Proof of Immortality III

[HighRiser]

- Correct.



- Correct.
- Are you sure that there is no such thing as an immaterial self?

By asking that question you, still, after years of discussion, do not acknowledge that there has been no objective evidence of life after death.

 

[JayUtah]

Rather, it described going to the experts with a grid and asking each to rank the probability that the sub was in each section...

A good example of how subjective belief is properly handled. Advanced studies in these methods get into the epistemology of the priors, but here it's pretty obvious: you ask experts, presumably in submarine operations, deep-sea salvage, etc. Experts can't always articulate in detail (such as might be required for a classical model) how they know something. It's just a product of all their combined knowledge and practice -- i.e., subjective.

"Subjective" doesn't necessarily mean -- and doesn't, in Bayesian methods -- wishy-washy, touchy-feely, warm-fuzzy belief such as what you think Jesus is trying to tell you in your heart. It just means judgment you may arrive at differently than others, but with good and valid reasons.

 

[JayUtah]

The more accurate we get in summarizing his arguments, the less sense they make.

That's because his arguments more often than not involve troweling multiple layers of obfuscation over what are a few persistent core fallacies. The rebuttals therefore more often than not simply scrape off that obfuscation to reveal, voilà!, the same old fallacies.

 

[JoeMorgue]

"Subjective" doesn't necessarily mean -- and doesn't, in Bayesian methods -- wishy-washy, touchy-feely, warm-fuzzy belief such as what you think Jesus is trying to tell you in your heart. It just means judgment you may arrive at differently than others, but with good and valid reasons.

Because there is a subset of people out there who when presented with any form of ambiguity can do nothing but jump up and down clapping their hands going "Yeah I finally get to make stuff without evidence!"

That's what this and a thousand other (admittedly less headache inducing) threads all boil down to, yet another rewording of the "Any grey area at all in anything is a total free pass to make up anything I want" game.

 

[jond]

- Correct.
- Are you sure that there is no such thing as an immaterial self?

Didn't you ask that question just a week ago?

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.

Why yes. Yes you did.

And you received multiple affirmative answers, including from Godless Dave, which you've ignored. Including this one which explains WHY we are so certain that an immaterial soul does not exist:

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?

Perhaps you might respond?

 

[Jabba]

Actually he's not. He's assuming the soul exists, and then trying to prove that it's immortal.

When called out on this, his claim seems to be that if we concede souls *might* exist, then they do and he can prove they're immortal.

Dave,
- I wouldn't use the word "assume," but I sure think that an immaterial soul does exist.
- Then, I do claim that if OOFLam might be wrong -- at say even a .00001 prior probability -- it is wrong.
- I know that sounds rather foolish, but if the alternative (that OOFLam is right) has a posterior probability of "unimaginably small," OOFLam must be wrong.
- Then, I claim that if OOFLam is wrong, there must be such a thing as immaterial souls...

- At this point, I'm not focusing on immortality. If I can convince anyone that I am right about OOFLam being wrong, I'll move on to focus on the possibility of immortality.

 

[Loss Leader]

- At this point, I'm not focusing on immortality. If I can convince anyone that I am right about OOFLam being wrong, I'll move on to focus on the possibility of immortality.

You can't do that without evidence. Do you have any evidence?

Remember, the mere occurrence of a low probability event is not evidence. It's not even poor evidence. It's meaningless nonsense.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- I wouldn't use the word "assume," but I sure think that an immaterial soul does exist.
- Then, I do claim that if OOFLam might be wrong -- at say even a .00001 prior probability -- it is wrong.

How do you justify that?

- I know that sounds rather foolish, but if the alternative (that OOFLam is right) has a posterior probability of "unimaginably small," OOFLam must be wrong.
- Then, I claim that if OOFLam is wrong, there must be such a thing as immaterial souls...

But the only way you get "unimaginably small" is by using the likelihood of an immaterial self existing.

 

[JayUtah]

I wouldn't use the word "assume," but I sure think that an immaterial soul does exist.

Weasel words. You're using it as a premise to your argument, without proving it. It doesn't matter what word you use to invoke the premise; if you can't prove it, you can't use it.

Then, I do claim that if OOFLam might be wrong -- at say even a .00001 prior probability -- it is wrong.

I know that sounds rather foolish...

Because it is a blatant double standard and a blatantly begged question. Especially when you all but admit you're simply making up that "prior" out of thin air.

Then, I claim that if OOFLam is wrong, there must be such a thing as immaterial souls...

False dilemma.

At this point, I'm not focusing on immortality. If I can convince anyone that I am right about OOFLam being wrong, I'll move on to focus on the possibility of immortality.

One doesn't follow from the other. If your goal is to prove immortality, it doesn't matter what other thing you prove false. That's what a false dilemma means.

And again we see this curious usage: "...convince anyone that I am right..." You don't actually show that you are right, or give any indication that this is your goal. You focus entirely on soliciting an expression of agreement, whether or not it's actually intended and whether or not it actually matters.

 

[jond]

Dave,
- I wouldn't use the word "assume," but I sure think that an immaterial soul does exist.
- Then, I do claim that if OOFLam might be wrong -- at say even a .00001 prior probability -- it is wrong.
- I know that sounds rather foolish, but if the alternative (that OOFLam is right) has a posterior probability of "unimaginably small," OOFLam must be wrong.
- Then, I claim that if OOFLam is wrong, there must be such a thing as immaterial souls...

- At this point, I'm not focusing on immortality. If I can convince anyone that I am right about OOFLam being wrong, I'll move on to focus on the possibility of immortality.

Complete and utter tosh. And you know full well why it's tosh and you refuse to address any of those reasons.

 

[halleyscomet]

- Then, I do claim that if OOFLam might be wrong -- at say even a .00001 prior probability -- it is wrong.

Define "OOFLam." I've read your posts and you can't seem to stick to a definition of your made-up acronym.

- I know that sounds rather foolish, but if the alternative (that OOFLam is right) has a posterior probability of "unimaginably small," OOFLam must be wrong.

Regardless of what you mean by OOFLam, merely using your ignorant and inept "probability" calculation to determine if it's true or not is, to be kind, stupid. Creationists have calculations "proving" evolution "has" to be false because they calculate infinitesimal odds against a human being evolving.

You are using a the logic and arguments of a science denying creationist. Are you a creationist? If not, then stop thinking like one.

- Then, I claim that if OOFLam is wrong, there must be such a thing as immaterial souls...

Why?

Because you want it to be?

Because the alternative scares you?

Do you have anything other than your own fear of oblivion after death to drive that cockamamie claim?

- At this point, I'm not focusing on immortality. If I can convince anyone that I am right about OOFLam being wrong, I'll move on to focus on the possibility of immortality.

Are you impaired in some manner? That's not an attempt at an insult, but an honest question. You are doggedly sticking to a comically stupid chain of "reasoning" despite the fact that multiple people have shown how flawed and stupid that reasoning is.

I'm not calling YOU stupid, that would be against the forum rules. I'm calling your arguments and "reasoning" on this topic stupid. I could dress that fact up in fancy words, but it's clear from your discourse that such linguistic effervescence is meaningless to you.

 

[jt512]

jt,
- What are your thoughts about my ultimate claim?

I think it's ridiculous.

 

[Monza]

Dave,
- I wouldn't use the word "assume," but I sure think that an immaterial soul does exist.
- Then, I do claim that if OOFLam might be wrong -- at say even a .00001 prior probability -- it is wrong.

That is quite a leap! How do you go from if something might be then it must be?

- I know that sounds rather foolish, but if the alternative (that OOFLam is right) has a posterior probability of "unimaginably small," OOFLam must be wrong.

No. If something has a small probability then it is still possible. If it has a zero probability, only then is it not possible.

- Then, I claim that if OOFLam is wrong, there must be such a thing as immaterial souls...

- At this point, I'm not focusing on immortality. If I can convince anyone that I am right about OOFLam being wrong, I'll move on to focus on the possibility of immortality.

That is a false dichotomy. You spent a lot of time in the shroud thread doing the same thing. Rather than provide evidence in favor of something, you try to disprove something else hoping (wrongly) that it proves your case.

 

[jt512]

@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.

It is valid in a probabilistic context. P(H|X) -> 0 as P(NOT X|H) -> 1.

You haven't written that in sufficiently rigorous notation for me to be sure I understand what you mean. But, as far as I can tell from how it is written, it is false, because you haven't stated what happens to P(~X|~H) as P(~X|H) increases. If, as P(~X|H) increases, P(~X|~H) also increases, then P(H|X) may not decrease (it may even increase).

All deductive arguments are probabilistic arguments.

Be that as it may, there is still a qualitative difference in the required reasoning between the case when P(X|H) = 0 and the case when P(X|H) > 0. Observation of X when P(X|H) = 0 is sufficient to conclude that H is false (with certainty), or in other words, that P(H|X) = 0. But observation of X when P(X|H) > 0 is not sufficient to conclude anything at all about P(H|X). When P(X|H) > 0, then P(H|X) depends not only on P(X|H), but also on P(X|~H) and P(H).

 

[jt512]

Would you tell me what Bayesian methodology is used for?

There are many reasonable ways to answer this question. JayUtah has answered it one way. Let me answer it another.

Bayesian statistics is used for exactly the same types of problems as non-Bayesian, or classical/frequentist statistics. There are exactly three types of such problems: (1) ascertaining the plausibility of a hypothesis (hypothesis testing); (2) estimating an unknown value (estimation); and (3) predicting a future event (prediction). Jabba is attempting to use Bayes for #1: ascertaining the plausibility of a hypothesis about immortality (or some such thing). I will explain Bayesian statistics by using an example of #2: estimating an unknown value.

It's easiest to explain Bayesian statistical inference by contrasting it with classical statistical inference. To that end, suppose we choose a coin at random---we just pull one out of our pocket---and we want to estimate the long-run probability that when flipped it will land heads. We decide to flip the coin 5 times, and we find that it lands heads every time. In classical statistics our best estimate of the long-run probability that our coin will land heads is 100%, because that is what we observed. Is that a reasonable estimate? In one sense it is: if the coin were fair (ie, had a 50% chance of landing heads on each flip), the probability that it would land heads in 5 out of 5 tosses would be 1-in-32. Thus our results mildly suggest that the coin might be biased in favor of landing heads, or maybe even 2-headed. So, on the basis of this little experiment, the classical statistician estimates that the long-run probability that this coin lands heads is 100%.

Although the classical estimate is reasonable in one sense, it is unreasonable in another: it doesn't take into account our prior knowledge of coins. Bayesian statistics does. The Bayesian estimate of the long-run heads probability is a weighted average our prior knowledge about this probability and the results of our experiment, and the weights are determined in a mathematically optimal manner: the more prio knowledge we have, the more weight our prior knowledge is given. Sometimes we don't know very much before we do an experiment. For example, if we are testing the effectiveness of two new drugs against each other, we may have no good prior information about their relative effectiveness, and so the Bayesian solution would be heavily weighted toward the results of the experiment over our prior knowledge.

But sometimes we know a great deal about the subject, like with coins. We're pretty sure before doing the experiment that the long-run probability that a randomly selected coin will land heads is close to 1/2. The fact that we observed 5 out of 5 flips land heads should have some effect our estimate, since, after all, there is some chance that we have picked a defective coin. But the odds of that are slim. So our Bayesian estimate will weight our prior information much more heavily than the observation of the outcome of just 5 flips, and the Bayesian estimate will consequently be close to our prior estimate of 1/2, shaded upward just a bit to take into account the somewhat unusual results of our experiment.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Dave,
- I wouldn't use the word "assume," but I sure think that an immaterial soul does exist.

You are obviously free to think that, although 'believe' would be a better term. However, you cannot infer anything about the real world from what you think/believe.

- Then, I do claim that if OOFLam might be wrong -- at say even a .00001 prior probability -- it is wrong.

Your claim is logically wrong. While recognizing that it might be wrong is legitimate, you cannot infer any minimum requirement from its probability. Things are known to exist in spite of astronomic adverse probabilities.

- I know that sounds rather foolish, but if the alternative (that OOFLam is right) has a posterior probability of "unimaginably small," OOFLam must be wrong.

As you have been told at least a hundred times, the posterior probability is not the same as the prior probability. Once an event has happened against no matter which odds, its probability is 1.

- Then, I claim that if OOFLam is wrong, there must be such a thing as immaterial souls...

That does not follow logically. There could be other explanations.

- At this point, I'm not focusing on immortality. If I can convince anyone that I am right about OOFLam being wrong, I'll move on to focus on the possibility of immortality.

You probably can't, but the fact that you might convince someone does not change facts. This is an effect of your alleged "courtroom approach": In a courtroom, if you can convince some people of something, you can reach an alternative verdict, but that does not change the truth. Even if you get your murderer acquitted, he is still a murderer.

This is not a courtroom. We are not talking about beliefs, we are talking about facts.

Hans

 

[JoeMorgue]

This is not a courtroom. We are not talking about beliefs, we are talking about facts.

Indeed. Jabba, like many, has put the cart before the horse.

Arguments, and the various rules we place on them, are tools to figure out what is the most likely answer to a question. It doesn't work they other way around.

2+2 = 4. You can't find a technicality in an argument that will ever change that.

 

[Mojo]

Would you tell me what Bayesian methodology is used for?

https://xkcd.com/1132/

 

[Mojo]

2+2 = 4. You can't find a technicality in an argument that will ever change that.

All your base are belong to us.

 

[Loss Leader]

There are many reasonable ways to answer this question. JayUtah has answered it one way. Let me answer it another.

Thank you for this post. Very helpful to my non-mathematical mind.