ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 2nd August 2017, 05:54 AM   #681
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,851
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Right. And that sounds like it ought to be relevant here. But what you need to present here is what sets Mt Rainier apart from other mts in a way that is meaningful re OOFLam.
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
The same thing that sets you apart from other people: nothing.
- Aha!
- Back to what I claim makes for a legitimate target...
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
LL,
- I do currently accept that in order for my current existence to be a legitimate target -- and the likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam, properly fill the role of P(E|H) in the Bayesian formula -- I need to be somehow "set apart from the crowd" (or something similar). I have offered my argument for that case previously, but can't seem to find it now...
- Anyway, here's my rough explanation.
- Just to sort of "set the stage," we all take our current existence totally for granted, when it really should be the very last thing we take for granted...
- Even if I am just a process, and not a "thing1." I am still the only "thing2" that I know exists. Everything else (1&2) could just be my imagination.
- If I didn't currently exist, there might as well be nothing -- and, if I never existed, there might as well never be anything.
- That makes me special!
- I assume that you have the same credentials, and are special also.
- That ought to get us started...
- That was followed by a bunch of back and forth until I told you...,

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I might have run out of ideas as to how to effectively describe this claim to you and your colleagues -- but, I think that most well-educated neutral minds would see what I mean. Removing all the barriers preventing the combination of particular human sperm cells and ova, represents some of the number of 'potential' human selves.
- Hopefully, I'll be opening my new website soon, and attract some neutral minds and that they will see what I mean...
- Where would you like to go from here?
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico Ť probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 06:00 AM   #682
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,011
There's really nowhere to go. You still can't explain why being very unlikely (calculated from the beginning of the universe) makes the existence of a self questionable. Your argument fails because it's based on a premise you can't support.
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm
godless dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 06:18 AM   #683
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 27,988
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Aha!
- Back to what I claim makes for a legitimate target...

- That was followed by a bunch of back and forth until I told you...,

- Where would you like to go from here?
You could explain your understanding of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy and give more examples of it.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 06:40 AM   #684
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,973
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Back to what I claim makes for a legitimate target.
Yes, the "I'm a special snowflake" argument. Your angsty, subjective nonsense is not evidence that you were preordained to be who you are, such that the probability of it arising by chance is both meaningful and negligibly small. Nor does your delusion of grandeur matter in the slightest according to the materialist hypothesis you're trying to refute. You must evaluate P(E|H) as if H were true, and H has no notion of adjusting the behavior of chaotic systems on the basis of one product of it really, really wanting to be special.

Quote:
That was followed by a bunch of back and forth...
That "back and forth" you callously dismiss was the refutation of your claim.

Quote:
until I told you...
Indeed, after admitting you could not rejoin all the rebuttals to your claims you accused your critics of being biased and small-minded. That's extremely shameful and dishonest because we know how your arguments fare elsewhere: no better than here.

Quote:
Where would you like to go from here?
You said that if you could get over the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, the rest of your argument will fall into place. First, you can't get over the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, so it remains a fatal flaw in your argument. You cannot even describe in your own words what the fallacy is and why it's a fallacy. So that casts doubt on your ability to assess the strength of your own argument.

And the rest of your argument does not fall into place. There were some dozen or so flaws identified, any one of them fatal to your argument. You know they exist because you referred to the post in which they were given. Where we should go from here, if you have conceded your failure to overcome the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, is that you should concede that you cannot prove immortality via mathematics as you claimed you thought you could. But after five years of covering the same ground repeatedly, that's not likely to happen. So what you should do is see if you can overcome the other fatal flaws you're presently ignoring.

Wallowing in one point or another forever is not productive, so what we would like is for you to write a sentence or two for each of the fatal flaws, outlining what you think the argument would be that would free you from your fall. That's what a conscientious person would ordinarily do when presented with a list of errors in his claim. To be able to claim victory, one would need to show he has a plan for all the errors.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 06:56 AM   #685
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,083
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Would it? I can see that it would appear that way from the perspective of the second entity, but why (and indeed how) would it appear that way from the perspective of an entity that no longer existed?
The entity that was you from 10 years ago no longer exists either. Hence the need for properly defined terms, such as "(im)mortality".
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 07:02 AM   #686
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,356
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Where would you like to go from here?
Back to square one, unfortunately, as you're wont to do. This time, however, might I suggest listening to your critics?
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 07:30 AM   #687
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 7,816
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Back to what I claim makes for a legitimate target...
Yes Jabba we keep coming back to claims that you never address.

It's bad enough having to explain to another grown man how a discussion works. Having to do it a half decade into the the discussion is pathetic.

Quote:
That was followed by a bunch of back and forth until I told you...,
What you dismiss as 'back and forth' was us explaining to you how everything you are saying and everyway in which you are saying it is either wrong or meaningless.

Quote:
Where would you like to go from here?
Well the part where you actually proof immortality would be nice.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Hating a bad thing does not make you good." - David Wong
JoeBentley is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 07:57 AM   #688
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,585
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Where would you like to go from here?

You admit that your premise is unsupportable and that, therefore, your conclusion cannot be considered to be true.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 08:17 AM   #689
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,851
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
There's really nowhere to go. You still can't explain why being very unlikely (calculated from the beginning of the universe) makes the existence of a self questionable. Your argument fails because it's based on a premise you can't support.
Dave,
- Here's how it started.

- For another thing, in many situations, the specific event is only one of NUMEROUS possible results (millions?) -- and for unlikelihood to be of consequence in such a case, the specific result has to be meaningfully set apart from most other possible results.

- So, I think you're just saying that my explanation for how I am meaningfully set apart re OOFLam doesn't work. Is that right?
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico Ť probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 08:21 AM   #690
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,011
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Here's how it started.

- For another thing, in many situations, the specific event is only one of NUMEROUS possible results (millions?) -- and for unlikelihood to be of consequence in such a case, the specific result has to be meaningfully set apart from most other possible results.

- So, I think you're just saying that my explanation for how I am meaningfully set apart re OOFLam doesn't work. Is that right?
That's right.
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm
godless dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 08:30 AM   #691
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,083
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
You admit that your premise is unsupportable and that, therefore, your conclusion cannot be considered to be true.
The moon is made of cheese, therefor the sky is blue.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 08:39 AM   #692
Pixel42
SchrŲdinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,532
"The aim of argument should not be victory, but progress." Joseph Joubert

This thread would make Joubert cry.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 09:16 AM   #693
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,973
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- For another thing, in many situations, the specific event is only one of NUMEROUS possible results (millions?) -- and for unlikelihood to be of consequence in such a case, the specific result has to be meaningfully set apart from most other possible results.

- So, I think you're just saying that my explanation for how I am meaningfully set apart re OOFLam doesn't work. Is that right?
That is right. Your italicized paragraph is correct enough but importantly incomplete. In most situations there are many possible outcomes. For the likelihood of any one outcome to have the sort of consequence you require in your model, the specific outcome has to be identified ("set apart") and characterized before the outcome occurs, and by criteria that rise above simply later being the outcome that occurs. Pre-specification, pre-identificaion, pre-ordination -- pick your word. The key in all cases is "pre-". You cannot choose the "intended" outcome with knowledge of what the outcome was or will be and declare the likelihood to have the kind of statistical import you're purporting in your model.

The analogy I chose was the poker game. The rules of poker have been around quite some time. For each particular variant, a list of hands or prototypical hands is provided along with an ordering ranking them. This forms the basis for assigning significance to sets of five cards drawn or dealt from the deck. The raw probability of being dealt any combination of five cards from a well-shuffled deck is the same for all combinations. You have as much chance of being dealt a royal flush of spades as any other combination of five cards. What makes the royal flush significant is that it is one of the pre-specified hands. We agreed prior to playing that this would be a winning hand. That agreement constitutes an assignment of significance.

What we may not do in poker is, after being dealt a random hand with no pre-specified significance, declare that to be a new winning hand. It attempts to assign significance based on knowledge of the outcome. The outcome is significant only because it was chosen, not because it was significant before the deal, and not -- for example -- because it follows the general criteria by which other outcomes are assigned significance (i.e., patterns of colors, values, and suits).

Your argument does the equivalent of inventing new winning poker hands after having been dealt the cards. You're trying to say the cards you were dealt are somehow now significant simply because there was a very small chance of being dealt that hand out of all the hands that were possible. A moment's thought demonstrates that would be true for all the other players at the table, for all hands played.

This analogy becomes a little more illustrative if we change the exercise from playing poker to determining whether the deck is stacked. You're handed a deck of cards and you are told the deck is either stacked or well shuffled. We can use Bayesian inference to find this out.

("Stacked," of course, means the cards are intentionally ordered in such a way as to produce hands of significance for some given game. And there are many games you can play with a standard deck of cards. To stack the deck for blackjack would mean arranging the cards so that a sequence of them adds cardwise to 21. To stack the deck for baccarat would mean arranging the cards so that certain strings of two or more cards have a modulus of 9. To stack the deck for poker would mean arranging the cards to create patterns of known winning poker hands. Also, stacking the deck is typically done to favor one player among N players, so it means every Nth card is intentionally arranged for. We'll assume two players of a simplified form of poker that simply involves evaluating each hand -- no hole cards or draws, and no replay of discards.)

What we have to work with are the hypotheses: the deck is stacked, or the deck is well-shuffled. And we have a set of easily-computed probabilities for drawing each kind of significant hand from a well-shuffled deck. Our priors could start with equal probability for stacked and shuffled. Our data, naturally, will be a series of hands played. What takes us from our priors to our posteriors is a model based on the set of probabilities that each hand will arise in a randomized deck. These are objective and immutable; they derive from the mathematics of the card deck. Where we encode subjective belief for this inference, if any, is in the priors. We may decide the guy who gave us the cards is shifty and assign a higher prior probability that the deck is stacked. Something like that would make this truly Bayesian.

If the deck is randomized, we would expect "significant" poker hands to be drawn by both players in a distribution roughly similar to what the likelihood ratio predicts for a randomized deck drawn to exhaustion. If one player draws "significant" poker hands at a markedly more favorable distribution than his opponent, the posterior probability increases that the deck is stacked.

Okay, that's a basic example. Here's where the Texas sharpshooter fallacy fits in. Let's re-run the experiment, only this time one of the players is allowed to arbitrarily declare his hand to be a "new" winning poker hand after he draws it. Now in the case where the deck was truly well-shuffled, this would bias our inference toward stacking, because the Texas-sharpshooter player would be drawing random hands that wrongly get counted as "wins" and skew his win rate. That would lead us to arrive at a posterior probability that the deck is stacked, but which factually is the wrong answer. That's why this is a fallacy. The experiment only works if we stick to the rules of poker and count as winning hands only those that were identified as such before the experiment began.

In order to get around this, you've cited hypothetical examples that you say justify identifying the outcome as the intended target after the fact. But in each of those cases I was able to show you how you interpolated into the example hidden sources of information that informed the intended outcome and would have been known or inferable prior to sampling the outcome. You cannot show any such circumstances for your actual model, wherein you simply identify those people who currently exist as the desired outcome, on no more basis than that they were chosen. Your hypothetical examples are not analogous to your model. Your model commits the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 02:02 PM   #694
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,585
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
The moon is made of cheese, therefor the sky is blue.

The conclusion may be true, of course. However, its truth value cannot be determined via the reasoning presented.

I think you know that's what I meant.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 07:46 PM   #695
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,083
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
The conclusion may be true, of course. However, its truth value cannot be determined via the reasoning presented.

I think you know that's what I meant.
I know no such thing, I have no reason to assume such thing, and have you considered actually writing what you mean instead?
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 06:44 AM   #696
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,851
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
There's really nowhere to go. You still can't explain why being very unlikely (calculated from the beginning of the universe) makes the existence of a self questionable. Your argument fails because it's based on a premise you can't support.
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Here's how it started.
- For another thing, in many situations, the specific event is only one of NUMEROUS possible results (millions?) -- and for unlikelihood to be of consequence in such a case, the specific result has to be meaningfully set apart from most other possible results.
- So, I think you're just saying that my explanation for how I am meaningfully set apart re OOFLam doesn't work. Is that right?
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
That's right.
- Here again, is my attempted explanation:

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
LL,
- I do currently accept that in order for my current existence to be a legitimate target -- and the likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam, properly fill the role of P(E|H) in the Bayesian formula -- I need to be somehow "set apart from the crowd" (or something similar). I have offered my argument for that case previously, but can't seem to find it now...
- Anyway, here's my rough explanation.
- Just to sort of "set the stage," we all take our current existence totally for granted, when it really should be the very last thing we take for granted...
- Even if I am just a process, and not a "thing1." I am still the only "thing2" that I know exists. Everything else (1&2) could just be my imagination.
- If I didn't currently exist, there might as well be nothing -- and, if I never existed, there might as well never be anything.
- That makes me special!
- I assume that you have the same credentials, and are special also.
- That ought to get us started...
- Anyway, I doubt that I can be much more convincing (though, I will try again), and will place most of my hope, instead, in being able to convince a more neutral audience.


- Try this. My current existence is analogous to my lottery ticket being the one drawn from a lottery of 10100 tickets, with all the remainder tickets being devoid of owners...

- As far as I know, I'm the only eye on the universe(s) there is. It's quite a coincidence that I would currently exist -- if I can exist for only one finite life at most.
- And, there is a coincidence here, in that there are two special events coinciding: it is me out of the gadzillions of possible selves, and it is 2017 out of the gadzillions of possible years.

- Iíll be back.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico Ť probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 06:55 AM   #697
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,011
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Even if I am just a process, and not a "thing1." I am still the only "thing2" that I know exists. Everything else (1&2) could just be my imagination.
- If I didn't currently exist, there might as well be nothing -- and, if I never existed, there might as well never be anything.
- That makes me special!
Was any of that true before you existed?

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Try this. My current existence is analogous to my lottery ticket being the one drawn from a lottery of 10100 tickets, with all the remainder tickets being devoid of owners...

- As far as I know, I'm the only eye on the universe(s) there is. It's quite a coincidence that I would currently exist -- if I can exist for only one finite life at most.
- And, there is a coincidence here, in that there are two special events coinciding: it is me out of the gadzillions of possible selves, and it is 2017 out of the gadzillions of possible years.
How is that a coincidence? What's so special about you? What's so special about 2017?

None of this in any way sets you apart from any of the people who could have existed but don't.
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm
godless dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 06:56 AM   #698
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,356
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Anyway, I doubt that I can be much more convincing (though, I will try again), and will place most of my hope, instead, in being able to convince a more neutral audience.
You'll be hard-pressed to find a more neutral audience. You'll either find a less patient one or one that already agrees with you. Neither of those are more neutral.

Quote:
- Try this. My current existence is analogous to my lottery ticket
No. You've been told why it's not analogous at all. Stop it.

Quote:
- As far as I know, I'm the only eye on the universe(s) there is. It's quite a coincidence that I would currently exist -- if I can exist for only one finite life at most.
Why would it be a coincidence and not just a product of deterministic processes?

Quote:
- And, there is a coincidence here
There really isn't.

Quote:
it is me out of the gadzillions of possible selves
No. You have not been able to show that those possible selves exist, much less establish their number, or justify why they matter at all.

Quote:
it is 2017 out of the gadzillions of possible years.
It couldn't be any other moment. We move through time without fail. You're just adding more factors to your equation without justification.
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 07:01 AM   #699
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,973
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Here again, is my attempted explanation:
The same "special snowflake" argument you posted yesterday. Don't simply repeat yourself when, in the meantime, your critics reminded you how that argument was refuted.

Quote:
Anyway, I doubt that I can be much more convincing (though, I will try again)...
Much to the annoyance of your critics, who don't need your arguments repeated to them ad nauseam. They know what your claims are. They have refuted them, and you simply ignore the refutations and then go on to blame them for being biased and small-minded.

Quote:
and will place most of my hope, instead, in being able to convince a more neutral audience.
That has already been attempted. Your arguments didn't fare any better in that forum than they do here. The problem is not that your critics are biased and closed-minded, so kindly stop trying to gaslight them to that effect. Your critics, in fact, have given you clear, objective reasons why your argument has failed. You know those lists of reasons exist, yet you ignore them in favor of the delusion that you're an unsung genius and that it must be your critics' unfair behavior that keeps you from being seen as such.

Quote:
My current existence is analogous to my lottery ticket being the one drawn from a lottery of 10100 tickets, with all the remainder tickets being devoid of owners.
'
That's not how a lottery works, even if the lottery analogy applied to materialism. If nobody buys the tickets, they don't go into the pot. If you're the only one who buys a ticket, you're the one who wins. Do you even think this nonsense through before you post it?

Quote:
As far as I know, I'm the only eye on the universe(s) there is. It's quite a coincidence that I would currently exist.. -- if I can exist for only one finite life at most.
Solipsism defeats your argument. If you are the only real inhabitant of the universe then it is no coincidence it exists for you. But that's moot.

Yes, there is quite a small probability that the chaotic system by which things come into being in materialism would have produced you as you are now. And if that had been the pre-determined intent, that probability would mean something. But it wasn't, so it doesn't. Once again, try explaining the Texas sharpshooter fallacy to us in your own words, and then maybe you'll understand why this argument is not objectively convincing.

Quote:
Iíll be back.
But if your pattern lately holds, you'll be back only to repeat your debunked claims verbatim and insult your critics without reading what they say. How is that "effective debate?"
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 07:27 AM   #700
HighRiser
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: High above Indianapolis
Posts: 1,792
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Here again, is my attempted explanation:

- Anyway, I doubt that I can be much more convincing (though, I will try again), and will place most of my hope, instead, in being able to convince a more neutral audience.


- Try this. My current existence is analogous to my lottery ticket being the one drawn from a lottery of 10100 tickets, with all the remainder tickets being devoid of owners...

- As far as I know, I'm the only eye on the universe(s) there is. It's quite a coincidence that I would currently exist -- if I can exist for only one finite life at most.
- And, there is a coincidence here, in that there are two special events coinciding: it is me out of the gadzillions of possible selves, and it is 2017 out of the gadzillions of possible years.

- Iíll be back.
To this member of the audience, in the peanut gallery, it seems that solipsism is useless.

Have you sorted out the Texas Sharpshooter problem yet? Ignoring it won't make it go away.
__________________
Congratulations, you have successfully failed to model something that you assert "isn't noticeable". -The Man

Science is not hopelessly hobbled just because it knows the difference between fact and imagination. -JayUtah
HighRiser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 07:41 AM   #701
wea
Critical Thinker
 
wea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: EU
Posts: 348
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
.. How is that "effective debate?"
more like "alexia without agraphia"
wea is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 08:13 AM   #702
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,851
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
...
- Even if I am just a process, and not a "thing1." I am still the only "thing2" that I know exists. Everything else (1&2) could just be my imagination.
- If I didn't currently exist, there might as well be nothing -- and, if I never existed, there might as well never be anything.
- That makes me special!...
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Was any of that true before you existed?...
Dave,
- I may have always existed in one form or another...
- I couldn't have known I existed if, and when, I didn't exist (in one form or another).
- If there was a time before I existed, there might as well have been nothing during that time, and if I never existed, there might as well have never been anything.
- But then, I suspect that asking these questions of a human is like asking a chicken for the square roots of 3, and 7, and even 2.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico Ť probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor

Last edited by Jabba; 3rd August 2017 at 08:37 AM.
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 08:20 AM   #703
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,011
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I may have always existed in one form or another...
There's no evidence of that.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- If there was a time before I existed, there might as well have been nothing during that time, and if I never existed, there might as well have never been anything.
From your perspective, which didn't exist yet.

Before you existed there was nothing specifying you as a target. So your existence, when it happened, was not a case of hitting a pre-existing target.
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm
godless dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 08:42 AM   #704
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,973
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I may have always existed in one form or another...
You have presented no evidence that you have. But that's what you would have to prove in order to prove your case. Specifically, if you're right now laying out the line of reasoning to support your claim that P(E|H) -- H being materialism -- is very, very small, then you have to show that you always existed according to H. And since materialism doesn't contain the notion of "potential existence" that you're trying so very hard to paste onto it, or any sort of operative pre-existence, that line of reasoning fails fairly quickly.

Quote:
If there was a time before I existed, there might as well have been nothing during that time, and if I never existed, there might as well have never been anything.
Solipsism in this case is equivalent to trying to assign meaning not from the sample space but from the outcome space. That's like trying to say there was no such thing as any winning poker hands before you sat down to play, and that the only winning poker hands that count are the ones you make up according to the cards you were dealt.

Once again, if you tried to explain the Texas sharpshooter fallacy in your own words, then perhaps you would understand why your argument quite obviously fails. It's not like there's a legitimate controversy over whether it's valid or not; it's obviously wrong. Are you interested in learning why?

Quote:
But then, I suspect that asking these questions of a human is like asking a chicken for the square roots of 3, or 7, or even 2.
Not at all, because you're trying to obfuscate the problem by ladling it with emotional angst. You told us you were going to supply a mathematical proof for immortality. Mathematics is based on objective laws. Instead we find your "proof" is nothing but a bunch of trumped-up, illogical coffeehouse pseudo-philosophy dressed up to look like math in the vain hope it will escape its clearly religious roots. Do you really think we can't see your "pool of potential selves" as too-thin coat of paint over Christian pre-existence? God sending little souls down from heaven to inhabit the bodies of babies -- but only the lucky ones?

We're not interested in your inability to make cobbled-up gobbledy-gook sound like a cogent argument to engaged critics. If you don't understand the concepts that pertain to your argument, but your critics do, then you are likely to lose the argument. That's how effective debate works. Debate is most effective when it reaches a well-reasoned resolution, which this one has. The rest is just overcoming your admitted emotional entrenchment toward your desired belief in the face of fact.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 08:43 AM   #705
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,356
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I may have always existed in one form or another...
After a fashion. Since "you" are composed of molecules, atoms and elementary particles that have existed since the universe came into being, "you" have always been there (like Kosh). It's the specific configuration that gives rises to the 'mind' that you're talking about, but then it didn't appear from nowhere, did it?
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 09:07 AM   #706
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,851
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
...
- Try this. My current existence is analogous to my lottery ticket being the one drawn from a lottery of 10100 tickets, with all the remainder tickets being devoid of owners...

- As far as I know, I'm the only eye on the universe(s) there is. It's quite a coincidence that I would currently exist -- if I can exist for only one finite life at most.
- And, there is a coincidence here, in that there are two special events coinciding: it is me out of the gadzillions of possible selves, and it is 2017 out of the gadzillions of possible years...
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
...
How is that a coincidence? What's so special about you? What's so special about 2017?

None of this in any way sets you apart from any of the people who could have existed but don't.
- As I said. I doubt that I can be any more convincing than I already have been. Though, while I can't expect to convince the opposing lawyer or his colleagues, I still think that a well-educated, but neutral, jury would recognize light at the end of my tunnel.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico Ť probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor

Last edited by Jabba; 3rd August 2017 at 09:09 AM.
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 09:09 AM   #707
Imhotep
Muse
 
Imhotep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Midwest USA
Posts: 522
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is an oncoming train.
Imhotep is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 09:15 AM   #708
Pixel42
SchrŲdinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,532
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- As I said. I doubt that I can be any more convincing than I already have been. Though, while I can't expect to convince the opposing lawyer or his colleagues, I still think that a well-educated, but neutral, jury would recognize light at the end of my tunnel.
A well educated neutral jury would point out the same fatal flaws in your argument that have been pointed out on this thread, and would respond to your failure to address them in exactly the same way as we have. Why on earth you would expect otherwise I cannot imagine.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 09:17 AM   #709
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,973
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I doubt that I can be any more convincing than I already have.
And you aren't convincing. You have been given specific reasons why your argument is not convincing. These reasons have to do with objective principles of logic and mathematics, upon which your argument is ostensibly based. The reasons, in general, spell out your attempt to rewrite the principles of logic and mathematics in your favor to correspond to what you have freely admitted is subjective, emotionally-dictated belief.

Quote:
Though, while I can't expect to convince the opposing lawyer or his colleagues...
The problem is not with your critics. The problem is your argument and the way you present it. You have presented your findings to academic experts, whom you specifically chose. They told you your argument was wrong. You have presented your findings to self-organized teams of statisticians. They told you your argument was wrong, and gave you the same reasons as you're getting here why your argument was wrong. In addition, they formed the opinion that you were not interested in assessments of the correctness of your proof, but essentially only in hearing yourself talk.

Based on all this data that has absolutely nothing to with ISF, do you really think the most parsimonious explanation for your predicament is that you are still right and that everyone else in the world is just being lawyerly and unfair to you?

Quote:
...I still think that a well-educated, but neutral, jury would recognize light at the end of my tunnel.
Once again you simply insult your critics by suggesting they are biased and (now) poorly-educated. It is doubly-insulting since your critics have been kind enough to present you lists of objectively justified reasons why your argument is not convincing, which you have ignored in favor of your insults.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 09:23 AM   #710
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,356
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- As I said. I doubt that I can be any more convincing than I already have been.
You've been utterly unconvincing, for the reasons stated hundreds of times.

Quote:
I still think that a well-educated, but neutral, jury would recognize light at the end of my tunnel.
So you, in fact, do not read what people tell you.
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 09:24 AM   #711
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 27,988
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I still think that a well-educated, but neutral, jury would recognize light at the end of my tunnel.
A well-educated and honest claimant would admit that his claim had been soundly refuted and that he was utterly incapable of addressing the refutations.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 09:28 AM   #712
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,102
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- As I said. I doubt that I can be any more convincing than I already have been. Though, while I can't expect to convince the opposing lawyer or his colleagues, I still think that a well-educated, but neutral, jury would recognize light at the end of my tunnel.
They won't.

But.......what if they did?

Do you think that if someone agrees with your claim that will make it true?

Do you think Jay is uneducated?
The Sparrow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 09:29 AM   #713
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,011
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- As I said. I doubt that I can be any more convincing than I already have been.
Then you have nothing. I don't even understand how you are convinced by it. It doesn't even look like an attempt to address what I said, which was:

Originally Posted by Godless Dave
You still can't explain why being very unlikely (calculated from the beginning of the universe) makes the existence of a self questionable.
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm

Last edited by godless dave; 3rd August 2017 at 09:56 AM.
godless dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 09:31 AM   #714
JesseCuster
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 645
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- And, there is a coincidence here, in that there are two special events coinciding: it is me out of the gadzillions of possible selves, and it is 2017 out of the gadzillions of possible years.
I don't get it. What's the coincidence? What's so special about the year 2017 or you existing in that year?

Please explain this coincidence and why its significant. I bet you can't.
JesseCuster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 09:34 AM   #715
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,518
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- As I said. I doubt that I can be any more convincing than I already have been. Though, while I can't expect to convince the opposing lawyer or his colleagues, I still think that a well-educated, but neutral, jury would recognize light at the end of my tunnel.

In other words, you aren't interested in being right, just being convincing.

Have you ever considered politics as a career?
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 09:40 AM   #716
JesseCuster
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 645
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- As I said. I doubt that I can be any more convincing than I already have been. Though, while I can't expect to convince the opposing lawyer or his colleagues, I still think that a well-educated, but neutral, jury would recognize light at the end of my tunnel.
That's not even an attempt at answering the post you responded to which was, why is the year 2017 special? How is your existence combined with the year 2017 a coincidence?

I genuinely don't understand this. The only way this could be a coincidence is if the year 2017 is significant. The reason it's significant can't be because you exist in that year because it's not a coincidence (in the usual sense of the word) that your existence coincidences with the time in which you exist. That would be a rather silly thing to argue, so I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not reduced to arguing something that silly.

Therefore there must be some other significant to the year 2017 that you haven't explained. What is that significance? Please explain.

Last edited by JesseCuster; 3rd August 2017 at 09:42 AM.
JesseCuster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 09:44 AM   #717
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,973
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Then you have nothing. I don't even understand how you are convinced by it.
In the larger sense he isn't. His belief in immortality is, he freely admits, a purely emotional belief. All the nonsense about proving it mathematically came later. The attempts at proofs that he's posting here are not the reason he believes he's immortal.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 10:24 AM   #718
sackett
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 5,006
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
In the larger sense he isn't. His belief in immortality is, he freely admits, a purely emotional belief. All the nonsense about proving it mathematically came later. The attempts at proofs that he's posting here are not the reason he believes he's immortal.
I'm not so sure about the firmness of anybody's religious beliefs. Attempts to prove their validity by some sort of non-doctrinal reasoning -- Bayesian statistics, for example -- dunno why that occurred to me, but anyway -- suggest a pretty wobbly faith, one that the believer has a hard time maintaining.

Heck, he might find himself just repeating the same flawed arguments again and again.

Possibly for years.
__________________
Fill the seats of justice with good men; not so absolute in goodness as to forget what human frailty is. -- Thomas Jefferson

What region of the earth is not filled with our calamities? -- Virgil
sackett is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 12:32 PM   #719
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,585
I could really do without being called a chicken who can't do math.

There is no evidence that the general users of this thread have any difficulty understanding your concepts. There is evidence that many find them illogical as somewhere between dead wrong, unsupported, and just plain irrelevant.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd August 2017, 01:35 PM   #720
jt512
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,644
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Iíll be back.

No, you won't, as we've been trying to explain.
jt512 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:03 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.