Proof of Immortality, VI

[JesseCuster]

- One point at a time.
- First of all, I don't know if there is such a thing as "free will" -- but if there is, it doesn't apply to Mt Rainier. If there is such a thing, I assume that it applies only to humans...

What does free will have to do with anything? I don't recall free will being a factor in your mathematics or argument for how we are immortal. Sounds like you're just throwing in stuff at random into your argument in the hope that something works.

- My next premise is that the laws of physics apply to what we are, but if they apply to who we are, we have no idea how they do it, and we're stuck with chance even after the big bang -- i.e., P(E|H)=7X10⁹/10¹⁰⁰.

Nope. It doesn't matter whether or not we know how selves arise according to the laws of physics.

Remember, according to you at some point in the early universe, the laws of physics became entirely deterministic, which is why you determined that Mount Rainier had a chance of coming into existence of 1.00

If the laws of physics are that deterministic, then everything in the universe that exists had a 1.00 chance of coming into existence, regardless of whether or not we understand how it came into being. You're just going to try and get around that this conclusion awkwardly follows from your earlier claims (so many of your claims result in conclusions that you don't want, you really ought to think more before throwing out more of your claims.)

The idea that if you don't understand the science behind something, therefore is becomes a crapshoot with random odds, is utter nonsense. If the laws of physics means that everything in the universe unfolds entirely deterministically (remember, that's your claim) then that applies to everything in the universe, including humans, regardless of whether or not we understand it. We don't understand close to everything that resulted in Mount Rainier being the exact way it is, but that hasn't stopped you from declaring that it had a 100% chance of coming into existence.

You can't said that the universe unfolds with deterministic inevitability, and then special plead your way around that apply to humans because, not understanding how consciousness works means that we can just throw that inevitability out the window and replace it with random chance. That doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[Mojo]

- The example of "setting apart" to which I usually refer is when the winner of the lottery happens to be a second cousin to the controller of the lottery. In the case of the lottery, we have evidence that the winner was not the result of the lottery hypothesis -- chance.

You have failed to show that this sort of "setting apart" applies to your existence. Whose second cousin are you claiming to be?

 

[Mojo]

- It needs to be set apart from other geological formations re the hypothesis that their shapes are determined by the laws of physics.

Note that Jabba, having failed to provide any coherent argument that the Texas sharpshooter fallacy doesn't apply to using his own existence as a target, now expects people to show that it doesn't apply to using Mount Rainier as a target, something that nobody has argued.

 

[Loss Leader]

Jesse,
- It needs to be set apart from other geological formations re the hypothesis that their shapes are determined by the laws of physics.

Jabba, the fact that you can't tell two mountains apart is of very little moment.

I'm sure that the vast biomass of the earth couldn't tell two humans apart. You are attuned to it because evolution made it so. People need to be able to sort each other by gender and remember which ones we're related to. The fact that you can do this doesn't mean humans have a wider range of differences than mountains, just that you are human and evolution made you care about identifying people.

A funny creature is the flea;
You cannot tell a She from He.
But She can tell, and so can He.

 

[JayUtah]

Per usual, I'm saying that this is complicated.

Except that it isn't. Under materialism there is no salient difference between a mountain and a human being in terms of how they come about and how they exhibit their relevant properties. You're trying to conjure some some mealy-mouthed nonsense for what you want to be the difference. Special pleading.

I'm claiming that P(E|G) for Rainier is not small in the way that matters...

Except that it is.

Rainier is not set apart from other geological forms in a way that is meaningful re G.

Except that it is. If G is the set of physical laws that govern the formation of mountains, it is a chaotic but deterministic system. If H is the set of physical laws that govern the formation of human beings, then H is a chaotic but deterministic process.

 

[JayUtah]

It needs to be set apart from other geological formations re the hypothesis that their shapes are determined by the laws of physics.

No, what you're suggesting is that we have to apply the same special pleading to Mt Ranier as you're applying to living persons in order for the argument to hold. As I mentioned before, you don't seem to understand how a refutation works. The argument of complex determinism in both cases -- Mt Ranier and people -- is meant to illustrate how they are alike under materialism. Instead, you're just repeating your same broken concept of materialism. Do you understand what special pleading is? Do you understand how a refutation of special pleading works?

The example of "setting apart" to which I usually refer is when the winner of the lottery happens to be a second cousin to the controller of the lottery. In the case of the lottery, we have evidence that the winner was not the result of the lottery hypothesis -- chance.

Remember the part where we keep telling you that analogy doesn't describe materialism? Same old straw man you've been peddling for years.

 

[JayUtah]

First of all, I don't know if there is such a thing as "free will" -- but if there is, it doesn't apply to Mt Rainier. If there is such a thing, I assume that it applies only to humans...

Asked and answered. You're once again wrongly trying to say that for the analogy to hold, both Mt Ranier and people have to exhibit the same set of emergent properties. That is not the argument. Free will is part of the emergent property of consciousness that is part of several properties all humans have. A mountain has a different set of properties. But they are properties nonetheless, and they arise out of the material of the mountain.

My next premise is that the laws of physics apply to what we are, but if they apply to who we are...

Asked and answered. In materialism there is no separate "who we are" by any definition. Do not keep foisting your notion of a soul where it doesn't belong.

...we have no idea how they do it...

Yes we do. The material of the human organism forms, and when it has reached a point that the brain begins to function as a whole, there emergences the property of self-awareness. You have assiduously denied this process, but that doesn't make it go away. The materialist world is not stumped just because you think they should be, or because you don't understand what you're trying to refute.

...and we're stuck with chance even after the big bang ...

Asked and answered repeatedly. Just because you have two numbers and can divide one by the other doesn't turn that into a probability that governs some downstream system. The probability of something arising is meaningful only if it was pre-specified, which it is not -- either in the case of mountains or of people.

 

[JayUtah]

- As I see it, "souls" implies immortality; "selves" does not.

Weasel words. The concept you're trying to foist is immaterial and exists in some potential form prior to being incarnated. Keep in mind you hold in abeyance your notion to prove immateriality instead of immortality. Your "self" is just this diluted form of soul, just as "immateriality" is your diluted form of immortality. And we're well aware of your propensity to dilute your topics down to the point where you trick someone into agreeing with the dilution, then you restore the argument back up to full strength and claim victory.

At least you've been somewhat honest about your deliberate misuse of language to hide concepts you're trying to slip in through the back door. That hasn't gone unnoticed.

 

[theprestige]

- As I see it, "souls" implies immortality; "selves" does not.

It's not your terminology that implies immortality. It's the structure of your argument that implies immortality.

This signature is intended to irradiate people.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Robo,
- I've explained over and over again why I don't call it a soul -- I think that would be begging the question.

I appreciate that you've recognized that you are engaging in special pleading and think that avoiding a word will give a semblance that you aren't doing it. I was encouraging you to use the word soul so that you would more easily realize how transparent it is to everyone else.

- I think everyone here thinks that I'm begging the question anyway. Everyone but me.

Why do you think that is when the people who are critical of your claim are well-educated and neutral?

 

[Mojo]

Note that Jabba, having failed to provide any coherent argument that the Texas sharpshooter fallacy doesn't apply to using his own existence as a target, now expects people to show that it doesn't apply to using Mount Rainier as a target, something that nobody has argued.

Basically, we're back to Jabba's long-running attempt to prove immortality by talking about something else.

 

[JoeMorgue]

- As I see it, "souls" implies immortality; "selves" does not.

But immortality is the thing you are (ostensibly) trying to prove.

Do you honestly think we're so stupid we're going to fall for a little piece of transparent doublespeak?

Again given your admitted ulterior motive this is all academic, you are attempting to generate a poor signal to noise ratio in order to have more words to quote mine for your dishonest "argumentative road map." But you can't winge and whine about how the argument is going while doing that.

 

[godless dave]

Differentiating the "who" and the "what" sounds like mind-body dualism. Maybe the problem is that in five years I haven't explicitly said that I don't subscribe to mind-body dualism.

Jabba, I don't subscribe to mind-body dualism.

I see no difference between the "who" and the "what".

 

[JayUtah]

Differentiating the "who" and the "what" sounds like mind-body dualism. Maybe the problem is that in five years I haven't explicitly said that I don't subscribe to mind-body dualism.

Jabba, I don't subscribe to mind-body dualism.

I see no difference between the "who" and the "what".

More importantly, materialism has no notion of it -- explicitly rejects it. There is no notion of a separate "who" that makes sense under materialism, so such a concept cannot be used to reckon P(E|H) in Jabba's model.

 

[JayUtah]

But immortality is the thing you are (ostensibly) trying to prove.

Do you honestly think we're so stupid we're going to fall for a little piece of transparent doublespeak?

Apparently he does.

Keep in mind that his side of the argument can presume souls when reckoning P(E|~H). But naturally P(E|H) cannot. So Jabba has invented a "diet soul" to try to sneak into the materialist side of the debate. He wants the notion of a soul -- however diluted -- to be part of E so that both sides have to explain it. Also, however deluded.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm honestly done with arguing the minutia of Jabba's various "equations." As far as I'm concerned they are just another argumentative sub-division he's created to stall.

If one of the variables in an equation is utter nonsense, adjusting the equation isn't going to help.

And it's been the one thing inviting most of the random thread nannying for some reason.

 

[Jabba]

- If we start from the beginning of the universe and the laws of physics are in place, I would assume that the exact shape of Mt Rainier has a likelihood of almost 1.00 -- except, perhaps, for where humans are involved (I'm allowing for the possibility of free will where humans are involved). We're pretty sure about the laws of physics, and have no reason to suspect that they haven't been completely applied in regard to Rainier.
- I'm accepting that the laws of physics determine what we humans are, but not who we are -- or at least, if they do determine who we are, we have no idea how they do it...
- Do you know what I mean when I try to distinguish between what we are and who we are?

No. I have no idea what you mean.

- Over and over again, I've tried to communicate this difference I perceive. Again, I seem to be running out of steam re this sub-issue.

Maybe you should try to think through why you perceive a difference and see if maybe you are mistaken.

- That's why I'm here... As you can tell, I still think I'm right.

 

[John Jones]

- That's why I'm here... As you can tell, I still think I'm right.

That or you have OCD.

 

[JoeMorgue]

- That's why I'm here... As you can tell, I still think I'm right.

- This is a discussion Jabba. "I think I'm right" is irrelevant if you lack the most basic skills or intellectual honesty to argue your point in anything resembling an effective manner.

- And no by your own admission you are here to collect soundbites for your dishonest argumentative road map nonsense.

 

[Jabba]

- As I see it, "souls" implies immortality; "selves" does not.

"Self" the way you've been using it implies immateriality. I don't subscribe to a model where selves are immaterial. Most of the other posters on this thread don't either. You know this because we've discussed it repeatedly...

- This "self," or "sense of self" -- whatever you want to call it -- is something we all experience.
- You don't believe that anything, including the self, is immaterial.
- I'm trying to show you why I believe that OOFLam is wrong. That belief does imply that the self is immaterial.
- I'm trying to show that what you subscribe to is wrong... So far, I'm not doing too well, but it is appropriate behavior under the circumstances.