Proof of Immortality III

[ComfySlippers]

- Do you guys think that it's possible that an immaterial self exists?

Do you think it's possible that you've wasted valuable real-life time, in the real-world, by trying to convince yourself that you're immortal?

 

[Tale]

Tale,
- Is it reasonably possible that immaterial selves exist?

Not from what I've been presented.

 

[JayUtah]

We got as far as stipulating mere possibility in the OP.

Which is generous enough. Waiving prima facie plausibility would normally not occur in an intellectual examination, and without it "Is it possible an immaterial self exists?" is as plausible as "Is it possible Jabba is the reincarnation of Adolph Hitler?"

 

[Jabba]

- Do you guys think that it's possible that an immaterial self exists?

No. But just like everything I think I know, I could be wrong. You're welcome to try to convince me an immaterial self exists.

- "The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
- "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." Bertrand Russell

Dave,
- Wouldn't you say that you are "so certain" and "full of confidence" that there is no such thing as an immaterial self?
- I would say that the prior probability of OOFLam is .99 -- but that the math seems to prove OOFlam wrong.

 

[ComfySlippers]

Which is generous enough. Waiving prima facie plausibility would normally not occur in an intellectual examination, and without it "Is it possible an immaterial self exists?" is as plausible as "Is it possible Jabba is the reincarnation of Adolph Hitler?"

 

[JoeMorgue]

- "The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
- "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." Bertrand Russell

Oh not this tripe again. Stop parading this quote out every time you realized you've been argued into a corner for the last half decade.

Your ability to read that quote and somehow come to the conclusions that it means you have to be right because the "other side" is able to support their statement with evidence, logic, reason and basic argumentative and linguistic consistency while you cannot is mind boggling.

 

[godless dave]

- "The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
- "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." Bertrand Russell

Dave,
- Wouldn't you say that you are "so certain" and "full of confidence" that there is no such thing as an immaterial self?

I would say exactly what I said the first time. No, I don't believe in an immaterial self. I don't believe in immaterial anything. I see no evidence of anything immaterial.

I also know that being human, I can be wrong about anything.

- I would say that the prior probability of OOFLam is .99 -- but that the math seems to prove OOFlam wrong.

Even if your use of Bayesian math wasn't flawed, the only way your math works is if OOFLam includes souls. As I said before, I don't believe souls exist. You aren't going to convince anyone that souls exist by asking them to assume souls exist.

 

[The Sparrow]

- Do you guys think that it's possible that an immaterial self exists?

I have a sense of something I identify as my self. It goes away when I sleep. Where does it go? My wife has video taped me sleeping, so I know my body still exists. My self though is gone, until/if I wake up again.
Where does it go?

 

[JayUtah]

- "The problem...'"

Veiled name-calling ignored.

Wouldn't you say that you are "so certain" and "full of confidence" that there is no such thing as an immaterial self?

Straw man. Your critics are under no obligation to style their disputation of your claim in the words of the irrelevant excoriations you have posted, and by so doing fall under its epithets. Further, asking for proof of a thing that is claimed is not in any way certain denial of it. I am confident that no such thing exists as an immaterial self. Why? Because there is nothing it would explain. It's a cause in search of an effect. I would be less confident if there were an observable effect that would require such a thing as a cause. But you cannot show any.

You have proposed a hypothesis. You have failed to prove it mathematically, as you said you would. You have reformulated the hypothesis (inaptly) as a false dilemma and tried to disprove its converse; even so you have failed to do that. You have literally begged people to accept your hypothesis as true, potentially true, and/or possibly true, using all manner of evasive language. You have utterly failed to provide an iota of rational basis for your hypothesis, much less any evidence. And now you've stooped to trying to shame your critics away from their quite justifiable skepticism by insinuating that it makes them "fanatics and fools" or "stupid."

Shame on you.

Now give up this childishness and start behaving like an adult.

I would say that the prior probability of OOFLam is .99 -- but that the math seems to prove OOFlam wrong.

Blatant question-begging. You may not simply pull a number out of your orifice and pretend it carries any rigor. You are not competent in this branch of mathematics, and you have ignored all attempts by people here and elsewhere to educate you to that effect.

Math doesn't "seem" anything. You are either competent in the math and can construct a valid proof that will stand up to review, or you are not, cannot, and there will be no amount of validity whatsoever in the failed attempt. Mathematical proofs are either correct or incorrect; there is no "seem."

 

[sackett]

Did Bukowski really say that banal (and unoriginal) thing? Maybe he did, somewhere in his volumes of stuff; he was a careless essayist, and wrote more for money than to express ideas.

He was also incapable of insulting anyone, since his opinions had no value. Only an arrogant person can be insulting, because arrogance consists of overbearing behavior toward one's equals.

Insolence, on the other hand, consists of a display of effrontery towards one's betters. So hell's afire, any little feller can be insolent.

 

[jond]

- Wouldn't you say that you are "so certain" and "full of confidence" that there is no such thing as an immaterial self?

Jabba: What everyone is saying is that there is NO EVIDENCE that there is an immaterial self. Not only that, but there is no reason to think that an immaterial self could interact with a material brain in the way the we KNOW the brain works. We KNOW how damage to a given section will result in specific changes in consciousness. We know what regions of the brain are active in a given activity, such as language or processing sight or sound. In order for a non physical self to exist, it needs to be able to make neurons fire, which is a physical event. Any ideas about how that might work?

- I would say that the prior probability of OOFLam is .99 -- but that the math seems to prove OOFlam wrong.

Another thing you still refuse to acknowledge about the math here is that however unlikely human existence might be, your scenario is rather MORE unlikely. Consider: first you have the unlikeliness of a human's existence. Then you need to add the unlikeliness of a given immaterial self's existence (odd that you never speculate about how unlikely that is!). Then you need to add the unlikelihood that an immaterial self joins a given human being. Seems to me that you've taken the unlikeliness of a human's existence and made it way, way, WAY more unlikely.

I know you'll ignore this post, but you really shouldn't.

 

[JayUtah]

Did Bukowski really say that banal (and unoriginal) thing? Maybe he did...

He did, and as you point out -- no one cares.

The Russell quote is interesting because in context it actually means to say almost the opposite of what Jabba intends it to mean here. What Russell meant is that the world has a problem (well, had in his time) because the only ones being assertive were those of lesser intelligence; the smart people had been cowed into silence.

Much as Jabba is trying to cow his critics into silence by shaming them.

Russell was not trying to say that if one is assertive, one must by that observation necessarily then be unintelligent. Nor was he trying to say that if one is indecisive, then that is a mark of intelligence. He was exhorting people of intelligence to stand up and be assertive.

Jabba's equivalent of Pocket Sand is really more of a traitorous petard. I rather prefer this Russell quote: "It is possible that mankind is on the threshold of a golden age; but, if so, it will be necessary first to slay the dragon that guards the door, and this dragon is religion."

 

[theprestige]

Which is generous enough. Waiving prima facie plausibility would normally not occur in an intellectual examination, and without it "Is it possible an immaterial self exists?" is as plausible as "Is it possible Jabba is the reincarnation of Adolph Hitler?"

Heh. I suspected I may have gone too far. What I meant to convey was simply that we had, in the OP, already agreed that this was the question being considered, and that Jabba had undertaken to answer.

 

[Mojo]

- Is it reasonably possible that immaterial selves exist?

As has been noted before, the word "reasonable" has a particular meaning. What are your reasons for thinking they exist?

That it is necessary for your argument doesn't count, of course.

 

[Loss Leader]

- Do you guys think that it's possible that an immaterial self exists?

I have seen no evidence of it. I will admit the possibility of nothing until evidence for the thing is presented. I admit the possibility of dark energy and of exoplanets and Higgs bosons, whatever they are, because evidence has been adduced that, if not proving their existence, at least shows they may exist.

I have seen no evidence whatsoever that an immaterial self exists, so I do not believe it to be possible.

I should point out that once again, you're playing with levels of proof. All you ask for your own theory is that it be "possible," while demanding that the scientific model be discarded if even the smallest doubt is allowed.

- "The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski

I take offence at this, Jabba. I really do. I find that you have personally offended me. My worldview is full of doubt. I doubt everything until I am presented evidence. I am full of confidence only insofar as no other evidence has been offered. What reason should I have to doubt a material explanation of consciousness? What evidence is there?

Don't call me stupid because I refuse to engage in fantasy. Call me boring. Call me a realist. Call me late for dinner. But don't call me stupid.

 

[Agatha]

I have seen no evidence of it. I will admit the possibility of nothing until evidence for the thing is presented. I admit the possibility of dark energy and of exoplanets and Higgs bosons, whatever they are, because evidence has been adduced that, if not proving their existence, at least shows they may exist.

I have seen no evidence whatsoever that an immaterial self exists, so I do not believe it to be possible.

I should point out that once again, you're playing with levels of proof. All you ask for your own theory is that it be "possible," while demanding that the scientific model be discarded if even the smallest doubt is allowed.


I take offence at this, Jabba. I really do. I find that you have personally offended me. My worldview is full of doubt. I doubt everything until I am presented evidence. I am full of confidence only insofar as no other evidence has been offered. What reason should I have to doubt a material explanation of consciousness? What evidence is there?

Don't call me stupid because I refuse to engage in fantasy. Call me boring. Call me a realist. Call me late for dinner. But don't call me stupid.

I don't want a "like" button. But if we had one, I'd be pushing that button as hard as I could.

Jabba, what plays here, and what sceptics in general require, is evidence. I have seen no evidence for immaterial selves, so my provisional view is that they do not exist. If you or anyone else provided evidence, then I would reassess my beliefs. Like LL, I doubt everything until evidence is provided, and even then my beliefs are provisional because more evidence may emerge.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Tale,
- Is it reasonably possible that immaterial selves exist?

That is what you must prove, Jabba. The immaterial self is the hub of your immortality claim, they are the same thing. So you can't both use it as the goal of your argumentation and an argument.

As the argument stands right now, no it is not reasonably possible that immaterial selves exist. In fact it is an unfounded claim.

Hans

 

[I Am The Scum]

I am quite confident that Barack Obama is not a reptile from Mars. Therefore, I'm pretty stupid.

 

[Jabba]

- Think I'll try a new tact.

- I'll try to organize.
​

- Below is how I perceive the first level of sub issues.
1) Is the formula I'm using appropriate for determining the posterior probability of OOFLam?
2) Is the number I have entered for P(H) appropriate?
3) Is the number I have entered for P(~H) appropriate?
4) Is the number I have entered for P(E|H) appropriate?
5) Is the number I have entered for P(E|~H) appropriate?

- I suspect that many of you will have problems with my proposed organization. Please (non-sarcastically), tell me what they are.
- Once past that, we'll address the specific sub-issues one at a time (given that we can somewhat agree upon what constitutes the first layer of sub-issues).

 

[jond]

- Think I'll try a new tact.

- I'll try to organize.
​

- Below is how I perceive the first level of sub issues.
1) Is the formula I'm using appropriate for determining the posterior probability of OOFLam?
2) Is the number I have entered for P(H) appropriate?
3) Is the number I have entered for P(~H) appropriate?
4) Is the number I have entered for P(E|H) appropriate?
5) Is the number I have entered for P(E|~H) appropriate?

- I suspect that many of you will have problems with my proposed organization. Please (non-sarcastically), tell me what they are.
- Once past that, we'll address the specific sub-issues one at a time (given that we can somewhat agree upon what constitutes the first layer of sub-issues).

A better approach would be to read the responses you've gotten, and address them.