Cont: Proof of Immortality VIII

Jabba said:
jond,

- I think you're just showing me how my claim involves a conjunction, and likely fallacy.
- If so, since P(B) = 1 in our case, the prior probability of P(S) x P(B) is no less than P(S) by itself...

- I think that what makes this disagreement so confusing is that this element is all to which the notion of a conjunction fallacy could refer in our case. It is only the prior probability of ~H that would be subject to the conjunction fallacy, and because P(B) =1, P(~H) is not[u/] reduced by P(B).
- Consequently, our overall formula is not jeopardized by this "conjunction," and need to multiply.
Click to expand...


Jabba, if P(B) =1, then ~H cannot be more likely than H. Once again: You have agreed that under H, P(E)=P(B), or 1. Under your ~H, P(E) = P(B) (or 1) x P(S), or .01(or whatever number you’re using for soul these days.)

If P(B) is not 1, it doesn’t change anything. Because it’s the same under H as ~H. Remember, you agreed that adding a soul does not change the likelihood of your body existing.
 
Jabba said:
Mojo,
- The likelihood of my body's existence under H is 1/10100.
Click to expand...

-And the likelihood of your body's existence under ~H is also 1/10100.

-Which means the likelihood of your current existence under ~H is 1/10100 x .01 (or whatever number your making up for your soul).

-Which means H is more likely than ~H.
 
(looks down at my body)

Likelihood of my body existing = 1. I could explain this to a 5-year-old so that they would understand it.
 
Jabba said:
Godless Dave, js, jt, jond, monza, Mojo, Hans,
- Please let me know where others have made objections, or asked questions, that I haven't answered but that you would like me to answer (one or two at a time), and I'll try to answer.
Click to expand...

Post your naïve incorrectnesses one at a time.

Change your behavior if you want different results. I've told you that before but you don't seem educable.
 
Jabba said:
I don't know about anyone else, but for me, scrutinizing my brain for what I understand and believe is quite time consuming and subject to error.
Click to expand...

Oh, knock it off, Jabba. You already admitted you were emotionally wedded to your belief and that you would be devastated if you weren't able to prove it mathematically. No one believes this is any sort of honest intellectual exercise for you. It's ridiculous to think this is anything but Debate Theatre written and directed by you. It's ludicrous to think your goal extends beyond achieving some illusion that your belief in an immortal soul has objective validity you can fool some gullible audience into accepting.

Your arguments are fairly transparent. A "neutral jury" took only five pages to demolish them and to conclude further that you had an ulterior motive and were not at all interested in understanding your errors -- the same conclusion your critics here have reached. Your line of reasoning is transparent in the sense that it does not exemplify the mind of someone legitimately struggling to understand abstract, esoteric concepts he may have remembered poorly from his schooling. It does not reveal a willingness to listen and be corrected -- all the things we would expect from someone on a journey of self-discovery. So poor is your engagement with would-be helpers on these points, you've even been accused of being a badly-programmed AI having only limited responses available.

No, instead yours are arguments clearly designed to operate from an assumption that the reader does not understand mathematics in general or statistics in particular. They are quite clearly designed to create a razzle-dazzle illusion of success that would be difficult for a layman to understand or refute, and which -- you seem to think -- gives you endless opportunities to wallow in sub-sub-sub-issues that have no prayer of fixing the flaws in your argument. We've seen time and again that when you are finally brought to clarity in your argument, you rush back to the beginning and change all the words, walk back all the concessions your critics patiently led you to, and apply a thick layer of obfuscation. And beneath the thin veneer of faux cordiality is, as always, a not-very-well-concealed dislike of skeptics and skepticism, which has just as much a chance of being the real reason you persist in this debate as some proffered desire to "scrutinize" your beliefs.

Your efforts are not "subject to error." You are deliberately obscuring the debate and trying to blame the result on your critics for their alleged lack of understanding, or on the problem itself for allegedly being so hard to talk about. Your efforts are not "time-consuming" except in that they are a consummate and deliberate waste of other people's time. You go back and forth in endless busywork -- "confirming" this, and asking idly for that. You demand that people repeat themselves for no reason other than that you didn't care to read what they wrote when they wrote it, then blame them for being unfriendly when they balk. All the while you tell everyone you don't have time for an honest debate, while admittedly pursuing this same topic not only in another forum but also in your heavily-edited "map."

No, Jabba, the reason this debate is prolonged is because you simply -- for emotional reasons -- don't want it to end.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Mojo,
- The likelihood of my body's existence under H is 1/10100.
Click to expand...

Texas sharpshooter, Jabba. The prior probability (or likelihood, I don't give a damn) of exactly YOUR body existing is very small. How small depends on whether you calculate from the Big Bang or just from your parent's bang.

But that doesn't matter, because we just draw the target around you. All the possible bodies that never existed or will never exist will not be having this discussion. Only bodies that exist will.

So, the premise for us having this discussion is that we are the ones that exist. Only those who exist will wonder why they exist.

Hans
 
Dave Rogers said:
(1) No, it isn't; that's just a number you made up because your argument required it to be very, very small.
- and
(2) You've already said that you need it to be 1 in order not to commit the conjunction fallacy.
Click to expand...


For his 'proof' to work he needs it to be 1 under ~H, and very very small under H.

And guess what: when he puts those values into his formula, his 'proof' works! Shame that it's just GIGO.
 
jond said:
Jabba, if P(B) =1, then ~H cannot be more likely than H. Once again: You have agreed that under H, P(E)=P(B), or 1. Under your ~H, P(E) = P(B) (or 1) x P(S), or .01(or whatever number you’re using for soul these days.)

If P(B) is not 1, it doesn’t change anything. Because it’s the same under H as ~H. Remember, you agreed that adding a soul does not change the likelihood of your body existing.
Click to expand...
jond,
- It is not the hypotheses that are likely or unlikely, it's the event --
given each hypothesis -- that is likely or unlikely.
- I don't really understand your question. I'm just hoping that the above will answer it...
 
Jabba said:
It is not the hypotheses that are likely or unlikely, it's the event -- given each hypothesis -- that is likely or unlikely.
Click to expand...

No, as usual you're confusing P(A|B) and P(B|A). Your proof is trying to compute P(M|E), the probability of the materialist hypothesis given the event of your own existence. You're comparing that to P(R|E), but E is not sufficient for R. You need another event S for R, which is not required for M.

I don't really understand your question.
Click to expand...

Clearly.

I'm just hoping that the above will answer it...
Click to expand...

No, you're spewing random bits of statisticky-sounding language in hopes that someone will think you know what you're talking about. If you don't know that you have answered his question, then it's a sure bet you haven't.
 
Jabba said:
jond,
- It is not the hypotheses that are likely or unlikely, it's the event --
given each hypothesis -- that is likely or unlikely.
- I don't really understand your question. I'm just hoping that the above will answer it...
Click to expand...

Jabba, I’m talking about the model explaining your current existence. It’s right there in what you quoted. It isn’t hard to understand:

Under H: P(E)=P(B). Translation: the existence of your functioning brain explains entirely the existence of the self. You have agreed to this.
Under ~H: P(E)=P(B) x P(S). Translation: You need to add a soul to your body to get to reincarnation or immortality to explain your current existence in this model. You have agreed to this.

Further, you have agreed that adding a soul does not change the likelihood of your body existing, therefore P(B) is the same in either H or ~H. Whatever number you want to make up to put there, be it 1, .000001 or 1/10-100
 
Jabba said:
Godless Dave, js, jt, jond, monza, Mojo, Hans,
- Please let me know where others have made objections, or asked questions, that I haven't answered but that you would like me to answer (one or two at a time), and I'll try to answer.
Click to expand...

JayUtah said:
It's highly insulting for you to make this request after purposely ignoring most of your critics. You keep pretending you are open to discussion and correction, but you patently are not.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11871278&postcount=3198

You know the drill. One post containing all the answers, one or two sentences for each. If it takes you more than an hour to do this, then it is not what I intended. No laborious quotations or discussions.

Put up or shut up.
Click to expand...

Belz... said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11871278&postcount=3198
Click to expand...


The link provided by Jay Utah and Belz has the questions I would like answered. No need for a long explanation. Just a quick one or two sentences for each point would suffice.
 
jond said:
-And the likelihood of your body's existence under ~H is also 1/10100.

-Which means the likelihood of your current existence under ~H is 1/10100 x .01 (or whatever number your making up for your soul).

-Which means H is more likely than ~H.
Click to expand...
jond,
- The likelihood of the current existence of my body under ~H is 1/10100. The likelihood of the current existence of my self under ~H is about 62% -- according to my calculations.
 
Jabba said:
jond,
- The likelihood of the current existence of my body under ~H is 1/10100. The likelihood of the current existence of my self under ~H is about 62% -- according to my calculations.
Click to expand...

-Your self includes your body, in H or ~H.
-We can, by altering your brain, dramatically alter your sense of self.
-You have agreed that you need to add another entity (soul) in addition to your body to get to reincarnation or immortality.
-You have agreed that adding a soul does not change the likelihood of your body existing.
- Therefore the likelihood of your current existence (eta: under~H) is .62 x 1/10100.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
jond,
- The likelihood of the current existence of my body under ~H is 1/10100. The likelihood of the current existence of my self under ~H is about 62% -- according to my calculations.
Click to expand...

Your "calculations" are absolute garbage you make up out of nothing, therefore the entire rest of your post, every other post you've made, and your entire argument are bunk that we can dismiss as the nonsense it is.
 
MRC_Hans said:
Texas sharpshooter, Jabba. The prior probability (or likelihood, I don't give a damn) of exactly YOUR body existing is very small. How small depends on whether you calculate from the Big Bang or just from your parent's bang.

But that doesn't matter, because we just draw the target around you. All the possible bodies that never existed or will never exist will not be having this discussion. Only bodies that exist will.

So, the premise for us having this discussion is that we are the ones that exist. Only those who exist will wonder why they exist.

Hans
Click to expand...
Hans,
- Here, you're really just saying that every other possible self is equally unlikely, so my unlikeliness is not appropriate to this formula.
- Does that mean that you accept that what I claim to be my likelihood may be correct?
- I can't remember -- do you accept my other numbers?
 
Oh, and Jabba, before your bring up “this earthly plane” again: your current existence is on this earthly plane. You are communicating with us from this earthly plane. Any other plane on which your unlikely separate entity might exist has no bearing on your current existence. You need to drop that line of thought because it doesn’t help you.

Using your numbers, we have proved that your current existence under is H is more likely than under ~H. You have lost. It’s time to give up.
 
Jabba said:
Here, you're really just saying that every other possible self is equally unlikely, so my unlikeliness is not appropriate to this formula.
Click to expand...

Partially. You give it significance after the fact, by the criteria that you observe yourself to exist. That is the essence of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. You attempt to get around it by means of an obviously subjective, solipsistic pile of manure that you claim is not solipsism.

Does that mean that you accept that what I claim to be my likelihood may be correct?
Click to expand...

No. You're mixing up irrelevant, unknowable probabilities with other probabilities under your givens. The probabilities under your givens are numbers you finally stipulated to under the guidance of your critics, but are now trying to walk back after realizing they doom your proof.

I can't remember -- do you accept my other numbers?
Click to expand...

No. Especially the number 10-100, which you have simply made up and without which your proof falls entirely apart. You have told us you explained how you calculated it, but that seems to be a lie.
 
Jabba said:
The likelihood of the current existence of my body under ~H is 1/10100.
Click to expand...

No. You have simply preconceived it to be "virtually zero," but can't make that made-up concept stick. So you picked a number out of your kiester.

The likelihood of the current existence of my self under ~H is about 62% -- according to my calculations.
Click to expand...

You've shown us no calculations for either of these numbers. You claim you have, at least for 10-100 but you refuse to show us where. We have no choice at this point but conclude you made them both up.
 
When you lie dying, Jabba, you'll hear those who've gathered around agreeing with you at last: "Yes, gramps, yes, you're going to live forever. Of course you are, of course." That's how we speak to the dying; that's all that religion is good for: to comfort the dying.

Everyone in this thread would tell you that, at the end.
 
sackett said:
When you lie dying, Jabba, you'll hear those who've gathered around agreeing with you at last: "Yes, gramps, yes, you're going to live forever. Of course you are, of course." That's how we speak to the dying; that's all that religion is good for: to comfort the dying.

Everyone in this thread would tell you that, at the end.
Click to expand...

Yeah but usually we don't have to start telling them years out. Nor do they expect you to prove it to them mathematically.

It very hard for me to put myself into the headspace of a person with "faith" but... I sort of get that Jabba's whole shtick would be pretty offensive to them.
 
sackett said:
When you lie dying, Jabba, you'll hear those who've gathered around agreeing with you at last: "Yes, gramps, yes, you're going to live forever. Of course you are, of course." That's how we speak to the dying; that's all that religion is good for: to comfort the dying.

Everyone in this thread would tell you that, at the end.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't. Not even to provide comfort, would I lie. I would tell the truth — if it were my father, I'd tell him how much I'll miss him and how much I love him. That's it. That's the only important thing as far as I'm concerned.

If Jabba cannot take comfort while on his death-bed in knowing he was loved while alive and his only concern is that he will live forever, then that's on him. It's his loss, truly.
 
Mojo said:
For his 'proof' to work he needs it to be 1 under ~H, and very very small under H.

And guess what: when he puts those values into his formula, his 'proof' works! Shame that it's just GIGO.
Click to expand...
Mojo,
- Do you still think that all my values are garbage?
 
Jabba said:
Mojo,
- Do you still think that [U]all[/U] my values are garbage?
Click to expand...

Everyone thinks that you are FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG on all levels. It isn't a matter of simply fiddling with the numbers. It isn't just that the numbers you've made up to plug into your formula are idiotic.

DO NOT try to pretend that that is the depth of the criticism you've received.
 
Dave Rogers said:
If I said anything like that to my father, he'd wonder who was impersonating his son.

Dave
Click to expand...

But you're not Jabba's son. I was addressing Jabba, telling him in an oblique way that no one will ever agree with him without lying.
 
Jabba said:
Mojo,
- Do you still think that all my values are garbage?
Click to expand...

Can you point me to any posts containing values that are derived from actual data, rather than made up with values that are chosen to support your line of argument? If so, then those particular values may possibly not be garbage. The ones you've simply made up, of which 10-100 is the most egregious example, are quite definitely garbage.

Dave
ETA: As RoboTombo implied, of course, your lines of reasoning are garbage too.
 
Last edited:
jond said:
Jabba, I’m talking about the model explaining your current existence. It’s right there in what you quoted. It isn’t hard to understand:

Under H: P(E)=P(B). Translation: the existence of your functioning brain explains entirely the existence of the self. You have agreed to this.
Under ~H: P(E)=P(B) x P(S). Translation: You need to add a soul to your body to get to reincarnation or immortality to explain your current existence in this model. You have agreed to this.

Further, you have agreed that adding a soul does not change the likelihood of your body existing, therefore P(B) is the same in either H or ~H. Whatever number you want to make up to put there, be it 1, .000001 or 1/10-100
Click to expand...
jond,
- The probability of my body [P(B)] is 1 -- so is the probability of my self [P(E)]. The likelihood of my body under H [P(B|H)] is 10-100 -- so is the likelihood of my self under H [P(E|H)].
- The likelihood of my self under H is still 10-100 -- whereas, the likelihood my self under ~H [P(E|~H)] is something like .62.
 
Jabba said:
jond,
- The probability of my body [P(B)] is 1 -- so is the probability of my self [P(E)]. The likelihood of my body under H [P(B|H)] is 10-100 -- so is the likelihood of my self under H [P(E|H)].
- The likelihood of my self under H is still 10-100 -- whereas, the likelihood my self under ~H [P(E|~H)] is something like .62.
Click to expand...


Where did these numbers come from?
 
Jabba said:
Do you still think that all my values are garbage?
Click to expand...

Yes.

And you don't need to keep asking this as if you're now suddenly discovering that you have critics. You have been told all the various ways in which your proof fails, including but not limited to making up the values that go into it. You simply don't care, but you won't own that you don't care. Your entire presentation is a transparent pretense.

The discretionary values in your model are simply plucked out of thin air, arranged algebraically to give you the answer you think results in a proof for immortality. Good enough to fool gullible people into thinking you're a genius, but certainly not enough to fool people who are mathematically literate. When people disagree with your approach, you propose to fix this by simply guessing at new numbers, or baiting your critics into giving you numbers so that they relinquish the right to contest their values. You don't get that the real problem on this point is that you think you can make up the numbers. Even in Bayesian inference the values you model must have some toehold in fact. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how statistical modeling is supposed to work, and you have been told this same thing by every statistician you've consulted, and you display no interest in correcting it. Your whole presentation is based on "I was hoping you'd just agree."

You are suspiciously coy about how you supposedly calculated the values in your model. Especially the 10-100 joke that is still your placeholder for the nonsensical "virtual zero." Your unwillingness to reveal the rationale behind the values in your model all but admits you know they're made up and you know you wouldn't be allowed to do that in a real mathematical model. You know they're a fatal flaw, but you act as if you can salvage your proof simply by not admitting to the error. That's tantamount to lying, in my book.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
The likelihood of my body under H [P(B|H)] is 10-100 -- so is the likelihood of my self under H [P(E|H)].
Click to expand...

You have not explained how that value was calculated.

The likelihood of my self under H is still 10-100 -- whereas, the likelihood my self under ~H [P(E|~H)] is something like .62.
Click to expand...

You have not explained how these values were calculated. You have claimed that you have, but you're lying. It's my hypothesis that you know you have no defensible rationale for any of these numbers, and you are deliberately concealing that deficiency in hopes that no one will question these numbers.

I'm questioning them. I'm further questioning the honesty of your approach, since you can't seem to substantiate your claim to have properly derived them.

Put up or shut up, Jabba.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom