Proof of Immortality III

[JayUtah]

OOFLam does not specifically exclude immaterial selves...

It has to, because it's the null hypothesis that you have to falsify. Were you sick the day they taught basic scientific reasoning?

...it leads to an inductive (probabilistic) conclusion of no immaterial selves.

No, it is merely the null hypothesis. You keep saying this is complicated, but it isn't. You say there are immaterial selves, which may be immortal. The null hypothesis therefore is that there are not. It's that simple. Don't try to obfuscate it so that you can trick someone into inadvertently saying something that you style as agreement. Just do the science.

Again, if OOFLam did explicitly limit itself to material selves, the likelihood of ME -- given OOFLam -- would have been virtually one. Without such limitation, the likelihood of ME is virtually zero.

In other words, your malformed argument only works if you equivocate the null and beg the question. Everyone but you can see this.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- OOFLam does not specifically exclude immaterial selves; it leads to an inductive (probabilistic) conclusion of no immaterial selves.
- Again, if OOFLam did explicitly limit itself to material selves, the likelihood of ME -- given OOFLam -- would have been virtually one. Without such limitation, the likelihood of ME is virtually zero.

Why is the likelihood of you virtually zero if it's only possible that immaterial selves exist?

 

[Jabba]

*1568

…
For that matter, there is no requirement there be no souls in the H universe. Their existence is unnecessary, but not excluded…

1629

js.
- But the word "soul" automatically presupposes immateriality and immortality.
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=soul
- the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.

1633

That is one possible meaning. There are others...

js,
- From above, "But the word "soul" automatically presupposes immateriality and immortality."
- So using that meaning, the existence of souls is excluded. Did you use it in a different way?

 

[jsfisher]

*1568

1629

1633js,
- From above, "But the word "soul" automatically presupposes immateriality and immortality."

Again, that is one definition for soul. And again, the immortality piece applies to the soul, not the meat popsicle in which it may take up residence.

For the question of your existence, the only thing we can consider is the existence of the living, breathing meat sack. With or without a soul, makes no difference.

- So using that meaning, the existence of souls is excluded. Did you use it in a different way?

They are not excluded at all. They have no detectable characteristic, and that makes their existence irrelevant, but certainly not excluded.

 

[Jabba]

Why is the likelihood of you virtually zero if it's only possible that immaterial selves exist?

Dave,
- Because, if it's possible that immaterial selves exist, we have no way to predict WHO will come out, and we have to resort to chance -- which, as shown, gives ME a virtually zero likelihood.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- Because, if it's possible that immaterial selves exist, we have no way to predict WHO will come out, and we have to resort to chance

That's only the case if immaterial selves do exist, not if it's possible they exist.

 

[JayUtah]

From above, "But the word "soul" automatically presupposes immateriality and immortality."

Asked and answered. Stop pretending it wasn't.

So using that meaning, the existence of souls is excluded. Did you use it in a different way?

Shifting the burden of proof. You're the one claiming souls exist and have certain properties, among them immortality and immateriality. Appealing to the dictionary is not proof of existence or any of the properties.

 

[JayUtah]

Because, if it's possible that immaterial selves exist, we have no way to predict WHO will come out...

No. Just because we allow that immaterial selves may exist doesn't mean you can use supposed properties of those selves as premises in an argument to prove their existence. That's the very definition of circular reasoning.

 

[abaddon]

*1568

1629

1633

It is difficult to conceive that anyone would think for a moment that post numbers are in any way useful as a tracking method.

All it takes is that some posts get consigned to AAH and those numbers go right off in short order.

One may only assume that this must be an appeal to a rigour you simply do not have, particularly give that you include a freaking link with every post you quote.

It is irritating nonsense, it cannot help you organise diddly squat, stop doing it. It is pointless.

 

[carlitos]

1490

1501

1504

1539

1544- Yes. In the same way that light blue is different from blue. "Technically" is a modifier.



1539

1544

1539
- I'll come back with a better way of expressing what I mean by 'it so happens that'.


1544

- https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=imply
strongly suggest the truth or existence of (something not expressly stated).
- "Most ways" does strongly suggest an immaterial soul. Following is my list of "ways" in which ~A (~H, ~OOFLam) could be true, and most of those ways strongly suggest an immaterial soul.

23.3. Re P(E|~H):
23.3.1. The probability (“likelihood”) of E given ~H, involves several specific hypothetical possibilities.
23.3.1.1. That only some of us have but one finite life.
23.3.1.2. That we each have numerous finite lives.
23.3.1.3. That only some of us have numerous finite lives.
23.3.1.4. That we each have an infinity of finite lives.
23.3.1.5. That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives.
23.3.1.6. That we each have an infinite life.
23.3.1.7. That only some of us have an infinite life.
23.3.1.8. That time isn’t what we think it is (to be explained).
23.3.1.9. Some other explanation.


1544.

3.1415927

666

6.02 x 10^23

1.414

42

2.718

 

[JayUtah]

666
6.02 x 10^23

Holy
Moley!

 

[Mojo]

- Because, if it's possible that immaterial selves exist, we have no way to predict WHO will come out, and we have to resort to chance -- which, as shown, gives ME a virtually zero likelihood.

You're still begging the question. The question of "WHO will come out" is only relevant if the immaterial souls you are trying to prove the existence of exist. Under the scientific model, your consciousness is just what your brain does, and once your body exists with a functioning brain whatever consciousness it produces is YOU.

The objection you are raising to "OOFLam" actually applies to your preferred model but not to "OOFLam".

 

[Jabba]

1642

Why is the likelihood of you virtually zero if it's only possible that immaterial selves exist?

1645

Dave,
- Because, if it's possible that immaterial selves exist, we have no way to predict WHO will come out, and we have to resort to chance -- which, as shown, gives ME a virtually zero likelihood.

1646

That's only the case if immaterial selves do exist, not if it's possible they exist.

Dave,
- You're too fast...

- I think this takes us back to Mt Rainier, and why I think I'm different.
- I'm assuming that science would not accept that reproducing the same brain would reproduce the same self.
- If, for instance, they reproduced my brain, I would not be conscious of what that second brain would be experiencing.
- That's the kind of "self" I'm talking about.
- We'd have two different selves.
- And science has no way to predict 'who' that 2nd self would be.
- Consequently, such is left to chance -- and the likelihood of my existence -- given modern science -- is virtually zero. Whereas, the likelihood of Mt Rainier -- given modern science -- would be virtually one.
-

 

[jsfisher]

- And science has no way to predict 'who' that 2nd self would be.

That 'who' you insist on wedging in there, you are assuming it has some existence separate from itself. I.e., a soul.

Jabba steps into a Clone-a-tron 5000. Out walk two identical entities. Which is the real Jabba and which is the copy? Not only is it impossible to tell, the question has no meaning.

 

[godless dave]

1642

1645

1646
Dave,
- You're too fast...

- I think this takes us back to Mt Rainier, and why I think I'm different.
- I'm assuming that science would not accept that reproducing the same brain would reproduce the same self.
- If, for instance, they reproduced my brain, I would not be conscious of what that second brain would be experiencing.

Right, because they're not physically connected.

- That's the kind of "self" I'm talking about.
- We'd have two different selves.
- And science has no way to predict 'who' that 2nd self would be.
-

Why not? It can predict it just as much as it can predict the first one.

 

[JayUtah]

That's the kind of "self" I'm talking about.

That's just self-awareness. It's a product of the brain.

And science has no way to predict 'who' that 2nd self would be.

Why do you say that? It is no more or less predictable in one case than in the subsequent case. Predictability is not a proxy for the probability that some outcome will arise.

Consequently, such is left to chance -- and the likelihood of my existence -- given modern science -- is virtually zero. Whereas, the likelihood of Mt Rainier -- given modern science -- would be virtually one.

No. This is just your prior attempt to insist that you and Mt Ranier are "somehow" different in a way you can't articulate without violating the analogy. The difference, now as before, is that you equivocate between starting conditions in one case, and intermediate/final conditions in the other case.

 

[Mojo]

- I'm assuming that science would not accept that reproducing the same brain would reproduce the same self.

Nope. If you exactly reproduced a brain you would exactly reproduce the consciousness, otherwise you would not have exactly reproduced the brain, because the consciousness is a property of the brain. But it wouldn't be the same consciousness, it would be a second, identical, consciousness.

- If, for instance, they reproduced my brain, I would not be conscious of what that second brain would be experiencing.

Yes, as soon as the second consciousness was produced it would start to diverge from yours because it would be having different experiences. This is because you would have produced a second identical consciousness, and not, as you have claimed, the same consciousness.

- That's the kind of "self" I'm talking about.
- We'd have two different selves.

No, you would have two identical consciousnesses that would then start to diverge.

 

[Loss Leader]

- Consequently, such is left to chance -- and the likelihood of my existence -- given modern science -- is virtually zero. Whereas, the likelihood of Mt Rainier -- given modern science -- would be virtually one.
-

Jabba -

Do you agree that there are trees on Mt. Rainier?

Do you agree that the is other plant life there?

Do you agree that there animals burrowing under the ground, like worms?

Do you agree that birds disperse seeds around the mountain?

Do you agree that I own a shovel?

Do you agree that I could go to the mountain and throw dirt around while blinfolded?

Do you believe that ice and snow form and sometimes melt on the mountain?

Do you believe wind hits the mountain?

Do you believe that any one or more of these forces has the ability to change the shape of Mt. Rainier in ways that cannot be predicted?

If so, how is the mountain's shape in any way predestined?

 

[I Am The Scum]

Here comes the part where Jabba proves that the "self" is not contingent upon the physical makeup of the brain/body.

hahahahaha who am i kidding

 

[John Jones]

Holy
Moley!

Clever.