Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

[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,
- 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, you are trying to prove that you have more than one finite lifetime.

To do this, you are attempting to establish that immaterial souls exist.

You are now saying that immaterial souls exist because they are required if you have more than one finite lifetime.

Do I really need to point out the flaw in this argument?

 

[jond]

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

No, you stamped your feet and said "there's more to it than that" and ran away. Ignoring this fatal flaw in your theory will not make it go away.

 

[JayUtah]

I tried to answer that issue awhile back...

No, you didn't. When it was pointed out that this is a fundamental law of conditional probability, you simply said you didn't think so and ran away.

...but it didn't take.

It didn't "take" because it's obviously wrong. And you almost certainly know it's obviously wrong, which is likely why you decided not to pursue it, and likely why now you're trying to gaslight your critics into thinking you already addressed it.

I'll try again, but it will take another while.

No, it really won't, Jabba, because it's a very simple problem. You've been stalling for five years. Nobody's buying your excuses anymore.

Let P(B) be the probability that a brain arises. Define it, as any probability, as a number between 0 and 1. Pick any number, we don't care.

Let P(S) be the probability of a soul existing. Definite it as a number between 0 and 1. Pick any number.

Let P(X) be the probability that any brain and soul connect to form a self as you formulate it. Definite it as a number between 0 and 1. Pick any number.

Your critics' model, materialism, requires only P(B) because the self as H defines it requires only a brain. The probability of the self arising in your model is roughly P(B) × P(S) × P(X). Your model requires three events all to occur: B (the brain), S (the soul), and X (the connection forming between them). Since neither P(S) nor P(X) can ever be more than 1, and therefore since P(S) × P(X) can never exceed 1, please show how

P(B) × P(S) × P(X) > P(B)​

which is what you're claiming. It's simple grade-school arithmetic, Jabba. It doesn't take more than a few seconds' thought, not five years of evasion.

 

[Mojo]

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.

[Sorry, I can't be bothered to copy and paste all the posts quoted in Jabba's post. If you want to see them you can follow the link back to Jabba's post.]

Jabba, all H requires for your existence is that your body exists. Under your favoured hypothesis, in which you have an immaterial soul in addition to your body, your current existence requires both your body and your soul to exist. This means that if your existence is very unlikely under H, it is also very unlikely under your favoured hypothesis.

You claim that your current existence is evidence against H because your current existence is very unlikely under H, but you also claim that your current existence is not evidence against your favoured hypothesis, under which your current existence is at least as unlikely as it is under H. These claims are inconsistent.

If your current existence is evidence against H because your current existence is very unlikely under H, then it is evidence against all hypotheses under which it is very unlikely. Your existence cannot possibly be less unlikely under your favoured hypothesis than it is under H because, while all that is required for your current existence under H is that your body exists, your existence under your favoured hypothesis also requires your body to exist.

So which is it? Is your current existence evidence against hypotheses under which it is very unlikely, or not?

 

[Belz...]

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

Why would it take a while at all? Why not just answer the question plainly: why do you think there is a pool of potential selves?

 

[John Jones]

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.

This befuddled old man act was threadbare 4 years ago. If you can't follow questions that no one else has trouble with, why do you keep coming back?

If there were a silent audience of neutral observers out there (like you seem to believe), do you think you impress them by being obtuse?

 

[fibbermcgee]

Jabba, for 4.5 billion years there where no humans on earth, therefore no need for souls. Around 2 million years ago perhaps the first human appeared. Maybe Homo Erectus or Homo Eragaster. Perhaps Homo Sapiens. You say they would be needing a soul. Would you please elaborate on what process brought these souls into being (remember no souls for 4.5 billion years). Did all these billions of souls of which you speak spring up at the same time? Were they in place before the advent of the primates? Are those same souls still around.

 

[The Sparrow]

Jabba, for 4.5 billion years there where no humans on earth, therefore no need for souls. Around 2 million years ago perhaps the first human appeared. Maybe Homo Erectus or Homo Eragaster. Perhaps Homo Sapiens. You say they would be needing a soul. Would you please elaborate on what process brought these souls into being (remember no souls for 4.5 billion years). Did all these billions of souls of which you speak spring up at the same time? Were they in place before the advent of the primates? Are those same souls still around.

Where did they come from? What created them? How many are there? Are more being created all the time?

 

[Loss Leader]

Where did they come from? What created them? How many are there? Are more being created all the time?

What are their characteristics? Do they have memories? Likes? Dislikes? If the person was blind, can the soul see? If the person died bedridden at 100, what age does the soul feel like?

 

[The Sparrow]

What are their characteristics? Do they have memories? Likes? Dislikes? If the person was blind, can the soul see? If the person died bedridden at 100, what age does the soul feel like?

Are there an infinite number of souls? How do you know this? Are souls male or female or do they inherit those characteristics from the body?

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Souls only have specific characteristics when they are needed to support Jabba's argument. Just like God, they are completely ineffable unless the believer wants to make a point

 

[Hokulele]

Are there an infinite number of souls? How do you know this? Are souls male or female or do they inherit those characteristics from the body?

At what point are they associated with a body? Conception? Birth? Some indeterminate point? Do creatures other than humans have souls? If there is sentient, extra-terrestrial life, do they have souls? Can two souls be accidentally associated with the same body (a la Sybil)? Can souls be destroyed if one wields Frostmourne?

 

[Jabba]

And H says that, being physical, your sense of self is not separate from your body and could not possibly look out of two sets of eyes. So if you're talking about a sense of self that is not separate from your body and could not possibly look out of two sets of eyes, then we're talking about the kind of self that exists in H.

Dave,
- H refers to everything (including the experience that I call my sense of self and that I think is non-physical); H just says that that kind of self doesn't actually exist; ~H says it does.
- H is talking about kinds of selves that it claims do not exist.
- I am also talking about the kinds of selves that H claims do not exist.
- We're just getting "talking about" and "exists" mixed up.

 

[jond]

Dave,
- H refers to everything (including the experience that I call my sense of self and that I think is non-physical); H just says that that kind of self doesn't actually exist; ~H says it does.
- H is talking about kinds of selves that it claims do not exist.
- I am also talking about the kinds of selves that H claims do not exist.
- We're just getting "talking about" and "exists" mixed up.

When your father told you to never give up, did he also say that ignoring problems makes them disappear? If so he was wrong.

 

[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,
- Actually, I think that my prior probability of ~H (1%) accounts for that.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- H refers to everything (including the experience that I call my sense of self and that I think is non-physical); H just says that that kind of self doesn't actually exist;

More precisely, H says your experience of a sense of self exists, and that the experience of your sense of self is physical.

~H says it does.

Right, so when you present a number for P(E|~H) then you can base it on a self that can exist separately from your body and potentially look out of two sets of eyes.

- H is talking about kinds of selves that it claims do not exist.

H does not claim that your experience of a sense of self doesn't exist.

- I am also talking about the kinds of selves that H claims do not exist.

And those are relevant for P(E|~H), not P(E|H).

 

[Belz...]

Dave,
- H refers to everything (including the experience that I call my sense of self and that I think is non-physical); H just says that that kind of self doesn't actually exist; ~H says it does.
- H is talking about kinds of selves that it claims do not exist.
- I am also talking about the kinds of selves that H claims do not exist.
- We're just getting "talking about" and "exists" mixed up.

Stop defining terms. Make a case for your claim, and start with this:

Why do you think there is a pool of potential selves?

 

[jond]

Jay,
- Actually, I think that my prior probability of ~H (1%) accounts for that.

No, it doesn't. Besides the fact that you made up that prior probability without any reason, you continue to ignore the fact that the probability of your brain's existence remains the same in H and ~H. See JayUtah's formula above.

 

[Mojo]

What are their characteristics? Do they have memories? Likes? Dislikes? If the person was blind, can the soul see? If the person died bedridden at 100, what age does the soul feel like?

Are souls male or female or do they inherit those characteristics from the body?

Jabba has answered this. He defines the disembodied soul as having no characteristics of its own:

- However, in my kind of self, the self, itself, has no characteristics (intelligence, skin color, whatever). Does your kind of self, itself, have characteristics?

All the characteristics that the soul, as Jabba defines it, exhibits while embodied are produced by the body.

 

[JayUtah]

H refers to everything
(including the experience that I call my sense of self and that I think is non-physical); H just says that that kind of self doesn't actually exist; ~H says it does.

NO.


That is a completely invalid formulation. When you said you didn't understand the Bayesian formulation, I had no idea it was this bad.

We're just getting "talking about" and "exists" mixed up.

No, you're the one mixing up the concepts. I've explained this already to you twice. It appears you need more remedial instruction.

You have two conditional probabilities, P(E|H) and P(E|~H). E must be the same in both cases. However, in your case you change what E means depending on whether you're thinking of H versus ~H.

E is your sense of self. It does not include the belief that what causes it must be non-material. It doesn't include any theory of causation.

H and ~H are disparate theories for causation. Under H, E is explained as an emergent property of a functioning brain. Under ~H (or more accurately, under some K that is a member of set ~H), E is explained by a non-material soul.

Please read this until you understand it.