[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Jabba]

- Carlitos,
- This is the first claim that you asked me to address:

Your claim is wrong. At least one possibility of the complement cannot be known and at least one possibility of the complement is known for certain.

You cannot know if we are in a random or deterministic universe. If the universe is deterministic, then your existence, however brief, had a probability of 1. There is no way of testing whether the universe is random or predetermined. The is no way of knowing whether, if it were run from the beginning, it would turn out the same.

- This was my first answer to the deterministic issue:

LL,
- That isn't my "proposition." My current proposition is that if I (as a potential self) ever come to exist, I will live for one finite lifetime. My complementary proposition is that if I (as a potential self) ever come to exist, I will live either infinitely, or more than once.
- These propositions apply equally to either a non-deterministic universe, or a deterministic universe. A deterministic universe wouldn't make any difference re the prior probabilities, as prior probabilities are based upon the information we have prior to the particular event. Consequently, whether our universe is deterministic or not, we still have to deal with probabilities -- as our relevant info is grossly lacking.

- So, let me know specifically why my answer doesn't apply.

 

[Mojo]

deleted.

 

[Jabba]

Good Morning, Mr. Savage! I hope your Thursday is going well. We got another inch of new snow last night, and the temperature is not supposed to get abpve freezing for the next two days, so I have a couple of hours of shoveling and de-icing ahead of me today. My partner is also stuck in a nearby city, as the highways are impassable.

I have, as politely as possible, both suggested and requested where you should "start". is is the same place you should have "started" in your OP.

Instead of trying to logically force the conclusion that your definition of "immortality" (whatever it is) is the only "logical" conclusion of the premise set you are claiming to establish, why not "start" at the "other end"?

Why not simply present all of your evidence that the "soul" exists, and is "immortal"? You keep trying to sell an immortal pig in an invisible poke. Why not simply introduce your pig?

You are trying to use logic to force a conclusion. Follow:

Whereas: at the end of your day, a ham sandwich is better than nothing; and,
Whereas: at the end of your life, nothing is better than going to heaven;
Therefore, a ham sandwich is better than going to heaven.

Do notice that I am not even beginning to consider the ways in which what you want to call "immortality" is in conflict with xianist theology...)

Slowvehicle,

- We had about 10 inches, and I was busy from about 7:00 AM to 10:30 AM...

- Otherwise, I'm still trying to answer the complaints alleging a false dichotomy. Once I've given that my best shot, I'll get back to the "background knowledge" I've used in determining the "prior probability" of ~A. I think that's my "evidence" you're asking for.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- Carlitos,
- This is the first claim that you asked me to address:

- This was my first answer to the deterministic issue:- So, let me know specifically why my answer doesn't apply.

Good Morning, Mr, Savage! I am glad that I saw your post before I went out and started shoveling.

Your answer does not apply because you are still trying to limit ~A by definition. If you define your A, then ~A can only be "anything and everything else". Once you begin to try to define your ~A, then it is your A that must be "anything and everything else".

Your answer does not apply because you keep trying to define BOTH A and ~A, which does not work.

Again I urge you--stop, take a deep breath, and start at the other end. Present your best evidence that the "soul" exists at all; then present your best evidence that the "soul" is "immortal".

We can argue about why your version of "immortality" is so very different from, even exclusive of, the xianist idea of "eternal life" another day.

All this reminds me of "mine stepfodder's" favorite joke (he used to claim he vass from "fargonordekkoder, up dere wid dem svedes und norvegians und dem odder fur-bearin critters what grow where it's dark an it's cold..."):

Reicpe for cookin Bear:
1. Catch bear.
2. Cook it like moose.

You are still in the "catch bear" step. Demonstrate that the "soul" exists--than we can cook it like moose.

 

[Jabba]

Does not contain the case of the half -line where we existed for ever and ever, until we are born and then die and stop existing.

- I think that's just a variation within either A or ~A.
- "Ever and ever, until" seems to be a finite time period, and as long as their is no temporal space between that and being born, we exist only once (A). If there is some sort of temporal space between the two, we exist more than once (~A).

 

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle,

- We had about 10 inches, and I was busy from about 7:00 AM to 10:30 AM...

- Otherwise, I'm still trying to answer the complaints alleging a false dichotomy. Once I've given that my best shot, I'll get back to the "background knowledge" I've used in determining the "prior probability" of ~A. I think that's my "evidence" you're asking for.

Good morning, Mr. Savage!

The "complaints" are not "alleging" a false dichotomy. Several posters are independently pointing out that you are, in fact, improperly constructing your dichotomy.

You are still mis-stating your ~A in terms of your A.

I say again: you may define one, but not the other. Once you define one, the other is, and must be, and can only be, "anything and everything else".

And, not to be argumentative, but I did NOT ask for your take on the " 'prior probability' of ~A". I asked for your evidence that the "soul" exists.

NOTE: I am not asking for an apophatic claim that "the 'soul' must exist, despite all lack of evidence, because it is illogical to believe that it doesn't"; I am asking you to present evidence (concrete, objective, empirical evidence) that the "soul" exists. We can argue about the quality, or the significance, of that evidence later.

 

[Jabba]

Good Morning, Mr, Savage! I am glad that I saw your post before I went out and started shoveling.

Your answer does not apply because you are still trying to limit ~A by definition. If you define your A, then ~A can only be "anything and everything else". Once you begin to try to define your ~A, then it is your A that must be "anything and everything else".

Your answer does not apply because you keep trying to define BOTH A and ~A, which does not work.

Again I urge you--stop, take a deep breath, and start at the other end. Present your best evidence that the "soul" exists at all; then present your best evidence that the "soul" is "immortal".

We can argue about why your version of "immortality" is so very different from, even exclusive of, the xianist idea of "eternal life" another day.

All this reminds me of "mine stepfodder's" favorite joke (he used to claim he vass from "fargonordekkoder, up dere wid dem svedes und norvegians und dem odder fur-bearin critters what grow where it's dark an it's cold..."):



You are still in the "catch bear" step. Demonstrate that the "soul" exists--than we can cook it like moose.

Slowvehicle,

- Nice analogy.

- Otherwise, I think that "excluded middle" applies here, and ~A includes every possibility within the conditional that isn't included by A.

 

[Aepervius]

- I think that's just a variation within either A or ~A.

- now I could eb wrong, but the way you defined your not-A, you do not lsit the case I proposed above, which quite clearly means we are not immortal.

- "Ever and ever, until" seems to be a finite time period, and as long as their is no temporal space between that and being born, we exist only once (A). If there is some sort of temporal space between the two, we exist more than once (~A).

Ever and ever until is not a finite time period ! It is infinite. It is just infinite in the past.And that is qutie an important part that you are missing ! It is not containing in A either !

 

[carlitos]

- Carlitos,
- This is the first claim that you asked me to address:

- This was my first answer to the deterministic issue:- So, let me know specifically why my answer doesn't apply.

Your answer doesn't apply because you are still trying to limit the complement. You have been told this dozens of times.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- I think that's just a variation within either A or ~A.
- "Ever and ever, until" seems to be a finite time period, and as long as their is no temporal space between that and being born, we exist only once (A). If there is some sort of temporal space between the two, we exist more than once (~A).

Good Morning, again, Mr. Savage...

How, in your opinion, does either of the highlighted claims imply, define, or result in, "immortality"?

How, in your opinion, does the combination of the two highlighted claims define all possibilities?

What if some of us exist "only once"; while some of us can earn, or be granted, existing "more than once"? What if some of us exist "more than once" forever; some of us exist "once" forever; and some of us "exist more than once" but not forever, and some of us "exist only once" but not forever? What if existence itself is an illusion?

If the union of Aand ~A leaves anything out; any possibility at all, then your dichotomy is a false dichotomy.

 

[Aepervius]

Again to give you an example, imagine an infinite one way lane. There is no end if you go in the direction of the lane neither is there an end if you go contrary to the direction of the one way lane. Then somewhere there is a baltimore city on that road. Later direction of the lane there is a detroit.

(no end)-----------------Baltimore-------------------detroit----------------(no end)


A normal life (A we live only once) is a a car going from Baltimore to detroit.

An immortal life as defined by people believing in heaven for example is a car travelling from baltimore going thru detroit and going forever.

The case i am speaking of is the case of a car coming *forever* from before baltimore, going through baltimore and then *stopping* at detroit.

This should be in your not A ! but you are not taking it into account. it is an infinite life, but stopping at death.


ETA: and as inficated by the other above, it could be that *some of us* live only once. Good luck going from your generalisation to the specifics.

 

[Jabba]

Good morning, Mr. Savage!

The "complaints" are not "alleging" a false dichotomy. Several posters are independently pointing out that you are, in fact, improperly constructing your dichotomy.

Slowvehicle,
- Doesn't that mean that I've constructed a "false dichotomy"?

You are still mis-stating your ~A in terms of your A.

I say again: you may define one, but not the other. Once you define one, the other is, and must be, and can only be, "anything and everything else".

- You seem to be saying that it's impossible to be more specific. But, so far, in my opinion, no one has told me how my specific complement doesn't include "anything and everything else."

And, not to be argumentative, but I did NOT ask for your take on the " 'prior probability' of ~A". I asked for your evidence that the "soul" exists.

- It sounds like I haven't understood your request...
- I've been thinking that you wanted my reasons for believing that immortality was possible.
- Otherwise, we'll need to nail down what each of us means by "soul." As you know, I didn't want to talk about "souls"; I wanted to talk about "selves."

NOTE: I am not asking for an apophatic claim that "the 'soul' must exist, despite all lack of evidence, because it is illogical to believe that it doesn't"; I am asking you to present evidence (concrete, objective, empirical evidence) that the "soul" exists. We can argue about the quality, or the significance, of that evidence later.

- I'll have to look up "apophatic."

 

[Garrette]

Slowvehicle,
But, so far, in my opinion, no one has told me how my specific complement doesn't include "anything and everything else."

So no one at all has mentioned that your ~A does not include some people being immortal while some are not?

So Aepervius did not actually write post 2911?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle,

- Nice analogy.

- Otherwise, I think that "excluded middle" applies here, and ~A includes every possibility within the conditional that isn't included by A.

Thank you, Mr. Savage. I often miss mine stepfodder...

However, you think that you can apply the "excluded middle" because you are trying to define both A and ~A to make your conclusion all that is left; the "middle" you are "excluding" is part of what comprises ~A.

Let's go back to the analogy.

If A is "cook it like moose"; then
~A is anything and everythihg that is NOT "cook it like moose":
-eat it raw
-cook it like spam musubi ("ono, brah")
-cook it like conch ceviche
-cook it like muskrat noodle hot dish
-cook it like shrimp etouffee
...and so on ad (literally) infinitum. Anything and everything that is not "cook it like moose" is part of ~A. Any attempt to define ~A in terms of a list is doomed to fail, because you cannot conceive of every possibility of how not to "cook it like moose". (did you think of not cooking it at all? of trading the bearskin for food? of catching a duck, instead? of starving? of eating jail food for 5-10 years for poaching a bear? of poaching the bear, in a slightly acidic liquid?) A and ~A, taken together, must encompass all possibilities...or you have constructed a false dichotomy.

Instead of trying to define all of the ways not to cook bear "like moose", why not just provide your favorite bear recipe? (did you think of bearcowpigturkeyduckhen? of bear-in-a-blender? of being eaten by the bear? of bear jerky? of bearmiccan?)

Instead of trying to logically exclude everything but your assumed conclusion, why not present your evidence for the existence of the "soul"? If you have no such evidence, why not simply state that you believe that the "soul" exists, and is "immortal", and stop trying to pretend to prove it?

(bear demi-glace? bear sorbet, with soapberries? painting a portrait of grandmere with dried, ground bear as pigment, and selling the picture for food? training the bear to hunt for you?)

 

[carlitos]

-cook it like spam musubi ("ono, brah")

 

[godless dave]

As you know, I didn't want to talk about "souls"; I wanted to talk about "selves."

But then you defined "self" in a way that made it a synonym for "soul".

 

[Slowvehicle]

Good morning again, Mr. Savage...I suppose I can shovel, and clean ice out of my gutters, another time.

Slowvehicle,
- Doesn't that mean that I've constructed a "false dichotomy"?

Yes. Very good. your A/~A pair, where you presume to define A, AND define ~A, is, in fact, a false dichotomy. It is not an "alleged" false dichotomy, but a bull-goose, in-the-flesh, on-the-hoof, FOB, false dichotomy.

You seem to be saying that it's impossible to be more specific.

"There are more things under ~A than can be dreamt of in your philosophy, Richratio."

Think of it as analogous to Heisenbergian uncertainty (down, physicists! this is a limited analogy, only). If you define a particle's speed, the precision with which you define its speed is inversely proportional to the precision with which you can define its position. If you define a particle's position, the precision with which you define its position limits the precision with which you can define its speed. (A policeman pulls Heisenberg over, and says to him: "Sir, do you know how fast you were going?" Einstein, in the front seat, leans over and says: "By my calculations, exactly 145 meters per second!" Heisenberg looks at him in horror, and says: "Great! Now I have NO IDEA where we were!")

If you define your A, the only thing that can be said about ~A is that it must include anything and everything else. Once you define A, AND define ~A, in terms of specific characteristics, you have inevitably excluded "everything else", making your dichotomy inherently false.

This is a simplification, but it illustrates the problem with the false dichotomy you keep offering.

But, so far, in my opinion, no one has told me how my specific complement doesn't include "anything and everything else."

I have a suggestion. Go back and read Carlito's collection of objections people have been raising. Read this post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9819388&postcount=2911 by Aepervirus. As long as your A consists of a description, or a condition, and your ~A consists of any description or condition short of "anything and everything else", your dichotomy is a false dichotomy.

- It sounds like I haven't understood your request...
- I've been thinking that you wanted my reasons for believing that immortality was possible.
- Otherwise, we'll need to nail down what each of us means by "soul." As you know, I didn't want to talk about "souls"; I wanted to talk about "selves."

Well, this doesn't seem to be a fringe reset at all, now, does it?

Back when posters were trying to get you to nail down what you mean by the"self", and you were denying that it was what (for instance) I mean by the "self", that is, an emergent property of a particular brain; it seems to me that you admitted that you were, in fact, talking about a "soul", but did not want to use that term. If you are not, in fact, using "self" as a euphemism for "soul", I apologize.

However, my request and suggestion still stands.

Present your evidence for the "self" as something other than an emergent property of a particular brain (which would, by definition, rule out immortality). Having presented your practical, empirical, objective evidence of the existence of the "self" as anything other than an emergent property of a particular brain, then present your evidence that the "self" is "immortal"

- I'll have to look up "apophatic."

Apophatic (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/apophatic) refers to knowledge obtained exclusively through negation. It is one of the kinds of "sophisticated theology" that atheists are accused of ignoring. Simplistically, apophatic theology boils down to concentrating on the unknowable essence of 'god', which, since it cannot be known, and therefore cannot be disproved, must mean that 'god' does, in fact exist.

You are trying to demonstrate that the self exists, and is immortal, by excluding any possibility that it does not, and is not.

Instead, why not present your evidence that it does, and is?

 

[Slowvehicle]

I'll be here all week--try the bear!

 

[kid meatball]

I'll be here all week--try the bear!

No thanks, who knows how you're going to cook it.

 

[Mojo]

No thanks, who knows how you're going to cook it.

Why not go over to first base and ask him?