Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
JayUtah said:
Wouldn't it be more consistent with the data if I ended my posts with a puppy?
Click to expand...

Dammit, man, where's your scientific spirit? We have to test the limits of what's acceptable. Smiling smileys are the simplest form, so I'd try it out.

But sure, if you want to be the Lamarckian to my Darwinian, go with a laughing puppy for all I care!
 
Argumemnon said:
Dammit, man, where's your scientific spirit? We have to test the limits of what's acceptable. Smiling smileys are the simplest form, so I'd try it out.

But sure, if you want to be the Lamarckian to my Darwinian, go with a laughing puppy for all I care!
Click to expand...

My Dear Mr. Savage:

What evidence have you to offer for the existence of a "sou", to say nothing of its "immortality"?

I remain, :):D;):cool::duck: yours &ct.
 
Jabba said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sure, you are free to believe ... basically exactly what you want.

- I just think that the best evidence for the non-physical/immaterial is my own current existence...
Click to expand...

However, you are wrong. As we have pointed out, plenty of things exist that have no more prior probability of existing than you.

- I think that the Bayesian likelihood of my current existence -- given the hypothesis (H) that there is nothing immaterial -- is virtually zero.
Click to expand...

However, you have not been able to show any consistent logic, let alone evidence, for your particular application of Bayesian statistics.

- That being the case, since I do exist, the posterior probability that H is correct is also virtually zero.
Click to expand...

No.

The internal logic of your argument does not hold. Sorry.

Hans
 
jond said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't recall that he acknowledged this. My recollection of the latest spin through that rebuttal was that, when presented with the inability of a consequent to be more likely than its antecedent, he simply denied that this was a limitation and dropped the subject.
 
JayUtah said:
I don't recall that he acknowledged this. My recollection of the latest spin through that rebuttal was that, when presented with the inability of a consequent to be more likely than its antecedent, he simply denied that this was a limitation and dropped the subject.
Click to expand...

He acknowledged it within the framework of his own debating rules. By not responding to a question, we can assume he agrees.
 
Jabba,

One of the hardest things is to face our own words and their implications. It can feel harsh, even rude. But when those words are about our position and/or factual matters, they must be faced if you want to grow (or have effective debate).

CT
 
Jabba said:
Mojo,
- I'll try this again.
- So far, I do believe in the non-physical/immaterial -- and therefor, souls.
Click to expand...
'Non-physical/immaterial - and therefore, souls'? No.

The existence of the nonphysical or immaterial does not guarantee or imply the existence of souls. Just because something nonphysical exists, does not mean that anything nonphysical exists.

- I just think that the best evidence for the non-physical/immaterial is my own current existence...
Click to expand...
Your posts are full of a lot of phrases like "I just think..." "It just seems to me..." "It just seems likely that...".

How things "just seem" to you or what you "just think" are not a solid foundation upon which to build an argument. Isn't meant to be a proof of immortality?
 
Last edited:
JesseCuster said:
'Non-physical/immaterial - and therefore, souls'? No.

The existence of the nonphysical or immaterial does not guarantee or imply the existence of souls. Just because something nonphysical exists, does not mean that anything nonphysical exists.

Your posts are full of a lot of phrases like "I just think..." "It just seems to me..." "It just seems likely that...".

How things "just seem" to you or what you "just think" are not a solid foundation upon which to build an argument. Isn't meant to be a proof of immortality?
Click to expand...


It's an appeal to personal incredulity: it "just seems" to him that he couldn't exist unless he was immortal.
 
Agatha said:
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 ???
Click to expand...
Agatha,
- Good questions. Hate to say it -- and link you to my campaign -- but this is a way to begin the "map" I want to develop.
- My thinking:
#1.1. Consciousness must be what we call an "emergent property."
#1.2. Consciousness must, somehow, result from a functioning brain, but it could result from other "things," -- it could even be that everything is conscious, just that a functioning brain is the only thing (we're aware of) that can express it.
#1.3. Then, there is the issue of how it results from whatever. The brain could be a receiver of something non-physical, rather than a producer of something entirely physical.

- I'll be back.
 
Mojo said:
It's an appeal to personal incredulity: it "just seems" to him that he couldn't exist unless he was immortal.
Click to expand...
- I shouldn't exist right now unless I have more than one, finite life or, not everything is physical.
 
JesseCuster said:
1) 'Non-physical/immaterial - and therefore, souls'? No.

The existence of the nonphysical or immaterial does not guarantee or imply the existence of souls. Just because something nonphysical exists, does not mean that anything nonphysical exists.

2) Your posts are full of a lot of phrases like "I just think..." "It just seems to me..." "It just seems likely that...".

How things "just seem" to you or what you "just think" are not a solid foundation upon which to build an argument. Isn't meant to be a proof of immortality?
Click to expand...
1) No, but allows for souls.
2) Yeah. I'm trying to be friendly -- just saying that something your opponent believes is not true is true isn't friendly. But, in various places I explain why I believe these things are true.
 
Jabba said:
Consciousness must be what we call an "emergent property."
Click to expand...

Equivocation. What you call an "emergent property" is not what the rest of the world calls an "emergent property."

Consciousness must, somehow, result from a functioning brain, but it could result from other "things,"...
Click to expand...

The above notwithstanding, this is agreeable. Which is to say, the scientific hypothesis does not assert that consciousness must necessarily be limited to the functioning brain. What it says is that a functioning brain is presently sufficient to produce all we can observe regarding consciousness. That sufficiency causes us to invoke parsimony and consider nothing else to be necessary unless evidence is presented to show otherwise.

What you have to do -- and what you have not done -- is show some observation of consciousness that requires something other than a brain and nervous system to explain it. That sets you up for making your statement above substantive. For now it has no evidentiary or explanatory power and is clearly pruned by Occam's razor.

1.3. Then, there is the issue of how it results from whatever.
Click to expand...

Under H that's not an issue. Science is not required to be as reductionist as possible, only as reductionist as necessary. Having reduced consciousness to a inescapable correlation to a functioning brain and nervous system, there is no specific need to delve deeper in order to prove the correlation.

The brain could be a receiver of something non-physical, rather than a producer of something entirely physical.
Click to expand...

And we're back the radio theory, which we have already done to death. Don't simply bring it up again unless you're willing to pick up that debate where it left off.
 
Jabba said:
No, but [it] allows for souls.
Click to expand...

That gets you no further toward proof of them. Refuting materialism is necessary to proving an immortal soul, but it doesn't actually prove anything. It only gives you permission to start proving the existence of souls. I have written extensively to you on the subject of necessity versus sufficiency of a proof. Please avail yourself of it before begging to be allowed to soften your position.

Yeah. I'm trying to be friendly -- just saying that something your opponent believes is not true is true isn't friendly.
Click to expand...

Omit this particular "friendliness" in favor of the friendliness of actually engaging your critics. This tacked-on, deflective folksy demeanor serves only to express arguments in a way that makes them not arguments. We don't care what you think or believe. We care only about what you can prove.

But, in various places I explain why I believe these things are true.
Click to expand...

None of those explanations is a valid proof.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom