Proof of Immortality, VII

[Steve]

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 yourselfyourselves?

A minor error I took the liberty of correcting.

 

[The Sparrow]

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?....

I would guess he thinks he is refining or evolving his argument into an 'undefeated' form.
I could get that if you
1: listened to criticism
2: changed your parameters and
3: re-presented the modified argument.
The problem is he is not actually doing step 1 and 2 of that process.

 

[Belz...]

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.

It's not moot since we're talking about reality. The perception might be the same but the reality is different. I assume that your claim was about reality, not fantasy?

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.

Again I ask you to define your terms, then. If you think I'm erring somewhere then perhaps a demonstration of that error is in order. So far you've done none of that. You can't say that I haven't made the effort of clarifying and explaining my points to you.

You made a claim. Either support it or retract it.

 

[halleyscomet]

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?

Why not? He gets a lot of replies for the "cost" of a few minutes effort every few days. Look over his last dozen or so posts and you'll see a lot of vague, low-energy nothings that managed to generate a lot of responses.

Besides, he's probably kind of bitter about where his former home page shrouddebates.com goes now. He may just be lashing out. I can't find any indication of him having an audience anymore. This may be the only place online where he's being listened to and actively engaged with.

 

[Humots]

Why not? He gets a lot of replies for the "cost" of a few minutes effort every few days. Look over his last dozen or so posts and you'll see a lot of vague, low-energy nothings that managed to generate a lot of responses.

Besides, he's probably kind of bitter about where his former home page shrouddebates.com goes now. He may just be lashingg out. I can't find any indication of him having an audience anymore. This may be the only place online where he's being listened to and actively engaged with.

shrouddebates.com now seems to go to an ebook for sale on Amazon.

?????????????????

 

[halleyscomet]

shrouddebates.com now seems to go to an ebook for sale on Amazon.

?????????????????

Someone else bought the domain. The destination URL changes periodically. Until recently it went to one of the "Answer these questions Jabba" pages on this site. Who knows where it will go next?

 

[halleyscomet]

 

[caveman1917]

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).

Normally I'd put here "GOTO 1892" but since you appear at least educable I'm going to give this another last try:

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.

Meh. Use "computer" for "torso" and "keyboard" for "legs", you could make the same argument yet...wait for it...they all have keyboards, don't they?

You get half a point for at least actually addressing the counter-example, only half a point because you didn't address it in the way required (ie properly defining a probability space and formalizing the claims in it). You lose half a point again though for dismissing it based on an irrelevancy, it is up to you to see first if a minor change in the counter-example doesn't negate your argument again.

(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).

A: "Linda is a bank teller and not active in the feminist movement."
B: "Linda is a bank teller and active in the feminist movement."

Is it possible for B to be more likely than A? If your answer is no -> GOTO 1892.

You're still here, so I assume your answer is, correctly, yes. In which case, hold that in the back of your mind, and take another look at that highlighted statement. Doesn't it also require things, like, the negation of (2)?

This isn't exhaustive of the problems and errors in your post, it's just really all I can be bothered with. All I can really say here is: put that "conjunction fallacy" out of your head, it's doing more harm than good since you're terribly misunderstanding it. Then go to the first chapter of a probability theory textbook, learn the definitions of a probability space and basic theorems and, importantly, learn to think of it (ie "intuit" in it) in terms of set relations in a sigma algebra. And only then go back to more advanced concepts such as that conjunction thing.

 

[SOdhner]

Use "computer" for "torso" and "keyboard" for "legs", you could make the same argument yet...wait for it...they all have keyboards, don't they?

You're having a serious reading comprehension problem. Let's try one more time because I literally have nothing better to do.

I'm going to set up an experiment. I've got a bag full of blocks - ten in all. Nine are painted red, and one is painted blue. (Imagine the usual controls are in place to make it so people can't tell which block is which by feeling them or whatever, the bag is opaque, etc.)

We pull a block out at random. What are the odds that the block is the blue one?

I'll wait here.

...

Okay by now hopefully you've answered. I'm going to be generous and assume you even got the correct answer. Now I'm going to give you another scenario.

This scenario has nothing to do with the other one. This is a brand new scenario.

I'm going to set up an experiment. I've got two bags full of blocks - ten in each bag. Nine in each bag are painted red, and one is painted blue. (Imagine the usual controls are in place to make it so people can't tell which block is which by feeling them or whatever, the bags are opaque, etc.)

We pull a block out of each bag at random. What are the odds that both of the blocks are the blue ones?

Again, take your time.

...

Got it? Good.

Okay, now I have a question. Which was the more likely - getting the blue block in the first experiment, or getting both blue blocks in the second experiment?

 

[halleyscomet]

A: "Linda is a bank teller and not active in the feminist movement."
B: "Linda is a bank teller and active in the feminist movement."

Is it possible for B to be more likely than A? If your answer is no -> GOTO 1892.

A key issue is that there are other factors at play in the question of Linda's politics. The likelihood of her being active in the feminist movement shifts dramatically with the introduction of additional factors. If, for example, she is a bank teller in 2018 working to pay her way through a degree at Smith then it's very likely that she's active in feminism in some way. If, however, she's a Southern Belle in late 1950's Georgia, then the odds of her being active in feminism shift dramatically.

One of Jabba's many problems is he has offered NO additional factors to defend his assertion that existence with a soul is more likely than existence without one. To use your example, his thesis is tantamount to saying, "The odds of Linda the Bank Teller being an active feminist are so astonishingly small as to be impossible because I say so," with no further explanation.

His position cannot be defended because he has offered no position to defend.

 

[abaddon]

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.

It appears slightly different to me. My reading is that while Jabba is indeed a christian, (witness his defense of the italian rag as authentic), he is willing to subvert that in order to glom onto any religious religious claim to support the claim of an immortal soul. He fundamentally does not accept reincarnation at all, it is simply a useful (he thinks) adjunct to his argument. Were he to gain acceptance of the existence of an immortal soul, I expect that all of the non-christian beliefs would promptly be discarded as mere useful rhetorical stepping stones along the way which are no longer useful, while the conclusion would remain.

Just MHO.

 

[Belz...]

Normally I'd put here "GOTO 1892" but since you appear at least educable I'm going to give this another last try:

Golly, it's so good that you're here to teach us idiots how to think!

 

[Belz...]

You're having a serious reading comprehension problem. Let's try one more time because I literally have nothing better to do.

I'm going to set up an experiment. I've got a bag full of blocks - ten in all. Nine are painted red, and one is painted blue. (Imagine the usual controls are in place to make it so people can't tell which block is which by feeling them or whatever, the bag is opaque, etc.)

We pull a block out at random. What are the odds that the block is the blue one?

I'll wait here.

...

Okay by now hopefully you've answered. I'm going to be generous and assume you even got the correct answer. Now I'm going to give you another scenario.

This scenario has nothing to do with the other one. This is a brand new scenario.

I'm going to set up an experiment. I've got two bags full of blocks - ten in each bag. Nine in each bag are painted red, and one is painted blue. (Imagine the usual controls are in place to make it so people can't tell which block is which by feeling them or whatever, the bags are opaque, etc.)

We pull a block out of each bag at random. What are the odds that both of the blocks are the blue ones?

Again, take your time.

...

Got it? Good.

Okay, now I have a question. Which was the more likely - getting the blue block in the first experiment, or getting both blue blocks in the second experiment?

The answer is GOTO 1892!

 

[halleyscomet]

The answer is GOTO 1892!

What does that even mean? Is it a post reference? Thread reference? Deliberately shoddy communication? A reference to a year? A farcical mocking of this entire thread with a deliberately unintelligible “proof” that ultimately means nothing?

 

[Jabba]

- We're on vacation with friends -- that's why I've been so quiet.

Dave,
- So anyway, as far as I can tell, you do accept that the likelihood of your current existence, given OOFLam, is no greater than 10^-100.
- My recent efforts have been to explain why I think that your current existence is even more unlikely than that, and why I claimed that in the materialist model your self would be "brand new" and "out of nowhere." I'm saying that a specific 'prototype' simply didn't exist for you, before you.
- Apparently, a certain biological situation produces the emergent property of consciousness. There being no pool of potential selves to draw from, each new bit of consciousness naturally involves/creates a brand new self, a brand new who. Talk about your infinities!
- And of course, another claim here is that the underlying concept is especially difficult to communicate. So, I think I'll leave it at that, and move on...

- Next, assuming for the moment that you do accept my claim re the size of P(E|H), with which of my numbers do you still disagree?
- The formula: P(H|E & k) = P(E|H)P(H|k) / (P(E|H)P(H|k) + P(E|~H)P(~H|k)).
- The numbers: P(H|E & k) = 0*.99/(0*.99 + .62*.01) = (0/.0062) = 0.

 

[Jabba]

- I meant to substitute 10^-100 for the zeros...

 

[JayUtah]

So anyway, as far as I can tell, you do accept that the likelihood of your current existence, given OOFLam, is no greater than 10^-100.

Literally no once accepts this, as you you have been told several times. Literally no one.

My recent efforts have been to explain why I think that your current existence is even more unlikely than that...

Those efforts are unsuccessful because all you're doing is begging the question. Over and over and over again. That takes no brains.

Apparently, a certain biological situation produces the emergent property of consciousness.

Straw man. The materialist hypothesis states that all properties, emergent or otherwise, are properties of nothing more than the material of which they are composed. As usual, you're trying to portray consciousness as some sort of special, magical property that's in some way different in the human case than for all the rest of materialism.

And of course, another claim here...

If all you were going to do was repeat your claim and all the attendant lies, you shouldn't have interrupted your vacation. Is repeating yourself literally all you're capable of doing? Is that "effective debate?" Is this what you claim makes you better than Plato and Aristotle to study this question -- that was also your claim, if you remember.

 

[godless dave]

- We're on vacation with friends -- that's why I've been so quiet.

Dave,
- So anyway, as far as I can tell, you do accept that the likelihood of your current existence, given OOFLam, is no greater than 10^-100.
- My recent efforts have been to explain why I think that your current existence is even more unlikely than that, and why I claimed that in the materialist model your self would be "brand new" and "out of nowhere." I'm saying that a specific 'prototype' simply didn't exist for you, before you.
- Apparently, a certain biological situation produces the emergent property of consciousness. There being no pool of potential selves to draw from, each new bit of consciousness naturally involves/creates a brand new self, a brand new who. Talk about your infinities!
- And of course, another claim here is that the underlying concept is especially difficult to communicate. So, I think I'll leave it at that, and move on...

- Next, assuming for the moment that you do accept my claim re the size of P(E|H), with which of my numbers do you still disagree?
- The formula: P(H|E & k) = P(E|H)P(H|k) / (P(E|H)P(H|k) + P(E|~H)P(~H|k)).
- The numbers: P(H|E & k) = 0*.99/(0*.99 + .62*.01) = (0/.0062) = 0.

I disagree with the .99 and the .62, as well as your whole approach, as well as your continued misrepresentation of the non-religious hypothesis.

 

[Jabba]

I disagree with the .99 and the .62, as well as your whole approach, as well as your continued misrepresentation of the non-religious hypothesis.

- How would you change the .99 and .62?

 

[godless dave]

- How would you change the .99 and .62?

I wouldn't pretend to be able to make a meaningful estimate with such limited data.