Proof of Immortality, VII

[Dave Rogers]

So you see, from my perspective I don't even need to bother reading whatever is imagined to be the latest "argument" for this specific claim.

When you decide that no possible response to your claims can invalidate them, you've stepped rather a long way outside the realm of rational skepticism, don't you think?

Dave

 

[caveman1917]

When you decide that no possible response to your claims can invalidate them, you've stepped rather a long way outside the realm of rational skepticism, don't you think?

Dave

Look, it's very simple. There are these things called theorems, and generally you either provide a proof for them or a counter-example. [ETA: well, strictly speaking it wouldn't be a theorem if you got a counter-example, but its negation would then be a theorem.]

If a proof is provided then you don't just get to incessantly repeat "Nah, I think the theorem is, like, false dude." Well I guess you get to do whatever you want, but you shouldn't expect others to pay attention. You have to actually address and invalidate the proof. Similarly, if a counter-example is provided then you don't just get to incessantly repeat "Nah, I think the theorem is, like, true dude." You have to actually address and invalidate the counter-example.

In this particular instance "addressing and invalidating the counter-example" would entail formalizing the claim, formalizing the counter-example, and showing them to not be formally equivalent. You know, thereby invalidating it as being a counter-example.

And the people in this thread who can define a probability space and properly do math in it have by now probably done so and realized their error, and the ones who can't do that, well, it's not like they're going to do that. So it's not so much that "no possible response to my claims can invalidate them" but that I have no interest in wasting my time with endless "[insert nonsense] and so I claim that it is mathematically impossible for ~H to be more likely than H". If that's all they got then as far as I'm concerned they can loop between 1892 and 2297 for as long as it takes them to reach the exit condition (which is designed so as to force them to address the counter-example).

And if you think "[insert nonsense] and so I claim that..." is not a fair characterization, just look at it:

{H is defined by the possibilities:}

1. This specific body exists.
2. This specific body doesn't exist.

See the problem already? That is, by definition, the universe. P ∨ ¬P? You might have heard of it sometime? But then of course, if H is the universe then, again by definition, ~H is the empty set. Yet here we get ~H:

1. This specific body exists and this specific soul exists and they're linked.
2. This specific body exists and this specific soul exists but they aren't linked.
3. This specific body doesn't exist, but this specific soul does.
4. This specific body does exist, but this specific soul doesn't.

Does that look like the empty set to you? It doesn't look like that to me at least. And then after this we simply get the latest iteration of the endless repetition of the same-old same-old claim:

For either of these Jabba would be looking at the likelihood of option #1, and for either of those we need to figure out how likely the existence of this specific body is (setting aside the fact that we're talking about someone we already know to exist and so obviously the answer is 100%). This is going to be the same regardless of the existence of a soul.

So then on the second one we *also* need to figure out how likely it is he'd have the same soul (or as he calls it, [INSERT RANDOM WORD]) which isn't going to be 100% according to Jabba. Therefore the odds of #1 under H will always be better than under ~H.

So I repeat: What criticism? I just see "[nonsense] and so I claim that the theorem is, like, true dude."

 

[Belz...]

No. You are talking about continuity of process. I never was, and may never do so. I was talking about persistence. "Sentience is persistent"

And we usually understand "sentience" to mean consciousness.

But instead of running about like idiots, the both of us, how about you now explain what you mean by "sentience" and "persistent"? That way you will lose the ability to wiggle yourself out of your errors and we'll have a more solid basis for discussion.

If the sentience persistently and consistently propagates through time (and it does) it is persistent.

You might want to offer evidence for the highlighted.

It doesn't matter whether or not there are temporal gaps between moments of awareness.

It matters a whole lot to jabba's claims. You know, the topic of the thread.

 

[SOdhner]

See the problem already? That is, by definition, the universe.

You're confusing different parts of this conversation and then trying to force them into bad formulas. Of course it's not working for you. Ignore the formulas for a second.

Jabba is saying that we should calculate the odds of an event happening under two different circumstances. He wants us to look at the odds of something under situation A, and the odds of a similar thing under situation B.

Situation A is where there's one variable (let's call it X) and it has to come up a specific way out of a large number of possibilities. The actual number doesn't matter too much for this explanation though, so let's say it's 1/10. So we would say that X has a 10% chance of coming up the way he's expecting.

Situation B isn't dependent on situation A in any way. There's no formula right now, we're not talking about that. In situation B there's a variable called X that has a 1/10 chance of coming up the way he wants, and there's also a variable called Y that has a 1/10 chance of coming up the way he wants. He would need both X and Y to have the desired result at the same time, so that's a 1% chance.

Situation A = 10% chance
Situation B = 1% chance

You don't need to try and force this into the screwed up formula that Jabba is trying to use. It's garbage.

 

[Belz...]

Yeah but what about torsos?

 

[SOdhner]

Yeah but what about torsos?

Oh well yeah obviously if we're talking torsos then the whole thing is out the window and souls make everything more likely to exist. I mean clearly.

 

[The Norseman]

Oh well yeah obviously if we're talking torsos then the whole thing is out the window and souls make everything more likely to exist. I mean clearly.

No, no, no. It obviously has nothing to do with souls. Torsos exist in order to show HOW WRONG YOU ARE. ABOUT EVERYTHING. (Infinity.)

 

[Dave Rogers]

So I repeat: What criticism?

OK, here's the conjunction fallacy.

Jabba is comparing the probability that he exists at this specific time under materialism and under the assumption that he has an immortal soul. However, the latter condition also requires that his immortal soul is incarnated at this specific time. Under H, he is considering the probability that his physical body currently exists. Under ~H, he is considering the probability that his physical body currently exists, and that his specific soul is one of the infinite number of possible souls that actually exists.

The conjunction fallacy is not in comparing P(H) with P(~H). It's in comparing P(N|H) with P(N|~H), where N is Jabba's incarnated existence right now.

Dave

ETA: And note that this is not equivalent to atating that both Jabba's torso and his head exist at the same time. It is inherent in Jabba's definition of the soul that its existence is independent of that of the body it incarnates in.

ETA 2: He's also, in his non-materialist hypothesis, assuming that his particular soul is incarnated in his particular body; using his "brain is a radio receiver" analogy, his soul could in principle be incarnated in any currently existing body. So there are three independent conditions required for his current existence under his reincarnation hypothesis:
(1) His particular body exists at present.
(2) His particular soul exists.
(3) His particular soul is incarnated in his particular body.
Whereas materialism only requires (1).

 

[halleyscomet]

Of course, Jabba’s equation means that according to him it’s far more likely Geoduck has a soul.



Unless Jabba is a vegan, he’s knowingly eating animals he believes to have souls. Cows, ducks, kangaroos, chickens, are all just as likely to have souls under Jabba’s ideas as he is.

 

[halleyscomet]

OK, here's the conjunction fallacy.

Jabba is comparing the probability that he exists at this specific time under materialism and under the assumption that he has an immortal soul. However, the latter condition also requires that his immortal soul is incarnated at this specific time. Under H, he is considering the probability that his physical body currently exists. Under ~H, he is considering the probability that his physical body currently exists, and that his specific soul is one of the infinite number of possible souls that actually exists.

The conjunction fallacy is not in comparing P(H) with P(~H). It's in comparing P(N|H) with P(N|~H), where N is Jabba's incarnated existence right now.

Dave

ETA: And note that this is not equivalent to atating that both Jabba's torso and his head exist at the same time. It is inherent in Jabba's definition of the soul that its existence is independent of that of the body it incarnates in.

ETA 2: He's also, in his non-materialist hypothesis, assuming that his particular soul is incarnated in his particular body; using his "brain is a radio receiver" analogy, his soul could in principle be incarnated in any currently existing body. So there are three independent conditions required for his current existence under his reincarnation hypothesis:
(1) His particular body exists at present.
(2) His particular soul exists.
(3) His particular soul is incarnated in his particular body.
Whereas materialism only requires (1).

The more I think about it the more it becomes clear Jabba has to be advocating animism. He has given NO explanation why a soul makes his existence more likely than not. He's just made a blanket assertion that souls make existence more likely, and dressed his overt animism up in a farcical "equation" with no justification or explanation.

His refusal to explain why his having a soul would make his existence more likely is not a flaw in his argument, but an effort to avoid admitting he's advocating animism. This also, to an extent, explains his ignorance of religious beliefs around reincarnation. He's referencing reincarnation not as a serious means of pushing his argument, but as an alternative to admitting he's advocating animism.

 

[Belz...]

The more I think about it the more it becomes clear Jabba has to be advocating animism. He has given NO explanation why a soul makes his existence more likely than not. He's just made a blanket assertion that souls make existence more likely, and dressed his overt animism up in a farcical "equation" with no justification or explanation.

Animism? He's arguing for the divinity of Jesus and keeps refering back to reincarnation. If he's an animist I'd like to unpack his beliefs and have a look at them. Must be pretty unique.

 

[halleyscomet]

Animism? He's arguing for the divinity of Jesus and keeps refering back to reincarnation. If he's an animist I'd like to unpack his beliefs and have a look at them. Must be pretty unique.

Regardless of the pseudo-Christian trapping he's wrapped himself in, his equation demands animism. He has offered no means of differentiating between existence with a soul and existence without a soul aside from the claim that having a soul makes existence more likely. If rocks exist without souls, then his equation, as it stands, collapses. If a rock can exist without a soul so can he.

I would also like to argue that animism is not automatically incompatible with Christianity as Jabba has advocated it. Christianity is fundamentally concerned with the souls of human beings. I've read a number of Creationist debates about what the existence of extra-terrestrial life would mean to humanity. Would Jesus be the "savior" of beings who are native to a moon of Jupiter? Questions about the "scope" of the corruption caused by the Fall are applicable to the souls within beings other than humans. This, by the way, is why so many Creationists insist there is no other life in the universe. It's a lot easier to answer questions about who "saves" the soul, if it even needs saving, of a being from another planet if you declare that there are no such beings to begin with.

Jabba however has backed himself into a corner. By making no allowances for the difference between humans and all other existing things in the Universe, he has created a situation where, if his equation has any accuracy, either everything has a soul or nothing does.

 

[SOdhner]

I've read a number of Creationist debates about what the existence of extra-terrestrial life would mean to humanity. Would Jesus be the "savior" of beings who are native to a moon of Jupiter?

Not to get too off-topic, but the church I grew up in believed there's a LOT of alien life out there but most aliens are, frankly, better than us and didn't need Jesus to come and save them.

To bring it back to the topic at hand, I wonder how Jabba feels about life on other planets and how that impacts his formula. I mean, since he believes in a sort of "pool" of consciousness that we draw from does he think that humans have one pool and aliens have another, or do we share, or...?

Not that any answer to that will change any of the huge fundamental errors in his formula but I'm still curious.

 

[Belz...]

To bring it back to the topic at hand, I wonder how Jabba feels about life on other planets and how that impacts his formula. I mean, since he believes in a sort of "pool" of consciousness that we draw from does he think that humans have one pool and aliens have another, or do we share, or...?

The more the better, as it makes his existence even more unlikely!

 

[halleyscomet]

Not to get too off-topic, but the church I grew up in believed there's a LOT of alien life out there but most aliens are, frankly, better than us and didn't need Jesus to come and save them.

To bring it back to the topic at hand, I wonder how Jabba feels about life on other planets and how that impacts his formula. I mean, since he believes in a sort of "pool" of consciousness that we draw from does he think that humans have one pool and aliens have another, or do we share, or...?

Not that any answer to that will change any of the huge fundamental errors in his formula but I'm still curious.

This of course raises the question of how the "Jesus" Jabba advocates can have ANY relevance in a universe where reincarnation is the norm, let alone how he can have any relevance in a universe where reincarnation on a different planet was possible.

I'm reminded of an episode of "Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman" where it was established that Superman and Lois had been predestined in multiple reincarnations, all of which had been on Earth. Being reborn on Krypton was an anomaly for his soul.

Reincarnation and Christianity are fundamentally incompatible, as reincarnation puts Karma, works, and deeds in the position of determining your destiny after death, while Christianity puts it in the hands of the Grace of God through a bloody human sacrifice.

 

[halleyscomet]

Perhaps the real problem is we're just not using the right techniques to get through to Jabba about just how borked his math ideas are.

 

[JayUtah]

I wouldn't make the mistake of connecting Jabba's performance in this forum to any specific belief system, or to any desire to support one. While the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin is generally of interest only to Christians (and perhaps only to Catholics), Jabba did not profess or defend the Catholic faith in his effort to prove it was real. He said he was basically just interested in the "spiritual" and he had no special devotion to Catholicism or Christianity. And while Jabba's audience elsewhere tend to be Christian, I don't get that he's trying to argue immortality here from a strictly Christian perspective. (Or from a mathematical perspective either, for that matter, but here we are.) Therefore rebuttals saying that Jabba's argument is incompatible with some supposed religion probably miss the mark.

Of course we know from external sources that his probable goal here is nothing more noble than to rail against skeptics. And we glean from observation that he wants to be seen as a hero for doing so, which explains a lot of the debate dynamic. Jabba told us during the Shroud debate that skeptics were just being mean-spirited by rejecting his excellent evidence, and that a less "biased" audience received his arguments well. When asked to put up, he made the mistake of linking to an outside forum where Shroudie sycophants were happily stroking Jabba's ego for his efforts against skepticism. I think it's fair to suppose that's what he's after again.

What that would mean is that he's interested only in expending the least effort it would take to appeal to the segment of people who clamor for secular confirmation of religious belief. I've observed that segment tends to glom onto champions who turn out to be pseudo-intellectuals or pseudo-scientists of little, if any, distinction outside the scope of religious polemics.

Jabba has no prodigious aptitude for statistical math. That much is certain, and in his more candid moments he has admitted as much despite his ongoing claims elsewhere to be a "certified statistician." And his argument suffers greatly for that deficit, as has been pointed out. But his intended audience will not be statisticians or mathematicians. It is sufficient for Jabba's audience that his notation appears "mathy" enough to convince a layman it might mean something. Jabba appears uninterested in classical philosophy, over which he claims superiority. He shows no inclination to research reincarnation, animism, or any of the other schools of thought upon which he relies. He has left his conclusion sufficiently open-ended so that it could appeal to rank and file Christians if only to say he has refuted materialism. But his intended audience will not be philosophers. He merely needs to talk as much pseudo-philosopy as it takes to impress a lay anti-skeptic audience. And Jabba shows no desire to defend or discuss the science he says supports his claim. There is no indication he even reads what he cites. Most of his "science" seems to come from heavy-on-woo popular books, which he seems to expect to simply be taken uncritically at face value. And that's okay for him, because none of his intended audience will be scientists. They just need to be told -- true or not -- that there is secular science that nurtures their beliefs, with citations that will certainly go unread or even unfollowed.

We are compelled by the ground rules to take Jabba at face value and examine only the mathematical, factual, and logical claims of his arguments. But Jabba is pretty explicit about his inability to hold up his side of such a debate. He is utterly convinced he's right -- if right enough only to fool an undiscriminating audience -- and he doesn't want anything to get in the way of his applause.

 

[halleyscomet]

We are compelled by the ground rules to take Jabba at face value and examine only the mathematical, factual, and logical claims of his arguments. But Jabba is pretty explicit about his inability to hold up his side of such a debate. He is utterly convinced he's right -- if right enough only to fool an undiscriminating audience -- and he doesn't want anything to get in the way of his applause.

Regardless of his intentions, the "arguments" he's constructed support animism. He is arguing that in order for something to have the possibility of existing it must have a soul.

It's a shame he has me on "ignore." I'd be amused to see how he handles having this fundamental aspect of his mythology pointed out.

 

[Toontown]

And we usually understand "sentience" to mean consciousness.

But instead of running about like idiots, the both of us, how about you now explain what you mean by "sentience" and "persistent"? That way you will lose the ability to wiggle yourself out of your errors and we'll have a more solid basis for discussion.



You might want to offer evidence for the highlighted.



It matters a whole lot to jabba's claims. You know, the topic of the thread.

None of these momentary me's care about anything you're saying. Especially since you don't seem to know you've already admitted your claim is moot. All of us me's are of the same mind on that.

Plus, the me's have given up on trying to explain to you that 'we' were never talking about sentience versus consciousness. 'We' were always talking about the difference between "continuous" and "persistent", but when 'we've' pointed that out you've defaulted back to something about sentience versus consciousness.

'We' don't want to play that. That's a brutally oppressive combination of boring and time-consuming. 'We' don't know why anybody would want to play that. Why not just play checkers with yourself?

 

[SOdhner]

And that's okay for him, because none of his intended audience will be scientists. They just need to be told -- true or not -- that there is secular science that nurtures their beliefs, with citations that will certainly go unread or even unfollowed.

But what I don't get is why he even bothers. I mean whether he crows to his favored audience about defeating materialism five years ago or today or five years from now it's every bit as wrong and gets him the same attention. Why spend time here, getting disagreed with?

Anyway, I'd contribute more to the actual conversation rather than being all meta like this but I'm waiting for Jabba to post again so we can see which reply to cut and paste in this endless loop.