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 29th September 2016, 06:23 AM   #121
John Jones
Philosopher
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,912
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Sparrow,
- The above are the premises that lead me to the conclusion that the likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam, is appropriate for P(E|H) in the Bayes formula.
- I think that this is really the Texas Sharpshooter issue, and I need to show that I qualify as a legitimate 'target.' Would you agree with my assertion that such is what I need to show?
Don't anyone take this bait. He'll use it as an opportunity to misquote you or quote you out of context on one of his toxic web sites
__________________
"Want to debate effectively in any format? Pay attention to your critics" -JayUtah
John Jones 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 29th September 2016, 06:48 AM   #122
The Sparrow
Muse
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 769
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Sparrow,
- The above are the premises that lead me to the conclusion that the likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam, is appropriate for P(E|H) in the Bayes formula.
Yes, I know, and they are not legitimate premises.


Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I think that this is really the Texas Sharpshooter issue, and I need to show that I qualify as a legitimate 'target.' Would you agree with my assertion that such is what I need to show?
Sorry, but I'm not going to serve as your puppet that you try to manipulate into some sort of magical agreement with you, so you can claim "Even hard core skeptics agree" on some other website or forum.
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 29th September 2016, 06:51 AM   #123
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,393
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
I just used this random number generator to generate an integer between -1,000,000,000 and 1,000,000,000. It came up with 539,103,280. What is the probability that 539,103,280 has an immortal soul?

Similarly, I have a bag of tangerines in my kitchen. Each one is unique when compared to the others and to every tangerine that has ever existed, and therefore the probability of any one of them existing is vanishingly small. Does this mean that they have immortal souls, too?

I also have a roll of electrical tape sitting here on my computer desk. Due to the particular wear its accrued from being in my pocket while out on jobs, and the length of the tape that's left, as well as the microscopic imperfections that, too, is unique. It's extremely improbable that this particular roll of tape would be in this particular state. I assume that it therefore has an immortal soul and will be reincarnated once I have used it up.
It's an incomplete analogy and doesn't really show the core of the flaw in Jabba's thinking which is the circularity of it.

Mt. Rainier, your random number, your tangerines, your roll of tape, and The Sparrow's banana are not analogous in Jabba's mind because they do not have awareness (or consciousness or soul or what have you). Though Jabba has on at least one occasion admitted that awareness is an emergent property, he still thinks it separate and immaterial. In thinking it separate and immaterial, he departs from the the prevailing science (and OOFLAM as a deceptive subset of it) by injecting something that is not part of it.

It is this invalid injection of an assumed immateriality for awareness that comprises Jabba's circular argument.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette 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 29th September 2016, 06:52 AM   #124
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 58,903
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Sparrow,
- The above are the premises that lead me to the conclusion that the likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam, is appropriate for P(E|H) in the Bayes formula.
- I think that this is really the Texas Sharpshooter issue, and I need to show that I qualify as a legitimate 'target.' Would you agree with my assertion that such is what I need to show?
What you need to show is that your numbers aren't pulled out of your ass.
__________________
"What is best in life?"
Argumemnon 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 29th September 2016, 07:04 AM   #125
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: 22,936
This thread needs a glossary page. What the hell is OOFLam, and what meanings are being ascribed to E, ~E, H and ~H?

(In a sane discourse one would be able to infer ~E and ~H from E and H, but I'm not making that assumption yet.)

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 Back to Top
Old 29th September 2016, 07:06 AM   #126
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,125
- So anyway, for now, I'll be doing my best to support my belief that my current existence makes for a legitimate target.
- You guys don't think much of my attempts so far. I'll try to add to, and refine, them.
- Neither do you guys think much of me telling you what I'm going to try to do -- but for me, it seems helpful.
__________________
"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 29th September 2016, 07:07 AM   #127
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,086
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
The above are the premises that lead me to the conclusion that the likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam, is appropriate for P(E|H) in the Bayes formula.
As previously discussed, they aren't "premises" of any kind. They're just a rambling expression of your personal beliefs and musings. Don't refer to them without addressing the rebuttals that ensued the last time you posted them, otherwise it's just a further admission that you really aren't listening to the other side of the debate.

Quote:
I think that this is really the Texas Sharpshooter issue, and I need to show that I qualify as a legitimate 'target.' Would you agree with my assertion that such is what I need to show?
No. You've been told in great detail by several people what you need to show. You acknowledged that already when you confessed the lottery analogy showed you your error. Stop pretending it's something else. Stop begging for the semblance of agreement.
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 Back to Top
Old 29th September 2016, 07:10 AM   #128
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,086
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- So anyway, for now, I'll be doing my best to support my belief that my current existence makes for a legitimate target.
It has already been shown exactly how it isn't. Unless you've come prepared to respond to the rebuttals the last time you posted this list of nonsensical statements verbatim, you are wasting everyone else's time.

Quote:
- You guys don't think much of my attempts so far. I'll try to add to, and refine, them.
- Neither do you guys think much of me telling you what I'm going to try to do -- but for me, it seems helpful.
This is exactly an admission that you don't care what your critics think or say, and you'll just keep broadcasting whatever nonsense you want regardless. Can you explain why you deserve grown-up attention when you waste everyone's time and rudely ignore them?
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 Back to Top
Old 29th September 2016, 07:16 AM   #129
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 58,903
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- So anyway, for now, I'll be doing my best to support my belief that my current existence makes for a legitimate target.
Oh, yeah. It's not as if doing what you actually need to do is expected of you.

Quote:
- You guys don't think much of my attempts so far. I'll try to add to, and refine, them.
Engage fractal shuffle drive. All ahead flank!

Quote:
- Neither do you guys think much of me telling you what I'm going to try to do -- but for me, it seems helpful.
What seems helpful for you has a very poor track record of being actually helpful.
__________________
"What is best in life?"
Argumemnon 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 29th September 2016, 07:17 AM   #130
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 6,411
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Sparrow,
- The above are the premises that lead me to the conclusion that the likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam, is appropriate for P(E|H) in the Bayes formula.
- I think that this is really the Texas Sharpshooter issue, and I need to show that I qualify as a legitimate 'target.' Would you agree with my assertion that such is what I need to show?
Why does is matter? You're just gonna reset back to zero and grovel for someone to agree with you.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 29th September 2016, 07:44 AM   #131
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,125
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
This thread needs a glossary page. What the hell is OOFLam, and what meanings are being ascribed to E, ~E, H and ~H?

(In a sane discourse one would be able to infer ~E and ~H from E and H, but I'm not making that assumption yet.)

Dave
Dave,
- OOFLam (H) stands for what I call the scientific hypothesis that we each have Only One Finite Life at most; and,~H does stand for "H is wrong."
- E stands for the event of my current existence; and finally, I don't use ~E in the formula.
__________________
"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 29th September 2016, 07:48 AM   #132
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 58,903
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- OOFLam (H) stands for what I call the scientific hypothesis that we each have Only One Finite Life at most; and,~H does stand for "H is wrong."
It's a nice hypothesis, since everyone who ever lived died at some point and never came back.
__________________
"What is best in life?"
Argumemnon 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 29th September 2016, 07:50 AM   #133
John Jones
Philosopher
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,912
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- So anyway, for now, I'll be doing my best to support my belief that my current existence makes for a legitimate target.
- You guys don't think much of my attempts so far. I'll try to add to, and refine, them.
- Neither do you guys think much of me telling you what I'm going to try to do -- but for me, it seems helpful.
In four+ years, your best argument has been incompetent.
__________________
"Want to debate effectively in any format? Pay attention to your critics" -JayUtah
John Jones 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 29th September 2016, 08:02 AM   #134
sackett
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 4,820
Why, when I take a semi-sympathetic approach to your fears, do you ignore me, Jabba? I was also born in 1942, & I think my viewpoint & feelings might be relevant.

My convictions about death, immortality, and the value of consecutive thinking are probably repugnant to a mystic, so we'll leave them for Thread XXXIV or woddever.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 29th September 2016, 08:07 AM   #135
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: 22,936
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
and finally, I don't use ~E in the formula.
Has anybody suggested you should?

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 Back to Top
Old 29th September 2016, 08:19 AM   #136
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,595
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- OOFLam (H) stands for what I call the scientific hypothesis that we each have Only One Finite Life at most
Once again, you're confusing a consequence of a hypothesis with the hypothesis itself.
__________________
"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; 29th September 2016 at 09:23 AM. Reason: found a better word
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 29th September 2016, 08:34 AM   #137
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,125
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Has anybody suggested you should?

Dave
Dave,
- No.
__________________
"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 29th September 2016, 08:44 AM   #138
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 14,977
Originally Posted by Garrette View Post
It's an incomplete analogy and doesn't really show the core of the flaw in Jabba's thinking which is the circularity of it.

Mt. Rainier, your random number, your tangerines, your roll of tape, and The Sparrow's banana are not analogous in Jabba's mind because they do not have awareness (or consciousness or soul or what have you). Though Jabba has on at least one occasion admitted that awareness is an emergent property, he still thinks it separate and immaterial. In thinking it separate and immaterial, he departs from the the prevailing science (and OOFLAM as a deceptive subset of it) by injecting something that is not part of it.

It is this invalid injection of an assumed immateriality for awareness that comprises Jabba's circular argument.
I think that's one of the things that compromises his argument.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim 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 29th September 2016, 08:48 AM   #139
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,086
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
OOFLam (H) stands for what I call the scientific hypothesis that we each have Only One Finite Life at most; and,~H does stand for "H is wrong."
Do you even care how many times the problems with your formulation have been brought to your attention? After pussy-footing around for four years, do you have any plans to rectify them or even acknowledge them?

Come on, Jabba. When you're this pig-headed, it makes it harder for you to argue that people who leave your debates in frustration were "really" bested by your logic and reasoning and not just fed up with your mindless repetition and fingers-in-ears approach to criticism.

First, you have turned your proof around. You want to prove immortality is true. But you know you can't, so you want to prove non-immortality is false.

Second, you constantly equivocate various forms of "non-immortality." The scientific hypothesis is simply that all the properties you attribute to the soul you wish to prove are emergent properties of the brain. The body of evidence that supports this is the ongoing failure to identify any such property that is observable before or after the viability of the physical organism. A consequent of that hypothesis is that if we define life as the properties you attribute to a soul but which the scientific community attributes to emergence in the brain, humans have one life and it is bounded in time to the biological life of the physical organism. And it is this consequent that defies your hypothesis. Your argument requires the consequent to be wrong, but proving the hypothesis wrong does not prove the consequent wrong. The consequent could remain true for other reasons. This is one of the simplest fallacies in our taxonomy, and one that you similarly stumbled over in the Shroud thread.

Third, you think you have lowered the bar for yourself by defining your desired outcome ~H not as a specific testable thing, but as an abstract and infinite body of possibilities. You think that because any one of those undefined and inconceivable hypotheses can hold and still prove your point, you are left in a strong logical position. Fortunately logic is not so easily fooled. In order to deal with that infinite set probabilistically, as you propose to do, you must define a continuous or discrete quantitative description for their behavior under a given event, which you can only do by stabbing blindly at a few haphazard probabilities -- assigning them essentially random numbers expressed to a misleading degree of precision -- and then lumping anything you can't think of into a catch-all set that you don't realize is functionally equivalent to the infinite set from which you subtracted your few straw men. Infinity isn't affected by subtraction in the way you desire.

Of course you'll ignore this. You do every time, and you were foolish enough to tell the world it's because you find my posts too challenging to address. And you'll blithely continue to claim in the face of such admission that you're actually surviving this test of your claims. When you decide to pull your head out, please address these points once and for all.

Last edited by JayUtah; 29th September 2016 at 08:49 AM.
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 Back to Top
Old 29th September 2016, 08:48 AM   #140
The Sparrow
Muse
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 769
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- OOFLam (H) stands for what I call the scientific hypothesis that we each have Only One Finite Life at most; and,~H does stand for "H is wrong."
What about 2 lives as most? 9?


Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- E stands for the event of my current existence; and finally, I don't use ~E in the formula.
'Current' begs the question. If you have to qualify your existence with the term 'current' you are already smuggling in the assumption there are 'previous' or 'future' existences.
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 29th September 2016, 08:50 AM   #141
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,393
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
I think that's one of the things that compromises his argument.
Agreed except it's the starting point. Every other flaw comes into play only if this one is ignored for the sake of argument.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette 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 29th September 2016, 08:53 AM   #142
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,086
Originally Posted by Garrette View Post
Agreed except it's the starting point. Every other flaw comes into play only if this one is ignored for the sake of argument.
Many of us have identified a half-dozen or so logical flaws in Jabba's argument, any one of which is individually fatal. So you're not wrong. But I doubt there's any natural sequence of challenging it, so we challenge them in different orders or all at once, or we pick one and say "fix it or no-go."

And it largely doesn't matter because regardless of how many times this list is present to Jabba, he simply ignores it and marches on as if nothing happened.
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 Back to Top
Old 29th September 2016, 08:56 AM   #143
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,393
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Many of us have identified a half-dozen or so logical flaws in Jabba's argument, any one of which is individually fatal. So you're not wrong. But I doubt there's any natural sequence of challenging it, so we challenge them in different orders or all at once, or we pick one and say "fix it or no-go."

And it largely doesn't matter because regardless of how many times this list is present to Jabba, he simply ignores it and marches on as if nothing happened.
Understood, and I'm not trying to be as argumentative as it seems; I started out just pointing out why Jabba isn't swayed by the analogies. He should be swayed by them -- and in fact has admitted on at least one occasion that he is swayed, though he abandoned that admission soon after -- but the reason he doesn't is his assumption that awareness is the property that makes him different from Mt. Ranier.

It's the same issue Toontown had.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette 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 29th September 2016, 08:57 AM   #144
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,086
Originally Posted by The Sparrow View Post
What about 2 lives as most? 9?
Or, in the case of Jabba's softened case of "immateriality," we all have immaterial souls that come into and out of existence at exactly the same time as the physical organism?

Jabba's argument is a mess from head to toe and there's little he seems to want to do about it.

Quote:
'Current' begs the question. If you have to qualify your existence with the term 'current' you are already smuggling in the assumption there are 'previous' or 'future' existences.
It's not clear he intends "current" to have that connotation, but Jabba does love to sneak concepts past his critics in like fashion. The incontestable problem with "current" in his argument is that he predicates his argument on the target being the "current" bullet hole, in the fashion of the Texas sharpshooter. His wall of quoted screed above is just a laborious explanation for why that's his favorite bullet hole and why we really should feel okay drawing the target around it after the 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 Back to Top
Old 29th September 2016, 09:04 AM   #145
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 58,903
Originally Posted by The Sparrow View Post
What about 2 lives as most?
A practice run, and the real thing. Imagine how harsh the real thing must be.
__________________
"What is best in life?"
Argumemnon 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 29th September 2016, 09:12 AM   #146
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,086
Originally Posted by Garrette View Post
Understood, and I'm not trying to be as argumentative as it seems...
And neither am I, nor I think is anyone else. It's a tempest in teapot: how many of Jabba's fallacies can dance on the head of a pin.

Quote:
I started out just pointing out why Jabba isn't swayed by the analogies.
And I think you're right. He simply begs the question that some imaginary property magically separates his case from the analogy. Or he counter-proposes his own analogy that agrees with his argument but sidesteps the issue the analogy was meant to raise.

Quote:
...though he abandoned that admission soon after --
Jabba is infamous for conceding a point and then conveniently forgetting he did so.

Quote:
but the reason he doesn't is his assumption that awareness is the property that makes him different from Mt. Ranier.
How does he know Mt Ranier isn't aware?

But yes, seriously, it begs the question. And a begged question is the on-ramp to a circular argument. And the circularity has been pointed out to him more times than any of us can count. In all fairness, one's own circular reasoning is often hard to recognize. But he's had four years of people showing him patiently how it's circular. At this point it's just fingers-in-ears denial.
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 Back to Top
Old 29th September 2016, 09:17 AM   #147
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 13,348
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
This thread needs a glossary page. What the hell is OOFLam, and what meanings are being ascribed to E, ~E, H and ~H?

(In a sane discourse one would be able to infer ~E and ~H from E and H, but I'm not making that assumption yet.)

Dave
All of those are continously variable in the jabbaverse. Whatever they mean today may or may not be the same as what jabbaverse claimed they meant yesterday, nor whatever tomorrow's claim might be. A glossary would thus be rendered useless.

Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk
__________________
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 29th September 2016, 09:18 AM   #148
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,538
Originally Posted by jond View Post
The statistics do not in anyway support that. Your H assumes the inclusion of a soul. This is the problem that you need to address. What the statistics do show is that it is much more likely that you have only a body than having both a body and a soul. However unlikely your body's existence may be, it still exists which means that the unlikeliness of a soul must be added to the unlikeliness of your body. And then you need to add the even more unlikely coupling of the soul and the body.

There is no getting around the fact that your body exists. And there is no evidence of the existence of a soul.
Jabba, I'm still waiting...
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 29th September 2016, 10:06 AM   #149
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,071
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
It's not clear he intends "current" to have that connotation, but Jabba does love to sneak concepts past his critics in like fashion. The incontestable problem with "current" in his argument is that he predicates his argument on the target being the "current" bullet hole, in the fashion of the Texas sharpshooter. His wall of quoted screed above is just a laborious explanation for why that's his favorite bullet hole and why we really should feel okay drawing the target around it after the fact.

Didn't he, somewhere in part III, try to argue that it is highly improbable that it is currently "now", or did I imagine it?
__________________
"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 29th September 2016, 10:12 AM   #150
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,086
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Didn't he, somewhere in part III, try to argue that it is highly improbable that it is currently "now", or did I imagine it?
Something like that. Along with all the other circular reasons for the improbability of his own existence I believe he has lumped together the notion that for him to exist now, at this time, in the history of the universe, as opposed to some other time, is highly improbable.
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 Back to Top
Old 29th September 2016, 10:33 AM   #151
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 19,426
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
jond,
- I don't think that I do. I think that the statistics do support the belief that we don't have just one finite life. If that is true, logic requires that we must have something that transcends the physical...
It must be clear to even the most obtuse reader that you think that. Unfortunately, it is equally clear that, on this fourth iteration of the thread, you have still failed to support that thought with any kind of evidence.

Hans
__________________
Don't. Just don't.

Last edited by MRC_Hans; 29th September 2016 at 10:35 AM.
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 29th September 2016, 10:45 AM   #152
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,086
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
...you have still failed to support that thought with any kind of evidence.
Or, for that matter, with valid statistics.

Normally we would want a certain kind of evidence in order to conclude that some form of immortality exists. While we would apply statistical controls to that evidence, it is a different matter for the argument to be entirely statistical -- based solely on the observation that the claimant exists and a bunch of purported probabilities he has chosen based on preconceived beliefs. We have at other times and places indulged Jabba's desire to substitute pure statistical tom-foolery for a more evidence-based arguments in favor of his various claims. But he has been universally unsuccessful in all those circumstances at properly modeling the problem, and universally disinterested in entertaining attempts at correction.
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 Back to Top
Old 29th September 2016, 01:41 PM   #153
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 58,903
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
And neither am I, nor I think is anyone else. It's a tempest in teapot: how many of Jabba's fallacies can dance on the head of a pin.
Well, if I pull numbers out of my ass I'm sure I can figure out an equation for that.
__________________
"What is best in life?"
Argumemnon 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 30th September 2016, 12:24 AM   #154
MetalPig
Master Poster
 
MetalPig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 22, Acacia Avenue
Posts: 2,702
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- OOFLam (H) stands for what I call the scientific hypothesis that we each have Only One Finite Life at most; "
That seems to suggest that 'we' includes people that have less than one finite life.

What are those?
__________________
Just drive.
MetalPig 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 30th September 2016, 01:28 AM   #155
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 37,045
Originally Posted by MetalPig View Post
That seems to suggest that 'we' includes people that have less than one finite life.

What are those?
Clearly, the souls that don't get to attach to a material body and which therefore don't have a life.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 30th September 2016, 02:16 AM   #156
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: 22,936
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I think that this is really the Texas Sharpshooter issue, and I need to show that I qualify as a legitimate 'target.' Would you agree with my assertion that such is what I need to show?
I thought about this one, and: No. Even if you could disprove that the Texas Sharpshooter is a fallacy, you'd still be left with a very low probability that also formed the upper limit on the probability that you have an immortal soul, as this is a subset of the probability of you existing at all.

The task you've actually set yourself, phrased in terms of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, is to demonstrate that the only satisfactory resolution of the fallacy is for the bullet holes in the side of the barn to have existed for all eternity. Since that contradicts the defined parameters of the scenario, good luck with that.

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 Back to Top
Old 1st October 2016, 02:56 AM   #157
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,071
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
I just used this random number generator to generate an integer between -1,000,000,000 and 1,000,000,000. It came up with 539,103,280. What is the probability that 539,103,280 has an immortal soul?

Someone using Jabba's argument would claim that, because under the hypothesis that the number generator generates a random integer this result is extremely unlikely, it is very unlikely that the hypothesis that the generator produces a random integer is correct.

i.e by Jabba's argument, because the generator has produced an integer between -1,000,000,000 and 1,000,000,000, then the hypothesis that it produces a random integer between -1,000,000,000 and 1,000,000,000 is wrong.

Or, in more general terms, a specific result that is consistent with a hypothesis is evidence that the hypothesis is incorrect.

__________________
"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; 1st October 2016 at 03:20 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 1st October 2016, 06:35 AM   #158
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,125
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
[Slightly revised]
- So anyway, for now, I'll be doing my best to support my belief that the current existence of my self makes for a legitimate target in the Bayes formula I’m using.
- You guys don't think much of my attempts so far. I'll try to add to, and refine, them.
- Neither do you guys think much of me telling you what I'm going to try to do -- but for me, it seems helpful.
- Anyway, one thought is that there are "shades" of target-ness.
- For instance, the controller of the lottery would be a much more obvious target as lottery winner than would be one of his 5th cousins.
- And, whereas the likelihood of my current existence may not be obviously appropriate for P(E|H), there are some red flags waving (or maybe, orange lights flashing). For instance:
- The current existence of my "self," whether thing, process or illusion is all that I know for sure. If it's an illusion, it's a real illusion -- everything else could be my imagination. I don't know what I am -- but, I know I am.
- Also, it's my only camera/observer -- and, according to OOFLam, it never existed before, it will never exist again and it never had to exist in the first place. And then, if it didn’t exist, there might as well be nothing; and if it never existed, there might as well have never been anything. Something’s wrong here; and, my current existence seems really important. Like a General for a drone strike.
- I’ll 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
"Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." Jabba's Razor

Last edited by Jabba; 1st October 2016 at 06:39 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 Back to Top
Old 1st October 2016, 06:50 AM   #159
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,125
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
I thought about this one, and: No. Even if you could disprove that the Texas Sharpshooter is a fallacy, you'd still be left with a very low probability that also formed the upper limit on the probability that you have an immortal soul, as this is a subset of the probability of you existing at all.

The task you've actually set yourself, phrased in terms of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, is to demonstrate that the only satisfactory resolution of the fallacy is for the bullet holes in the side of the barn to have existed for all eternity. Since that contradicts the defined parameters of the scenario, good luck with that.

Dave
Dave,
- I'm not quite sure what you're saying, but my best guess so far is that I have other numerical entries that need support. OK?
__________________
"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 1st October 2016, 06:50 AM   #160
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,071
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Anyway, one thought is that there are "shades" of target-ness.
- For instance, the controller of the lottery would be a much more obvious target as lottery winner than would be one of his 5th cousins.

Have you even read the preceding posts?

You have not demonstrated that there is any "controller" of the universe, let alone that you are that controller, or that controller's 5th cousin. This is just more irrelevance.

You are not special in any way other than that you exist. This does not make you a target wrt existence.
__________________
"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
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 06:51 AM.
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.