• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Proof of Immortality, the IV league

Status
Not open for further replies.
wea said:
I didn't know. What does it mean?
Click to expand...

Probabilities are pictures of uncertainty. We picture them informally as a percentage of belief that a certain proposition reflects fact. Slightly less informally we picture them as a number between 0 and 1 (just a percentage in proper fractional or decimal form) to which we can apply an algebra and a calculus that allows us to express complex relationships among uncertain values. In the full vista of that realm, the pictures of uncertainty are functions of one or more variables and methods of convolving those functions to produce, in the end, hopefully meaningful advice for how to behave in the face of the uncertainty they represent. We cannot resolve the uncertainty, but we can combine them in ways that let us reason about whether more or less uncertainty results from the combination.

Jabba is correct in trying to tell us that probability is inherently uncertain. The responses that tell him probability is necessarily still based on fact or involve fact are correct. But the dance that's being performed here is not as coordinated as all that.

The Bayes approach to probability is different in that it relaxes the rigor of measurement or simulation that would ordinarily build up the picture of some given uncertainty. Such as in the classic example of Bayesian search, we are allowed to quantify our expertise in a more nebulous fashion in selecting places we believe are most likely to to produce results, and then use actual search results to refine that expert opinion for what to do next. (Or, conversely, use the expertise to evaluate the strength of the search results.) But expertise in this example is still fact -- just not very articulable or otherwise quantifiable fact.

Bayesian inference may be used to reason in the face of uncommon uncertainty, but Jabba is doing it wrong. His approach is entirely uncertain. There are far too many degrees of freedom in the approach he's taken, and he knows it. Which is why he is so desperately trying to beg agreement on one point or another so that he doesn't have to justify the numbers he's simply pulling out of thin air. He wants to constrain his unbridled problem by tricking his opponents into not contesting the constraints he's simply applied arbitrarily.

But the most egregious failure on Jabba's part, in my opinion, is not that he is simply making up numbers. It is that he is proffering an inference as if it were a proof. Jabba is telling us that probability is not absolute as a way of excusing that he has nothing absolute on his side, and that he therefore needs to resort to a handwaving probabilistic argument rather than a factual one, not because it's appropriate but because that's all that's available to him.
 
Loss Leader said:
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.





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 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.





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.
Click to expand...
LL,

- Here's how I currently understand our discussion.

- I began this thread claiming that I could virtually prove our immortality through Bayesian statistics.
- I later revised my claim to something more direct -- that I can virtually prove that the OOFLam hypothesis (that we each have Only One Finite Life at most) is wrong.
- The Bayesian formula I proposed using includes prior probabilities for OOFLam and its complement. I claimed that the prior probability of OOFLam was no more than 99%, and consequently that the prior probability of its complement is at least 1%.

- Nobody here would accept my estimate -- believing instead that the prior probability of OOFLam was more than 99%.
- But maybe, this is where I'm missing your point. Maybe, your point is that attaching any number at this stage of understanding is meaningless (something like that)...
- Am I getting warm?
 
Jabba said:
- I began this thread claiming that I could virtually prove our immortality through Bayesian statistics.
- I later revised my claim to something more direct -- that I can virtually prove that the OOFLam hypothesis (that we each have Only One Finite Life at most) is wrong.
- The Bayesian formula I proposed using includes prior probabilities for OOFLam and its complement. I claimed that the prior probability of OOFLam was no more than 99%, and consequently that the prior probability of its complement is at least 1%.

- Nobody here would accept my estimate -- believing instead that the prior probability of OOFLam was more than 99%.
- But maybe, this is where I'm missing your point. Maybe, your point is that attaching any number at this stage of understanding is meaningless (something like that)...
- Am I getting warm?
Click to expand...


Seriously, Jabba? My last post addressed this head-on.

If you want to establish a probability that the neurosystem does not fully explain consciousness, you have to show that some other explanation is at least possible. If something is impossible, it cannot be an alternate explanation.

You, not anyone else, claimed that the existence of the immaterial soul was enough to show that some other explanation besides material nervous systems possibly explained consciousness.

Nobody here ever asked that whatever you call OOFLAM have a probability of be less than 1%. Nearly everyone asked that you show that some other explanation at least be possible before giving it any probability.

So here we sit again, waiting for you to show that immateriality exists and so at least possibly provides a path to immortality. Failing that, I personally have allowed you to merely show that non-physical perception exists as evidence of immaterial souls as evidence of a possibility of immortality (though many disagree with allowing that level of attenuation).

Your job is to now prove with repeatable, falsifiable evidence that non-physical perception exists. Yet you are now spending your posts begging for some sliver of probability, begging for some smaller sliver of probability of another probability, calling me intransigent, attempting to conflate other portions of your argument with this small piece and, failing all of that, just doing it all again.

But the step we are on is the one where you show by repeatable, falsifiable testing that non-physical perception exists. Let's not leave this step until we conclude it.
 
LL,
- Right now, my immediate aim is not to convince you that my position is correct -- my immediate aim is for you and I to simply agree upon what our positions are.
 
Jabba said:
- Here's how I currently understand our discussion.

- I began this thread claiming that I could virtually prove our immortality through Bayesian statistics.
Click to expand...


You couldn't.

- I later revised my claim to something more direct -- that I can virtually prove that the OOFLam hypothesis (that we each have Only One Finite Life at most) is wrong.
Click to expand...


You can't.

- The Bayesian formula I proposed using includes prior probabilities for OOFLam and its complement.
Click to expand...


But it assumes that "OOFLam" includes immaterial souls, so it is wrong.

I claimed that the prior probability of OOFLam was no more than 99%, and consequently that the prior probability of its complement is at least 1%.

- Nobody here would accept my estimate -- believing instead that the prior probability of OOFLam was more than 99%.
Click to expand...


Nope. Nobody here accepts your estimates because you are unable to provide any justification for them, and are clearly just making them up to achieve your desired result.

- But maybe, this is where I'm missing your point. Maybe, your point is that attaching any number at this stage of understanding is meaningless (something like that)...
- Am I getting warm?
Click to expand...


Yes, you clearly lack the understanding (of statistics, of logic, and of the model of reality you are attacking) necessary to produce anything meaningful here.
 
Last edited:
Loss Leader said:
Seriously, Jabba? My last post addressed this head-on.

If you want to establish a probability that the neurosystem does not fully explain consciousness, you have to show that some other explanation is at least possible. If something is impossible, it cannot be an alternate explanation...
Click to expand...
LL,
- Let's try soundbites.

- I am trying to show that some other explanation besides the neurosystem is at least possible.

- More specifically, I'm trying to show that some of our perceptions cannot be explained by the physical neurosystem alone -- and consequently, there has to be something more in the explanation.
 
It's like a kid who is trying to convince his parents to get a new video game for him. Desperately throw wildly divergent questions and scenarios at them, hoping somehow one will stick.

We've seen all of them now, they are just repeating.
 
Jabba said:
- Let's try soundbites.
Click to expand...


How can appealing to style over substance possibly advance your case?

- I am trying to show that some other explanation besides the neurosystem is at least possible.

- More specifically, I'm trying to show that some of our perceptions cannot be explained by the physical neurosystem alone -- and consequently, there has to be something more in the explanation.
Click to expand...


And ten seconds searching the forum shows that you have been trying, and failing, to do this for at least two years and nine months.
 
Last edited:
LL,
- Currently, I'm claiming that if the anecdotes are true, there has to be something immaterial going on -- something not explained by the physical neurosystem alone.
- Consequently, I need to provide evidence that at least some of the anecdotes are true.
 
Jabba said:
- Currently, I'm claiming that if the anecdotes are true, there has to be something immaterial going on -- something not explained by the physical neurosystem alone.
- Consequently, I need to provide evidence that at least some of the anecdotes are true.
Click to expand...


You have conspicuously failed to do this.
 
Jabba said:
LL,
- Let's try soundbites.

- I am trying to show that some other explanation besides the neurosystem is at least possible.

- More specifically, I'm trying to show that some of our perceptions cannot be explained by the physical neurosystem alone -- and consequently, there has to be something more in the explanation.
Click to expand...

Jabba, this is s bizzare post, especially following my last couple. I have explained in detail that I understood your ultimate aim. I have explained in excruciating detail that I understood your current aim. In fact, the contours of your current step were defined by our conversation.

I agree, you must show that noon-physical perception is true. Unless and until you do, you cannot argue that souls are even possible and cannot then speculate as to the odds of immortality being a better explanation than mortal neurosystems.

Why are we repeating this? As per your own words, please show that some preceptor cannot be explained by physical neurosystems. Make sure your evidence is testable, falsifiable and repeatable. Otherwise you will not have shown anything.
 
Jabba said:
LL,
- Currently, I'm claiming that if the anecdotes are true, there has to be something immaterial going on -- something not explained by the physical neurosystem alone.
- Consequently, I need to provide evidence that at least some of the anecdotes are true.
Click to expand...

Just one would be a start. How about concentrating on that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom