Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Mycroft,
- You agree with me?
Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion
- Thread starter Dancing David
- Start date
- Status
- You agree with me?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
It's not a matter of getting your point across. It's a matter of proving your point correct. Your argument is not correct, and all the people you seem to think don't understand it are really adeptly and correctly telling you why it's wrong. Stop trying to convince them. Stop begging them to agree with you. Listen to them.
Doesn't matter for H. Consciousness under H is an ongoing process. There's nothing magical about me now versus ten minutes ago or 10 years from now.
Being conscious under H isn't anything like a lottery. There is no existing pool of potential winners from which certain separately-existing "selves" are chosen to inhabit bodies. If you have any intent of moving this discussion from Square One you must dsabuse yourself of this error. H doesn't work like that, and P(E|H) isn't properly computed like a lottery.
Belz...
Fiend God
Life isn't a lottery. You've not explained why you think it is so. Your entire reasoning is circular.
Belz...
Fiend God
And even if there was, that wouldn't be evidence for immortality or even souls.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Mojo
Mostly harmless
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
Jabba,
I have tried to explain many times:
- Your "potential selves" are not losers, they are non-players.
- It is not a lottery; every person born gets a self.
- It does not matter what self I got; whichever I get will feel like me, because "me" is the product of that self, because it is a process in my brain.
In other words, if you must see it as a lottery, it has 7 billion players and 7 billion "winners", in that they all acquired a self/consciousness.
Please read and try to understand. You may believe that things are otherwise, but my explanation is logical and makes sense, and it is backed by observable fact.
- Your formula for 'H' is invalid unless you have evidence for your interpretation of things.
- You can't use your formula as evidence for itself.
Hans
Belz...
Fiend God
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
Jabba,
Your sense of self is not strictly determined by the combined DNA of one sperm and one ovum. The sense of self is an emergent property of a functioning brain. While the brain may be substantially determined by the DNA pairing at conception, the sense of self is a continually evolving result of brain chemistry, memory, nutrition, physical sensations, etc., etc.
You cannot count possible senses of self. You cannot refer to your own sense of self as if it were a constant unique to you.
And please stop equivocating existence with sense of self.
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
Remember, Jabba is talking about his current existence.
So in my case it's the same likelihood as me having won the lottery 46 years ago if there was one entry, since currently I have already existed for 46 years. I already exist so the only thing that effects the likelihood of my current existence is whether I died a second ago. I don't know the odds of that happening but a life insurance company probably has the necessary data.
Belz...
Fiend God
And what are the odds that he ever will answer it?
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Mojo,
- I'll try this again.
- So far, I do believe in the non-physical/immaterial -- and therefor, souls.
- But then, I'm not sure of that.
- I just think that the best evidence for the non-physical/immaterial is my own current existence...
- I think that the Bayesian likelihood of my current existence -- given the hypothesis (H) that there is nothing immaterial -- is virtually zero.
- That being the case, since I do exist, the posterior probability that H is correct is also virtually zero.
- I understand that such logic can sound screwy -- for at least two different (difficult to express) reasons...
- One is the Texas Sharp Shooter reason. For that reason, my beginning response is that I think that I am a valid target; I think that we are all valid targets.
- I've provided my reasons for thinking that a few different times -- and given time, I'll try to dig them up and say them better.
- As to the at least second reason for my explanation sounding screwy, I'm having trouble digging it up. Maybe you can dig it up for me. If so, I'll try to address it (I think, again).
- I could spend a lot more time digging right now, and I'm sure I'd have more to say, but I doubt that would be an effective use of my time.
Last edited:
jond
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 3,440
And yet you acknowledge that however unlikely your Existence is under H, it is far less likely that you exist and have a soul. So, statistically, you are wrong.
Belz...
Fiend God
No.
We're not asking you to repeat your claim. We're asking you to demonstrate it.
So far you're been repeating it over and over. We're well aware of what your claim is.
Jabba, can you fill in the blanks to try to pin down your thinking? Feel free to add any more lines as you feel appropriate to compare your idea of ~H with H, where H is materialism.
Under H
|
Under Jabba's ~H
Consciousness is an emergent property of a functioning brain | Consciousness is ???
The self is a process | ???
The self is always changing | ???
'Who' you are us determined by your DNA plus the sum of all experiences | 'Who' you are is determined by ???
We have no existence prior to conception | We are immortal in the sense that ???
We have no existence post-death | We are immortal in the sense that ???
The odds of each of our current existences is 1 | The odds of each of our current existences is ???
Consciousness is an emergent property of a functioning brain | Consciousness is ???
The self is a process | ???
The self is always changing | ???
'Who' you are us determined by your DNA plus the sum of all experiences | 'Who' you are is determined by ???
We have no existence prior to conception | We are immortal in the sense that ???
We have no existence post-death | We are immortal in the sense that ???
The odds of each of our current existences is 1 | The odds of each of our current existences is ???
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,501
If you believe human consciousness is a biological process much like growing a tomato, then yes.
Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,501
I disagree that the odds of any particular person coming into existence has any bearing on the mortality of his consciousness, and is approximately the same odds as any particular tomato plant coming into existence. Tomato plants are not immortal either.
Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
Belz...
Fiend God
Says you. But what are the odds that a tomato plant actually produces a particular tomato's current state? There must be billions of them, right? Billions/infinity = immortal.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
That's obvious. However, the P(E|H) term in your module cannot allow that belief. You must reckon P(E|H) as if H (materialism) were true, and there are no souls in H. You keep trying to sneak soul-esque concepts into your formulation for H, ostensibly only so you can show that materialism can't explain them. That's why your model doesn't work. You've polluted your H with stuff from ~H.
That's okay; for now it can stand as a hypothesis. But when it comes to reckoning P(E|H) you're assuming various concepts about souls must be true, and that materialism is broken because it can't explain them. You can't be purely hypothetical when it favors you and then insist that someone else's failure to substantiate your hypothesis is somehow their failure. When your critics accuse you of begging the question, this is what they're talking about.
"Just think" is not an argument at all, much less an objective one. Yesterday, when you quoted me as characterizing your argument as "navel-gazing," this is what I refer to. You can think or feel anything you want, but when you propose to formulate P(E|H) and P(E|K), K ∈ ~H, you need facts. Under H, the facts are that your current existence is nothing more than that -- paltry existence as science views the concept, which includes the emergent property of the sense of self as no more exotic a property than the color of the eyes, hair, or skin. There is no magical value to the sense of self under H that lets you treat it differently than any other emergent property.
You either "think" this informally, or you can show it via Bayes. You can't have it both ways. As mentioned in the previous segment, your thoughts and feelings are utterly irrelevant to the proof of something. And they are even more irrelevant to H. Set them aside. You can't use them to trump up some magical significance for the sense of self under H.
Your formulation of a Bayesian inference is wrong. There is simply no other way to say it. You have admitted you don't understand the formula, and this ignorance shows in your misuse of it. A number of people have explained in very detailed and patient terms, as well as others in simpler, more accessible terms, exactly what errors you are committing. It would behoove you to stop making excuses for not listening to them, and attempt to address their points.
As it stands, your proof fails for a number of individually fatal reasons.
It's an insult when you adopt this tone. The problem is that your logic is easily seen to be wrong. Don't put on airs, that you're teaching people something only you have had the capacity properly to understand. Don't play for some imaginary gap in your critics' understanding and insinuate that your argument somehow relies on some correct syllogism that everyone else is missing or which is counterintuitive.
Your logic is simply wrong and your critics are not ignorant.
You proffer your 7 billion number as an attempt to escape the numerical significance of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, but your navel-gazing justification for your feeling of significance keeps it firmly in place. You are not special. And has been pointed out numerous times, your "beginning" response (which ironically has only that and never a middle or end) boils down to declaring a belief that the Texas sharpshooter fallacy is not a fallacy.
No, don't just restart the discussion. It's rude. You have already attempted to escape the Texas sharpshooter fallacy several times the same way, and you have failed each time. You may be unwilling to acknowledge that failure, but that doesn't make it go away, nor does it justify you trying yet another time. As I and several others have urged you, please go back to where you had this discussion before and pick up where we left off.
No. Your critics are already inhumanly patient with your constant reiterations. Do not saddle them with your obligation to remember what you claimed and how they responded.
What would be an effective use of your time is if you stopped trying to go over the same argument for literally years, stopped making up lame excuses to avoid dealing with your critics, and actually participated in the debate.
- Status