Proof of Immortality III

[Jabba]

@caveman1917:

I'm inclined to agree with JayUtah that there are qualitative differences between deductive arguments and probabilistic ones. For example, if hypothesis H implies that observation X is impossible, and X is observed, then H is false with certainty. However, if hypothesis H implies only that observation X is improbable, and X is observed, then not only does this not imply that H is false, it doesn't even imply that H is probably false. So here we have an argument of a particular from that is valid in a purely deductive context not in a probabilistic context. I'd call that a qualitative difference.

jt,
- But then, if you were a gambling man, and you had to bet your house on one or the other, which would you place your bet on: H, or ~H?

 

[halleyscomet]

jt,
- But then, if you were a gambling man, and you had to bet your house on one or the other, which would you place your bet on: H, or ~H?

Given the fact that statistics, Bayesian or otherwise, are a useless waste of time when debating if there is something resembling a "soul," I'd say your continued focus on the nuances of a debate irrelevant to the topic at hand is a concession that you CANNOT prove there is a soul.

Thank you for your implied concession Jabba.

 

[Jabba]

Dave,
- I'm just saying that OOFLam refers to everyone's sense of self -- but, it implies that whoever has an immaterial sense of self is wrong...

Then the likelihood of a self given OOFLam should be calculated the same way as the likelihood of Mount Rainier.

Dave,
- I see your point, but this is one of the wheres where probability can become so confusing...

- If OOFLam stipulated material selves, who would argue?
- But since
1) it doesn’t, and
2) many of us sense, or imagine, an immaterial self, and
3) there are no natural laws governing the who of an immaterial self,
- if there is an immaterial "who" to be born, science has no idea who it will be.
- And, the likelihood of any particular current immaterial who -- given OOFLam -- would be infinitesimal. Virtually zero.

 

[Loss Leader]

jt,
- But then, if you were a gambling man, and you had to bet your house on one or the other, which would you place your bet on: H, or ~H?

Would I bet that you exist in a materialistic universe given the fact that you exist in a materialistic universe? Yes. I would bet the house on that.

You keep approaching this subject as though you have yet to be born. You have been born. The fact that you're here is excellent evidence that you're here. It tells us nothing about the conditions that brought you here.

In it's simplest form: "If Jay goes to the Mall of America, Mary from Texas will go to the Mall of America. Mary goes to the Mall of America." Can we tell anything about Jay? No. "But," you sputter, "the Mall of America is in Minnesota! What's the chance that some random lady from Texas would go to a mall in Minnesota if she weren't meeting Jay there?" The answer is that we don't know and we can't tell. Maybe she's a mall enthusiast. Maybe she was kidnapped and dropped off there. Maybe she just got a job as the manager of Hot Topic.

Here's what would impress me: if you could perfectly describe a person who has yet to be born, including his name, address, weight at birth, temperament, personality, food preferences and exact looks. If you could do that and then that baby is born, I might believe in some sort of predestination. Until then, I will continue to believe that very small is not zero and people who exist give me no information about the system that caused their existence.

You say your claim is in accordance with math. But when the math is refuted, you shift your claim to some sort of intuitive argument. Then you pretend that your intuition informs the math. It doesn't. That's not how math works. That's not how anything works.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- I see your point, but this is one of the wheres where probability can become so confusing...

- If OOFLam stipulated material selves, who would argue?
- But since
1) it doesn’t, and

I thought it did:

Dave,
- I'm just saying that OOFLam refers to everyone's sense of self -- but, it implies that whoever has an immaterial sense of self is wrong.

- My target audience would be people who don't believe in immaterial selves, and that's pretty much every one here.

 

[Loss Leader]

- If OOFLam stipulated material selves, who would argue?
- But since
1) it doesn’t, and

Why doesn't it? The formation of material animals, plants, fungi and all other manner of living organisms is well accounted for in a materialistic universe. For all we know from our one data point, such life might be inevitable.

2) many of us sense, or imagine, an immaterial self, and

So what? I imagine that when I hear people laughing, they're laughing at me. I imagine that the ridiculously slim odds of winning the lottery don't apply to me. I imagine that the crowd is probably right and I should agree with them. I imagine that people in authority know what they're talking about. All of these are well-known psychological constructs of the human mind yet none of them are necessarily true.

3) there are no natural laws governing the who of an immaterial self,

And right there, you assume the answer to your question. You have assumed the existence of an immaterial self without once providing any evidence the there necessarily is an immaterial self. You cannot assume something into being in order to prove that it's real. Show your evidence for that conclusion.

the likelihood of any particular current immaterial who -- given OOFLam -- would be infinitesimal. Virtually zero.

Virtually zero is not zero. I can prove it: Would you rather I have zero respect for you or virtually zero respect for you?

Unlikely events happen all the time. The fact that they happen gives us NO INFORMATION WHATSOEVER about the chance that they might have happened.

 

[JayUtah]

But then, if you were a gambling man...

I'm not a gambling man. I am a skeptic.

and you had to bet your house on one or the other, which would you place your bet on: H, or ~H?

Easy. I would bet my house that there is no such thing as an immortal soul. Not because of some cobbled-up probabilistic veneer over what is essentially a begged question, but because there is simply no evidence that one exists. And if you wanted to win the bet and my house, you'd have to show evidence, not some inventive value for p.

 

[Mojo]

@caveman1917:

I'm inclined to agree with JayUtah that there are qualitative differences between deductive arguments and probabilistic ones. For example, if hypothesis H implies that observation X is impossible, and X is observed, then H is false with certainty. However, if hypothesis H implies only that observation X is improbable, and X is observed, then not only does this not imply that H is false, it doesn't even imply that H is probably false. So here we have an argument of a particular from that is valid in a purely deductive context not in a probabilistic context. I'd call that a qualitative difference.

jt,
- But then, if you were a gambling man, and you had to bet your house on one or the other, which would you place your bet on: H, or ~H?

That would depend on whether the evidence supports H or ~H. As jt512 has just pointed out, an event that is unlikely but not impossible under H is irrelevant to your question.

 

[halleyscomet]

2) many of us sense, or imagine, an immaterial self, and

So what? I know people who are convinced the government is reading their minds using thought control rays broadcast from a weather control facility in Alaska. By your "logic" there must be some truth to their claims, as long as they "sense" or "imagine" it.

3) there are no natural laws governing the who of an immaterial self,

Ironically there's a predominantly atheist nation that has laws regarding reincarnation.
http://loweringthebar.net/2016/06/reincarnation-permit.html

 

[JayUtah]

2) many of us sense, or imagine, an immaterial self

But you can show no evidence for this imaginary entity.

3) there are no natural laws governing the who of an immaterial self,

You have no idea whether that is or would be true.

if there is an immaterial "who" to be born, science has no idea who it will be.

You have no idea whether that is or would be true. As noted previously, you include "science can't know it" as a necessary quality of your imaginary entity, which is eminently circular in your attempt to explain away your total lack of evidence. If only you hadn't tipped your hand just recently about how untrustworthy you think science might be. That's a bias in your reasoning.

 

[JayUtah]

In exactly the same way as your...

No; tu quoque. Up the thread, there is a link to one of the OP's probabilistic arguments. Can you show that your proposition would give it deductive strength?

 

[JoeMorgue]

1. Define something as outside the realm of science.
2. Use the fact that it is outside the realm of science to prove its own existence.
3. Steal underpants.
4. ????
5. Profit.

 

[Loss Leader]

1. Define Jabba
2. Engage infinite improbability drive.
3. ???
4. Profit, but too small to justify a sequel.

 

[Mojo]

1. Define something as outside the realm of science.
2. Use the fact that it is outside the realm of science to prove its own existence.
3. Steal underpants.
4. ????
5. Profit. Prophet!

FTFY.

 

[Mojo]

Ironically there's a predominantly atheist nation that has laws regarding reincarnation.
http://loweringthebar.net/2016/06/reincarnation-permit.html

I was going to post that!

 

[Mojo]

- if there is an immaterial "who" to be born, science has no idea who it will be.

Jabba, the existence of "an immaterial who" is what you are supposed to be proving here. You cannot construct a valid argument if you include it in your premises.

 

[Mojo]

- And, the likelihood of any particular current immaterial who -- given OOFLam -- would be infinitesimal. Virtually zero.

1. The model of consciousness you claim to be trying to disprove doesn't include the immaterial soul.
2. Your existence is not impossible given the currently accepted model of consciousness. It is entirely consistent with it.
3. Therefore: so what?

 

[JayUtah]

You cannot construct a valid argument if you include it in your premises.

Nor is that fallacy salvaged by further speculation that such a soul would be invisible to science, or alternatively that science denies or obfuscates evidence of its existence. It is the nadir of depravity to claim to be able to prove a scientific conclusion wrong, and then have the bulk of one's proof simply be unfounded accusations of malfeasance by one's critics.

Jabba, you unabashedly claim that you can somehow statistically transform your subjective belief into objective proof. It is offensive enough that you claim a professional statistician endorsed your ploy to do so. It is superlatively offensive to claim your critics somehow know or suspect that you are right, and are dishonestly hiding the truth.

 

[JayUtah]

1. The model of consciousness you claim to be trying to disprove doesn't include the immaterial soul.

Nor can it, if the indirect proof he proposes is to hold. If he intends to prove the existence of a soul by showing that a model that denies it is false, then he cannot have a soul on both sides of that partition. By doing so he disconnects the existence of the soul from the correctness of either model.

And he knows this. Which is why he's trying to equivocate that one-finite-life includes the notion of a soul, but its adherents just choose not to believe in it. I cannot begin to enumerate what is logically wrong with such a proposal in the context of his proffered proof.

Your existence is not impossible given the currently accepted model of consciousness. It is entirely consistent with it.

We hasten to clarify that this means "your existence as presently constituted." Jabba wants desperately to drive a wedge between some abstract model of existence and particularized existence as exhibited by some chosen individual. This is the gimmick by which he proposes to drive down the probability of some particular existence to near zero. Quite a number of people, including myself, have endeavored to show him why this is incorrect, but to no avail.

 

[halleyscomet]

claim to be able to prove a scientific conclusion wrong, and then have the bulk of one's proof simply be unfounded accusations of malfeasance by one's critics.

Such arguments are staples among the denizens of the David Icke and Alex Jones forums. It's probably the most effective debate strategy for lunatics trying to support overt fantasies* without any evidence.



*Such as the people who assert a race of cannibalistic reptoid aliens secretly rule the Earth from a secret base under the Denver International Airport.

It occurs to me, the Reptoids in Denver theory has MORE evidence to support it than Jabba's claims as we can at least prove the Denver International Airport exists.