Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[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.

And, because I forgot to mention it: in order for something immaterial to be a possibility, you need to show how something immaterial can interact with a material brain. We know that certain brain functions are happening which means if something else is making those functions happen, it must be a material interaction.

 

[Monza]

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).

What was the number you calculated before you rounded it off?

 

[JayUtah]

If you mean something immaterial, that IS a possibility.

He doesn't, and your continued efforts to water down your original claim are laughable. You may desperately wish to prove "only immateriality," but that is importantly not the same thing as immortality. Those important differences are causing problems in your argument because you cannot properly partition your hypothesis set around the equivocation.

Yes, you've said you want to prove immateriality as a stepping stone to immortality. But you're not doing that. You're conflating the two arguments, using only the parts that are favorable to your claim and equivocating between them in your formulation.

 

[sackett]

Jabba, your position is mystical, not rational. You believe in your own immortal soul because you had an epiphany in adolescence. For a mystic, that's enough. Mystics don't need equations! Or evidence! Or reason! They fling those things down and dance on them!

If you'd just be honest with yourself, and everybody else, you could loftily declare the superiority of your position, and condescend (gently; you will be gentle, won't you) to those who cannot rise into the white light of your mystical certainty.

You could still keep posting here. For the rest of your mortal life.

 

[Slowvehicle]

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).

My Dear Mr. Savage:

This is, simply, not correct.

A number "rounded" to three decimal places is expressed with more precision than a number "rounded" to the integers place; however, if the number being "rounded" is a totally-fabricated SWAG, the precision of expression is rendered moot by the number's inherent lack of relationship to reality.

I remain, somewhat pedantically,

Yours, &ct.

 

[JayUtah]

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).

NO.

You don't understand precision at all. A number can only be "rounded off" if the underlying quantity or measure exists at a finer precision. In your case it does not because there is no underlying quantity. You have not measured or computed anything. You've made up a number, and you are grossly misusing the concept of precision to dishonestly convey to your readers the completely inappropriate impression that there is some degree of scientific rigor behind pulling numbers out of your kiester.

There isn't.

You can round to 0.000 only if you can fill the blank in 0.000_ with some digit that pertains to the real world.

You purport to be making a statistical argument. You argue that statistical reasoning deals with numerical uncertainty. Precision also deals with numerical uncertainty, and those of us who work in the scientific and technology professions require a rigorous understanding and use of precision to achieve the proper degree of reliability in the results. You do not have that understanding. It's one of many reasons why people in the know have rejected your findings.

 

[Jabba]

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.

jond,
- I do believe that our sense of self is immaterial and has an existence outside of the brain. I do believe that the brain is (in a sense) responsible for this self, just that it's the "catcher" -- it isn't the "pitcher."
- I have to go now. I'll be back.

 

[jond]

jond,
- I do believe that our sense of self is immaterial and has an existence outside of the brain. I do believe that the brain is (in a sense) responsible for this self, just that it's the "catcher" -- it isn't the "pitcher."
- I have to go now. I'll be back.

Then your problem has nothing to do with statistics. You need to demonstrate the existence of this "pitcher." And you need to show how an immaterial thing can interact with a material brain in the way we know the brain works. Otherwise your statistical games are meaningless.

 

[JayUtah]

I do believe that our sense of self is immaterial and has an existence outside of the brain.

You have stated this several times. However, you have also claimed to be able to prove it mathematically. That cannot be accomplished by encoding your predetermined, subjective beliefs into the conditionals of a statistical argument. We are interested in the claim of mathematical proof, not a recitation of your deeply-held religious beliefs.

I do believe that the brain is (in a sense) responsible for this self, just that it's the "catcher" -- it isn't the "pitcher."

You have utterly failed to formulate your proof correctly to handle such dualism, and you have behaved very rudely toward the many people who are attempting to correct you. You insist on bringing some of the circumstances, constraints, and consequents of immateriality into your treatment of H for the purpose of estimating P(E|H). This means your value for P(E|H) is not correct.

I suggest you not return until you are willing to discuss these errors.

 

[Loss Leader]

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.

I define "soul" as: this set of four bobblehead Stargate figures.

 

[HighRiser]

I define "soul" as: this set of four bobblehead Stargate figures.

That's as good a definition as any. But... Whut?

 

[Jabba]

Then your problem has nothing to do with statistics. You need to demonstrate the existence of this "pitcher." And you need to show how an immaterial thing can interact with a material brain in the way we know the brain works. Otherwise your statistical games are meaningless.

jond,
- I don't think that I do. I think that the statistics do support the belief that we don't have just one finite life. If that is true, logic requires that we must have something that transcends the physical...

 

[zooterkin]

I think that the statistics do support the belief that we don't have just one finite life.

"the statistics"? If you mean your torturing of Bayes theorem, then you are sadly mistaken.

If you mean something else, then I'm sure the class would be thrilled to see them.

 

[JayUtah]

I don't think that I do.

Hogwash; of course you do. And at times you acknowledge that you do, and offer up piles of hastily Googled nonsense to attempt to carry that particular burden of proof. Only now that it's clear to everyone but you that you can't satisfy it do you deny having it.

I think that the statistics do support the belief that we don't have just one finite life.

"The statistics," if by which you mean the pseudo-mathematical travesty you inject into all your threads, do no such thing. Your formulation of the statistical argument is based on a numerical preconception that the soul exists. As with many before you, you misuse Bayesian methods to hide what is clearly a circular argument.

Quite a number of people -- including those academics whom you chose to hear your case -- have told you what's wrong with "the statistics," but you're obviously not interested. You poured out your heart and told us of your religious epiphany and of your special emotional attachment to a belief in an immortal soul. After that why would anyone accept that you think you have a legitimate objective, analytical proof of your belief? After that why would anyone concede that your disregard of criticism is due to anything but the fervent hope that your deeply-held convictions are something more than mystical nonsense?

If that is true, logic requires that we must have something that transcends the physical...

Your logic is blatantly circular. Several people have explained in great detail how and why, but you ignore them and smugly conclude that you have either won the argument or achieved some sort of stalemate.

 

[jond]

jond,
- I don't think that I do. I think that the statistics do support the belief that we don't have just one finite life. If that is true, logic requires that we must have something that transcends the physical...

The statistics do not in anyway support that. Your H assumes the inclusion of a soul. This is the problem that you need to address. What the statistics do show is that it is much more likely that you have only a body than having both a body and a soul. However unlikely your body's existence may be, it still exists which means that the unlikeliness of a soul must be added to the unlikeliness of your body. And then you need to add the even more unlikely coupling of the soul and the body.

There is no getting around the fact that your body exists. And there is no evidence of the existence of a soul.

 

[HighRiser]

jond,
- I don't think that I do. I think that the statistics do support the belief that we don't have just one finite life. If that is true, logic requires that we must have something that transcends the physical...

Here you go again, not supporting your premise.

Just say that it's a matter of faith alone and you were mistaken about being able to mathematically demonstrate it. Because that's the situation.

 

[John Jones]

jond,
- I don't think that I do. I think that the statistics do support the belief that we don't have just one finite life.

Well lets see them, ffs. We've been waiting for 4 years.

 

[Jabba]

- I keep getting lured away from discussing the one entry/estimate that I do worry about -- i.e., whether the likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam, is an appropriate entry for P(E|H). Maybe, the appropriate entry here is the likelihood of somebody's current existence -- i.e., 1.00!
- I think this happens (I get lured away) because some questions or remarks seem at least distantly relevant to this issue -- but, trying to respond, produces more remarks and questions that are further removed...
- Hopefully, this sub-issue of "being lured away" will become more clear if I return to what seems like my original post trying to fully argue the appropriateness issue above.


#1898 from Chapter III:

1. Toontown doesn’t agree with me, but I think I, basically, agree with him…
2. Why my existence isn’t just dumb luck:
3. Whereas, very unlikely things do happen (e.g. winning the lottery), they are unlikely given (based upon) specific hypotheses, or models.
4. And -- re the lottery -- were it not for the rules, the oversight, the results and the media (including the Internet), we wouldn’t be so sure that luck was the answer.
5. If, for instance, we discovered that the winner was secretly the 2nd cousin of the person most in charge of the lottery, we’d have 2nd thoughts…
6. Which is the point -- if we have a reasonable alternative to luck, we don’t have to assume that it's luck…
7. And here, what can be counted as “reasonable” doesn’t need to be very probable at all – in fact, it can be extremely improbable.
8. That’s because the likelihood of what it is being compared to, weighed against (my existence, given OOFLam) is virtually zero.
9. IOW, we have an alternative hypothesis which is much more probable – given my existence – than is OOFLam.
10. The posterior probability of OOFLam – given me -- is much smaller than the posterior probability of ~OOFLam.
11. But, the ultimate question is, “In which case am I more likely to be here – OOFLam, or ~OOFLam?”
12. The obvious answer is “~OOFLam”…
13. And then,
14. I’m the only “thing,” “process” or “illusion” that I know exists.
15. I don’t know what I am -- but, I know I am.
16. Everything else could be my imagination
17. We humans take our personal existence (selves) totally for granted.
18. We act as if we had to exist.
19. Though scientifically speaking, that’s the very last thing we should take for granted.
20. Again, according to modern science, the likelihood of my (and your) current existence is virtually zero.
21. Yet, I’m the only thing, process or illusion that I actually know exists.
22. And, you’re the only thing, process or illusion that you actually know exists (if you’re not a robot)).
23. The rest could be our imagination.
24. So, we don’t know what we are, but we do know we are.
25. And again, we know we are – even though the scientific likelihood of each of our current existences is hardly more than zero…
26. But further, if I didn’t exist it would be as if there were nothing – there might as well be nothing.
27. And, if I never existed, there might as well never be anything.
28. And, what if you never existed?
29. And then, if you think about it, nothing really makes sense, anyway.
30. Once there is something, reductive materialism (the basic axiom of science) just doesn’t work…
31. Now, if there were nothing, that would make sense!
32. There’s something wrong here…
33. There’s something “magical” here.
34. Science seems to be missing a serious piece of the puzzle…
35. Again, there’s something magical here…

 

[The Sparrow]

Haven't you posted that like, 30 times now.
THis is the whole point of discussion, to examine and critique the premises behind your chain of beliefs. If you are not here to do that, what are you here for?

 

[The Sparrow]

That’s because the likelihood of what it is being compared to, weighed against (my existence, given OOFLam) is virtually zero."

What was the likelihood of the child my mother miscarried before I was born, being born?