Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[JayUtah]

Doesn't #9 make sure that it adds up to 1.00?

Not in a valid way. You acknowledge you can't think of all the possibilities, which is fatal to your argument on its face. But then you assume that any possibility you can't think of must be 1-(the sum of all the others) and that this is some sort of probability that has meaning. If you don't know what other possibility might be out there, you have no basis for concluding it can be only p = .2 probable.

 

[Jabba]

Which part? That the numbers have to add up to 1 in order to cover all the possibilities? Clearly they do, or you've missed some (not that adding up to 1 ensures that you haven't). That we have to "accept" that OOFlam is wrong? We don't have to accept something is true in order to assign probabilities of how it might turn out if it were (though you have clearly spent very little time in doing so, either in examining what the possibilities are or in assigning probabilities to them).

Zoo,
- This is what I said: - First, I figure that the different possible ways have to add up to 1.00 (for the moment, we're accepting that OOFlam is, in fact, wrong).- I thought that "for the moment" would indicate that this was just a hypothetical. I'll try to be more specific in the future.

 

[Loss Leader]

Zoo,
- Good question.
- I assume that you'll want a more elaborate, and more specific, explanation -- but for now (just in case), I just think that any possible variation with "some" in it is very improbable.

Please reread the above until you find the two logical errors. Hint: One of them is conflating "very improbable" with "impossible."

 

[JayUtah]

I thought that "for the moment" would indicate that this was just a hypothetical. I'll try to be more specific in the future.

What part of it is merely hypothetical in your mind? You say the numbers can change very little from your wild guesses stated thus far, so what specificity in the future would have any bearing on what you've been foisting all this time?

 

[godless dave]

Jabba, one problem is that you're presenting several possible outcomes but not the hypotheses behind those outcomes. Without details on what it means for a soul to live more than once it's hard to talk about any probability for a hypothesis involving a soul living more than once.

 

[jond]

Jabba, one problem is that you're presenting several possible outcomes but not the hypotheses behind those outcomes. Without details on what it means for a soul to live more than once it's hard to talk about any probability for a hypothesis involving a soul living more than once.

Then, of course, there is the question about whether or not souls actually exist... (Which Jabba says one day is not part of H, then the next it is, so even that can't be nailed down.)

 

[Loss Leader]

- I assume that you'll want a more elaborate, and more specific, explanation -- but for now (just in case), I just think that any possible variation with "some" in it is very improbable.

Jabba -

In order to calculate who may or may not have a soul, don't we need to know what a soul is? What does it do? How is it measured?

I, for example, had a girlfriend who was convinced that some evil people are born without souls. This isn't an uncommon belief.

Without a definition of "soul," you can't possibly decide the likelihood of various soul/non-soul admixtures.

Please provide a working, testable definition of "soul" as you're using it.

 

[godless dave]

Then, of course, there is the question about whether or not souls actually exist... (Which Jabba says one day is not part of H, then the next it is, so even that can't be nailed down.)

I think for purposes of talking about ~H, we can assume souls exist in all the hypotheses that fall under ~H.

 

[jond]

I think for purposes of talking about ~H, we can assume souls exist in all the hypotheses that fall under ~H.

I'm talking about H, and don't care about ~H until we get some sort of clarity on H. That's the stumbling block. He needs to firmly define H, specifically whether or not he's including a soul.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yeah but we all know this is all academic and we passed the point in which any reasonable definition of civility requires us to pretend otherwise some ways back.

Jabba's just waiting for someone, anyone, to agree with him on one factor of his transparent "assumptions" and try to backdoor an agreement from it.

I've been involved in a lot of Woo arguments and apologetics in my lifetime and seen the gambit of bad intellectual, argumentative, and emotional arguments but I've never seen an "debate" reach the point where someone is basically groveling and begging for someone to agree with him on any tiny detail so they can walk away thinking they won some intellectual victory.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Just checking in here. ISTM that Jabba is starting from the assumption he's immortal, making up different sets of imaginary circumstances surrounding him being immortal, pulling some conditional probabilities out of his arse, adding them up to find that they equal 1, and saying that therefore there's zero probability he's mortal. Is that about right?

Dave

 

[Mojo]

Mojo,
- I'm not being precise.

No, you aren't. You're just pretending to be precise.

 

[zooterkin]

Mojo,
- I'm not being precise. I'm just saying that the probability is less than, or equal to, .000. I'm just saying that such is very improbable.

Do you think that 3 decimal places is a lot of precision? Do you also think that .000 is greater than 0?

 

[Jabba]

I'm talking about H, and don't care about ~H until we get some sort of clarity on H. That's the stumbling block. He needs to firmly define H, specifically whether or not he's including a soul.

jond,
- To be sure of my answer, I need to know what you mean by "soul." If you mean something immaterial, that IS a possibility.

 

[Slowvehicle]

jond,
- To be sure of my answer, I need to know what you mean by "soul." If you mean something immaterial, that IS a possibility.

My Dear Mr. Savage:

is it not, in fact, you, personally, advancing and argument that depends upon a "soul"?

It is your concept--it is up to you to define it.

I remain, somewhat-less-enthusiastically,

Yours &ct.

 

[JayUtah]

To be sure of my answer, I need to know what you mean by "soul."

No you don't. He's asking you to clarify what in H or ~H does (or doesn't) include your concept of a soul. You're the only one here proposing (insinuating, really) that a soul exists, so the question and the definition are your responsibility alone. If you're proposing that an immortal soul exists, you need to define it and you need to keep it on the proper side of H|~H.

Got it?

 

[ferd burfle]

jond,
- To be sure of my answer, I need to know what you mean by "soul." If you mean something immaterial, that IS a possibility.

Jabba, your attempts to shift onto others the job of the defining the terms of your argument are are laughably transparent.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Jabba how in the name of Christ's Biscuit are you going to sit there and demand we define the thing you're trying to prove?

 

[jond]

jond,
- To be sure of my answer, I need to know what you mean by "soul." If you mean something immaterial, that IS a possibility.

In addition to what others have said (it's your model, you need to tell us what you mean!!!) I will say what I believe you are getting at:

You believe that there exists an entity that is separate from the brain that is responsible for our sense of self.

As you are well aware, the default scientific position is that no such entity exists. It is entirely undefined and provides no information which could be tested in any way. So, if your H includes such an entity, it is entirely incosistent with science, and therefore all your numbers are meaningless in any scientific way.

 

[Jabba]

Do you think that 3 decimal places is a lot of precision? Do you also think that .000 is greater than 0?

Zoo,
- The probability of .000 (having been rounded off to 3 decimal points) is more precise, and possibly significantly smaller, than a probability of 0 (having been rounded off to 1 decimal point).