Proof of Immortality III

[jsfisher]

- So here, I want to make sure that you do not accept that OOFLam strongly suggests the non-existence of immaterial selves. It seems to me that if there is such a thing as immaterial selves, there is little reason to accept OOFLam.

I have been very clear on this. The scientific model is silent on the whole soul concept.

 

[Loss Leader]

1639


1640js,
- Right now, my primary aim is to effectively express my secondary aim. My secondary aim is something about understanding each other's position, and 'nailing down' our specific disagreements.
- That's why I ask so many questions, why I prefer to verbalize one question at a time and why I urge you (and the others) to simply answer the specific question. This is why attorneys keep urging the witness to, "just answer the question" -- we're trying to carefully localize the specific disagreement. We'll try to evaluate the explanation later.
- So here, I want to make sure that you do not accept that OOFLam strongly suggests the non-existence of immaterial selves. It seems to me that if there is such a thing as immaterial selves, there is little reason to accept OOFLam.

A. That's not why lawyers ask questions at all.

B. The scientific model neither rules in our out the existence of souls. It simply goes about its business until shown evidence.

C. Your last statement says, in effect, "If souls exist, then souls exist, " I agree. It's now your turn to demonstrate evidence of the existence of souls.

 

[Jabba]

I have been very clear on this. The scientific model is silent on the whole soul concept.

js,
- OK. So, my next step should be to explain why I think that OOFLam strongly suggests the non-existence of immaterial selves.
- I'll be back.

 

[JayUtah]

My secondary aim is something about understanding each other's position, and 'nailing down' our specific disagreements.

You're obfuscating this thread in exactly the same way you obfuscated the Shroud thread. Shall we take that as an admission, now as then, that you realize you cannot prove what you set out to prove? You admitted in the Shroud thread that your defenses were breached, but that you had to carry on because Dad said so. Your defenses are clearly breached here as well, as judged by your mindless repetition of the claim and your stonewall refusal to address the vast majority of your critics.

You aren't seeking to understand. You're seeking to phrase and rephrase your same old argument in a way you think will sneak past your critics, so that you can jump on some phrase or another as "agreement."

That's why I ask so many questions, why I prefer to verbalize one question at a time and why I urge you (and the others) to simply answer the specific question.

Your questions have been answered, in most cases several times. Deal with the answers. Do not simply try to find a different way of asking the same question in the desperate hope that the answer will change in your favor.

...we're trying to carefully localize the specific disagreement.

The specific disagreements haven't changed. The core errors in your reasoning have been explained to you more times that we can count. You rely upon a false dilemma. You reason in circles. You equivocate.

No progress can be made until you fix those errors. But you don't even acknowledge them. This is not the behavior of a grown man of suitably mature years. You employed this same evasive technique in your Shroud thread. You stalled the discussion until everyone agreed to dispense with their quite legitimate refutations and instead argue only the way you wanted them to. You're piddling around here with silly acronymic vagaries in the same way you piddled around with "pans" of evidence there.

We're onto you, Jabba, and it's amazing that you persist in the same easily-seenn tricks despite that.

I want to make sure that you do not accept that OOFLam strongly suggests the non-existence of immaterial selves. It seems to me that if there is such a thing as immaterial selves, there is little reason to accept OOFLam.

Asked and answered. Deal with the answers; don't keep repeating your questions until you get answers you like.

 

[JayUtah]

So, my next step should be to explain why I think that OOFLam strongly suggests the non-existence of immaterial selves.

Asked and answered -- because it's the null hypothesis to your claim. You claim X exists. The null hypothesis is that X doesn't exist.

Your job is to prove X exists. Simply whining that the null is improbable or unfair to you is a red herring.

 

[jsfisher]

js,
- OK. So, my next step should be to explain why I think that OOFLam strongly suggests the non-existence of immaterial selves.
- I'll be back.

No, that is not what you should do next.

You should, instead, understand why the scientific model would be silent on the existence of souls. It is really simple: They have no testable characteristics.

Now, if you were to define soul for your purposes in such a way that it did have a testable characteristic, then science might have an opinion, but until then, you are dealing with a disease with no symptoms.

 

[JayUtah]

I have been very clear on this. The scientific model is silent on the whole soul concept.

Just as it is appropriately and parsimoniously quiet on anything that is superfluous to the causes and effects in the model. A scientific model doesn't have to embrace proposed causes for effects which are not observed. Jabba has provided no observation that is not explained as a consequence of having a brain. Therefore there is no need to postulate causes that explain no effects.

Jabba wants to conflate predictability with observation, and naturally no one is following him there. Our occasional other interloper wants to conflate the question in the same way. You can make cookies with fat, sugar, eggs, flour, and baking powder. Just because I cannot predict ahead of time the exact shape of every cookie I bake doesn't mean I need to contemplate that cookies also contain fairy dust.

 

[godless dave]

js,
- OK. So, my next step should be to explain why I think that OOFLam strongly suggests the non-existence of immaterial selves.

You mean you're going to explain to us what we've been trying to tell you for four years?

 

[Jabba]

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.

This is not true. The so-called scientific model is completely silent of the existence of souls. Souls are undetectable and therefore irrelevant, but that does not mean they do no exist.
Souls make you less probable? Isn't that the opposite of what you were hoping to establish?

js,
- Right now, my primary aim is to effectively express my secondary aim. My secondary aim is something about understanding each other's position, and 'nailing down' our specific disagreements.
- That's why I ask so many questions, why I prefer to verbalize one question at a time and why I urge you (and the others) to simply answer the specific question. This is why attorneys keep urging the witness to, "just answer the question" -- we're trying to carefully localize the specific disagreement. We'll try to evaluate the explanation later.
- So here, I want to make sure that you do not accept that OOFLam strongly suggests the non-existence of immaterial selves. It seems to me that if there is such a thing as immaterial selves, there is little reason to accept OOFLam.

No, that is not what you should do next.
You should, instead, understand why the scientific model would be silent on the existence of souls. It is really simple: They have no testable characteristics.
Now, if you were to define soul for your purposes in such a way that it did have a testable characteristic, then science might have an opinion, but until then, you are dealing with a disease with no symptoms.

You mean you're going to explain to us what we've been trying to tell you for four years?

Dave,
- I assume that you're not really disagreeing with js -- but, to me, it seems that you are.

 

[jsfisher]

Dave,
- I assume that you're not really disagreeing with js -- but, to me, it seems that you are.

Jabba,
The way you have presented your argument, it has many holes. We each may focus on different holes when responding to your posts. And while focusing on one hole it may be necessary to gloss over or fill in other holes.

Dave and I are addressing different holes (or maybe different aspects of the same hole). Provide an operational definition for soul (or self or whatever you choose to call it), and the responses by Dave and me to your argument will likely converge.

 

[godless dave]

Jabba, I agree with jsfisher that science doesn't say anything about immaterial selves because no hypothesis about immaterial selves makes testable predictions.

What I'm saying is the same thing I said a few years ago, and that other posters have said: one of the reasons we don't believe in immortality is because we don't believe immaterial selves exist. If you think, as I do, that everything about the human self is material, then it follows that the death of the material body means the death of the self.

 

[Jabba]

I have been very clear on this. The scientific model is silent on the whole soul concept.

js,
- OK. So, my next step should be to explain why I think that OOFLam strongly suggests the non-existence of immaterial selves.
- I'll be back.

No, that is not what you should do next.
You should, instead, understand why the scientific model would be silent on the existence of souls. It is really simple: They have no testable characteristics.

Now, if you were to define soul for your purposes in such a way that it did have a testable characteristic, then science might have an opinion, but until then, you are dealing with a disease with no symptoms.

js,
- I've got to do it anyway.
- The following was my previous, attempted explanation. To me, most of the possible ways for OOFLam to be wrong strongly suggest immaterial selves. If some of our consciousnesses will exist again, or forever, there must be some immaterial selves.

...
- 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.
...

 

[JayUtah]

Jabba, I agree with jsfisher that science doesn't say anything about immaterial selves because no hypothesis about immaterial selves makes testable predictions.

I am on board with this as well. In order for a hypothesis to be testable, it must make predictions that correlate one set of observable conditions to another set of observable conditions. Then the correlation must be tested in various ways to eliminate confounding or accidental methods of causation. Jabba has identified no observation of human existence that fits these criteria.

Specifically, there are no observations about human existence that are not both correlatively and causatively attributed to the brain. When there are no outstanding observations available to predict because known causes already predict them, then there is no need to hypothesize beyond the existing model. Therefore science doesn't. This is the rule of parsimony, one of the things that makes science powerful.

If Jabba wants to explore scientifically the hypothesis that immaterial, immortal souls exist, he must first identify a relevant observation that isn't predicted in the existing model. That's how science revises, refines, and extends its models.

Jabba knows he cannot do this.

This is likely why he sidesteps the ordinary requirements of science by claiming souls have no characteristics. He thinks that if he can obviate the mechanism of testability, he can force his critics into accepting a different method of proof.

This is likely why he formulates the problem as a statistical exercise, misapplying predictability for probability in a way science already knows is a rat hole. And not even an exercise to prove his claim, but rather to suggest that the null hypothesis is improbable -- and for no reason other than its failure to predict him as a special snowflake.

If you think, as I do, that everything about the human self is material, then it follows that the death of the material body means the death of the self.

And, carrying this further, it does not necessarily follow that if a portion of the self is immaterial, it is also immortal. An immaterial aspect to the self may be just as limited in longevity as the material aspects. There is nothing about immateriality that necessarily leads to immortality. In other words, immateriality is not a proxy for immortality, no matter now much you think it would be easier to argue that way.

 

[JayUtah]

I've got to do it anyway.

Then what do you expect other than to meet with the same correct refutations you've been handed for the past four years? Irrational arguments are not improved by dogged repetition.

To me, most of the possible ways for OOFLam to be wrong strongly suggest immaterial selves.

No. This is a false dilemma, decorated with your begging of the question. You must prove your claim right, not prove some number of other claims wrong. What you call "OOFlam" is simply whatever null hypothesis arises out of your affirmative claims. Simply pointing out that various ways to formulate the null are in opposition to your affirmative claim is tantamount to tautologically reciting it. We know what the null is. Get on with fixing your argument.

If some of our consciousnesses will exist again, or forever, there must be some immaterial selves.

Yes, we agree that immortality implies immateriality. However, the converse is not true. Immateriality does not imply immortality. You may find it easier to prove immateriality, but it doesn't get you any closer to your claim. And the train doesn't even leave the station when your strategy is a cobbled-up pseudo-mathematical argument that tries to prove materialism is improbable.

We went through this at length in your Shroud thread, talking about the difference between something being necessary to an argument and, conversely, something being sufficient to prove it. Why is it, with you, that we must retread the same remedial ground?

 

[godless dave]

This is likely why he sidesteps the ordinary requirements of science by claiming souls have no characteristics.

The interesting thing about this is if souls have only two characteristics - self awareness and the ability to have subjective experiences - then all souls are identical. There would be no way to differentiate one soul from another, so the likelihood of any particular soul existing would still be the same as the likelihood of a physical brain existing.

 

[Loss Leader]

js,
- OK. So, my next step should be to explain why I think that OOFLam strongly suggests the non-existence of immaterial selves.
- I'll be back.

No, that is not the next step. It wouldn't be relevant if you did it. The next step is to show evidence of immaterial souls. Heck, just describe their characteristics in a falsifiable way.

If you cannot even define the characteristics of the term, chances are you can't show that it exists.

I can't tell you I have a gyrpholepter and then bring out my dog. You'd say that it was just a dog. Then I'd say that it was, in fact, a grypholepter and it's just that science had no way to distinguish a grypholepter from a dog. You'd leave, thinking I had a dog, and I'd leave thinking you're too stupid to recognize the majesty of the grypholepter.

 

[JayUtah]

The interesting thing about this is if souls have only two characteristics - self awareness and the ability to have subjective experiences - then all souls are identical. There would be no way to differentiate one soul from another, so the likelihood of any particular soul existing would still be the same as the likelihood of a physical brain existing.

Indeed, we went through the philosophical implications of "souls have no characteristics." Predictably Jabba has utterly ignored it. Aside from the two characteristics you name, which Jabba's hypothesis would require, a soul would also need to have a measurable longevity. Then and only then could you say that it outlasts the material "host." A soul must have characteristics, regardless of Jabba's fervent desire that a soul not be scientifically discernible.

 

[JayUtah]

If you cannot even define the characteristics of the term, chances are you can't show that it exists.

Conversely if he asserts it has no characteristics, then it cannot exist in any meaningful way.

 

[The Sparrow]

I have no memory, recollection, or sense of having existed before this life. In which case, even if I were supposedly immortal and my 'soul' was 'recycled' somehow, it hardly matters since this life I am experiencing is all I have memory and awareness of.

Really, someone offers you a machine that will make you reborn when you die, but, the catch is, you will have no memory of this life or even awareness that you have been reborn. What would be the motivation to take it?

 

[Mojo]

- OK. So, my next step should be to explain why I think that OOFLam strongly suggests the non-existence of immaterial selves.

To do that, you will need to prove that immaterial selves are necessarily immortal.