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 26th September 2016, 02:38 AM   #41
wea
Critical Thinker
 
wea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: EU
Posts: 282
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
You're making up all your numbers.
OT: in my native language (weird coincidence, the one the original Jabba's razor was supposed to be written in), to make up numbers (dare i numeri) means to go bananas
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 26th September 2016, 02:53 AM   #42
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 36,828
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
9.1.2. Now I must estimate (roughly) the prior probability (rounded off to 3 decimal places) of each more specific possibility (hypothesis), given ~H.
9.1.2.1. That only some of us have but one finite life: .000
9.1.2.2. That we each have numerous finite lives: .200.
9.1.2.3. That only some of us have numerous finite lives: .000
9.1.2.4. That we each have an infinity of finite lives; .200
9.1.2.5. That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives: .000
9.1.2.6. That we each have an infinite life: .200.
9.1.2.7. That only some of us have an infinite life: .000
9.1.2.8. That time isnít what we think it is (to be explained): .200
9.1.2.9. Some other explanation: .200
Please explain how you established the highlighted values.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
zooterkin 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 26th September 2016, 03:51 AM   #43
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Kalbim Ankara'da.
Posts: 16,950
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
And here is #2643 from that thread:
Reminds me of the prisoners who having been confined together for so long with the same jokes they incite mirth by simply calling out referring numbers. Would work well here for counter arguments.
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman
Sideroxylon 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 26th September 2016, 04:55 AM   #44
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,099
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- As for 9.1.2:
9.1.2. Now I must estimate (roughly) the prior probability (rounded off to 3 decimal places) of each more specific possibility (hypothesis), given ~H.
9.1.2.1. That only some of us have but one finite life: .000
9.1.2.2. That we each have numerous finite lives: .200.
9.1.2.3. That only some of us have numerous finite lives: .000
9.1.2.4. That we each have an infinity of finite lives; .200
9.1.2.5. That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives: .000
9.1.2.6. That we each have an infinite life: .200.
9.1.2.7. That only some of us have an infinite life: .000
9.1.2.8. That time isnít what we think it is (to be explained): .200
9.1.2.9. Some other explanation: .200


- First, I figure that the different possible ways have to add up to 1.00 (for the moment, we're accepting that OOFlam is, in fact, wrong).
- Re #1: It seems to me essentially impossible that only some of us would have only one finite life. Either we all do -- or, we all don't.
- Re #2: That we each have numerous finite lives must be one of the more probable specific possibilities (hypotheses), given ~H.
- Re #3: That, again, that only some of us would have numerous finite lives seems (to me) essentially impossible.
- Re #4: That we each have an infinity of finite lives must be one of the more probable possibilities.
- Re #5: That only some of us would have an infinity of finite lives seems (to me) essentially impossible.
- Re #6: That we each have an infinite life must be one of the more probable possibilities.
- Re #7: That only some of us have an infinite life seems (to me) essentially impossible.
- Re #8: That time isn't what we think it is must be one of the more probable of possibilities that could account for our current existences (keeping relativity, quantum mechanics, Groundhog Day, and one of my unpublished science fiction stories in mind).
- Re #9: That something else (besides OOFLam and the above) explains our current existences seems like one of the more probable possibilities also...
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
That really doesn't explain anything.
Dave,
- Do you accept the preface?
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 05:07 AM   #45
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,000
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Now I must estimate (roughly) the prior probability (rounded off to 3 decimal places)...

Why?
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 05:13 AM   #46
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,099
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
...
9.1.2. Now I must estimate (roughly) the prior probability (rounded off to 3 decimal places) of each more specific possibility (hypothesis), given ~H.
9.1.2.1. That only some of us have but one finite life: .000
9.1.2.2. That we each have numerous finite lives: .200.
9.1.2.3. That only some of us have numerous finite lives: .000
9.1.2.4. That we each have an infinity of finite lives; .200
9.1.2.5. That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives: .000
9.1.2.6. That we each have an infinite life: .200.
9.1.2.7. That only some of us have an infinite life: .000
9.1.2.8. That time isnít what we think it is (to be explained): .200
9.1.2.9. Some other explanation: .200...
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
Please explain how you established the highlighted values.
Zoo,
- Good question.
- I assume that you'll want a more elaborate, and more specific, explanation -- but for now (just in case), I just think that any possible variation with "some" in it is very improbable.
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 05:16 AM   #47
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 36,828
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Do you accept the preface?
Which part? That the numbers have to add up to 1 in order to cover all the possibilities? Clearly they do, or you've missed some (not that adding up to 1 ensures that you haven't). That we have to "accept" that OOFlam is wrong? We don't have to accept something is true in order to assign probabilities of how it might turn out if it were (though you have clearly spent very little time in doing so, either in examining what the possibilities are or in assigning probabilities to them).
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
zooterkin 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 26th September 2016, 05:18 AM   #48
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,099
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- As for 9.1.2:
[i]9.1.2. Now I must estimate (roughly) the prior probability (rounded off to 3 decimal places) of each more specific possibility (hypothesis), given ~H...
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Why?
Mojo,
- Why not?
- Where would you have me round off to?
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 05:26 AM   #49
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,000
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Mojo,
- Why not?
- Where would you have me round off to?

How do you justify that degree of precision?
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 05:46 AM   #50
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 6,264
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Do you accept the preface?
No.

Stop it! Stop asking to accept things we've already explained to you that we don't accept and why we don't accept them.
__________________
Hemingway once wrote that "The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.
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 26th September 2016, 07:36 AM   #51
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,099
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
How do you justify that degree of precision?
Mojo,
- I'm not being precise. I'm just saying that the probability is less than, or equal to, .000. I'm just saying that such is very improbable.
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 07:58 AM   #52
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 12,919
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Mojo,
- I'm not being precise. I'm just saying that the probability is less than, or equal to, .000. I'm just saying that such is very improbable.
You are not being asked to restate it repeatedly, you are being asked to justify it.

"Because that is the number I picked" is in no way a justification for that figure.
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 08:18 AM   #53
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 19,360
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Mojo,
- I'm not being precise. I'm just saying that the probability is less than, or equal to, .000. I'm just saying that such is very improbable.
Now we can add mathematical precision to the list of topics you don't understand and misuse.

Every decimal place you add to your number is another degree of precision in the results of your calculation.

When choosing a degree of precision, it's important to explain why that degree is necessary, and to show that your data and calculation are capable of yielding that necessary degree.

It's just as much as mistake to be more precise than necessary, as it is to be less precise than necessary.

So. Mathematically: What justifies calculating your probabilities to three degrees of precision? Why not more? Why not less? Is your data even that precise to begin with? Does it even matter?
theprestige 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 26th September 2016, 08:41 AM   #54
Monza
Alta Viro
 
Monza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,782
theprestige is correct. As an engineer I deal with measurements every day. Precision is very important such that 0.2 is not the same as 0.200. I brought this up when Jabba first posted this nonsense but he did not respond.
Monza 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 26th September 2016, 08:41 AM   #55
sackett
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 4,805
Hey, youz guyz. Jabba's using New Math. (Like you never heard of that? Huh?) He's working to a base zero!

Or a base infinity. Or a base rilly rilly BIG number. Little number? Sumpin like that.

He'll be back.
__________________
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 26th September 2016, 08:41 AM   #56
HighRiser
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: High above Indianapolis
Posts: 1,656
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Mojo,
- I'm not being precise. I'm just saying that the probability is less than, or equal to, .000. I'm just saying that such is very improbable.
You've been "just saying" and "just thinking" such things since you started posting on this forum. I've noticed that once you've stated that you're "just saying" or "just thinking" that one of your unsupported assertions is to be just accepted without further explanation.

No, thanks, I'm not having any. I have a mind of my own and won't be accepting your unevidenced premise as fact. Not even for the sake of argument will I accept such assertions when you try to support one unsupported statement with another unsupported statement, which is what you're doing.

Your argument boils down to: IF the materialistic worldview is incorrect, IF some metaphysical ideals aren't, and IF we have immortal souls; then MAYBE we're immortal.

Never mind that infinity isn't a number, that immortality is undefined, and that there's no reasonable reason to think that souls are anything but inventions out of the minds of mankind.

Horse hockey!
__________________
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

Last edited by HighRiser; 26th September 2016 at 08:44 AM. Reason: punctuation
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 26th September 2016, 09:00 AM   #57
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 11,953
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
but for now (just in case),...
No, just for always. After four years there's no indication you plan to do anything except foist your made-up numbers and beg and cajole people to accept them.

Quote:
I just think that any possible variation with "some" in it is very improbable.
This is a mathematical proof. it doesn't matter what you "tnink." It matters what you can prove, and you've given no one any insight into how you chose these numbers or why they're so invariable. You just made them up.

Your proof fails. It failed a long time ago, for this and other reasons. Now you're just trying to emotionally rationalize it.
JayUtah 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 09:08 AM   #58
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 11,953
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Do you accept the preface?
The preface doesn't belong to you. The premise comes from Bayesian reasoning. If ~H is a compound hypothesis then it must be in some way enumerated to determine P(E|X) individually for all X in ~H, and that must be reckoned according to the premise arguendo that ~H holds.

Begging people to accept the part you copied from the textbook is disingenuous in this context. People have told you exactly what they find wrong with that paragraph, and it's not the "preface" or whatever you're going to call it. You err subsequently in at least two ways. First, you extend the premise arguendo much farther than it's allowed to go for this exercise. That you can do it while figuring P(E|~H) doesn't mean you can do it anywhere else in your proof. Second, your conditionals are just made up. That's not allowed if your priors are also guesses. And the qualitative aspects of your partitioning of both H and ~H have already been shown in error.

Now quit groveling for tidbits of irrelevant acceptance and either get on it with it or concede your proof.
JayUtah 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 09:11 AM   #59
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,099
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
Which part? That the numbers have to add up to 1 in order to cover all the possibilities? Clearly they do, or you've missed some (not that adding up to 1 ensures that you haven't). That we have to "accept" that OOFlam is wrong? We don't have to accept something is true in order to assign probabilities of how it might turn out if it were (though you have clearly spent very little time in doing so, either in examining what the possibilities are or in assigning probabilities to them).
Zoo,
- Doesn't #9 make sure that it adds up to 1.00?
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 09:12 AM   #60
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 11,953
Originally Posted by Monza View Post
theprestige is correct. As an engineer I deal with measurements every day. Precision is very important such that 0.2 is not the same as 0.200. I brought this up when Jabba first posted this nonsense but he did not respond.
Agreed. Precision is not irrelevant. "Rounding off" to some number of decimal places indicates an ability to compute or measure the actual value to at least that decimal place with no jitter or error. He cannot do this since all his numbers are just guesses. But he's using his fabricated "precision" as a trick to fool people into thinking he's done more computation than he actually has, and that his method isn't just pulling numbers out of his orifice.
JayUtah 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 09:18 AM   #61
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 11,953
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Doesn't #9 make sure that it adds up to 1.00?
Not in a valid way. You acknowledge you can't think of all the possibilities, which is fatal to your argument on its face. But then you assume that any possibility you can't think of must be 1-(the sum of all the others) and that this is some sort of probability that has meaning. If you don't know what other possibility might be out there, you have no basis for concluding it can be only p = .2 probable.
JayUtah 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 09:22 AM   #62
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,099
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
Which part? That the numbers have to add up to 1 in order to cover all the possibilities? Clearly they do, or you've missed some (not that adding up to 1 ensures that you haven't). That we have to "accept" that OOFlam is wrong? We don't have to accept something is true in order to assign probabilities of how it might turn out if it were (though you have clearly spent very little time in doing so, either in examining what the possibilities are or in assigning probabilities to them).
Zoo,
- This is what I said: - First, I figure that the different possible ways have to add up to 1.00 (for the moment, we're accepting that OOFlam is, in fact, wrong).
- I thought that "for the moment" would indicate that this was just a hypothetical. I'll try to be more specific in the future.
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 09:25 AM   #63
Loss Leader
Guilty With An Explanation
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 21,879
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Zoo,
- Good question.
- I assume that you'll want a more elaborate, and more specific, explanation -- but for now (just in case), I just think that any possible variation with "some" in it is very improbable.

Please reread the above until you find the two logical errors. Hint: One of them is conflating "very improbable" with "impossible."
__________________
- 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 09:25 AM   #64
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 11,953
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I thought that "for the moment" would indicate that this was just a hypothetical. I'll try to be more specific in the future.
What part of it is merely hypothetical in your mind? You say the numbers can change very little from your wild guesses stated thus far, so what specificity in the future would have any bearing on what you've been foisting all this time?
JayUtah 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 09:37 AM   #65
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,570
Jabba, one problem is that you're presenting several possible outcomes but not the hypotheses behind those outcomes. Without details on what it means for a soul to live more than once it's hard to talk about any probability for a hypothesis involving a soul living more than once.
__________________
"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 26th September 2016, 09:42 AM   #66
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,507
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Jabba, one problem is that you're presenting several possible outcomes but not the hypotheses behind those outcomes. Without details on what it means for a soul to live more than once it's hard to talk about any probability for a hypothesis involving a soul living more than once.
Then, of course, there is the question about whether or not souls actually exist... (Which Jabba says one day is not part of H, then the next it is, so even that can't be nailed down.)
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 11:34 AM   #67
Loss Leader
Guilty With An Explanation
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 21,879
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I assume that you'll want a more elaborate, and more specific, explanation -- but for now (just in case), I just think that any possible variation with "some" in it is very improbable.

Jabba -

In order to calculate who may or may not have a soul, don't we need to know what a soul is? What does it do? How is it measured?

I, for example, had a girlfriend who was convinced that some evil people are born without souls. This isn't an uncommon belief.

Without a definition of "soul," you can't possibly decide the likelihood of various soul/non-soul admixtures.

Please provide a working, testable definition of "soul" as you're using it.
__________________
- 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 12:03 PM   #68
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,570
Originally Posted by jond View Post
Then, of course, there is the question about whether or not souls actually exist... (Which Jabba says one day is not part of H, then the next it is, so even that can't be nailed down.)
I think for purposes of talking about ~H, we can assume souls exist in all the hypotheses that fall under ~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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 12:14 PM   #69
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,507
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
I think for purposes of talking about ~H, we can assume souls exist in all the hypotheses that fall under ~H.
I'm talking about H, and don't care about ~H until we get some sort of clarity on H. That's the stumbling block. He needs to firmly define H, specifically whether or not he's including a soul.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2016, 12:49 PM   #70
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 6,264
Yeah but we all know this is all academic and we passed the point in which any reasonable definition of civility requires us to pretend otherwise some ways back.

Jabba's just waiting for someone, anyone, to agree with him on one factor of his transparent "assumptions" and try to backdoor an agreement from it.

I've been involved in a lot of Woo arguments and apologetics in my lifetime and seen the gambit of bad intellectual, argumentative, and emotional arguments but I've never seen an "debate" reach the point where someone is basically groveling and begging for someone to agree with him on any tiny detail so they can walk away thinking they won some intellectual victory.
__________________
Hemingway once wrote that "The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.
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 26th September 2016, 12:55 PM   #71
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 22,598
Just checking in here. ISTM that Jabba is starting from the assumption he's immortal, making up different sets of imaginary circumstances surrounding him being immortal, pulling some conditional probabilities out of his arse, adding them up to find that they equal 1, and saying that therefore there's zero probability he's mortal. Is that about right?

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 27th September 2016, 01:23 AM   #72
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,000
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Mojo,
- I'm not being precise.

No, you aren't. You're just pretending to be precise.
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2016, 02:00 AM   #73
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 36,828
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Mojo,
- I'm not being precise. I'm just saying that the probability is less than, or equal to, .000. I'm just saying that such is very improbable.
Do you think that 3 decimal places is a lot of precision? Do you also think that .000 is greater than 0?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
zooterkin 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 27th September 2016, 08:25 AM   #74
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,099
Originally Posted by jond View Post
I'm talking about H, and don't care about ~H until we get some sort of clarity on H. That's the stumbling block. He needs to firmly define H, specifically whether or not he's including a soul.
jond,
- To be sure of my answer, I need to know what you mean by "soul." If you mean something immaterial, that IS a possibility.
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2016, 08:29 AM   #75
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 15,980
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
jond,
- To be sure of my answer, I need to know what you mean by "soul." If you mean something immaterial, that IS a possibility.
My Dear Mr. Savage:

is it not, in fact, you, personally, advancing and argument that depends upon a "soul"?

It is your concept--it is up to you to define it.

I remain, somewhat-less-enthusiastically,

Yours &ct.
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle 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 27th September 2016, 08:33 AM   #76
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 11,953
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
To be sure of my answer, I need to know what you mean by "soul."
No you don't. He's asking you to clarify what in H or ~H does (or doesn't) include your concept of a soul. You're the only one here proposing (insinuating, really) that a soul exists, so the question and the definition are your responsibility alone. If you're proposing that an immortal soul exists, you need to define it and you need to keep it on the proper side of H|~H.

Got it?
JayUtah 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2016, 08:37 AM   #77
ferd burfle
Muse
 
ferd burfle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Just short of Zeta II Reticuli
Posts: 959
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
jond,
- To be sure of my answer, I need to know what you mean by "soul." If you mean something immaterial, that IS a possibility.

Jabba, your attempts to shift onto others the job of the defining the terms of your argument are are laughably transparent.
__________________
Nothing much is happening at the center of the Sun-Haig
Does it matter? it's all just a mathamatical construct and has no bearing on reality!-Sol88, on the subject of Einsteinian relativity
ferd burfle 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 27th September 2016, 08:43 AM   #78
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 6,264
Jabba how in the name of Christ's Biscuit are you going to sit there and demand we define the thing you're trying to prove?
__________________
Hemingway once wrote that "The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.
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 27th September 2016, 08:48 AM   #79
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,507
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
jond,
- To be sure of my answer, I need to know what you mean by "soul." If you mean something immaterial, that IS a possibility.
In addition to what others have said (it's your model, you need to tell us what you mean!!!) I will say what I believe you are getting at:

You believe that there exists an entity that is separate from the brain that is responsible for our sense of self.

As you are well aware, the default scientific position is that no such entity exists. It is entirely undefined and provides no information which could be tested in any way. So, if your H includes such an entity, it is entirely incosistent with science, and therefore all your numbers are meaningless in any scientific way.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2016, 08:51 AM   #80
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,099
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
Do you think that 3 decimal places is a lot of precision? Do you also think that .000 is greater than 0?
Zoo,
- The probability of .000 (having been rounded off to 3 decimal points) is more precise, and possibly significantly smaller, than a probability of 0 (having been rounded off to 1 decimal point).
__________________
"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 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 09:23 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.