Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

[Jabba]

To put it another way, Jabba, how can you expect Dave to accept that your existence is evidence against a hypothesis under which it is very unlikely when you yourself don't accept that your existence is evidence against a hypothesis under which it is very unlikely?

Mojo,
- If I understand what you're saying, it isn't what I was saying...
- I think that my current existence is evidence against an hypothesis under which it is very unlikely.

 

[jond]

Mojo,
- You're right. I just claim that if everything is physical, more than one finite lifetime per self is extremely unlikely. More than one finite lifetime per self would seem to require something non-physical.

And yet the something non-physical is quite a bit less likely than H, as you have continually ignored.

 

[Mojo]

Mojo,
- If I understand what you're saying, it isn't what I was saying...
- I think that my current existence is evidence against an hypothesis under which it is very unlikely.

Jabba, when asked if you think that your current existence is evidence against the hypothesis that you have an immortal soul in addition to your body, an hypothesis under which your current existence is very unlikely, you replied:

- No.

It was only a few hours ago.

 

[Loss Leader]

- I think that my current existence is evidence against an hypothesis under which it is very unlikely.

As is the current existence of Donald Trump as President. at some point, his odds were in the 300,000,000 to 1 range. So, his Presidency is evidence that he was never unlikely to be President.

Also, bananas.

 

[John Jones]

Mojo,
- You're right. I just claim that if everything is physical, more than one finite lifetime per self is extremely unlikely. More than one finite lifetime per self would seem to require something non-physical.

It would require some evidence of existence too. You must never forget your burden of proof after all your years of conjecture and faulty logic

 

[John Jones]

Mojo,
[...]
- I think that my current existence is evidence against an hypothesis under which it is very unlikely.

We all understand what you think and believe. You've parroted that statement dozens of times over the years, and have never supported it with solid reasoning or evidence.

 

[jt512]

That pitfall can easily be avoided by differentiating between prior probability and post hoc certainty.

For example, Tim tells Jill the CIA has been trying to kill her since December.

Jill notices she is alive, and rejects Tim's assertion.

There is the prior probability distribution that Jill would be alive (or not) if the CIA has been trying to kill her since December, and there is the post hoc certainty that Jill is alive. Both are meaningful.

But Tim accuses Jill of having committed the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. "What about all the other people the CIA has been trying to kill, but aren't dead yet?" Tim sagely asks. "Why are you ignoring them?"

"I don't know how many people the CIA is trying to kill that aren't dead yet, but I'll assume there are some, and i'll assume some have been lucky. But that has no effect on my prior probability of being dead by now if the CIA was after me. It is less likely that the CIA has been trying to kill me than your assertion being false."

Jill knows she is alive whether the CIA has been trying to kill her or not, and uses that fact. Jill also knows she almost certainly would not be alive now if the CIA has been trying to kill her, but probably would be alive if the CIA was not trying to kill her.

Jill also knows the entire question would not have arisen unless she is alive now. And that's why Jill uses probability. Jill is smart enough to consider the possibility that she could be dead even though she is alive. Jill knows probability can differentiate between different possible reasons why Jill is alive. "Given that I am alive in either case", Jill thinks, "Which hypothesis is more consistent with the fact that I am alive? The CIA has been trying to kill me since December and I've just been lucky so far, or the CIA has not been trying to kill me, and Tim is an ass?"

Jill is smart. Jill knows the CIA has probably not been trying to kill her. Tim is stupid. Tim thought Jill would be afraid of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

Maybe Jill is afraid of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. But she is not afraid of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy fallacy.

Jill must be alive to observe the fact that she is alive. Therefore, the probability that Jill observes that she is alive, whether the CIA is trying to kill her or not, is 1. From Jill's point of view, the fact that she is alive cannot discriminate between the case that the CIA is not out to get her and the case that the CIA is out to get her and she's just been lucky that they've not, so far, been successful.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Dave,
- H is an hypothesis. It makes a claim. It claims that everything is physical. I seek to evaluate H -- to determine how likely it is that H is correct.
- My claim is that the current existence of what I experience as my self suggests that H is not correct. As long as I'm really experiencing something, H -- in talking about everything -- is talking about what I am experiencing.
- H isn't saying that my experience doesn't exist. H is simply saying that my interpretation is wrong -- that there must be something wrong with my logic.

The last part is correct. According to H, whatever you experence is a function of your physical brain, and therefore as transient as your physical existence .

Hans

 

[Mojo]

Mojo,
- You're right. I just claim that if everything is physical, more than one finite lifetime per self is extremely unlikely. More than one finite lifetime per self would seem to require something non-physical.

And that's why you are begging the question when you try to insert the immaterial soul into H. You don't get to propose the requirements of your desired conclusion as your premises. And you don't get to add things to H that are not included in it just because they are necessary to your argument.

 

[Belz...]

Mojo,
- You're right. I just claim that if everything is physical, more than one finite lifetime per self is extremely unlikely. More than one finite lifetime per self would seem to require something non-physical.

Would you stop repeating that and start demonstrating it? Your logic on this has been thoroughly dismantled, so why do you still claim that?

 

[Mojo]

Mojo,
- You're right. I just claim that if everything is physical, more than one finite lifetime per self is extremely unlikely. More than one finite lifetime per self would seem to require something non-physical.

Just to be absolutely clear here, Jabba: you aren't posting this as a reason to suppose that immaterial souls exist, are you?

 

[Mojo]

Jill must be alive to observe the fact that she is alive. Therefore, the probability that Jill observes that she is alive, whether the CIA is trying to kill her or not, is 1. From Jill's point of view, the fact that she is alive cannot discriminate between the case that the CIA is not out to get her and the case that the CIA is out to get her and she's just been lucky that they've not, so far, been successful.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_attempts_on_Fidel_Castro

 

[JayUtah]

More than one finite lifetime per self would seem to require something non-physical.

It probably would. And since, after nearly five years, you can provide no evidence of anything non-physical. your hypothesis fails. It failed some years ago, and I think you realize that.

 

[JayUtah]

I think that my current existence is evidence against an hypothesis under which it is very unlikely.

We know you think this. The problem is that you tell us you can prove it objectively. You obviously can't. Your proof is fraught with numerous errors, mathematical and logical. Not the least of your errors is this constant question-begging to which you subject your critics. Is there a point in our future where you might realize why begging the question doesn't supply an objective proof?

 

[JayUtah]

H is an hypothesis. It makes a claim. It claims that everyhing is physical. I seek to evaluate H -- to determine how likely it is that H is correct.

So far your determination consists of speculating about a bunch of stuff you think must be non-physical and then saying a physical-only hypothesis can't possibly explain it. Begging the question.

You phrase your argument in probabilistic terms, purporting to estimate P(E|H), where E is your sense of self. But your reckoning includes all the stuff you speculated about, not the actual E and H. Straw man.

My claim is that the current existence of what I experience as my self suggests that H is not correct. As long as I'm really experiencing something, H -- in talking about everything -- is talking about what I am experiencing.

Yes, H explains your experience. However, you try to sneak elements from ~H into E so that you don't have to prove them. Thus the E that you use for P(E|H) also contains conclusions from your theory, not just data.

H isn't saying that my experience doesn't exist. H is simply saying that my interpretation is wrong -- that there must be something wrong with my logic.

And you have thousands of posts before you explaining in excruciating detail what is wrong with your logic. Your critics have thoughtfully and carefully prepared these posts under the mistaken impression you actually have any interest in what's wrong with your proof. Perhaps one of these years you will consent to read them.

 

[Jabba]

Anyway, Jabba, back to the question I asked that you have once again failed to address:

- if we take H as being the hypothesis that you have an immortal soul in addition to your body, do you think that your current existence is evidence against H?

Mojo,
- But that is not H.

If it was, would you say that your existence was evidence against it?

- No.

To put it another way, Jabba, how can you expect Dave to accept that your existence is evidence against a hypothesis under which it [my existence] is very unlikely when you yourself don't accept that your existence is evidence against a hypothesis under which it is very unlikely?

Mojo,
- If I understand what you're saying, it isn't what I was saying...
- I think that my current existence is evidence against an hypothesis under which it is very unlikely.

Jabba, 1) when asked if you think that your current existence is evidence against the hypothesis that you have an immortal soul in addition to your body, 2) an hypothesis under which your current existence is very unlikely, you replied:

- No.

It was only a few hours ago.

Mojo,
- I'm having trouble understanding your question...
- My "No" is in response to your #1.
- For part #2, "No" seems to be the correct answer also -- the hypothesis that you have an immortal soul in addition to your body is not an hypothesis under which your current existence is very unlikely.

 

[jond]

- For part #2, "No" seems to be the correct answer also -- the hypothesis that you have an immortal soul in addition to your body is not an hypothesis under which your current existence is very unlikely.

Why? Your brain's existence is equally unlikely whether there is an immortal soul or not. The circumstances in which your brain developed remain exactly the same. The only difference is that your immortal soul (the likelihood of which you've never tried to calculate) also exists and somehow attaches itself to your brain (the likelihood of which you've never tried to calculate). Those elements make your existence much less likely than the default scientific hypothesis (H) which only requires the existence of your brain.

 

[JayUtah]

...the hypothesis that you have an immortal soul in addition to your body is not an hypothesis under which your current existence is very unlikely.

Even though it requires more conditions to be satisfied, and that the probability of each of those conditions being satisfied is less than 1? Would you care to express that answer in the appropriate mathematical terms and show how your claim would be possible?

 

[Jabba]

Mojo,
- You're right. I just claim that if everything is physical, more than one finite lifetime per self is extremely unlikely. More than one finite lifetime per self would seem to require something non-physical.

Just to be absolutely clear here, Jabba: you aren't posting this as a reason to suppose that immaterial souls exist, are you?

Mojo,
- Again, I worry that I don't understand your question (because the answer seems obvious). I am posting this as a reason to suppose that immaterial souls exist.

 

[Jabba]

Mojo,
- I'm having trouble understanding your question...
- My "No" is in response to your #1.
- For part #2, "No" seems to be the correct answer also -- the hypothesis that you have an immortal soul in addition to your body is not an hypothesis under which your current existence is very unlikely.

Even though it requires more conditions to be satisfied, and that the probability of each of those conditions being satisfied is less than 1? Would you care to express that answer in the appropriate mathematical terms and show how your claim would be possible?

Jay,
- I tried to answer that issue awhile back, but it didn't take. I'll try again, but it will take another while.