Proof of Immortality, VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
caveman1917 said:
So an immortal soul is part of H (materialism)?
Click to expand...

*Sighs*

Okay here's how this works.

Monza's original metaphor was to explain that a specific instance of a thing is less likely than a general instance of a thing. That's just how uniqueness and information works. If you have 10,000 sealed boxes that have between them 500 widgets and of those 500 widgets 5 of them are silver it is more likely to pick a box containing an generic "widget" then it is to pick a box containing a silver widget.

Jabba's entire "reasoning" is that his existence is incrediably unlikely. And he's trying to explain away that unlikeliness by adding something to it, a soul which adds another quality and makes the thing more unlikely, not less.

Then you run in with the Torso Argument, the claim being it's more likely to fine a full set of human parts; a torso, limps, head, so forth, than just to find a torso. This because torsos only exist as parts of larger systems; the body, therefore finding a torso just by itself is less common that finding a torso that is part of the human body.

So for your metaphor to apply to Jabba's "Body + Thing I'm Totally Not Calling A Soul That's Totally a Soul" claim instead of the first one someone who have to provide evidence that a soul is necessary for a functioning mind, that is to make a mind+soul a single system instead of two separate (and one not existing) parts.

I await such evidence with... breathless anticipation.
 
caveman1917 said:
Yes, the probability of only my torso existing. The comparison made is between "only your body exists" and "your body + soul + connection exists".
Click to expand...

The body and soul are assumed to be two different things from two different sources, so yes, both of them existing has smaller odds than just one. Arms and legs, however, are part of the same body with the same source.

Are you participating in a contest to see how wrong you can be?
 
Jabba said:
- Under H, that dimension is not accepted/recognized and me and my copy are the same except for the time and space occupied.
Click to expand...

Poorly worded, but essentially correct. So you agree that under H the original and the copy are identical and that there is no difference.

- Under ~H, that dimension is recognized
Click to expand...

Nope. ~H is not a single hypothesis, and you can't pretend that it is.

- I accept that this latter (the Texas Sharpshooter issue) is a weak link in my argument (I think the only weak link), but I still think that I'm right about it setting me apart as a legitimate target.
Click to expand...

See Jay's link.
 
I wish I could remember it so I could link to but I watched an amazing Youtube video that explained how randomness interacts with complexity.

Let's revisit the deck of cards. I have a deck of 52 cards. But these cards are all blank. No numbers, no colors, no suites... all identical blank cards. No card you can pull from this deck is going to have any describable characteristic that any other card wouldn't also have. You can still describe the cards in as much detail as you want "It's 2.25 × 3.5 inches, made of 300 gsm Smooth Card Stock, completely white on one side, standard abstract grid pattern on other other." But everything describes all the cards equally. They are not distinguishable or special in any way.

I shuffle the deck. What exactly have I accomplished? In what way can a deck of blank cards be more or less random than before? Randomness as a concept requires complexity.

So I take the cards and separate them into two colors; 26 red and 26 black. I have now added a characteristic to each card; either red or black. It now requires an additional piece of information; it's color; to subscribe. The possibility that two cards are now distinguishable is now possible. "It's 2.25 × 3.5 inches, made of 300 gsm Smooth Card Stock, completely white on one side, standard abstract grid pattern on other other." is no longer enough information to describe every card. The possibility of "the right" or "the wrong" card now exists in some context. A deck that is ordered all red, than all black or red, black, red, black is now a functional thing that can exist.

So I add suites to the cards; jacks and diamonds for the black cards and hearts and spades for the red in equal numbers. The complexity of the deck goes up again.

Now I go in and add numbers to the cards, creating a standard deck. Now each card is completely unique. You can describe a card in such a way as the description does not match any other card in that deck.

What Jabba is trying to do is claim that he can pick what card is going to be picked out of a blank deck. But since there is nothing to differentiate the 52 blank cards the statement is meaningless. Jabba's going "But I describe the card using all the available information before I blindly picked from the deck" and I refuses to understand that that is not a meaningful statement if his description would have applied to any other card in the deck as well. And his counter to every point brought up by his critics is to shuffle the deck even longer and repeat the trick.

It doesn't even really rise to the level of the "Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy." Picking the 2 of clubs out of a deck and going "Oh yeah that's totally the card I planned to pick" after the fact would be the TSF. This is going up to a barn that has no bullet holes in it, drawing a circle around nothing, and claiming that's what you meant to hit without acknowledging that you never hit it.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Dave,
- This seems to be an inoperable disagreement... I perceive a clear difference between the original and the copy; you do not. I think we should put an asterisk here, and move on.
Click to expand...

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOU AND AN EXACT COPY OF YOU IS_____

(I presume an asterisk is where you concede.)
 
Jabba said:
Joe,
- The attorneys are not going to convince each other; the best each can hope for. is to convince the jury. I'll also leave it to the eventual, hoped for, jury to decide who needs to grow up.
Click to expand...

There are no attorneys here except for Loss Leader. This is not a trial. You're not going to convince an impartial jury that shows a modicum of critical thinking.
 
Jabba said:
- Under H, that dimension is not accepted/recognized and me and my copy are the same except for the time and space occupied.
Click to expand...
What an odd way to phrase it. How about: Under H, there is no such dimension.

- Under ~H, that dimension is recognized,
Click to expand...
Another odd turn of phrase. How about: Under ~H, is claimed without evidence.

and is claimed to be what not only sets me apart from most other humans, but sets me apart from all other humans.
- I accept that this latter (the Texas Sharpshooter issue) is a weak link in my argument (I think the only weak link), but I still think that I'm right about it setting me apart as a legitimate target.
Click to expand...
Explain the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy in your own words. Let's see that we'll all on the same page with it.
 
zooterkin said:
What is the difference between 'H' and 'OOFLam'?
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
- Nothing.
Click to expand...

Then what on earth do you mean by the following?
Jabba said:
- I understand your implication here is that I'm not properly representing H in the formula.

- But, that H doesn't have such a dimension is where OOFLam enters the fray -- OOFLam clearly implies that there is no such dimension. ~OOFLam clearly implies that there is. That's how the formula represents the issue. That's how the formula is supposed to represent the issue.
Click to expand...

How does OOFLam 'enter the fray' when you're already talking about H, which you've just said is the same thing?

Also, ~OOFLam does not imply anything about the existence of souls; it encompasses a whole range or possibilities, some which include souls, but many which do not.
 
IIRC, someone at the JREF forum had a signature that read something like the following - I'm sure that I'm misquoting, but you get the gist.

I learned a few things from the conspiracy theory sub-forum. One, that people have some crazy ideas, and two, that they tend to be very poor at explaining them.
 
Jabba said:
- I understand your implication here is that I'm not properly representing H in the formula.
- But, that H doesn't have such a dimension is where OOFLam enters the fray -- OOFLam clearly implies that there is no such dimension. ~OOFLam clearly implies that there is. That's how the formula represents the issue. That's how the formula is supposed to represent the issue.
Click to expand...

godless dave said:
So now you do agree that H doesn't have that dimension. That means under H, two identical bodies would have two identical selves. Or are you going to change your mind again?
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
- Under H, that dimension is not accepted/recognized and me and my copy are the same except for the time and space occupied.
- Under ~H, that dimension is recognized, and is claimed to be what not only sets me apart from most other humans, but sets me apart from all other humans.
- I accept that this latter (the Texas Sharpshooter issue) is a weak link in my argument (I think the only weak link), but I still think that I'm right about it setting me apart as a legitimate target.
Click to expand...

godless dave said:
If it only sets you apart under ~H, then it is only relevant to P(E|~H). It is not relevant to P(E|H).
Click to expand...
- No. It is what makes H and ~H different, and in that sense is relevant to the accuracy/correctness of each.
- It is why P(E|H) and P(E|~H) are different.
 
Jabba said:
- No. It is what makes H and ~H different, and in that sense is relevant to the accuracy/correctness of each.
- It is why P(E|H) and P(E|~H) are different.
Click to expand...

Do you understand that P(E|H) is based on H and P(E|~H) is based on ~H?
 
All right, goddammit, so Jabba and a perfect copy of Jabba exist. They're both wrong.

Or maybe the copy sees the silliness of arguing for an immortal soul, & the original doesn't. Hooray! Now we can tell one from another!

Until Orig. Jabba cries "Die, heretic!" and fells the copy with a Huey helecopter. Yeah, that could happen.

Christ, what couldn't happen in this immortal thread?
 
Jabba said:
And the likelihood of E (the current existence of my self) -- given OOFLam -- is unimaginably small.
Click to expand...

This unsupported claim is based on your belief in a pool of supported selves i.e. souls, which is contrary to H. You're still talking nonsense.

If you're going to discuss E under H, you can't do so using concepts that are alien to H. Under H, there are no potential selves. Therefore your calculation of likelihood is based on a fiction.
 
Jabba said:
- Sure. And H is OOFLam. And the likelihood of E (the current existence of my self) -- given OOFLam -- is unimaginably small.
Click to expand...

Why does OOFLam matter in how unlikely your existence is? Your brain exists. OOFLam indicates that the only thing that needs to be accounted for is your brain. ~OOFLam requires not only your brain, but something else as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom