Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[Garrette]

I think that's one of the things that compromises his argument.

Agreed except it's the starting point. Every other flaw comes into play only if this one is ignored for the sake of argument.

 

[JayUtah]

Agreed except it's the starting point. Every other flaw comes into play only if this one is ignored for the sake of argument.

Many of us have identified a half-dozen or so logical flaws in Jabba's argument, any one of which is individually fatal. So you're not wrong. But I doubt there's any natural sequence of challenging it, so we challenge them in different orders or all at once, or we pick one and say "fix it or no-go."

And it largely doesn't matter because regardless of how many times this list is present to Jabba, he simply ignores it and marches on as if nothing happened.

 

[Garrette]

Many of us have identified a half-dozen or so logical flaws in Jabba's argument, any one of which is individually fatal. So you're not wrong. But I doubt there's any natural sequence of challenging it, so we challenge them in different orders or all at once, or we pick one and say "fix it or no-go."

And it largely doesn't matter because regardless of how many times this list is present to Jabba, he simply ignores it and marches on as if nothing happened.

Understood, and I'm not trying to be as argumentative as it seems; I started out just pointing out why Jabba isn't swayed by the analogies. He should be swayed by them -- and in fact has admitted on at least one occasion that he is swayed, though he abandoned that admission soon after -- but the reason he doesn't is his assumption that awareness is the property that makes him different from Mt. Ranier.

It's the same issue Toontown had.

 

[JayUtah]

What about 2 lives as most? 9?

Or, in the case of Jabba's softened case of "immateriality," we all have immaterial souls that come into and out of existence at exactly the same time as the physical organism?

Jabba's argument is a mess from head to toe and there's little he seems to want to do about it.

'Current' begs the question. If you have to qualify your existence with the term 'current' you are already smuggling in the assumption there are 'previous' or 'future' existences.

It's not clear he intends "current" to have that connotation, but Jabba does love to sneak concepts past his critics in like fashion. The incontestable problem with "current" in his argument is that he predicates his argument on the target being the "current" bullet hole, in the fashion of the Texas sharpshooter. His wall of quoted screed above is just a laborious explanation for why that's his favorite bullet hole and why we really should feel okay drawing the target around it after the fact.

 

[Belz...]

What about 2 lives as most?

A practice run, and the real thing. Imagine how harsh the real thing must be.

 

[JayUtah]

Understood, and I'm not trying to be as argumentative as it seems...

And neither am I, nor I think is anyone else. It's a tempest in teapot: how many of Jabba's fallacies can dance on the head of a pin.

I started out just pointing out why Jabba isn't swayed by the analogies.

And I think you're right. He simply begs the question that some imaginary property magically separates his case from the analogy. Or he counter-proposes his own analogy that agrees with his argument but sidesteps the issue the analogy was meant to raise.

...though he abandoned that admission soon after --

Jabba is infamous for conceding a point and then conveniently forgetting he did so.

but the reason he doesn't is his assumption that awareness is the property that makes him different from Mt. Ranier.

How does he know Mt Ranier isn't aware?

But yes, seriously, it begs the question. And a begged question is the on-ramp to a circular argument. And the circularity has been pointed out to him more times than any of us can count. In all fairness, one's own circular reasoning is often hard to recognize. But he's had four years of people showing him patiently how it's circular. At this point it's just fingers-in-ears denial.

 

[abaddon]

This thread needs a glossary page. What the hell is OOFLam, and what meanings are being ascribed to E, ~E, H and ~H?

(In a sane discourse one would be able to infer ~E and ~H from E and H, but I'm not making that assumption yet.)

Dave

All of those are continously variable in the jabbaverse. Whatever they mean today may or may not be the same as what jabbaverse claimed they meant yesterday, nor whatever tomorrow's claim might be. A glossary would thus be rendered useless.

Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk

 

[jond]

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.

Jabba, I'm still waiting...

 

[Mojo]

It's not clear he intends "current" to have that connotation, but Jabba does love to sneak concepts past his critics in like fashion. The incontestable problem with "current" in his argument is that he predicates his argument on the target being the "current" bullet hole, in the fashion of the Texas sharpshooter. His wall of quoted screed above is just a laborious explanation for why that's his favorite bullet hole and why we really should feel okay drawing the target around it after the fact.

Didn't he, somewhere in part III, try to argue that it is highly improbable that it is currently "now", or did I imagine it?

 

[JayUtah]

Didn't he, somewhere in part III, try to argue that it is highly improbable that it is currently "now", or did I imagine it?

Something like that. Along with all the other circular reasons for the improbability of his own existence I believe he has lumped together the notion that for him to exist now, at this time, in the history of the universe, as opposed to some other time, is highly improbable.

 

[MRC_Hans]

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...

It must be clear to even the most obtuse reader that you think that. Unfortunately, it is equally clear that, on this fourth iteration of the thread, you have still failed to support that thought with any kind of evidence.

Hans

 

[JayUtah]

...you have still failed to support that thought with any kind of evidence.

Or, for that matter, with valid statistics.

Normally we would want a certain kind of evidence in order to conclude that some form of immortality exists. While we would apply statistical controls to that evidence, it is a different matter for the argument to be entirely statistical -- based solely on the observation that the claimant exists and a bunch of purported probabilities he has chosen based on preconceived beliefs. We have at other times and places indulged Jabba's desire to substitute pure statistical tom-foolery for a more evidence-based arguments in favor of his various claims. But he has been universally unsuccessful in all those circumstances at properly modeling the problem, and universally disinterested in entertaining attempts at correction.

 

[Belz...]

And neither am I, nor I think is anyone else. It's a tempest in teapot: how many of Jabba's fallacies can dance on the head of a pin.

Well, if I pull numbers out of my ass I'm sure I can figure out an equation for that.

 

[MetalPig]

- OOFLam (H) stands for what I call the scientific hypothesis that we each have Only One Finite Life at most; "

That seems to suggest that 'we' includes people that have less than one finite life.

What are those?

 

[zooterkin]

That seems to suggest that 'we' includes people that have less than one finite life.

What are those?

Clearly, the souls that don't get to attach to a material body and which therefore don't have a life.

 

[Dave Rogers]

- I think that this is really the Texas Sharpshooter issue, and I need to show that I qualify as a legitimate 'target.' Would you agree with my assertion that such is what I need to show?

I thought about this one, and: No. Even if you could disprove that the Texas Sharpshooter is a fallacy, you'd still be left with a very low probability that also formed the upper limit on the probability that you have an immortal soul, as this is a subset of the probability of you existing at all.

The task you've actually set yourself, phrased in terms of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, is to demonstrate that the only satisfactory resolution of the fallacy is for the bullet holes in the side of the barn to have existed for all eternity. Since that contradicts the defined parameters of the scenario, good luck with that.

Dave

 

[Mojo]

I just used this random number generator to generate an integer between -1,000,000,000 and 1,000,000,000. It came up with 539,103,280. What is the probability that 539,103,280 has an immortal soul?

Someone using Jabba's argument would claim that, because under the hypothesis that the number generator generates a random integer this result is extremely unlikely, it is very unlikely that the hypothesis that the generator produces a random integer is correct.

i.e by Jabba's argument, because the generator has produced an integer between -1,000,000,000 and 1,000,000,000, then the hypothesis that it produces a random integer between -1,000,000,000 and 1,000,000,000 is wrong.

Or, in more general terms, a specific result that is consistent with a hypothesis is evidence that the hypothesis is incorrect.

 

[Jabba]

[Slightly revised]
- So anyway, for now, I'll be doing my best to support my belief that the current existence of my self makes for a legitimate target in the Bayes formula I’m using.
- You guys don't think much of my attempts so far. I'll try to add to, and refine, them.
- Neither do you guys think much of me telling you what I'm going to try to do -- but for me, it seems helpful.

- Anyway, one thought is that there are "shades" of target-ness.
- For instance, the controller of the lottery would be a much more obvious target as lottery winner than would be one of his 5th cousins.
- And, whereas the likelihood of my current existence may not be obviously appropriate for P(E|H), there are some red flags waving (or maybe, orange lights flashing). For instance:
- The current existence of my "self," whether thing, process or illusion is all that I know for sure. If it's an illusion, it's a real illusion -- everything else could be my imagination. I don't know what I am -- but, I know I am.
- Also, it's my only camera/observer -- and, according to OOFLam, it never existed before, it will never exist again and it never had to exist in the first place. And then, if it didn’t exist, there might as well be nothing; and if it never existed, there might as well have never been anything. Something’s wrong here; and, my current existence seems really important. Like a General for a drone strike.
- I’ll be back.

 

[Jabba]

I thought about this one, and: No. Even if you could disprove that the Texas Sharpshooter is a fallacy, you'd still be left with a very low probability that also formed the upper limit on the probability that you have an immortal soul, as this is a subset of the probability of you existing at all.

The task you've actually set yourself, phrased in terms of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, is to demonstrate that the only satisfactory resolution of the fallacy is for the bullet holes in the side of the barn to have existed for all eternity. Since that contradicts the defined parameters of the scenario, good luck with that.

Dave

Dave,
- I'm not quite sure what you're saying, but my best guess so far is that I have other numerical entries that need support. OK?

 

[Mojo]

- Anyway, one thought is that there are "shades" of target-ness.
- For instance, the controller of the lottery would be a much more obvious target as lottery winner than would be one of his 5th cousins.

Have you even read the preceding posts?

You have not demonstrated that there is any "controller" of the universe, let alone that you are that controller, or that controller's 5th cousin. This is just more irrelevance.

You are not special in any way other than that you exist. This does not make you a target wrt existence.