’m not part of the group of possible winners then it’s impossible for me to win. If I am part of the group it’s an incredibly small chance (to the point where for pretty much all purposes I ignore it), but it’s the same chance everyone in the group has, which is a simple matter of the number of tickets sold versus the number of winners picked. So why is this a subjective point of view?

But having said that, if I’m understanding you at all, it seems your objection to what I’m doing is the information loss caused by the method I’m using, the categorization error of lumping myself in with all the other brains. (I know we jumped from lotteries to brains here, but I think that’s ok here.) Again, I’m not clear on what information is lost?

And having said THAT, let me see if I can get to center of your objection.

I know (at least to a degree such that I don’t let the infinitesimal possibility guide any of my actions) that I’m not winning the lottery. I also know (at least to a degree such that I let the almost certainty guide all my actions) that I exist. And, depending on how you calculate it, my existence is much, much, less probable than my winning the lottery. Given all that, why aren’t I incredibly suspicious of my existence?

Is that anything like a fair statement of your position?
 
JimOfAllTrades said:
Note: It’s possible this discussion with Toontown might be seen as off topic by the mods, if so feel free to split it out to another thread. I honestly don’t think it applies directly to Jabba’s “proof of immortality”, but does seem to relate as part of the discussion on how “likely” a given person is.



This whole thing would be a lot easier if you came down off that high horse and tried to communicate unambiguously instead of working so hard to make it clear the heretics can’t possibly understand you.

But let me see if I can understand.

I agree that the calculation shows that someone will probably win, and that it almost certainly won’t be me.

But here again I’m struggling to understand why you call this a subjective perspective. Isn’t this the standard way of calculating the odds? As you say it’s printed that way right on the ticket. If I’m going to calculate odds at all for myself winning, I have to be part of the group (lump in with?) of all the other possible winners. If I’m not part of the group of possible winners then it’s impossible for me to win. If I am part of the group it’s an incredibly small chance (to the point where for pretty much all purposes I ignore it), but it’s the same chance everyone in the group has, which is a simple matter of the number of tickets sold versus the number of winners picked. So why is this a subjective point of view?

But having said that, if I’m understanding you at all, it seems your objection to what I’m doing is the information loss caused by the method I’m using, the categorization error of lumping myself in with all the other brains. (I know we jumped from lotteries to brains here, but I think that’s ok here.) Again, I’m not clear on what information is lost?

And having said THAT, let me see if I can get to center of your objection.

I know (at least to a degree such that I don’t let the infinitesimal possibility guide any of my actions) that I’m not winning the lottery. I also know (at least to a degree such that I let the almost certainty guide all my actions) that I exist. And, depending on how you calculate it, my existence is much, much, less probable than my winning the lottery. Given all that, why aren’t I incredibly suspicious of my existence?

Is that anything like a fair statement of your position?
Click to expand...
Jim,
- It's the beginning of my position/argument.
 
godless dave said:
No. I've never heard a scientist describe any aspect of human experience as seeming to be non-physical.
Click to expand...
Dave,

- This is just to let you know that I'm working on your question.
- To get started, you can just google combinations of "science," "consciousness," "self," "non-physical," immaterial," and also, some different famous scientists.

- I'll start with philosophers.
- From Wikipedia,
- Western philosophers, since the time of Descartes and Locke, have struggled to comprehend the nature of consciousness and pin down its essential properties. Issues of concern in the philosophy of consciousness include whether the concept is fundamentally coherent; whether consciousness can ever be explained mechanistically; whether non-human consciousness exists and if so how can it be recognized; how consciousness relates to language; whether consciousness can be understood in a way that does not require a dualistic distinction between mental and physical states or properties; and whether it may ever be possible for computing machines like computers or robots to be conscious, a topic studied in the field of artificial intelligence.

- following are a couple of long videos re science and consciousness -- though, just a few minutes of each should suggest how science is struggling with consciousness. I'll be back.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFSRTsLOiv0
- Watch for Bohr, Hisenberg and Einstine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g04RHQ1ysb4
 
Jabba said:
Dave,

- This is just to let you know that I'm working on your question.
- To get started, you can just google combinations of "science," "consciousness," "self," "non-physical," immaterial," and also, some different famous scientists.

- I'll start with philosophers.
- From Wikipedia,
- Western philosophers, since the time of Descartes and Locke, have struggled to comprehend the nature of consciousness and pin down its essential properties. Issues of concern in the philosophy of consciousness include whether the concept is fundamentally coherent; whether consciousness can ever be explained mechanistically; whether non-human consciousness exists and if so how can it be recognized; how consciousness relates to language; whether consciousness can be understood in a way that does not require a dualistic distinction between mental and physical states or properties; and whether it may ever be possible for computing machines like computers or robots to be conscious, a topic studied in the field of artificial intelligence.

- following are a couple of long videos re science and consciousness -- though, just a few minutes of each should suggest how science is struggling with consciousness. I'll be back.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFSRTsLOiv0
- Watch for Bohr, Hisenberg and Einstine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g04RHQ1ysb4
Click to expand...

None of that pertains to my question. I'm familiar with the hard problem of consciousness. You said some scientists refer to consciousness as "seeming non-physical". That's the statement I asked you to support.

In our hypothetical situation where we make an exact duplicate of a person, what would be the difference between the two senses of awareness?
 
Jabba said:
This is just to let you know that I'm working on your question.
Click to expand...

Why would you need to work on it? If you made your statement already knowing that scientists had identified a seemly "non-physical" source for consciousness, all you would need to do is refer to that research you had already done. But if you now have to "work on it," that suggests you made the statement first and are now frantically trying to backfill your offhand claim with whatever you can cherry pick, and are not likely to back away from it and risk losing face.

To get started, you can just google combinations of "science," "consciousness," "self," "non-physical," immaterial," and also, some different famous scientists.
Click to expand...

Don't be lazy. Your critics aren't responsible for doing the research that would ordinarily accompany claims you make. Nor would it help if they were. No amount of research on our part can discover what you had in mind when you made the claim. Only you can tell us what your sources were.

I'll start with philosophers.
Click to expand...

Yes, there is a philosophical component to your question, but the problem is that you've ignored everything that everyone has already presented to you regarding philosophy's approach to existence, consciousness, and proof. Much of that already disputes large portions of your previous claims, and your avoidance of it suggests you cannot or will not take a philosophical approach. It's disingenuous of you now to invoke philosophy under the pretense that it supports your beliefs without first reconciling it with all the nonsense you've previously spewed, such as your claim that a soul could have no characteristics.

And while philosophy is a science, it is not the same sort of science as that which presents us with the testable evidence that consciousness does not precede or outlast the physical organism. When you say "scientists" disagree with Dave, it is to your advantage to be clear what science you mean. Philosophy has a very limited potential, if any, to investigate and establish correct theories about the behavior of the natural world.

following are a couple of long videos re science and consciousness -- though, just a few minutes of each should suggest how science is struggling with consciousness.
Click to expand...

Now you're just throwing obstacles in the path of your critics as you flee. The first video is two and a half hours long. If you believe only a "few minutes" of it suffices to make your point, direct us to it. The few minutes I selected at random were the typical pseudo-scientific nonsense mixed with the typical spiritualist woo. Not the least bit scientific. And yes, every woo-peddler quotes theoretical physicists. That doesn't mean the peddler understands the physics, represents the sources accurately, or that the physicists themselves would agree with how their words have been used posthumously. Einstein (note the correct spelling) is notoriously misquoted and misattributed.

While the second is only 40 minutes long, it's just a long stream of techno- and psychobabble hogwash. Peter Russell is not a scientist. He's just one of several New Age woo peddlers you've directed us to as a substitute for the science you do not have.

And in any case, as Dave makes plain, none of this answers his question. None of it provides the promised substantiation of scientists proving awareness "seems non-physical." I don't agree that science is "struggling with consciousness," and science as interpreted by self-proclaimed spiritualists doesn't convince me otherwise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom