Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

[caveman1917]

Right?

Argument by analogy never works.

It's not an analogy, it's an equivalence.

 

[SOdhner]

In X, the odds of any soul at all is already zero so trying to take it into account is nonsense.

If you think you are correct (which you are not), present a well-defined mathematical argument rather than simplistic thought experiments.

You want mathmatical proof that we don't need to take ham sandwiches into account when checking if a wooden block is square or triangular. That is what you're saying.

Fine! Let me repeat myself but strip it down to the bare bones.

1. Picking a random number with a value of either 1 or 2, you have only two distinct results. 1, or 2. This means the odds of each specific result are 50%.

2. Picking a random number with a value of either 1 or 2, and then picking a random letter with a value of either A or B, you have four distinct results. (1,A) (1,B) (2,A) (2,B). This means the odds of each specific result would be 25%.

3. 50% and 25% aren't the same thing.

 

[HighRiser]

Let X be the set {1, 2, 3, 4}, let Even be the set {2, 4} and Odd be the set {1, 3} (ie the subsets of even and odd numbers in X). Then the argument being made was: for a number to be in Even it must be in X and be even, which is an extra condition over just "must be in X", therefor there are more numbers in Odd than in Even.

Differently, having a body and a soul does not stop you from having a body. Therefor (body) can not be the same as (body) + (not soul).

I don't see why it follows that there must be more odds than evens.

 

[theprestige]

It's not an analogy, it's an equivalence.

And now you're arguing about the argument, instead of arguing about the thing itself in its own terms. See what I mean?

 

[caveman1917]

You want mathmatical proof that we don't need to take ham sandwiches into account when checking if a wooden block is square or triangular. That is what you're saying.

Fine! Let me repeat myself but strip it down to the bare bones.

1. Picking a random number with a value of either 1 or 2, you have only two distinct results. 1, or 2. This means the odds of each specific result are 50%.

2. Picking a random number with a value of either 1 or 2, and then picking a random letter with a value of either A or B, you have four distinct results. (1,A) (1,B) (2,A) (2,B). This means the odds of each specific result would be 25%.

3. 50% and 25% aren't the same thing.

I said present a well-defined mathematical argument. You have a probability space with events H denoting "we do not have souls" and E denoting "Jabba exists". Define explicitly your claim in terms of that space, and provide an explicit proof for your claim.

 

[caveman1917]

I don't see why it follows that there must be more odds than evens.

It doesn't, that's the error. What follows is:
-there must be more numbers than odds
-there must be more numbers than evens

The error is because of equating "number" with "number and odd" (ie equating "body" with "body and not soul").

 

[jsfisher]

If you think that is relevant: back to the loop you go. In the meantime, I'm going to try a tactic I've seen used around here, big red letters:

A non-empty set can NOT be a subset of two distinct sets.

That term may not mean what you think it means.

 

[SOdhner]

You want mathmatical proof that we don't need to take ham sandwiches into account when checking if a wooden block is square or triangular. That is what you're saying.

Fine! Let me repeat myself but strip it down to the bare bones.

1. Picking a random number with a value of either 1 or 2, you have only two distinct results. 1, or 2. This means the odds of each specific result are 50%.

2. Picking a random number with a value of either 1 or 2, and then picking a random letter with a value of either A or B, you have four distinct results. (1,A) (1,B) (2,A) (2,B). This means the odds of each specific result would be 25%.

3. 50% and 25% aren't the same thing.

I said present a well-defined mathematical argument. You have a probability space with events H denoting "we do not have souls" and E denoting "Jabba exists". Define explicitly your claim in terms of that space, and provide an explicit proof for your claim.

My post is right there. You even quoted it. Where in my post do I say "we do not have souls" or "Jabba exists"? I want you to address what I actually wrote, not what you think I should have written.

Which of those three points in my post are you having trouble understanding,
caveman1917?

 

[caveman1917]

That term may not mean what you think it means.

Meh, disjoint

 

[caveman1917]

My post is right there. You even quoted it. Where in my post do I say "we do not have souls" or "Jabba exists"? I want you to address what I actually wrote, not what you think I should have written.

Which of those three points in my post are you having trouble understanding,
caveman1917?

So your statements are irrelevant? Well no need to bother with them then. Yes, you are completely right about picking square and triangular coloured blocks. Too bad this thread is not about picking square and triangular coloured blocks though.

 

[SOdhner]

So your statements are irrelevant? Well no need to bother with them then.

You haven't bothered with them at any point. You've put words in my mouth, misread, misinterpreted, and invented arguments to criticize without ever actually understanding what I said.

Whoops, was about to post and noticed that you added a sentence:

Yes, you are completely right about picking square and triangular coloured blocks. Too bad this thread is not about picking square and triangular coloured blocks though.

If you can't connect the dots from there I don't see what the point is in even trying.



So. Back to where I started, and hopefully caveman1917 can leave it be this time:

Hey Jabba! Please ignore caveman1917's muddying of the issue. I'd still really like a reply. To recap, since I realize we've added a page or two of bickering...

You keep talking about probability, specifically how unlikely it is for your specific 'self' to exist, and you're doing this to prove that there's a form of immortality (or soul, or whatever). Setting aside the problems that others are discussing with you already, can you please address the fact that the odds of a specific 'self' existing in a materialistic universe would actually be greater than the odds of a specific 'self' in a universe with souls?

Both would require a specific set of physical characteristics, with a certain low but non-zero probability.

The universe with souls would also require a specific soul to be attached, which would also have low but non-zero probability.

That means the odds would by definition be lower in the universe with souls.

So with that in mind, it doesn't seem that significant that any one particular 'self' exists, right?

 

[jsfisher]

Meh, disjoint

Sure was impressive all in red and large font, though, wasn't it? Especially after demanding mathematical precision of others.

Luckily, this is not a discussion and not a confrontation, right? So, yeah, meh.

 

[Jabba]

Hopefully we can both agree that 'feeling' like there's a flaw and actually identifying a flaw are different in a quite vital way. I think the most important thing if we want to come to an agreement on this is to examine it without a lot of distractions - this is a really mathematical thing so we don't need to muddy the waters with your larger formula to discuss it.



That's not really what I'm saying, but also if we're going to do any math we should avoid using infinity like it's an actual number.

Okay, let's try this again and for the first few questions I would ask that you forget your theory entirely. I don't want you to get distracted by it. Just evaluate the following and tell me which points you do or don't agree with.

1. I have a bag of wooden shapes. There are two squares, and two triangles. The only variable we are working with is the shape, so for a specific result I have a 50% chance of getting it. Right?

2. Okay now one of each shape is painted red. If I am looking for two characteristics (both square AND red) then I've got a 25% chance - that's 50% (square) times 50% (red).

3. Every time I add more criteria on the same thing happens. Adding another thing I'm looking for means I multiply the odds together, and since each of those odds are less than 100% the overall odds must go down.

PLEASE confirm if you agree with the above before we try to apply this to your specific theory. I've been in too many discussions on these forums where people (not you specifically ) sidestep the logic part and then dive right back into their specific theory. Establishing this logic is really vital to having a productive conversation. Okay, assuming you've done that and moving on...

4. Since you are trying to establish that we have an immortal part of ourselves (I'm going to call this a soul because it's easy, I'm not trying to put words into your mouth or anything) by referring to probability, we can't just assume the existence of a soul in all cases. That would make your argument circular...
I hope breaking it down step by step was helpful to you.

SOdhner,
- I do appreciate your approach.
- Re 1, 2 and 3, I agree.
- Re #4. "Since you are trying to establish that we have an immortal part of ourselves (I'm going to call this a soul because it's easy, I'm not trying to put words into your mouth or anything) by referring to probability, we can't just assume the existence of a soul in all cases. That would make your argument circular."
- I do think that each of us humans involve something (a "process" is a "thing") that continues to exist after the death of our brains (I assume that other animals do also). If that's true, we must involve something that we don't currently call "physical." Some day, science may discover such a thing and decide that it is, in fact, "physical"...
- Apparently, we humans all experience something that we call "self," or "self awareness." This is what I think is immortal. I've avoided using the term "soul" as it begs the question of immortality -- but, I don't mind you calling it a soul.
- Are you suggesting that even if souls are real that some humans may not have one?
- So far, I don't understand why assuming that we all experience this thing would make my argument circular.

 

[caveman1917]

You haven't bothered with them at any point. You've put words in my mouth, misread, misinterpreted, and invented arguments to criticize without ever actually understanding what I said.

Whoops, was about to post and noticed that you added a sentence:


If you can't connect the dots from there I don't see what the point is in even trying.

So you're refusing to provide a mathematical argument, one wonders why...

The universe with souls would also require a specific soul to be attached

Which one?

 

[HighRiser]

It doesn't, that's the error. What follows is:
-there must be more numbers than odds
-there must be more numbers than evens

The error is because of equating "number" with "number and odd" (ie equating "body" with "body and not soul").

I guess I just don't understand philosophy because "number and odd" seems the same to me as "number and not even".

 

[SOdhner]

- I do think that each of us humans involve something (a "process" is a "thing") that continues to exist after the death of our brains (I assume that other animals do also). If that's true, we must involve something that we don't currently call "physical." Some day, science may discover such a thing and decide that it is, in fact, "physical"...
[...snip...]
- So far, I don't understand why assuming that we all experience this thing would make my argument circular.

If you're trying to provide proof that we have an immortal soul and that proof relies on first assuming that you're correct, that's circular.

Your logic, in part, is saying that BECAUSE we have a soul we have a soul. Obviously you go into more detail than that. But if you want to convince anyone, you need to base your probabilities and logic on assumptions that are already agreed upon.

- Apparently, we humans all experience something that we call "self," or "self awareness." This is what I think is immortal.

But most of us here believe that the self is an emergent property of our physical brains, and ceases to exist when our brains stop functioning. If there is something in addition to this, it gets very complicated very quickly. Here are some of the questions you would have to address:

1. Since we know that brain damage, dementia, hormone levels, etc. all change things that we would typically think of as part of our 'self', are these things changing our immortal soul?

2. If so, wouldn't death ALSO change our soul, to a 'dead' state?

3. If not, then what is left? We know that memory, emotion, etc. can all be linked to things that can be changed by altering the brain function. So what part of our 'selves' is left to be immortal?

- Are you suggesting that even if souls are real that some humans may not have one?

No, I assume you got that from part of my discussion with caveman1917 - I was saying that was the only way "not a soul" could be a relevant characteristic in a world where souls exist. Don't worry about that.

I would say that either your physical brain is sufficient for your sense of self, in which case a soul would be redundant and I would assume it doesn't exist, or your soul provides some vital function and therefore everyone must have one if they have a sense of self.

 

[SOdhner]

So you're refusing to provide a mathematical argument, one wonders why...

I did, more than once. You ignored it because I didn't make the specific argument you wanted me to make.

Which one?

Exactly. That's literally the point.

 

[caveman1917]

Sure was impressive all in red and large font, though, wasn't it? Especially after demanding mathematical precision of others

Luckily, this is not a discussion and not a confrontation, right? So, yeah, meh.

Fine, you want precision, here you go:

Define two sets A and B as "distinct" if they do not have an element in common. Then:

A non-empty set can NOT be a subset of two distinct sets.

I hope this response makes you consider the distinction between the precision of mathematical argument (ie whether the sets have an element in common or not) and essentially arbitrary nomenclature (whether we call such sets "distinct" or "disjoint"). Another question to ponder if this distinction is lost on you, is the following: can non-English speaking people produce mathematically precise arguments?

 

[caveman1917]

I guess I just don't understand philosophy because "number and odd" seems the same to me as "number and not even".

It is.

 

[caveman1917]

I did, more than once. You ignored it because I didn't make the specific argument you wanted me to make.

You didn't make any relevant argument yet. Again, you have a probability space with events H denoting "we do not have souls" and E denoting "Jabba exists".

Exactly. That's literally the point.

You're claiming that a universe with souls requires a specific soul to be attached, so which one?

Note how this is different from claiming that a universe with souls requires a soul to be attached. Because of course even your simplistic thought experiment shows that P(square + a colour) = P(square + red) + P(square + blue) = P(square).