Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mojo said:
Jabba is trying to prove something here, so a stalemate means that he fails[.]
Click to expand...

It's been abundantly evident for years that Jabba doesn't have the wherewithal to prove his case. And yes, we properly decide the stalemate in favor of the null hypothesis, which most assuredly has not been falsified.

Whether that results in failure depends on the rhetorical picture Jabba plans to draw. In his Shroud thread he posed the claim that he would have won but for the misbehavior of his critics. There's no reason to suppose he won't plan a similar argument in this thread. He already announced his desire to "map" this thread -- Jabba's code word for a biased abridgment of the debate. He gets a certain victory from the notion that science and skepticism failed to refute him. It doesn't matter that he has to lose too, so long as he can claim the skeptics lost.
 
JayUtah said:
It's been abundantly evident for years that Jabba doesn't have the wherewithal to prove his case. And yes, we properly decide the stalemate in favor of the null hypothesis, which most assuredly has not been falsified.

Whether that results in failure depends on the rhetorical picture Jabba plans to draw. In his Shroud thread he posed the claim that he would have won but for the misbehavior of his critics. There's no reason to suppose he won't plan a similar argument in this thread. He already announced his desire to "map" this thread -- Jabba's code word for a biased abridgment of the debate. He gets a certain victory from the notion that science and skepticism failed to refute him. It doesn't matter that he has to lose too, so long as he can claim the skeptics lost.
Click to expand...


And regardless if he wins or loses, debate is not how one determines reality. It can be useful for policy decisions or ethical considerations, but it is terrible for discerning what is actually true.
 
Hokulele said:
And regardless if he wins or loses, debate is not how one determines reality.
Click to expand...

Nor is a mathematical proof, unless the underlying evidence is inherently mathematical. Saying you believe in an immortal soul raises eyebrows only when said loudly in a skeptical setting where you would expect to be challenged. It's otherwise an unremarkable statement. Lots of people believe in something like an immortal soul, and are content to accept it as a belief taken on faith.

If you say you can prove there is an immortal soul, that's an offer to provide evidence and sound reasoning to demonstrate the fact of an immortal soul to the satisfaction of a rational listener regardless of his current belief. Evidence and reasoning must be tested, and debate is how we test them in some cases. We have entertained evidence in the form of testimony of near-death experiences. Debating the circumstances of how it was obtained and validated is a valuable exercise. Debating the purported connection of NDEs to the concept of immortality is a valuable exercise.

If you say you can prove mathematically that there is an immortal soul, then that implies a testable quantization of the relevant concepts. Debate can and should ensue over that quantization, as especially here the concepts are not measurable or countable quantities.

Debate is a useful tool here, but only when it is meant to test concepts that arise from uncertainty. One can lose a debate and still be wrong, just as one can be falsely condemned or acquitted regardless of fact.
 
JayUtah said:
It's been abundantly evident for years that Jabba doesn't have the wherewithal to prove his case. And yes, we properly decide the stalemate in favor of the null hypothesis, which most assuredly has not been falsified.
Click to expand...


But additionally, a stalemate over whether there is, or can be, evidence that souls exist is entirely irrelevant to the point allegedly being argued, which is how he should calculate the likelihood of his existence if H, a hypothesis under which souls do not exist, is true. The stalemate he is trying to steer us into doesn't actually help him.
 
And that reminds me, Jabba, that you still haven't answered this question:

Mojo said:
Actually, in the hypothetical situation that the question was about you had demonstrated that H was false. H was the hypothesis that each side of the die had a three on it, and you had demonstrated that they were, in fact, numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

Do you agree that the likelihood of the observed event (throwing a 3) under H is 1.00 for this scenario?
Click to expand...
 
Mojo said:
...how he should calculate the likelihood of his existence if H, a hypothesis under which souls do not exist, is true. The stalemate he is trying to steer us into doesn't actually help him.
Click to expand...

You, I, and others have expended considerable effort trying to explain to Jabba that, in the method he has chosen, he must reckon P(E|H) as if H were true -- and there are no souls (or anything like it) in H. Jabba has assiduously ignored that. To him that uncomfortable fact simply does not exist, and yet he blithely wafts onward and upward, wondering idly whether he "might be missing something." It's the equivalent of an absent-minded person leaving his home without any pants on, asking passers-by if they know the reason behind the strange cooling breezes caressing his nethers, and then calling them rude when they tell him he's not wearing pants. One can credibly be only so oblivious.

As someone eloquently said, Jabba doesn't own E or H. He can't define or amend them as he pleases. The inference method Jabba has chosen requires him to pare away from E all purports or theories, and to evaluate H as it is, even if he doesn't believe it. Instead Jabba is trying so very hard to do anything but that. As I've said before, he's trying to equivocate E, the observation, to include elements of his desired explanation. He wants all the words he's using instead of soul (which word he avoids ironically so as not to prejudice the case) to be considered part of the observation, not theories as to cause. H can't explain his theory, therefore it must be false.
 
Last edited:
So it's settled: Jabba cannot provide any Proof of Immortality given 5 long years of effort.

All opposed?
 
Jabba said:
- It wouldn't have my sense of self. It wouldn't have ME. It wouldn't bring ME back to life. It would be different.
Click to expand...

If it were a perfect copy? Nope.

If it didn't have something from the original then it clearly is not a perfect copy.

You can't have it both ways.
 
John Jones said:
So it's settled: Jabba cannot provide any Proof of Immortality given 5 long years of effort.
Click to expand...

Indeed, it's been pointed out that in the time he's spent wallowing incompetently in the most basic concepts, he could have earned an advanced degree in the subject.

Hell, the ideas he brings up are common enough tropes in science fiction. Philosophers have developed a rich and extensive vocabulary for discussing them in all their implications. And yet, after five years, he still can't find the simplest words for the simplest things.
 
Jabba said:
- It wouldn't have my sense of self. It wouldn't have ME. It wouldn't bring ME back to life. It would be different.
Click to expand...

Your thought experiment seems to be:

"A machine that can duplicate a person perfectly will duplicate everything except the person's soul. Because the duplicate in my thought experiment wouldn't have the same soul, I've proved the existence of souls."

Did I get it right? Because I don't think that's the same thought experiment everyone else had in mind.
 
Jabba said:
- It wouldn't have my sense of self. It wouldn't have ME. It wouldn't bring ME back to life. It would be different.
Click to expand...

Yes we know, we've told you and you've told us. It isn't you. It's identical to you. It's not reincarnation because such a thing doesn't exist under H and it's not a flaw: it's just the way it is.
 
MetalPig said:
Why not? According to you, if you are a copy, something should be missing. You should be able to tell.
Click to expand...
The "thing" that is missing has no attributes, according to Jabba, but it would definitely be missing. And it's a soul, but don't call it that, please.
 
Waterman said:
<snip>
2. Then help me please, what IS <ME or "I"> defined by <if it is not entirely physical>? According to current scientific theory the conscious process IS defined by the physical existence and accumulation of experiences.

3. Also what are your thoughts on other intelligent but less evolved creatures and their copies, is something missing in them as well. Why or why not?
Click to expand...

Jabba, I know you are posting in response to a number of inquiries but it would help me understand your position better if you could get to #2 and #3 above?
 
jsfisher said:
You haven't defined what that being brought back to life means, so how can I answer your question?<snip>
Click to expand...
js,
- How about "reincarnation"?

https://www.google.com/search?q=rei...69i59j0l4.16757j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8:the rebirth of a soul in a new body.
- The trouble with "soul" is that it automatically implies non-physical, immortal, transcendent. What I'm calling "self" is something that I'm sure does exist -- I experience it. But then, I can't be sure of the rest. I suspect that it will be reincarnated.
 
Agatha said:
If it's so obvious to you, Jabba, why are you finding it so hard to articulate what is missing from the copy?

You enter the Jabba Replicator 5000, there is a blinding flash of light, and two Jabbas exit. They are identical down to the molecular level, they both believe themselves to be the original Jabba (and they are both wearing clothes). They both have all the memories, mannerisms, and personality of the original you. Friends and family would be unable to tell them apart in any way. They both have an identical sense of self, arising from their identical-but separate brains.

What is the difference between them that you think will distinguish one from the other?
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
Agatha,
- I do appreciate your civility.
- Second question first: If our method of reproduction didn't allow us to mark the original, no one would ever know which was which...
Click to expand...

Agatha said:
I agree, and the obvious point that follows from this agreement is that there is nothing 'missing' from the copy. Both the original and the copy have what you are calling "ME". There would be two, unconnected but identical, YOUs.
Nothing is missing, nothing distinguishes the original from the copy...
Click to expand...
- I guess the easiest way to describe my perception of this issue is that in a sense, nothing is missing -- but then, in another sense, something is missing. And, the latter sense is the one that counts here...
 
Under H, you experience the process running in your brain, whether it feels like it or not. A perfect copy of a brain will produce an indistinguishable experience, with no non-physical thing required. "Bring back to life" translated as "reincarnation/soul" has no meaning under H as it presupposes something non-physical not required to experience the the self.

Where have I heard this before?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom