Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

[Jabba]

Among the things you are misunderstanding:

1. P(E|H) is not any kind of number over infinity. The likelihood of something existing does not have anything to do with the number of potential things of the same category that could exist over all time.
   
2. H does not include souls. The likelihood of a particular soul existing given H is zero. It's not some number over infinity, it's just zero, because given H, souls don't exist
   .
3. "Only One Finite Life At Most" is not a hypothesis. It's a statement that could apply to a variety of hypotheses. "The human sense of self is solely the product of a functioning human brain" is more like a hypothesis.
   
4. It only makes sense to refer to "a hypothesis and its complement" if both hypotheses are mutually exclusive and if they are the only two possible hypotheses. That is, if one is false, the other has to be true, and vice versa.

Dave,
- I'll try again. One at a time.

1. 
   [*]P(E|H) is not any kind of number over infinity. The likelihood of something existing does not have anything to do with the number of potential things of the same category that could exist over all time...

- If a lottery had an infinite # of tickets to draw a single ticket from -- one of those tickets being yours -- what would be the likelihood of yours being drawn?

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- I'll try again. One at a time.

1. 
   [*]P(E|H) is not any kind of number over infinity. The likelihood of something existing does not have anything to do with the number of potential things of the same category that could exist over all time...

- If a lottery had an infinite # of tickets to draw a single ticket from -- one of those tickets being yours -- what would be the likelihood of yours being drawn?

That's not analogous to this situation.

At any given time, only certain people can be conceived. In the latter half of 1969, there was a finite number of people alive who were capable of conceiving children. Two of them were my parents. There was only a finite number of ways all those people alive at that time could have combined to make more people.

That doesn't even include the likelihood of them meeting, the likelihood of fertilization, the likelihood of the embryo implanting, and all the other events that had to happen for me to exist.

 

[John Jones]

Dave,
[...]
- If a lottery had an infinite # of tickets to draw a single ticket from -- one of those tickets being yours -- what would be the likelihood of yours being drawn?

If my aunt had a pair of balls, she'd be my uncle.

 

[JayUtah]

I'll try again. One at a time.

No, don't simply repeat your long-debunked argument. And no, you don't get to take your opponents "one at a time" and then excuse yourself from not understanding why your argument was debunked several times over by the people you simply decided not to listen to.

If a lottery had an infinite # of tickets...

For reasons amply explained, and thoroughly -- by your own admission -- ignored over the years by you, the scientific model of consciousness is not anything like a lottery. Specifically, in it there is no pre-existing "pool" of any kind related to the organisms that come into existence and exhibit consciousness. A lottery has a fixed-sized pool of eligible tickets that exist in enumerable form prior to the drawing. This is how we can use statistical models to reason about the likelihood of winning a lottery. Conscious existence, under the scientific model, has no such enumerable pool of "eligible" (but not yet existing) organisms. You cannot reckon the statistical likelihood of one particular organism coming into existence as if it were a lottery.

 

[theprestige]

If my aunt had a pair of balls, she'd be my uncle.

If I had a kettle of boiling water, I could have a cup of tea. If I had a cup. And some tea.

 

[Jabba]

That's not analogous to this situation.

At any given time, only certain people can be conceived. In the latter half of 1969, there was a finite number of people alive who were capable of conceiving children. Two of them were my parents. There was only a finite number of ways all those people alive at that time could have combined to make more people.

That doesn't even include the likelihood of them meeting, the likelihood of fertilization, the likelihood of the embryo implanting, and all the other events that had to happen for me to exist.

- I still think it is analogous.
- As you know, I consider each potential combination of human sperm cell and ovum (whatever the dates and places) as representing a potential different human being (What if we could freeze them all?). I don't understand why you don't.

 

[theprestige]

- I still think it is analogous.

They are not analogous under H.

- As you know, I consider each potential combination of human sperm cell and ovum (whatever the dates and places) as representing a potential different human being (What if we could freeze them all?). I don't understand why you don't.

We don't because we know you are equivocating "potential different human being", to mean "immortal soul", "sense of self", etc. whenever convenient to your argument.

Under H, there is no such thing as a "potential different human being" as you are trying to use the term. And that is why combinations of human sperm cell and ovum are not analogous to lottery drawings.

 

[JayUtah]

I still think it is analogous.

It has been explained to you how it is not. You're back to ignoring your critics and trying to foist the notion of a soul onto the scientific hypothesis for consciousness.

Surprise, surprise. You're back doing the same silly song and dance you've done for more than four years.

I consider each potential combination of human sperm cell and ovum (whatever the dates and places) as representing a potential...

That arbitrary consideration doesn't make it statistically valid. This was explained to many times in the posts you chose to ignore.

 

[godless dave]

- I still think it is analogous.
- As you know, I consider each potential combination of human sperm cell and ovum (whatever the dates and places) as representing a potential different human being (What if we could freeze them all?). I don't understand why you don't.

Because I don't believe in time travel.

Because I do believe in causality.

I could potentially have children, who could potentially have children. But my children can't exist unless I existed first. My grandchildren can't exist unless my children exist. The existence of a particular human depends on the existence of that humans parents, and their existence depends on the existence of their parents. My grandchildren aren't potential human beings right now because their potential parents don't exist.

When we calculate the odds for winning a raffle or lottery, we don't have to worry about raffles or lotteries that existed in the past because they have no bearing on the odds of winning this one, quite unlike the case for the existence of a particular human being.

 

[Loss Leader]

Dave,
- I'll try again. One at a time.

1. 
   [*]P(E|H) is not any kind of number over infinity. The likelihood of something existing does not have anything to do with the number of potential things of the same category that could exist over all time...

- If a lottery had an infinite # of tickets to draw a single ticket from -- one of those tickets being yours -- what would be the likelihood of yours being drawn?

So, you're just right back to the very same thing. I'm unsurprised.

Let me put it this way: A lottery of any sort cannot have an infinite number of tickets. Who would print them? It would take an infinite amount of time and an infinite supply of ink. It would require infinite computer processing power and infinite money to buy them. So this is not an analogy to anything.

Infinity is not a number.

The correct analogy is this: There is a large, large number of lottery tickets. Yours is picked. They hand you $20 million and a 1099 form. You put it in your bank, invest it, take the family on a cruise, create education trusts for your grandchildren, give some to the local food pantry ... and then you insist that it is impossible for you to have won because the odds were so low.

Congratulations, Jabba, you beat the odds. That doesn't make you special.

 

[The Norseman]

If my aunt had a pair of balls, she'd be my uncle.

I think it actually goes like, "if my aunt had a pair of balls, the likelihood of her having an immortal soul is crammed into the provable formula of 1 + 1 = squid."

I shall await your prompt response.

The likelihood of my returning to respond is wholly dependent upon my vacuous proclivities of the day.

 

[Jabba]

They are not analogous under H.


We don't because we know you are equivocating "potential different human being", to mean "immortal soul", "sense of self", etc. whenever convenient to your argument.

Under H, there is no such thing as a "potential different human being" as you are trying to use the term. And that is why combinations of human sperm cell and ovum are not analogous to lottery drawings.

- So, I need to back further up...
- Somehow, we need to agree upon the thing/process to which I'm referring.
- According to science, there is a particular conscious thing/process that first came into existence when my physical body evolved to a certain complexity. This thing/process never existed before, will cease to exist when my body dies, and will never exist again. This is the "self" to which I'm referring.
- I contend that science is wrong about the very temporary nature of this thing/process.

 

[Hokulele]

- As you know, I consider each potential combination of human sperm cell and ovum (whatever the dates and places) as representing a potential different human being (What if we could freeze them all?). I don't understand why you don't.

What about identical twins? Do you believe that identical twins are actually one human being?

Edit: This problem is highlighted further with your last post. In your opinion, at what point does this "thing/process" begin? Is it at conception? Birth? Some point in between?

And no, "according to science", there is no particular conscious thing/process. That is entirely your invention.

 

[jond]

- So, I need to back further up...
- Somehow, we need to agree upon the thing/process to which I'm referring.
- According to science, there is a particular conscious thing/process that first came into existence when my physical body evolved to a certain complexity. This thing/process never existed before, will cease to exist when my body dies, and will never exist again. This is the "self" to which I'm referring.
- I contend that science is wrong about the very temporary nature of this thing/process.

The first thing you need to understand that "thing" and "process" are different. One (thing) is an entity, the other (process) an action. According to science the self is a process, that only happens while the brain is functioning. It is not a thing, which might exist separately from the brain.

We all understand that you contend that science is wrong about that, but in order to show that science is wrong, you're going to need to demonstrate the existence of this thing you claim exists separately from the brain. It's not a question of statistics.

 

[godless dave]

- So, I need to back further up...
- Somehow, we need to agree upon the thing/process to which I'm referring.
- According to science, there is a particular conscious thing/process that first came into existence when my physical body evolved to a certain complexity. This thing/process never existed before, will cease to exist when my body dies, and will never exist again. This is the "self" to which I'm referring.
- I contend that science is wrong about the very temporary nature of this thing/process.

None of that explains why the number of potential selves over all time is at all relevant to the likelihood of a particular one of those selves existing.

 

[Loss Leader]

- So, I need to back further up...
- Somehow, we need to agree upon the thing/process to which I'm referring.
- According to science, there is a particular conscious thing/process that first came into existence when my physical body evolved to a certain complexity. This thing/process never existed before, will cease to exist when my body dies, and will never exist again. This is the "self" to which I'm referring.
- I contend that science is wrong about the very temporary nature of this thing/process.

A process is not a thing. The two words are not interchangeable.

Your statement about what "science" says is wrong. Our current science says that there is no such thing as a self, just a complex process that creates within the healthy organism an illusion of continuity.

If the consciousness is a thing, then describe your consciousness. What aspects have been the same since birth? What aspects will you carry on to your next life?

You have never answered this question, Jabba - never in four years. If your consciousness is an unchanging thing, define its characteristics.

And don't think for a moment that anyone is fooled as you cast about wildly for some sort of reset. This has all been done a hundred times. If you would go back and read your own thread, you would: a) see that; and b) perhaps stop being so disrespectful as to pretend you didn't see that.

 

[Mojo]

- I still think it is analogous.

And you are still wrong, because souls don't exist in he model you're trying to disprove.

- As you know, I consider each potential combination of human sperm cell and ovum (whatever the dates and places) as representing a potential different human being (What if we could freeze them all?). I don't understand why you don't.

The human genome is of finite size, so there are only a finite number of combinations.

And in any case, your particular existence requires your particular genome to exist under the hypothesis you favour, just as much as it does under the hypothesis you oppose. So not only does the human genome not get you the factor of infinity your 'proof' requires, but even if it did it would apply just as much to your hypothesis. It's irrelevant.

 

[JayUtah]

Somehow, we need to agree upon the thing/process to which I'm referring.

No. First you need to stop trying to equivocate between "thing" and "process." You believe in a soul that is a thing. The scientific hypothesis for consciousness is that it is a process -- that is, the sense of consciousness is one result of a process. The difference is that a thing may be enumerable but a process is not. You don't get to sneak your soul into the scientific hypothesis through the back door.

Second you need to understand that you don't get to dictate what the scientific hypothesis says. One of the many, many things you have demonstrated you don't understand about your attempted model is that when reckoning P(E|H) is that you must accept H as it is formulated, not as you think or wish it might be.

According to science, there is a particular conscious thing/process that first came into existence when my physical body evolved to a certain complexity.

Third, you need to stop trying to tell us what the scientific hypothesis is. We will tell you what it is.

Consciousness under the scientific model is not "particular." It is not a thing. It is not enumerable any more than "going 60 mph" is enumerable. When the organism reaches a certain degree of maturity it begins to undergo a process. One result of that process is that the organism has a sense of consciousness. Organisms are enumerable. A process is not.

This thing/process never existed before, will cease to exist when my body dies, and will never exist again. This is the "self" to which I'm referring.

The "self" that you're referring to has absolutely no basis in the scientific hypothesis. As we explained to you for months, you're just making all this up and trying to pin it on the scientific hypothesis.

I contend that science is wrong about the very temporary nature of this thing/process.

You can "contend" all you want; without evidence it means nothing but sheer denial. You cannot provide any evidence of science's wrongness. You can't even represent the scientific hypothesis correctly. You're just redeploying the same straw man you have for years, ignoring all the replies, and shoving Befuddled Old Man out onstage to make excuses for you when you get caught.

 

[Mojo]

Jabba, if your argument is valid, then because the likelihood of your existence under the hypothesis in which you have an independently existing soul which must associate with your body is infinitely less than the likelihood of your existence under the hypothesis that your consciousness is produced by your brain, then you have disproved immortality.

 

[theprestige]

- So, I need to back further up...

Not really, no.

- Somehow, we need to agree upon the thing/process to which I'm referring.

We do agree: Under the scientific model H, it's a process. Under the Jabba model H', it's a thing. We have never disagreed about this. You just keep confusing the two.

- According to science, there is a particular conscious thing/process that first came into existence when my physical body evolved to a certain complexity. This thing/process never existed before, will cease to exist when my body dies, and will never exist again. This is the "self" to which I'm referring.

Nope. According to science, there is a particular conscious process. According to you, there is a particular conscious thing. See our points of agreement, above. The "self" you're referring to is a thing. It stands in contrast to the "self" science refers to, which is a process.

- I contend that science is wrong about the very temporary nature of this thing/process.

That is indeed what you contend. Where you run into difficulty is when you try to prove science wrong by replacing H with H'. That can't work.