Proof of Immortality, VI

[JayUtah]

You aren't going to do a dishonest bait and switch on the meaning, are you?

Certainly the last time we recited this same scene in Jabba's comedy of errors, that's what Jabba tried to do. Rather than answer his critics on what precisely he meant by "different," he just vigorously applied textual apparatus to the word without resolving the demonstrated ambiguity. "It wouldn't be me, it would be different." (Mojo ninja'ed me on this, but I'll let my post stand to illustrate that Jabba's tricks are easily seen through.)

Oh, to be sure we tried to steer him away from ambiguity and toward such words as "distinct" and "separate" -- to denote when items are discretely particular -- and "similar" and "dissimilar" and "identical" to describe degrees of likeness based on properties. We tried to sever those concepts and resolve what Jabba was claiming regarding materialism and the alleged infidelity of the copy. But of course Jabba would have none of it. His ploy was evidently to get someone to agree to "different" based on the assumption it meant merely separate (albeit identical), and then spring the trap to claim agreement on the meaning of "dissimilar." The dishonestly agreed dissimilarity would clearly be the presence of a soul in one but not the other, or the presence of a different soul.

In like manner, godless dave perseveres in illustrating that phrases like "...bring me back to life" trade on equivocating "me" and maintaining the ambiguity of what that means under different models of consciousness. Dave has stuck to his guns and, as we did earlier, define clearly what he understands by the phrase. And Jabba, as ever, has abandoned the now-clarified terms in favor of yet another ambiguity. The shell game that has gone on for years, continues unabated.

 

[JoeMorgue]

And it's the passive aggressive brilliance of splitting hairs far, far, far past the point where the language is really suited for to the point that every statement has been made "technically" wrong.

Jabba's trying to weasel some "gotcha" out of the fact that there's no reason to explain "sense of self" in the way he's demanding we explain it so the language doesn't have concise, ready made terms to describe the pointless distinctions without difference so in turn he gets to use terms in any manner he wishes.

Jabba's trying to force a term that means "A magical perfect and unreplicatable sense of self that equals you" by throwing terms against the wall hoping one of them will stick.

Ironically the closest thing to a term that does mean that, Soul, he refuses to use head on since that would tip his hand and bring his obvious subtext out.

I've dismissed a lot of Woo over the years as being meaningless word games, trying to prove a dog has 5 legs by calling a tail a leg, but this has taken it to new levels.

 

[godless dave]

- I thought you had, but I wasn't sure, and figured that asking would be quicker than trying to track it down.
- I see what you mean about "identical." How about if I just say that the two selves are different -- in that the second self would not be you?

So it's different in the same way the second body would be different from the first body. So you could trace the cause and effect.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I feel that Jabba is really holding the debate hostage with endless discussions about an irrelevant point.

Jabba, you seem to agree ^*) that the self stops when the body dies (otherwise a copy WOULD bring it back to life), so .... obviously, we are not immortal?

Hans

*) What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[JayUtah]

Jabba, you seem to agree that the self stops when the body dies (otherwise a copy WOULD bring it back to life), so .... obviously, we are not immortal?

The thought experiment is meant to help us investigate what materialism says would happen if we could hypothetically duplicate the organism. In other words, Jabba's trying to tell us what materialism is. Therefore the implications of what he's trying to foist wouldn't necessarily apply to his side of the equation, which isn't materialism. He's trying to say that P(E|H) must be very, very small because H can't explain certain facets of E -- namely what he's trying to paste onto it with all these silly word games. If E is a particular person's existence wherein he has a sense of self, then H can't explain it according to Jabba because his notion of the "sense of self" in E is just a soul in disguise. Since the thought experiment illustrates that materialism can't effect an incarnation of the true vessel of the self, it can't be the mechanism by which some individual is produced.

Among the many things that are wrong with Jabba's proof is the pollution of E with theory. In a correct statistical inference, E is observable data and not theorized causes and effects.

 

[RoboTimbo]

- I thought you had, but I wasn't sure, and figured that asking would be quicker than trying to track it down.
- I see what you mean about "identical." How about if I just say that the two selves are different -- in that the second self would not be you?

Maybe it would help if you tell us what your claim is again.

 

[John Jones]

Maybe it would help if you tell us what your claim is again.

Mods, ban this man.

 

[Belz...]

Maybe it would help if you tell us what your claim is again.

 

[SOdhner]

So, the argument as it stands is:

1. The odds of Jabba's soul existing is essentially zero under materialism (true!)
2. And yet, Jabba is pretty sure it exists.
3. Therefore, materialism is false.
4. Since materialism is false, Jabba's specific theory must be true.

I don't know why we're getting off on all sorts of other tangents, the above is far more concise than most versions that Jabba posts. It still has several fatal flaws, but it has *less* than Jabba's long version so it's a move in the right direction...

 

[Mojo]

So, the argument as it stands is:

1. The odds of Jabba's soul existing is essentially zero under materialism (true!)
2. And yet, Jabba is pretty sure it exists.
3. Therefore, materialism is false.
4. Since materialism is false, Jabba's specific theory must be true.

I don't know why we're getting off on all sorts of other tangents, the above is far more concise than most versions that Jabba posts. It still has several fatal flaws, but it has *less* than Jabba's long version so it's a move in the right direction...

Point 1 is not quite what has been argued. What Jabba is actually arguing is that the odds of his soul existing is essentially zero under some hypothesis that includes the existence of souls. While he claims that this is materialism, it is not.

 

[JoeMorgue]

So, the argument as it stands is:

1. The odds of Jabba's soul existing is essentially zero under materialism (true!)
2. And yet, Jabba is pretty sure it exists.
3. Therefore, materialism is false.
4. Since materialism is false, Jabba's specific theory must be true.

I don't know why we're getting off on all sorts of other tangents, the above is far more concise than most versions that Jabba posts. It still has several fatal flaws, but it has *less* than Jabba's long version so it's a move in the right direction...

The irony is at any point Jabba could have just said "I believe in a soul" and while it would (hardly) ended the argument it would have put Jabba on the same level as literally most of mankind.

I've never seen a human being put so much effort into manufacturing a bad, dishonest reason to justify something that another established and largely accepted bad, dishonest reason for already exists.

The "issue" such as it is isn't that Jabba believes in a soul. Literally billions of people believe in a soul. The issue is that Jabba for some reason has to create the illusion that he can A) believe in a soul without calling it a soul and B) mathematically prove a soul, making it a scientific fact and and not a religious belief and he seems to be doing this by writing some unholy hybrid of self insert fan fiction and passion play and casting us all in it against our wills.

 

[Loss Leader]

So, the argument as it stands is:

1. The odds of Jabba's soul existing is essentially zero under materialism (true!)
2. And yet, Jabba is pretty sure it exists.
3. Therefore, materialism is false.
4. Since materialism is false, Jabba's specific theory must be true.

I don't know why we're getting off on all sorts of other tangents, the above is far more concise than most versions that Jabba posts. It still has several fatal flaws, but it has *less* than Jabba's long version so it's a move in the right direction...

This isn't completely correct, but it points out one of Jabba's most serious flaws: Bayesian probability. His argument is just a basic syllogism. There's no reason to torture pure Mr. Bayes.

The only purpose for using Bayes' theorem is specifically because it overcomplicates matters. That gives Jabba more places to hide his errors. He's never actually fooled anybody with this intellectual dishonesty except, maybe, himself.

 

[JayUtah]

So, the argument as it stands is:

1. The odds of Jabba's soul existing is essentially zero under materialism (true!)

Eh, sorta. It's probably more accurate to say he claims the odds of his existence as presently constituted are very low if arrived at by purely materialistic means. The proviso is that "as presently constituted" hides a soul-like concept that he's trying to foist by giving it different names from day to day. There's a cloud of related equivocation around that and around why this can supposedly be reckoned as a probability, then a huge shoal of special pleading about why the probability is low.

2. And yet, Jabba is pretty sure it exists.
3. Therefore, materialism is false.

Well, he's pretty sure he exists in his present constitution. He takes it as read that the odds of him existing in this form are much higher if he has an immortal soul.

4. Since materialism is false, Jabba's specific theory must be true.

Essentially yes, by false dilemma. He knows he can't prove immortality directly, so he tries to prove the opposite false. Originally his formulation was that ~H was immortality and therefore H was everything else. One of the tricks he pulls, but which you might not have seen yet, is to hop between H being a singular hypothesis and ~H being everything else, and ~H being a singular hypothesis and H being everything else. In other words, Jabba plays another whole word game just involved in hiding the false dilemma.

His argument is just a basic syllogism. There's no reason to torture pure Mr. Bayes.

The only purpose for using Bayes' theorem is specifically because it overcomplicates matters. That gives Jabba more places to hide his errors.

Agreed. It has been made abundantly clear that Jabba hasn't the faintest clue how to properly formulate a statistical inference, or even what one really is. Bayes' theorem is simply a tool Jabba is using deliberately to obfuscate an otherwise clearly wrong proof.

 

[JayUtah]

The "issue" such as it is isn't that Jabba believes in a soul.

Technically Jabba is trying to prove immortality. We just all stipulated that such a thing wouldn't be possible without something like a soul. Unless he can prove the existence of a soul, his proof fails on its premise. We his critics are content to let it fail there, since he admits he has no appropriate evidence. But in his conversion of the conditional he has neglected to reckon necessity against sufficiency correctly. It is necessary to his claim that a soul exist; it is not, however, sufficient to his claim. Jabba grabbed hold of that one early on and tried to lower the bar. It's unclear whether he is still moving that goalpost.

Literally billions of people believe in a soul.

And literally billions of people believe in some form of afterlife or post-mortem renewal. As you said, if he had said simply that he believes in immortality he wouldn't be any worse off than billions of other people. And that's what tips us off to what's really going on here. He wouldn't be any better off either.

The issue is that Jabba for some reason has to create the illusion that he can A) believe in a soul without calling it a soul and B) mathematically prove a soul, making it a scientific fact and and not a religious belief...

And that reason has got to be straightforward ego reinforcement. If he simply states a belief in immortality, there's no distinction in it for him personally. He'd just be one among billions. But recall that he set out to show those godless atheists over at ISF (née JREF) the power of his reasoning. This is about Jabba's purported genius, not the actual question of immortality. He can't conceivably care any more about immortality than about any of the other topics he's started threads on, all based on this pseudo-mathematical style of argumentation. If he succeeds in proving immortality as a mathematical and scientific fact, he'd be a genius standing tall among other geniuses like Aristotle and Plato, who tried the same thing and failed. He even told us once why he thought he could succeed where those illustrious thinkers had failed: he had the notion of the infinite pool of "potential selves" for a denominator that let him think about it as a probability. That's one of the reasons he clings to Bayes even when, as Loss Leader correctly notes, there is nothing really statistical in his reasoning.

This is simply about Jabba groveling for recognition he doesn't deserve, and committing all manner of dishonestly with himself and others to convince himself that he either has got it, or is really close, or would have it already were it not for the disingenuity of his critics.

 

[SOdhner]

I've never seen a human being put so much effort into manufacturing a bad, dishonest reason to justify something that another established and largely accepted bad, dishonest reason for already exists.

Yeah it's actually really impressive.

So, the argument as it stands is:

1. The odds of Jabba's soul existing is essentially zero under materialism (true!)

Eh, sorta. It's probably more accurate to say he claims the odds of his existence as presently constituted are very low if arrived at by purely materialistic means. The proviso is that "as presently constituted" hides a soul-like concept that he's trying to foist by giving it different names from day to day. There's a cloud of related equivocation around that and around why this can supposedly be reckoned as a probability, then a huge shoal of special pleading about why the probability is low.

See, and I think we just said the same thing. I mean, he has acknowledged that he means a soul, and he has dismissed all physical properties as being irrelevant to it. He has repeatedly appealed to this (totally not a soul nudge nudge wink wink) soul when trying to define the probability on the (supposedly) materialist side of the equation. So, in essence, his argument is that under materialism the odds of his soul existing is too low.

Obviously you're right that that's not the way he presents it, but that's kinda what it boils down to.

2. And yet, Jabba is pretty sure it exists.
3. Therefore, materialism is false.

Well, he's pretty sure he exists in his present constitution. He takes it as read that the odds of him existing in this form are much higher if he has an immortal soul.

I was more referring to his insistence that feeling like something is true is enough evidence to suggest that it is. He has said that if science doesn't "feel" right that's a good indication that it's wrong since his intuition trumps science. He has repeatedly implied that the soul sense of self must be a persistent thing that can exist as an immortal whatever because that just kinda FEELS right to him.

He even told us once why he thought he could succeed where those illustrious thinkers had failed: he had the notion of the infinite pool of "potential selves" for a denominator that let him think about it as a probability. That's one of the reasons he clings to Bayes even when, as Loss Leader correctly notes, there is nothing really statistical in his reasoning.

Well gosh I guess it's good for him that that method has proved so robust... oh, wait. Honestly I don't know why he doesn't just declare success and move on. Five years of being told he's wrong and refusing to address the actual problems - deep, fatal, fundamental problems - can't possibly have given him much hope that he'll succeed. In fact, he should be worried that he'll die of old age before anyone has a chance to recognize his genius.

So... hey, Jabba! I have a suggestion!

Write a book. Don't worry about convincing us. We're never going to be convinced for lots of reasons we've already tried to explain to you. So don't bother. Just write a book, I promise that there are plenty of people in this world that don't care about whether or not an argument is logically sound. You're wasting your time here, go and be the next Deepak Chopra. You've heard of Deepak Chopra I'm sure - and guess what? Nobody here agrees with a word he says. We all think he's full of it and are annoyed that he doesn't understand what "quantum" means. And Deepak Chopra doesn't care that we don't like him or agree with him, he just laughs all the way to the bank.

So go, be free! Write a book and get famous and ignore the haters just like you ignore valid criticism in this thread! You can do it! I believe in you, Jabba. You're just spinning your wheels here, you can do so much more.

 

[JayUtah]

Obviously you're right that that's not the way he presents it, but that's kinda what it boils down to.

Yes, exactly.

I was more referring to his insistence that feeling like something is true is enough evidence to suggest that it is.

Ah, yes. And he can't understand why his critics don't just feel in their own hearts that he's right.

Honestly I don't know why he doesn't just declare success and move on.

Move on to where? I doubt anyone else will give him the kind of longstanding attention he's getting here. Plus, he's holding out for an expression of agreement. Sooner or later someone he thinks of as a skeptic will say, "Yes, I agree with that" to some bit of ambiguity and he can claim to have convinced someone -- i.e., won the argument.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Plus, he's holding out for an expression of agreement. Sooner or later someone he thinks of as a skeptic will say, "Yes, I agree with that" to some bit of ambiguity and he can claim to have convinced someone -- i.e., won the argument.

To use the "Director directing a play" framework that is the only way to make this WWE Royal Rumble of a thread to make sense in my head what Jabba is waiting for is the right "take."

He sees this thread as the rough cut of a film that's gonna be saved in editing.

In his brain it doesn't matter how much doesn't work, that's all gonna be left on the cutting room flow. He's Stanley Kubrick making Shelly Duval do take 127 to get the scene right. That's why he's repeating himself so much. He's not "Fringe resetting" he's starting the scene over.

It's legit scary how well all of this makes sense in that context.

 

[SOdhner]

Plus, he's holding out for an expression of agreement. Sooner or later someone he thinks of as a skeptic will say, "Yes, I agree with that" to some bit of ambiguity and he can claim to have convinced someone -- i.e., won the argument.

Well hell, if that's what we're waiting for I'm not too proud to take one for the team. It won't be genuine, but after the mental and linguistic gymnastics he's done here I can't imagine he cares that much about honesty so...

Oh my goodness, Jabba! I get it now! Your formula is brilliant, and all those fatal flaws are irrelevant! I never imagined that you could prove immortality through these methods, but now I - a skeptic - am convinced that you are both correct and immortal. I concede.

 

[JoeMorgue]

"I'm Commander Shepard, and this is my favorite immortality theorem on the Citadel."

 

[jt512]

Jabba, even assuming this is true, why would immortality make you more likely to exist than immortality?

If there are an infinite number of potential souls, then the chance that you would come to exist is 1/inf. - that's zero.

You are attempting to put a uniform distribution on an infinite discrete (ie, countable) sample space, but that violates the laws of probability, which say that the probabilities of all the elements must sum to 1. When the sample space is countable, the probabilities of the elements cannot all be equal.

I can field this one.

Because, as you correctly point out, the chance he would come to exist is zero, and he DOES exist, then the denominator must be wrong. There must be a finite number of souls.

Yes the denominator is wrong. No, the sample space need not be finite.

<- click that

I think that section of the article is wrong. It violates countable additivity.