Proof of Immortality III

[Mojo]

Indeed, the theme of all Jabba threads is a set of fairly ham-fisted social engineering ploys to get people to agree with him...

I suspect that that was where he has been trying to go with his claim that:

- I tried to apply that claim to our lottery issue, and found that in my effort to make this claim work, I had unwittingly made E a special case... Which poked a hole in my bucket.

Remember that at the time this was in the context of a lottery in which the only "special" thing about the winner was that he had won. Jabba was hoping that if we thought that it would damage his argument we would accept that this made him a "special case". He would then have been able to jump back to his existing making him "special" in the main argument.

 

[The Sparrow]

....
- And, the method for the coexistence of my "self" and body could be somewhat analogous to radio waves and a radio.

There it is, the Brain is a radio analogy.

I deeply apologize for bringing it up several pages back, as now it apparently has become a new tool to be used on the immortality side.

 

[godless dave]

jt and caveman,
- From Vizzini of The Princess Bride: "I'm waiting...!"

While you're waiting, how about addressing the following?

One, but not the only, reason the lottery analogy is not analogous:

A lottery draw is a single event.

The creation of a human is the result of a chain of events. The likelihood of a particular person existing is different depending on what point in time you're looking at.

[In the radio analogy] What mechanism determines which body receives a particular self?

 

[Jabba]

One, but not the only, reason the lottery analogy is not analogous:

A lottery draw is a single event.

The creation of a human is the result of a chain of events. The likelihood of a particular person existing is different depending on what point in time you're looking at.

Dave,
- I don't understand why that should make a difference in this issue.

 

[Jabba]

What mechanism determines which body receives a particular self?

Dave,
- I have no idea -- but for ~H, we're already accepting that we're in an area we don't understand.

 

[JayUtah]

I have no idea -- but for ~H, we're already accepting that we're in an area we don't understand.

No.

Your critics espouse the null, H, which is that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. It is well enough understood, and you were given references to sources that expound that understanding. I take it you have no interest in reading it.

You propose to formulate ~H, by which you argue the existence of an immortal soul. Your inability to formulate it in a testable fashion, congruent with the evidence, is your problem alone. You are obligated to provide to your critics the formulation for ~H that you wish to test, and to prove that it is testable. Your critics are under no obligation to embark with you on some journey of discovery fueled entirely by your imagination and skepticism.

Do not pretend your critics are as clueless as you are.

 

[JayUtah]

I don't understand why that should make a difference in this issue.

You mean you can't possibly fathom the behavior of a Bayesian inference given one event and the same inference given many events? You really can't figure that out? Please tell me you're joking.

 

[Jabba]

He already thought that Toontown agrees with him, despite the fact that Toontown has explicitly stated that he thinks Jabba is wrong.

Joe and Mojo,
- I accept that neither Toon nor Thor agree with me, but
--- I agree with Toon (I don't know why he doesn't agree with me), and
--- Thor seems to have an open mind (though, I doubt he'll be around very long).

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- I don't understand why that should make a difference in this issue.

Your approach depends on a likelihood of a self existing under OOFLam. That likelihood depends on what point in time you are talking about.

Dave,
- I have no idea -- but for ~H, we're already accepting that we're in an area we don't understand.

If you have no idea, how can you estimate the likelihood of it happening?

 

[JayUtah]

There it is, the Brain is a radio analogy.

I deeply apologize for bringing it up several pages back, as now it apparently has become a new tool to be used on the immortality side.

It's not a new tool. The "brain-as-radio" hypothesis has been around a long time and is a staple of arguments in favor of immaterial consciousness. Prior to your reference to it there was even a relevant thread over in General Skepticism & Paranormal. So no apology is necessary. If Jabba wants to embrace that argument, he'll find it doesn't save him from critics; it just obligates him to prove more. Godless dave has already questioned him on it and Jabba has already shrugged his shoulders for an answer.

 

[Jabba]

You mean you can't possibly fathom the behavior of a Bayesian inference given one event and the same inference given many events? You really can't figure that out? Please tell me you're joking.

Jay,
- Now, you sound like Col Nathan Jessep in A Few Good Men. That's gotta be deliberate. Clever post.

 

[sackett]

Yo, Thor. The sci fi notion of housing a mind in a machine (or another body or such) is of course an old 'un. But it's not immortality. Eventually, the machine or whatever will meet its end, and with it the mind's end. That's not immortality, that's death later on.

Immortality means life everlasting, living FOREVER. I use all caps to try to express the horror of that idea: existence for ETERNITY. No escape, no surcease, no blessed oblivion, just playing solitaire until the heat death of the universe -- and still continuing helplessly, not even to be saved by madness.

Natch, I've spelled all this out for Jabba, as have others. You can see how much good it's done.

We can posit a non-material eternity, of course: floating on a cloud with simpering jezuss & overbearing god, and a crowd of catholic saints twanging their harps. For eternity. Would that be any less horrible?

 

[JayUtah]

I agree with Toon (I don't know why he doesn't agree with me)

Perhaps because your pretense of agreement with him is based on wishfully assuming he said something different than what he really said. You have a habit of trying to rewrite other people's statements to make it seem like they agree with you.

Thor seems to have an open mind...

He does; I've participated in other threads alongside him. Don't mistake him for a theist, however. Further, his mind is no more open than any of your critics. All of us have accepted the possibility that an immortal soul may exist, but as discussed ad nauseam that's just the necessary suspension of disbelief required to let you present your case.

In your rush to find a friend, you seem to have overlooked some points he made, such as on the point of duplication. You forgot to take issue with his interpretation of that, which is the same as that offered by your critics.

(though, I doubt he'll be around very long).

Explain what you mean by this.

 

[JayUtah]

Now, you sound like Col Nathan Jessep in A Few Good Men. That's gotta be deliberate. Clever post.

To which you obviously have no material answer and have chosen instead to make a veiled personal attack. If you recall the continuation of that scene, Lt. Kaffee parried Jessup's hubris with a cogent argument. Well, Lt. Jabba? We're waiting for the slam-dunk.

Your personal proficiency in statistical reasoning is very much on trial here. The experts you consulted tell you you're doing it wrong. Your critics here tell you the same thing, and explain in great detail your error. If you ask a naive question, from a position of pretended expertise, you will be called on it, and it is valid criticism.

You present the reader with a decision. The reader knows there is no generally accepted mathematical proof of the existence of the immortal soul. You claim to be able to produce one, and the reader now has to decide why that production isn't well received. You want the answer to be that skeptics are wrong, or that they willfully refuse to accept the proof. But when you display such ignorance, it supports the answer that your proof isn't well received because it's wrong. It supports the answer that your logical and statistical reasoning really isn't as objectively strong as you want to portray it.

So please, Lt. Jabba, tell me you haven't pinned the hopes of an immortal soul to a radio station.

 

[Mojo]

Are we now expected to accept that Jabba's body existing is less likely than Jabba's body and a soul-broadcaster* both existing?

ETA: *And for the broadcaster to be broadcasting Jabba's soul and for his body to receive it.

 

[jond]

Jabba: do you understand that under H, the "self" is not a separate entity from your body?

Jabba, please address this question.

 

[Mojo]

- I have no idea -- but for ~H, we're already accepting that we're in an area we don't understand.

Does this mean we can add Argument From Ignorance to the list of fallacies?

 

[JayUtah]

Are we now expected to accept that Jabba's body existing is less likely than Jabba's body and a soul-broadcaster* both existing?

ETA: *And for the broadcaster to be broadcasting Jabba's soul and for his body to receive it.

At best I guess we're supposed to accept that they are somehow governed by separate likelihoods, as "separate" considerations. If Jabba wants to argue that the soul exists separately from the body, he can. Severability would tend to follow from what he wants to be the case.

The problem is that the E in P(E|~H) is Jabba's self existing in its current form, which convolves soul and body. They're not severed in his formulation, so he can't arbitrarily now, in order to avoid pesky refutations, say that he doesn't have to consider the convolution when reasoning about probability. If E means body + soul -- and it does -- then, P(E|H) must necessarily outweigh P(E|~H), by definition.

Now of course Jabba's been asked multiple times to better define ~H, but all he can come up with is shrugging his shoulders and saying we're all in the dark about that. In other words, he wants to keep the definition fluid so that it can't be refuted.

 

[The Sparrow]

It's not a new tool. The "brain-as-radio" hypothesis has been around a long time and is a staple of arguments in favor of immaterial consciousness. Prior to your reference to it there was even a relevant thread over in General Skepticism & Paranormal. So no apology is necessary. If Jabba wants to embrace that argument, he'll find it doesn't save him from critics; it just obligates him to prove more. Godless dave has already questioned him on it and Jabba has already shrugged his shoulders for an answer.

Sure I know it is not a new or original woo idea, but judging from the reaction and inkling of an adoption of it a few pages back, and now its full blown usage, I can't help but feel a bit to blame

 

[Monza]

jond,
- If I understand your reservation, I'm claiming that the existence of my self does not require the existence of a specific body.
- If that doesn't address your reservation, maybe I should just say that I don't need to account for the existence of my body -- science does a good job of that.
- And, the method for the coexistence of my "self" and body could be somewhat analogous to radio waves and a radio.

Which is more likely:

- A radio existing?

- A radio existing and picking up the station 95.5 Hot Talk and Cool Jazz?