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.
Closed Thread
Old 25th December 2016, 09:10 AM   #2841
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,125
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Then you're not talking about H. Under H my self is the result of my chemistry, and is in principle reproducible just as much as the banana is, as we just discussed a few posts back. To reproduce is to make a copy. Making a copy of the banana would result in a second banana identical to, but separate from, the first. Making a copy of my body would result in a second body, with a sense of self, identical to but separate from the first.

Under H, everything about the sense of self depends on the physical body. That's why H results in each of us having one finite life, no more and no less.
Dave,
- I am talking about H -- I just claim that H is wrong.
- I claim that there is an aspect of your self that does not depend upon your chemistry. I claim that scientifically speaking, your self, your awareness of existence, would not be reincarnated by reproducing your exact chemistry. You would not be brought back to life...
- And, you agree with me.

- The thing is, if you can only exist for one short time, at most, the Bayesian likelihood of your current existence approaches zero -- is virtually zero. That fact suggests that OOFLam is wrong.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...n%20definition
re·in·car·na·tion
ˌrēənkärˈnāSH(ə)n/
noun
the rebirth of a soul in a new body.
synonyms: rebirth, transmigration of the soul, metempsychosis; More
a person or animal in whom a particular soul is believed to have been reborn.
plural noun: reincarnations
__________________
"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
"Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." 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 Back to Top
Old 25th December 2016, 09:21 AM   #2842
The Sparrow
Muse
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 769
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,

- I claim that there is an aspect of your self that does not depend upon your chemistry.
Yes we know, and you have no basis, evidence or proof to support that. you just keep claiming it over and over again.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I claim that scientifically speaking, your self, your awareness of existence, would not be reincarnated by reproducing your exact chemistry.
Yes we know, and you have no basis, evidence or proof to support that. you just keep claiming it over and over again. You can try all you want to sneak in "reincarnated" rather that "copied", but we catch that error and you fail.


Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
You would not be brought back to life...
- And, you agree with me.
I'm pretty sure this is a complete mischaracterisation of his position.


Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- The thing is, if you can only exist for one short time, at most, the Bayesian likelihood of your current existence approaches zero -- is virtually zero. That fact suggests that OOFLam is wrong.
HOw many more times will you ignore why this is wrong?


Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...n%20definition
re·in·car·na·tion
ˌrēənkärˈnāSH(ə)n/
noun
the rebirth of a soul in a new body.
synonyms: rebirth, transmigration of the soul, metempsychosis; More
a person or animal in whom a particular soul is believed to have been reborn.
plural noun: reincarnations
That's nice. Are you trying to prove something is true by defining the word?

Griffin | Define Griffin at Dictionary.com
www.dictionary.com/browse/griffin
1. a fabled monster, usually having the head and wings of an eagle and the body of a lion.
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 Back to Top
Old 25th December 2016, 09:21 AM   #2843
Filippo Lippi
Master Poster
 
Filippo Lippi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,547
You used the word "fact" in a way that suggests you are unfamiliar with its meaning. Perhaps look that one up next
__________________
"You may not know anything about the issue but I bet you reckon something.
So why not tell us what you reckon? Let us enjoy the full majesty of your uninformed, ad hoc reckon..."
David Mitchell
Filippo Lippi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th December 2016, 09:59 AM   #2844
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 8,477
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I am talking about H -- I just claim that H is wrong.
- I claim that there is an aspect of your self that does not depend upon your chemistry. I claim that scientifically speaking, your self, your awareness of existence, would not be reincarnated by reproducing your exact chemistry. You would not be brought back to life...
- And, you agree with me.

- The thing is, if you can only exist for one short time, at most, the Bayesian likelihood of your current existence approaches zero -- is virtually zero. That fact suggests that OOFLam is wrong.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...n%20definition
re·in·car·na·tion
ˌrēənkärˈnāSH(ə)n/
noun
the rebirth of a soul in a new body.
synonyms: rebirth, transmigration of the soul, metempsychosis; More
a person or animal in whom a particular soul is believed to have been reborn.
plural noun: reincarnations
Jabba the mistakes you are making have been explained to you patiently, in detail. and in the simplest possible terms, many many times. Why are you simply repeating them as if it was the first time you'd ever made them? Go back and read the responses you got any of the previous times you posted the same faulty arguments, and this time try to understand them.
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 25th December 2016, 10:01 AM   #2845
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,080
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I am talking about H -- I just claim that H is wrong.

Your H ("OOFLam") is a strawman. The actual hypothesis you need to defeat is the hypothesis that consciousness is produced by the brain.

Quote:
- I claim that there is an aspect of your self that does not depend upon your chemistry.

Because you have provided no evidence for this assertion we can apply Hitchens's razor.

Quote:
I claim that scientifically speaking, your self, your awareness of existence, would not be reincarnated by reproducing your exact chemistry. You would not be brought back to life...
- And, you agree with me.

What he, and everyone else here, has been saying is that reproducing your "exact chemistry" wouldn't bring you back to life but would create a second consciousness exactly the same as yours.

I realise that this is a concept that you have extreme difficulty understanding, so I will explain it to you again: if you have two identical things, there are two of them. Two identical entities are not the same entity, because there are two of them, not one. Two things are not one thing even if they are identical, because there are two of them, not one. Not one, but two.

Two, not one.

Got that now?

Quote:
- The thing is, if you can only exist for one short time, at most, the Bayesian likelihood of your current existence approaches zero -- is virtually zero. That fact suggests that OOFLam is wrong.

Under the hypothesis that your consciousness is produced by your brain the likelihood of your current existence is equal to the likelihood of your body existing. The likelihood of your current existence under a hypothesis in which you have a "self" that is independent of your body cannot possibly be greater than it is under the hypothesis that your consciousness is produced by your brain. You don't get to add in a factor of one over infinity to one side just because it happens to suit your argument, because your infinite number of "potential selves" are not part of the actual hypothesis you need to attack (although they are, of course, potentially part of your favoured hypothesis).
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

Last edited by Mojo; 25th December 2016 at 10:03 AM.
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th December 2016, 10:06 AM   #2846
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,080
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...n%20definition
re·in·car·na·tion
ˌrēənkärˈnāSH(ə)n/
noun
the rebirth of a soul in a new body.
synonyms: rebirth, transmigration of the soul, metempsychosis; More
a person or animal in whom a particular soul is believed to have been reborn.
plural noun: reincarnations

Oh, and copying and pasting a definition of something doesn't make it real.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th December 2016, 12:10 PM   #2847
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,595
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I am talking about H -- I just claim that H is wrong.
This whole exercise is about you trying to prove H is wrong using Bayesian statistics. To do that, you need a value for P(E|H) to compare with a value for P(E|~H). Your value for P(E|H) has to be based on H being right. That's how Bayesian formulas work.


Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I claim that there is an aspect of your self that does not depend upon your chemistry. I claim that scientifically speaking, your self, your awareness of existence, would not be reincarnated by reproducing your exact chemistry. You would not be brought back to life...
Because to reproduce is to make a copy. Two is more than one. I would not be brought back to life because all aspects of my self are determined by my brain. Making a copy of my brain after my death would not being me back to life, it would create a copy of me who would think it was the original me brought back to life.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- And, you agree with me.
The only way you could think I agree with you is if you didn't read any of my posts.

Here, try this one again: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...9#post11632079

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- The thing is, if you can only exist for one short time, at most, the Bayesian likelihood of your current existence approaches zero -- is virtually zero.
That can't be right. The universe is full of things that only exist for a short time, many of them much shorter than a human lifespan.
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 25th December 2016, 12:19 PM   #2848
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 22,144
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I claim without any evidence or logic whatsoever that there is an aspect of your self that does not depend upon your chemistry.
Fixed that for you.



Quote:
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...n%20definition
re·in·car·na·tion
ˌrēənkärˈnāSH(ə)n/
noun
the rebirth of a soul in a new body.
synonyms: rebirth, transmigration of the soul, metempsychosis; More
a person or animal in whom a particular soul is believed to have been reborn.
plural noun: reincarnations

What is the purpose of quoting this definition? You still haven't provided a working definition of the "soul." What is it exactly that is reborn or transmigrated? What memories does it have? What is its functional description?

Just because a word has a generally agreed-upon meaning doesn't mean that the concept behind the word exists, ever existed or ever could exist. "Unicorn" and "Dragon" are in the dictionary, too.
__________________
- I haven't refused to answer it; I just haven't been able to answer it...
Jabba

Do not pretend I support your argument and do not PM me.
- Nick Terry
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 Back to Top
Old 25th December 2016, 12:19 PM   #2849
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,080
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
That can't be right. The universe is full of things that only exist for a short time, many of them much shorter than a human lifespan.

Bananas, for example.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th December 2016, 12:30 PM   #2850
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,080
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
What is the purpose of quoting this definition? You still haven't provided a working definition of the "soul." What is it exactly that is reborn or transmigrated? What memories does it have? What is its functional description?

Just because a word has a generally agreed-upon meaning doesn't mean that the concept behind the word exists, ever existed or ever could exist. "Unicorn" and "Dragon" are in the dictionary, too.

All of these clearly need to be added to Father Dougal's list.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th December 2016, 12:33 PM   #2851
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 19,435
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- The thing is, if you can only exist for one short time, at most, the Bayesian likelihood of your current existence approaches zero -- is virtually zero. That fact suggests that OOFLam is wrong.
No, it is not 'virtually' zero. It also does not 'approach zero'. It has a very low prior probability, when defined as the exact image that currently exists of you. If just defined as a human male of your approximate appearance, it has a quite good probability. In fact, several thousand probably exist.

This is important because your definition of 'you' includes you, and thus implies that you exist. Therefore, the probability must be greater than zero.

If you didn't happen to exist, nobody would miss you and your spot would just be taken by somebody else. (I don't mean if you had died, but if you had never existed).

Hans
__________________
Don't. Just don't.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th December 2016, 12:39 PM   #2852
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: where the Pampas, the hills and the ocean meet and Spring still feels like Spring
Posts: 7,312
Originally Posted by Mojo
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
That can't be right. The universe is full of things that only exist for a short time, many of them much shorter than a human lifespan.

Bananas, for example.
Now I get why, when Jabba plays with his spurious Bayesian thingies and tells one of them is almost 0, we say he went bananas.
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs (drinkers) and other addicts, be gone and get treated!
These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.
aleCcowaN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th December 2016, 06:46 AM   #2853
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,538
Hey Jabba--

Merry Christmas! I wonder: if we cloned this banana, would it be the same yellow as the original? Or would it be a different yellow? And does the yellow change over time? Does the yellow exist when the banana has rotted or been eaten?
jond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th December 2016, 07:43 AM   #2854
The Sparrow
Muse
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 769
Originally Posted by jond View Post
Hey Jabba--

Merry Christmas! I wonder: if we cloned this banana, would it be the same yellow as the original? Or would it be a different yellow? And does the yellow change over time? Does the yellow exist when the banana has rotted or been eaten?
The 'yellow' moves on to another banana. The 'yellow' is immortal.
I get this by dividing the 6 billion existing banana/yellows over the infinity of possible banana yellows, and get a number of virtually zero. So yellows have to be immortal to exist.

This disproves oofyam
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 Back to Top
Old 27th December 2016, 08:09 AM   #2855
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: where the Pampas, the hills and the ocean meet and Spring still feels like Spring
Posts: 7,312
Originally Posted by The Sparrow View Post
The 'yellow' moves on to another banana. The 'yellow' is immortal.
I get this by dividing the 6 billion existing banana/yellows over the infinity of possible banana yellows, and get a number of virtually zero. So yellows have to be immortal to exist.

This disproves oofyam
That is good, almost the kind of Bayesgasms one can find in Jabba's.
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs (drinkers) and other addicts, be gone and get treated!
These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.
aleCcowaN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th December 2016, 11:10 AM   #2856
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,125
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
This whole exercise is about you trying to prove H is wrong using Bayesian statistics. To do that, you need a value for P(E|H) to compare with a value for P(E|~H). Your value for P(E|H) has to be based on H being right. That's how Bayesian formulas work...
- Dave,
- Once again, I don't understand...
- I'm just trying to show that if OOFLam is correct, I really shouldn't currently exist. Given OOFLam, the likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam, is virtually zero. But since I do currently exist, OOFLam must be wrong...
- My basic question is whether or not we can say that an hypothesis is probably wrong, if the likelihood of an event -- given the hypothesis -- is virtually zero, and the event occurs. If the likelihood is something over infinity, would seem like we could.
__________________
"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
"Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." 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 Back to Top
Old 27th December 2016, 11:14 AM   #2857
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 28,949
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Dave,
- Once again, I don't understand...
- I'm just trying to show that if OOFLam is correct, I really shouldn't currently exist. Given OOFLam, the likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam, is virtually zero. But since I do currently exist, OOFLam must be wrong...
- My basic question is whether or not we can say that an hypothesis is probably wrong, if the likelihood of an event -- given the hypothesis -- is virtually zero, and the event occurs. If the likelihood is something over infinity, would seem like we could.

The big problem is that you are still misrepresenting the hypothesis. You are arguing against something that doesn't exist.
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 27th December 2016, 11:23 AM   #2858
John Jones
Philosopher
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,929
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Dave,
- Once again, I don't understand...
- I'm just trying to show that if OOFLam is correct, I really shouldn't currently exist. Given OOFLam, the likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam, is virtually zero. But since I do currently exist, OOFLam must be wrong...
- My basic question is whether or not we can say that an hypothesis is probably wrong, if the likelihood of an event -- given the hypothesis -- is virtually zero, and the event occurs. If the likelihood is something over infinity, would seem like we could.
Your argument's failings have been explained to you again and again these last 5 years in the simplest of all possible terms, and you keep ignoring the explanations
__________________
"Want to debate effectively in any format? Pay attention to your critics" -JayUtah

Last edited by John Jones; 27th December 2016 at 11:33 AM.
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th December 2016, 11:36 AM   #2859
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 13,393
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Dave,
- Once again, I don't understand...
You don't need to restate the obvious.
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I'm just trying to show that if OOFLam is correct, I really shouldn't currently exist. Given OOFLam, the likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam, is virtually zero. But since I do currently exist, OOFLam must be wrong...
An you have failed to show it. Miserably. For four years. What does that tell you?
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- My basic question is whether or not we can say that an hypothesis is probably wrong, if the likelihood of an event -- given the hypothesis -- is virtually zero, and the event occurs. If the likelihood is something over infinity, would seem like we could.
That is not your question. Not even remotely. In fact, you didn't even start this thread with a question. You started this thread with a claim that you had mathematical proof of immortality.

Where is that proof? Four years and nothing. If you had such, you would have presented it at the outset. Four years later? Nothing.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th December 2016, 11:44 AM   #2860
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,595
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Dave,
- Once again, I don't understand...
- I'm just trying to show that if OOFLam is correct, I really shouldn't currently exist. Given OOFLam, the likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam, is virtually zero.
Yes, but when asked to explain why the likelihood of your current existence given OOFLam is "virtually zero", you eventually get to this:

Originally Posted by Jabba
- I am talking about H -- I just claim that H is wrong.
- I claim that there is an aspect of your self that does not depend upon your chemistry.
In the real scientific models of consciousness, every aspect of your self depends on your brain, so the likelihood of your current existence given H is exactly the same as the likelihood of your body existing and being alive. And that likelihood isn't calculated by taking the number of humans currently alive and dividing by infinity.
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 27th December 2016, 12:00 PM   #2861
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 8,477
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Dave,
- Once again, I don't understand...
- I'm just trying to show that if OOFLam is correct, I really shouldn't currently exist. Given OOFLam, the likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam, is virtually zero. But since I do currently exist, OOFLam must be wrong...
- My basic question is whether or not we can say that an hypothesis is probably wrong, if the likelihood of an event -- given the hypothesis -- is virtually zero, and the event occurs. If the likelihood is something over infinity, would seem like we could.
Jabba the mistakes you are making have been explained to you patiently, in detail. and in the simplest possible terms, many many times. Why are you simply repeating them as if it was the first time you'd ever made them? Go back and read the responses you got any of the previous times you posted the same faulty arguments, and this time try to understand them.
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 27th December 2016, 12:08 PM   #2862
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,538
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Dave,
- Once again, I don't understand...
Yes, that is obvious.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I'm just trying to show that if OOFLam is correct, I really shouldn't currently exist. Given OOFLam, the likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam, is virtually zero. But since I do currently exist, OOFLam must be wrong...
No, the likelihood of your existence under OOFLam is exactly the same as the likelihood of your body's existence. You continue to refuse to acknowledge this basic fact.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- My basic question is whether or not we can say that an hypothesis is probably wrong, if the likelihood of an event -- given the hypothesis -- is virtually zero, and the event occurs. If the likelihood is something over infinity, would seem like we could.
Why do you continue to ignore the fact that your scenario, which involves both a body and a soul which somehow drives the brain, is FAR LESS LIKELY than the existence of your body alone?
jond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th December 2016, 12:09 PM   #2863
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,538
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Jabba the mistakes you are making have been explained to you patiently, in detail. and in the simplest possible terms, many many times. Why are you simply repeating them as if it was the first time you'd ever made them? Go back and read the responses you got any of the previous times you posted the same faulty arguments, and this time try to understand them.
It almost seems like Jabba is ignoring this on purpose?
jond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th December 2016, 12:56 PM   #2864
JimOfAllTrades
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 308
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Dave,
- Once again, I don't understand...
- I'm just trying to show that if OOFLam is correct, I really shouldn't currently exist. Given OOFLam, the likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam, is virtually zero.
Yes, but when asked to explain why the likelihood of your current existence given OOFLam is "virtually zero", you eventually get to this:

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I am talking about H -- I just claim that H is wrong.
- I claim that there is an aspect of your self that does not depend upon your chemistry

In the real scientific models of consciousness, every aspect of your self depends on your brain, so the likelihood of your current existence given H is exactly the same as the likelihood of your body existing and being alive. And that likelihood isn't calculated by taking the number of humans currently alive and dividing by infinity.

Jabba, read this again and again until you understand. If you want to calculate the probability you existence under H, you have to use what H actually claims.
JimOfAllTrades is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th December 2016, 01:45 PM   #2865
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,080
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Dave,
- Once again, I don't understand...

Can't, or won't?

Quote:
- I'm just trying to show that if OOFLam is correct, I really shouldn't currently exist. Given OOFLam, the likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam, is virtually zero. But since I do currently exist, OOFLam must be wrong...
- My basic question is whether or not we can say that an hypothesis is probably wrong, if the likelihood of an event -- given the hypothesis -- is virtually zero, and the event occurs. If the likelihood is something over infinity, would seem like we could.

Nope. If you have your factor of one over infinity in there, you're still talking about the likelihood of your current existence under the hypothesis that you have a soul (or "potential self", or whatever you're currently calling it) that exists independently of your body.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th December 2016, 02:18 PM   #2866
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: where the Pampas, the hills and the ocean meet and Spring still feels like Spring
Posts: 7,312
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Dave,
- Once again, I don't understand...
- I'm just trying to show that if OOFLam is correct, I really shouldn't currently exist. Given OOFLam, the likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam, is virtually zero. But since I do currently exist, OOFLam must be wrong...
- My basic question is whether or not we can say that an hypothesis is probably wrong, if the likelihood of an event -- given the hypothesis -- is virtually zero, and the event occurs. If the likelihood is something over infinity, would seem like we could.
That was explained to you at least 30 times in the last months, so go back to any instance of such explanation -there are so many that you won't have troubles finding one- and come back quoting the explanation and pointing exactly what part you didn't understand.
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs (drinkers) and other addicts, be gone and get treated!
These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.
aleCcowaN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th December 2016, 02:22 PM   #2867
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,137
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,

- I didn't understand what you meant...

- Anyway, one step at a time.
- Do you accept that even if your self is only an illusion or process, it is still real? Your brain/body is alive, and it produces, or receives, a sense of continuous self?
Do you agree that when someone with schizophrenia experiences the internal stimuli of auditory hallucination, they think they they are real voices?
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th December 2016, 02:24 PM   #2868
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,137
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- But, duplication of your brain would not reproduce the same sense of self? You would no longer be living -- it would be somebody else. And, you would never exist again.
And your body tomorrow will not be the same body that it is today, the sense of a continuous self is illusory. Just like the persistence of motion when you watch an old time movie
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th December 2016, 02:25 PM   #2869
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,137
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- So, scientifically speaking, you never had to exist at all -- and Bayesian thinking, the likelihood of your current existence is virtually zero.
,
No its not, organic beings exist on this planet and they reproduce, that is not the same as the odds of one randomly assembling the the depths of the Orion nebula
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th December 2016, 02:27 PM   #2870
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,137
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I would say that your sense of self is different -- it is not the result of your chemistry. There is nothing about the banana that isn't reproducible, but your sense of self is not at all reproducible.
Which part of an organic self is not part of chemistry?

(ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha)^1000
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th December 2016, 02:28 PM   #2871
Agatha
Winking at the Moon
Moderator
 
Agatha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 10,683
The 'OOFLAM' that you are arguing against is NOT the scientific model. It is a mishmash of your own creation.

Unless and until your 'H' or your 'OOFLAM' or whatever is your phrase du jour comports with the actual scientific model, all you are doing is setting up a strawman, arguing against it and calling it a win.

'H' doesn't include such things as division by infinity. It doesn't include such nonsense as 'existence' being less likely than 'existence PLUS soul'.

You have to address this, Jabba, or you will spend another four years tilting at imaginary windmills and being unable to fathom why your interlocutors are throwing parties in the untouched real windmills.
__________________
London, Hamburg, Paris, Rome, Rio, Hong Kong, Tokyo; L.A., New York, Amsterdam, Monte Carlo, Shard End and...

Vodka kills salmonella and all other enemies of freedom for sure - Nationalcosmopolitan

Last edited by Agatha; 27th December 2016 at 02:30 PM.
Agatha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th December 2016, 02:31 PM   #2872
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: where the Pampas, the hills and the ocean meet and Spring still feels like Spring
Posts: 7,312
NOTE FOR LURKERS

The lengths Jabba will go to pretend he's still on topic. He was basically left out thousands of posts ago when he couldn't understand the elementary mistakes he made in dozens of different ways.

But this all is so funny. Let's continue to pretend the discussion isn't over.
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs (drinkers) and other addicts, be gone and get treated!
These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.
aleCcowaN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th December 2016, 08:01 PM   #2873
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 22,144
Thumbs up

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
-
- I'm just trying to show that if OOFLam is correct, I really shouldn't currently exist. Given OOFLam, the likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam, is virtually zero. But since I do currently exist, OOFLam must be wrong...
- My basic question is whether or not we can say that an hypothesis is probably wrong, if the likelihood of an event -- given the hypothesis -- is virtually zero, and the event occurs. If the likelihood is something over infinity, would seem like we could.

People exist. That group is made up of lots of individuals. Each individual had a very low chance of existing. But each one who is here defied those odds. There is absolutely nothing unusual about low chance events. They happen billions of times a second.

Not to be crude, but your father's sperm numbered around 100,000,000 the night you were conceived. Yet one sperm beat the odds and fertilized the egg. Why? Because one of them [/i]had to[/i]. If it wasn't that one, it would have been the one next to it. It wasn't even necessarily the fastest swimmer, as male sperm first have to surround the egg and work together to weaken the egg cell wall.

We have no reason to doubt a system that is actually producing the results we expect to see - even if any given result has very low odds.

Virtually zero is not zero. And, anyway, who you are is not a thing to begin with. The original Jabba was two haploid cells joined together about the size of a small grain of sand. I trust that you weigh more than that now. The vast majority of you wasn't even born. And the two haploids may have died decades ago.


Originally Posted by The Sparrow View Post
This disproves oofyam

Only One Finite Yellow At Most.
__________________
- I haven't refused to answer it; I just haven't been able to answer it...
Jabba

Do not pretend I support your argument and do not PM me.
- Nick Terry
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 Back to Top
Old 27th December 2016, 09:30 PM   #2874
jt512
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,461
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- My basic question is whether or not we can say that an hypothesis is probably wrong, if the likelihood of an event -- given the hypothesis -- is virtually zero, and the event occurs. If the likelihood is something over infinity, would seem like we could.

No. The whole point of Bayes' Theorem is that the probability of a hypothesis cannot be determined just by the likelihood of the evidence under that hypothesis. The probability of the hypothesis depends also on the likelihood of the evidence under the alternative hypothesis and the prior probabilities of each hypothesis.
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 Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 08:05 AM   #2875
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,125
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Dave,
- Once again, I don't understand...
- I'm just trying to show that if OOFLam is correct, I really shouldn't currently exist. Given OOFLam, the likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam, is virtually zero. But since I do currently exist, OOFLam must be wrong...
- My basic question is whether or not we can say that an hypothesis is probably wrong, if the likelihood of an event -- given the hypothesis -- is virtually zero, and the event occurs. If the likelihood is something over infinity, would seem like we could.
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
No. The whole point of Bayes' Theorem is that the probability of a hypothesis cannot be determined just by the likelihood of the evidence under that hypothesis. The probability of the hypothesis depends also on the likelihood of the evidence under the alternative hypothesis and the prior probabilities of each hypothesis.
jt,
- What if the prior probabilities are 99% for H, 1% for ~H and the likelihoods are something over infinity for E|H and about 60% for E|~H?
__________________
"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
"Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." 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 Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 08:08 AM   #2876
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 28,949
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
jt,
- What if the prior probabilities are 99% for H, 1% for ~H and the likelihoods are something over infinity for E|H and about 60% for E|~H?

They aren't. You are just making those numbers up without any basis.
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 08:12 AM   #2877
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,080
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- What if the prior probabilities are 99% for H, 1% for ~H and the likelihoods are something over infinity for E|H and about 60% for E|~H?

Then H is not the hypothesis you are trying to disprove.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 08:12 AM   #2878
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,595
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
jt,
- What if the prior probabilities are 99% for H, 1% for ~H and the likelihoods are something over infinity for E|H and about 60% for E|~H?
The likelihood is not something over infinity for E|H.
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 08:14 AM   #2879
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,538
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
jt,
- What if the prior probabilities are 99% for H, 1% for ~H and the likelihoods are something over infinity for E|H and about 60% for E|~H?
Why do you continue to ignore the fact that your scenario (which includes both a body and a soul, and a means of having the soul control the brain) is FAR LESS LIKELY than H, which only requires a body?
jond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th December 2016, 09:00 AM   #2880
CriticalThanking
Designated Hitter
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: On in memory
Posts: 2,873
Jabba, I'll play. You claim the banana and the soul are different. Please enumerate the testable qualities of a soul and I will compare them to those of a banana.
CriticalThanking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

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 09:52 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.