Proof of Immortality III

[godless dave]

If we had some ham, we could have ham sandwiches if we had some bread, but this is not evidence that we have ham or bread.

What if there is reasonable doubt about whether we don't have bread?

 

[JayUtah]

I think that you're technically correct...

No, he is entirely correct. And he's not the first or only person to tell you that. Your argument is entirely circular, and this has been brought to your attention countless times.

...would seem to require an immaterial soul.

Yes, immortality would seem to require an immaterial soul. But mortality does not require materialism. You can have an immaterial soul that is still not immortal.

Please, for the love of Cthulhu, learn what a false dilemma is. It's almost as if you're willfully ignoring basic propositional logic. It's honestly not that hard.

 

[Mojo]

The erroneous assumption arises in your wild guess for whether you can have arisen in your present form as the result of one finite life. You simply declare one-finite-life as incapable of producing you as a person. As has been copiously pointed out, when you do this you can put literally any probability into your model as a prior and claim to have disproven it. That's what makes it a broken model.

More to the point, he can stick any hypothesis into it and claim to have disproven that hypothesis. Again, that makes it broken.

 

[jsfisher]

js,
- I think that you're technically correct

Is technically correct different from correct?

-- I shouldn't have used the word "therefore" in my last sentence above. I should have said "it so happens that."

I am not seeing a functional difference. 'Therefore' was wrong. Substituting 'it so happens that' is also wrong.

- In our situation, ~A implies B. This is not simple deduction. It so happens that in this case, most of the ways that would allow for ~A would seem to require B -- would seem to require an immaterial soul.

Most ways? Some ways, at best. Either way, though, as long as it is not 'always', then ~A does not imply B.

You also ignored the part about your own probability of existence (by your calculation) being independent of having a soul.

 

[JayUtah]

I am not seeing a functional difference.

It's "virtually" different; just more Jabba equivocation. When his argument is manifestly wrong, he just repeats it using more weaselly-sounding words.

 

[Mojo]

I shouldn't have used the word "therefore" in my last sentence above. I should have said "it so happens that."

Substituting an unsupported assertion for a non-sequitur doesn't actually help you.

 

[Jabba]

Even if you do, you still have to use OOFLam to get the likelihood of a particular self given OOFLam, and that likelihood would be figured out the same way as figuring out the likelihood of Mount Rainier existing in its current form.

Dave,
- My claim is that if we designate OOFLam as referring only to material characteristics (physical, mental and emotional), we would figure the likelihood of a particular self, given OOFLam, the same way we would figure the likelihood of Mt Rainier, given natural laws of science -- and, we'd get a likelihood of virtually one. If however, we allow for the possibility of an immaterial particular self, we cannot use the same approach -- science has no idea as to how such a particular self (the "who") would be determined --and the resulting likelihood would be virtually zero.

 

[Loss Leader]

Dave,
- My claim is that if we designate OOFLam as referring only to material characteristics (physical, mental and emotional), we would figure the likelihood of a particular self, given OOFLam, the same way we would figure the likelihood of Mt Rainier, given natural laws of science -- and, we'd get a likelihood of virtually one. If however, we allow for the possibility of an immaterial particular self, we cannot use the same approach -- science has no idea as to how such a particular self (the "who") would be determined --and the resulting likelihood would be virtually zero.

Right ... so the only way to get good odds that you have an immaterial self is to assume you have an immaterial self.

Went should we assume that without evidence? Why should we assume it in the face of good evidence that it is Not true?

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- My claim is that if we designate OOFLam as referring only to material characteristics (physical, mental and emotional), we would figure the likelihood of a particular self, given OOFLam, the same way we would figure the likelihood of Mt Rainier, given natural laws of science -- and, we'd get a likelihood of virtually one. If however, we allow for the possibility of an immaterial particular self, we cannot use the same approach -- science has no idea as to how such a particular self (the "who") would be determined --and the resulting likelihood would be virtually zero.

So OOFLam really encompasses two models - one where immaterial selves exist, and one where they don't. If we use the former model, we can't calculate a likelihood because the model doesn't include any details about how immaterial selves are formed. If we use the latter, we can theoretically (although not practically) calculate a likelihood.

It seems like you should have one formula for each OOFLam model, not use the same formula for both.

 

[Mojo]

Dave,
- My claim is that if we designate OOFLam as referring only to material characteristics (physical, mental and emotional), we would figure the likelihood of a particular self, given OOFLam, the same way we would figure the likelihood of Mt Rainier, given natural laws of science -- and, we'd get a likelihood of virtually one. If however, we allow for the possibility of an immaterial particular self, we cannot use the same approach -- science has no idea as to how such a particular self (the "who") would be determined --and the resulting likelihood would be virtually zero.

Interesting that you are now conceding that the likelihood of your existence, given that you have an immaterial self, is "virtually zero". If you use those figures in the Bayesian formula, where H is the hypothesis that you have an immaterial self, what result do you get?

 

[Mojo]

Dave,
- My claim is that if we designate OOFLam as referring only to material characteristics (physical, mental and emotional), we would figure the likelihood of a particular self, given OOFLam, the same way we would figure the likelihood of Mt Rainier, given natural laws of science -- and, we'd get a likelihood of virtually one. If however, we allow for the possibility of an immaterial particular self, we cannot use the same approach -- science has no idea as to how such a particular self (the "who") would be determined --and the resulting likelihood would be virtually zero.

The scientific model doesn't include the immaterial self, so the question of which particular self results doesn't arise. It only arises if you beg the question, and that makes your argument invalid.

 

[JayUtah]

If however, we allow for the possibility of an immaterial particular self, we cannot use the same approach -- science has no idea as to how such a particular self (the "who") would be determined --and the resulting likelihood would be virtually zero.

No. Just, no.

This is consummate question-begging. Gad, I don't even know where to begin.

You simply declare that science can have no toehold on determining the existence and properties of your hypothetical soul. Why not? You tell us your definition of a soul has no characteristics, and you ignore the discussion which shows it cannot exist in any sense of the word without some. Indeed, even the necessary characteristic that it have a measurable lifespan is a characteristic -- otherwise how can you determine that it outlasts its material host? Its role in your argument -- or any argument -- necessitates characteristics. Your ipse dixit amounts to nothing more than a speculative excuse for why we cannot use an evidence-based approach to determining whether there exists an immaterial soul that might possibly be immortal.

And once again you bifurcate the prevailing theory in a way that the hypothetico-deductive model of reasoning does not allow. You must use one-finite-life as it exists without the concept of a soul. Or more importantly, as it embodies the null hypothesis. Saying you can't because science can't grok your theory is just pathetically beggarly. You are literally trying to set aside the null -- not even attempt falsify it -- by saying that if we allow for the possibility of your hypothesis (which the hypothetico-deductive model does by necessary default, albeit as an abstract), then we would have to re-evaluate the null by methods that hold only if your hypothesis is true -- and even then by that method, it just becomes "improbable," not falsified.

 

[Mojo]

You simply declare that science can have no toehold on determining the existence and properties of your hypothetical soul. Why not?

Because Jabba's "immaterial self" is blatant pseudoscience.

 

[JayUtah]

Because Jabba's "immaterial self" is blatant pseudoscience.

Agreed, and in light of his previous argumentation on other topics, and his general commentary, I gather the point of this topic is once again to attempt to prove mainstream science is fundamentally either in error according to its methods and findings or in denial with respect to the viability of various fringe beliefs. Further, I gather his real intent includes showing that skeptics (i.e., those who form and hold beliefs based on scientific methods and findings) are similarly in error or in denial, and thus his fringe claims and beliefs have more merit than a skeptical analysis would indicate.

 

[Mojo]

Agreed, and in light of his previous argumentation on other topics, and his general commentary, I gather the point of this topic is once again to attempt to prove mainstream science is fundamentally either in error according to its methods and findings or in denial with respect to the viability of various fringe beliefs. Further, I gather his real intent includes showing that skeptics (i.e., those who form and hold beliefs based on scientific methods and findings) are similarly in error or in denial, and thus his fringe claims and beliefs have more merit than a skeptical analysis would indicate.

I'm sure he will regard having his ideas described as pseudoscience as another example of skeptics being mean to him, but the way he has himself defined his "immaterial self" makes it the epitome of a pseudoscientific idea. He has defined it as having no characteristics by which it could be identified or detected, which makes it completely unfalsifiable. Unfalsifiability is the fundamental defining characteristic of pseudoscience.

 

[JayUtah]

I'm sure he will regard having his ideas described as pseudoscience as another example of skeptics being mean to him...

He's explicitly declaring the concept of a soul to be outside the realm of science. I think under those circumstances, calling it "pseudoscience" would be giving it too much honor. He doesn't consider it scientific, so why should he complain that skeptics call it no more than what he calls it.

 

[John Jones]

It wouldn't. Hence Jabba's argument relies on a false dilemma.

Every.Single.Time.

Not one exception.

 

[Mojo]

He's explicitly declaring the concept of a soul to be outside the realm of science. I think under those circumstances, calling it "pseudoscience" would be giving it too much honor. He doesn't consider it scientific, so why should he complain that skeptics call it no more than what he calls it.

Both here and in the shroud threads, his argument seems to be aimed at providing some sort of 'scientific' validation of his beliefs or desires.

 

[ferd burfle]

It's honestly not that hard.

LOL, I first read this as "honesty is not that hard"



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Jabba]

1490

...Given that the probability of your physical existence is independent of any soul, you cannot show what you want using the method you've chosen.

1501

...
- Once again, I’m not sure that I understand your point -- but if I do, my answer is the same as before: OOFLam is, in effect, addressing the possibility of an immaterial soul, and implying that there is no such thing. And therefore, OOFLam being wrong would imply that there is such a thing as an immaterial soul.

15041539

js,
- I think that you're technically correct --

1544

Is technically correct different from correct?

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



1539

- I shouldn't have used the word "therefore" in my last sentence above. I should have said "it so happens that."

1544

I am not seeing a functional difference. 'Therefore' was wrong. Substituting 'it so happens that' is also wrong.

1539

- In our situation, ~A implies B. This is not simple deduction. It so happens that in this case, most of the ways that would allow for ~A would seem to require B -- would seem to require an immaterial soul.

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


1544

Most ways? Some ways, at best. Either way, though, as long as it is not 'always', then ~A does not imply B.

- 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

You also ignored the part about your own probability of existence (by your calculation) being independent of having a soul.

js,
- I'm not sure that "imply" is the best word to express what I meant, but it does seem close -- - In our situation, ~A strongly suggests B.