Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[JayUtah]

You appear to be painting me as some immovable cynic...

Because he only wants that measly 1% fissure he needs in order to place the edge of his Bayesian wedge. If you don't agree that these anecdotes amount to at least one percent probability that a soul might exist, then you're the immovable cynic, and shame on you for being so dismissive and closed-minded. This is Jabba's take on an all-too-common gambit. Most fringe claimants deploy an argument along the lines of begging a small amount of acquiescence up front else the opponent risk being tarred as closed-minded. Jabba's "mathematical" argument is the pseudo-statistical justification for taking even the smallest shift in the burden of proof and exaggerating it to appear a near certainty. But he does need that shift, however small.

 

[jond]

It doesn't matter how obvious it seems, consciousness is not a thing, and cannot be either material or immaterial. Once again, since you do not seem to be understanding the concept:

Consciousness is NOT a thing.

It almost seems like he has never even considered this problem before, no matter how many times and how many ways he's been told this...

 

[JayUtah]

It almost seems like he has never even considered this problem before, no matter how many times and how many ways he's been told this...

Under his ~H consciousness is an entity; specifically it's the soul. His problem is his unwillingness to formulate H properly, under which consciousness is merely an emergent property. He can't seem to fathom the difference between a property and an entity.

 

[godless dave]

Some UFO sightings are unexplained. Therefore there is at least a 1% chance that those UFO sightings were caused by alien spacecraft. Now that we agree that the scientific explanation of UFOs includes alien spacecraft, I will use Bayesian statistics to demonstrate that those spacecraft are more likely to have come from outside the solar system than within it, proving that there is alien life capable of interstellar travel.

 

[jond]

Under his ~H consciousness is an entity; specifically it's the soul. His problem is his unwillingness to formulate H properly, under which consciousness is merely an emergent property. He can't seem to fathom the difference between a property and an entity.

He actually did say that even under his "H" consciousness exists as a separate entity. He refuses to even consider any other possibility. Which is why he dropped the Emergent property discussion once he realized that the property couldn't exist without the components functioning to make that property.

 

[Mojo]

He actually did say that even under his "H" consciousness exists as a separate entity.

He was saying that as soon as he tried to shoehorn his factor of seven billion over infinity into the likelihood of his existence under H.

What he is essentially saying is that his existence is impossible under the hypothesis that he has an immaterial soul.

 

[Jabba]

...
No, no, no. A thousand times no. I do not believe that science (which is a method, not a body of knowledge) has "proven that everything is physical." I believe that there is no reason to believe something that is not testable, repeatable and falsifiable...

LL,
- Wouldn't you agree that there are degrees of belief?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

LL,
- Wouldn't you agree that there are degrees of belief?

You're not talking about belief, you're talking about what is or is not true. What anybody believes is irrelevant.

 

[Belz...]

- Wouldn't you agree [snip]

STOP THAT! Stop begging people to agree with you. It's embarrassing.

 

[John Jones]

LL,
- Wouldn't you agree that there are [...]?

Any sentence of Jabba's that starts out this way sets-off my shenanigans meter.

 

[Loss Leader]

LL,
- Wouldn't you agree that there are degrees of belief?

No. Not would I agree that "belief" has anything to do with whether something is or is not true. I can "believe" that Tom is at the mall to any degree I'd like. Unless I test it falsifiably by finding him at the mall, I cannot be certain it is a fact.

Perhaps you mean that there are various standards of proof - historical, propensity, beyond reasonable doubt, scientific or mathematic/logical. There are. In certain areas where the truth value cannot be known we might settle for a lower standard of proof. These standards apply to the very messy world of human history and the very rough concept of civil justice.

But what raeason could there be to apply any standard of evidence below scientific proof (testable, repeatable experimentation) to the concept of immateriality?

We demanded testable, repeatable evidence to form our current understanding of the neurosystem. There are no falsifiable aspects that do not fit this theory. Why should we accept any less now?

I see no reason.

That is why I patiently wait for testable, repeatable evidence of non-physical perception [as a starting point to non-physical souls, as a starting point to immortal souls].

How long will you beg for an exception to the same rules governing all other sciences?

 

[Jabba]

No. Not would I agree that "belief" has anything to do with whether something is or is not true. I can "believe" that Tom is at the mall to any degree I'd like. Unless I test it falsifiably by finding him at the mall, I cannot be certain it is a fact...

LL,
- Here, we're trying to establish a prior probability -- we are not trying to establish a fact.
- As you know, there is no sort of absolute probability. We estimate probability based upon the relevant information that we have.
- For the moment, I'm trying to estimate the probability of immateriality based upon NDE anecdotes.
- To that, I intend to add the probability, pro and con, of immateriality based upon paranormal studies in general.
- I'm focusing on immateriality right now because most of the ways that OOFLam might be wrong depend upon the existence of immateriality.

 

[The Sparrow]

Ya, we know. You're trying to say a whole bunch of unproven anecdotes add up to something you can plug into a formula. We get it.

 

[godless dave]

LL,
- Here, we're trying to establish a prior probability -- we are not trying to establish a fact.
- As you know, there is no sort of absolute probability. We estimate probability based upon the relevant information that we have.
- For the moment, I'm trying to estimate the probability of immateriality based upon NDE anecdotes.
- To that, I intend to add the probability, pro and con, of immateriality based upon paranormal studies in general.
- I'm focusing on immateriality right now because most of the ways that OOFLam might be wrong depend upon the existence of immateriality.

That doesn't make sense because this discussion started with you trying to say that OOFLam included immateriality so that you could get a value of 7.5 billion over infinity for P(E|H).

If you agree that OOFLam doesn't include immaterial souls then we can move on, but without a value of 7.5 billion over infinity for P(E|H). The value for P(E|H) would be based on material selves, which means it would be identical to the likelihood of your physical body existing.

 

[MRC_Hans]

LL,
- Wouldn't you agree that there are degrees of belief?

There are degrees of belief, but there are not degrees of facts.

Hans

 

[JayUtah]

Wouldn't you agree that there are degrees of belief?

Not for this purpose. If you propose a proof and you enlist others to test it, any degree of belief in an outcome is irrelevant to whether a valid proof can be constructed. Sadly you've conflated the notions of inference and proof, and this has led you to think you can use Bayes' theorem for this purpose. Shall we remind you how many professional statisticians have told you that you cannot?

 

[jsfisher]

Jabba,

We come a long way from your original stated purpose: to prove immortality. You have struggled with definitions, meaningful estimates, Texas sharpshooter fallacies; you've even struggled with the simple notion of complementary sets. Any hopes for proving immortality have long past gone and been replaced by, well, something.

What's that something? What are you hoping to accomplish now?

 

[JayUtah]

Here, we're trying to establish a prior probability -- we are not trying to establish a fact.

No. "We" are doing no such thing. You are trying to substitute a statistical inference for a proof, and probability and anecdote for fact. And you constantly whine because your critics rightly won't let you do that and then claim a successful proof. A statistical inference is not a proof, and you are doing the inference wrong anyway.

As you know, there is no sort of absolute probability.

That doesn't mean there are no rules to reckoning probability. For example, you propose to pull both P(H) and P(E|H) out of your bunghole and pretend this means something in statistical terms. It does not.

You propose to stack the deck by saying P(E|H) is infinitesimally small, because H can't provide all the things for E without a soul -- effectively begging the question. Then it doesn't matter what half-assed rationale you try to pass off for P(H) because all you need is any non-zero number to be the straw man for your P(E|H) fiasco.

For the moment, I'm trying to estimate the probability of immateriality based upon NDE anecdotes.

Asked and answered. You have provided no observation in that regard that cannot be explained as the working of an organic brain. Further, you have provided no causal connection between these experiences and the existence of a soul or life after death.

There is no basis.

I'm focusing on immateriality right now because most of the ways that OOFLam might be wrong depend upon the existence of immateriality.

No. You're focusing on immateriality now because you explicitly admitted some time ago that you couldn't prove immortality, and you were looking for a softer target. You've been begging your critics to accept that lower standard of proof, but we're rightly having none of it. No matter how much you beg and beg and beg to be given an easier assignment, you are not going to be allowed to do it. "Immateriality" is not what you set out to prove,. so quit moving the goalposts.

 

[Hokulele]

LL,
- Here, we're trying to establish a prior probability -- we are not trying to establish a fact.

Since when are probabilities based on anything other than facts?

 

[Loss Leader]

LL,
- Here, we're trying to establish a prior probability -- we are not trying to establish a fact.
- As you know, there is no sort of absolute probability. We estimate probability based upon the relevant information that we have.

Jabba,

You seem to be getting turned around. Let's review how we got here:

You stated that you could show by probability that people are immortal (I disagree that this constitutes a proof but that's a different problem). In order to show that people could be immortal, you needed to show that immaterial souls exist for everybody. If that was impossible, then there is no way it could form the basis for a probability.

So you moved down a level to show that immaterial souls do actually exist. If they don't exist, there cannot be your immortality. You needed a definition of soul so that you could develop testable, repeatable proof that souls exist. You didn't define souls. Instead, you moved down a level to say that if non-physical perception could be proven, that would be a first step to defining and proving immaterial souls. You were unable to do that. So you moved down again to say that if NDE's or OBE's were proven, it would be a first step to proving non-physical perception which would be a first step to proving immaterial souls which would be a first step to defining and testing immaterial souls.

Remember, if NDE's and OBE's cannot be falsifiably, testably shown to be true then, ultimately, you cannot claim that immortal immateriality is a possible alternate explanation to material neurosystems.

That's where we are.

- For the moment, I'm trying to estimate the probability of immateriality based upon NDE anecdotes.

Jabba,

You have never once mentioned any desire to prove that immateriality has some "probability" based upon anecdotes. This is an entirely new claim from you.

So now you are saying that you first are estimating the probability of immaterial immortality and then discounting it by the probability that your "evidence" of immortality might be false?

So is that 1% of 1%? Are you now begging for a 0.01% chance that material neurosystems might not fully explain consciousness?

If so, I reject it. In order for there to be a chance that consciousness could be explained by immaterial souls, immateriality must exist. You have yet to show that.

In any case, the chance that something is true based on anecdotes is zero. Anecdotes are not evidence. We have reviewed this. Evidence is repeatable and testable. We might as well estimate the chance that Bob is at the mall based upon whether there are lions in Madagascar. It makes no sense. What is the chance that the earth is flat based upon the billions of anecdotes to that effect? Or the chance that demons exist based upon all of the anecdotes of exorcisms?

Anecdotes are not evidence. They do not indicate a truth value in any way. Only repeatable, falsifiable testing is evidence.

- To that, I intend to add the probability, pro and con, of immateriality based upon paranormal studies in general.

To quote The Hunt for Red October: Andrei, you've lost another submarine?

You now want to estimate the probability that paranormal studies might be true to factor into the probability that NDE anecdotes might be true to factor into the probability that immaterial souls might exist to factor into the probability that people might be immortal.

Let me short-cut through that for you. Paranormal studies are exactly as true as they are repeatable and falsifiable. Let me short-cut that again. There are absolutely no instances of any paranormal phenomena that have ever been falsifiably tested to be true. Absolutely none.

I'm focusing on immateriality right now because most of the ways that OOFLam might be wrong depend upon the existence of immateriality.

Yes. That's where we started. That's what we're doing now. We need repeatable, falsifiable evidence that non-physical perception is real.

This is exactly the same standard to which we must hold all theories if we want to create convincing arguments. So let's get to it.