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 14th February 2017, 01:52 PM   #121
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,230
Huh. I guess we didn't need a new LCP or traduced "agreement" after all. Just a naked reset.
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 Back to Top
Old 14th February 2017, 02:01 PM   #122
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 38,730
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post

- I think that I finally have a satisfactory answer for the Mt Rainier, Texas Sharp Shooter, bucket of sand issue.
Turns out, you don't.
__________________
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 14th February 2017, 02:06 PM   #123
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,965
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I couldn't stay away for long. Though, I'm not sure how long I can stay around either.

- I think that I finally have a satisfactory answer for the Mt Rainier, Texas Sharp Shooter, bucket of sand issue. The simple answer is that we have no real reason to doubt their scientific explanations -- whereas, we do have real reasons to doubt the scientific explanation for my existence (actually, science has no explanation for my existence).
- I don't think that any of you agree with me about that, but I still do -- and, I still think that you guys don't agree because you can't, or aren't willing to, grasp the concept of "self" to which I'm referring. I perceive an aspect of me (my "self") that is not determined by my chemistry and cannot be replicated by replicating my chemistry.

- It's good to be back.
You're right about one thing: we don't agree with you. But, as always, we fully grasp the concept of self to which you're referring. We see it as a process of a functioning neuro system, whereas you insist that is is an entity that is separate from the brain to which it is tied.
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 14th February 2017, 02:09 PM   #124
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,230
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
Turns out, you don't.
He should have waited at least a couple months. That would have been mildly amusing. This is just sad.
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 Back to Top
Old 14th February 2017, 02:14 PM   #125
CriticalThanking
Designated Hitter
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: On in memory
Posts: 3,038
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I think that I finally have a satisfactory answer for the Mt Rainier, Texas Sharp Shooter, bucket of sand issue. The simple answer is that we have no real reason to doubt their scientific explanations -- whereas, we do have real reasons to doubt the scientific explanation for my existence (actually, science has no explanation for my existence).
You exist as the result of physical processes, as does Mt. Rainier. They are different processes at the macro level - you were created by tectonic movement and erosion, whereas Mt. Rainier was created when a mommy mountain and a daddy mountain loved one another very much. Regardless, it's still physics and chemistry. Do you have reason to doubt that you exist without physics or chemistry?

Quote:
- I don't think that any of you agree with me about that, but I still do -- and, I still think that you guys don't agree because you can't, or aren't willing to, grasp the concept of "self" to which I'm referring. I perceive an aspect of me (my "self") that is not determined by my chemistry and cannot be replicated by replicating my chemistry.
Turn that statement around and see if you agree with it: Jabba does not agree with the points raised here because she can't, or isn't willing to, grasp the scientific and logical reasons her argument is wrong. You have been unable to proffer a single testable aspect of this self.
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
Old 14th February 2017, 02:18 PM   #126
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,655
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I couldn't stay away for long. Though, I'm not sure how long I can stay around either.

That's the basic issue with mortality.

Quote:
- I think that I finally have a satisfactory answer for the Mt Rainier, Texas Sharp Shooter, bucket of sand issue. The simple answer is that we have no real reason to doubt their scientific explanations -- whereas, we do have real reasons to doubt the scientific explanation for my existence (actually, science has no explanation for my existence).

Science has an explanation, you just don't like it because it is fatal to your argument. Your consciousness is the result of your brain processes. On the other hand, your alternative hypothesis provides no explanation whatsoever for the existence of your soul. By your own argument you should doubt your favoured hypothesis more than you doubt the one you oppose.

Quote:
- I don't think that any of you agree with me about that, but I still do -- and, I still think that you guys don't agree because you can't, or aren't willing to, grasp the concept of "self" to which I'm referring. I perceive an aspect of me (my "self") that is not determined by my chemistry and cannot be replicated by replicating my chemistry.

You're begging the question again. The existence of the immortal soul is what you are trying to prove.

Quote:
- It's good to be back.

You've been back most days since you last posted.
__________________
"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 14th February 2017, 02:22 PM   #127
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: 17,348
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I couldn't stay away for long. Though, I'm not sure how long I can stay around either.

- I think that I finally have a satisfactory answer for the Mt Rainier, Texas Sharp Shooter, bucket of sand issue. The simple answer is that we have no real reason to doubt their scientific explanations -- whereas, we do have real reasons to doubt the scientific explanation for my existence (actually, science has no explanation for my existence).
My Dear Mr. Savage:

Be so kind as to explain what it is, beyond your own fear of death and dissolution, that makes you free to pretend that there are "reasons to doubt the scientific explanation" for your existence.

It is here you founder, at the first fence. Without a show of valid reasons, you are, simply, repeating your unfounded assertions.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I don't think that any of you agree with me about that, but I still do -- and, I still think that you guys don't agree because you can't, or aren't willing to, grasp the concept of "self" to which I'm referring.
Or it could be that you have not been able to sell your "soul" claptrap here.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I perceive an aspect of me (my "self") that is not determined by my chemistry and cannot be replicated by replicating my chemistry.

- It's good to be back.
Of course you "perceive" what you believe. At issue is the fact that you have yet, after lo, these many years, offered the least bit of evidence for your claims.
__________________
"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

Last edited by Slowvehicle; 14th February 2017 at 03:07 PM.
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 Back to Top
Old 14th February 2017, 02:49 PM   #128
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,655
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
That's no good: he needs a LCP who doesn't understand what he's saying so he can pretend that if people understood what he's saying they would agree with him.
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I don't think that any of you agree with me about that, but I still do -- and, I still think that you guys don't agree because you can't, or aren't willing to, grasp the concept of "self" to which I'm referring.

Told you so.
__________________
"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 14th February 2017, 03:19 PM   #129
Filippo Lippi
Master Poster
 
Filippo Lippi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,742
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I couldn't stay away for long.
You came back every day.

45 years of honest, Effective Debate
__________________
"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 14th February 2017, 03:38 PM   #130
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,527
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I don't think that any of you agree with me about that, but I still do -- and, I still think that you guys don't agree because you can't, or aren't willing to, grasp the concept of "self" to which I'm referring. I perceive an aspect of me (my "self") that is not determined by my chemistry and cannot be replicated by replicating my chemistry.

We grasp it perfectly well. You are simply using a different word for the concept of a soul. Your problem is that there is no evidence for such a thing.
__________________
"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 14th February 2017, 04:32 PM   #131
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,655
Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
You are simply using a different word for the concept of a soul.

He's explicitly admitted this:
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I've said this before, but I am referring to what I would call a soul, but using that word would seem to be begging the question...
__________________
"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; 14th February 2017 at 04:34 PM. Reason: Formatting.
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 14th February 2017, 07:23 PM   #132
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,527
He knows why he is wrong, but doesn't want to admit that a) He is wrong, and b) He knows that he is wrong and why?

Egads...
__________________
"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 14th February 2017, 09:01 PM   #133
Toontown
Philosopher
 
Toontown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,085
Jabba, since you can't stop trying to "essentially prove" immortality, and I am nothing if not helpful, here are my poorly worded suggestions:

(1) Drop the "soul" assumption. It is a multiplication of entities, is non-explanatory, and is just plain unlikely. Why does the particular soul that is "you" exist, out of an infinite set of "possible" souls? To "explain" that, you have to make even more unlikely assumptions. And the longer your list of unlikely assumptions gets, the less likely it is that they are all correct.

(2) Drop the "OOFlam" assumption that one particular body is the only "you" that can ever exist. This may require defining sentient experience in a way that will be unpopular in this venue. So be it. A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do.

(3) Stop letting your opponents derail you with the "Texas Sharpshooter" nonsense. You did not "cherry pick" a "you" from a group of yous. That "you" is the only one available. Nor is a hypothesis invalid simply because it is post ante, if the observation upon which the hypothesis is based is sufficiently compelling. My poker nemesis, whose style of play I know nothing about, just went all in on the river. It could be an all-in river bluff, but I'm leaning toward the hypothesis that he has my top pair beaten. That's a post ante hypothesis, based on a single data point. Is it invalid? A guy could learn a series of costly lessons about how reliable a post ante hypothesis based on a single data point can be.

Hint: the correct anthropic assumption is that what you are experiencing is typical, rather than anomalous.

Drop (1) and (2), and what you are left with is your best shot at making a case for any semblance of "immortality". Hold on to (1) and/or (2) and you've got no shot at all.

But "prove" it you will not.
__________________
"I did not say that!" - Donald Trump

Last edited by Toontown; 14th February 2017 at 09:23 PM.
Toontown 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 15th February 2017, 07:25 AM   #134
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,942
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I think that I finally have a satisfactory answer for the Mt Rainier, Texas Sharp Shooter, bucket of sand issue. The simple answer is that we have no real reason to doubt their scientific explanations -- whereas, we do have real reasons to doubt the scientific explanation for my existence (actually, science has no explanation for my existence).

Jabba -

You don't "finally" have an answer. This is what you've been saying all along. However, you keep asserting it with no evidence. You invent a thing that doesn't exist (some sort of unchanging "self") and then you demand that science account for it.


The concept is not only unnecessary, but it runs counter to all available evidence. The illusion of an unchanging "self" is a trick the brain plays to keep the organism working. It is a function of the brain. And it's obviously a trick because you are not the same person you were thirty years ago - you look different, act differently, remember things differently, love people who didn't exist back then, and on and on.

If you want to use this concept, you need to show evidence that an unchanging self even exists. What is its definition? What are its characteristics? What is provable about it that excludes the simpler explanation of a working neurosystem?

You've never answered these questions and you never will. But don't just restate your own tired beliefs and tell us that you've "finally" figured something out.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th February 2017, 07:57 AM   #135
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,314
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
whereas, we do have real reasons to doubt the scientific explanation for my existence...
You couldn't present any, so no. Your personal unwillingness to believe doesn't constitute a "real reason to doubt."

Quote:
actually, science has no explanation for my existence.
Of course it does. And it was presented to you several times. You spent years trying (and failing) to refute it.

Quote:
I still think that you guys don't agree because you can't, or aren't willing to, grasp the concept of "self" to which I'm referring.
"You're too dumb to get it" is a poor argument, Jabba. We don't agree with you because you tried to foist onto the scientific explanation for the sense of self a pile of gratuitous nonsense you made up to try to make it seem more like a soul, and then declared victory because science couldn't explain your made-up nonsense. Nothing more than that. Despite your best efforts, you couldn't make the straw man work, so now you've retreated back into the self-serving argument that you're just so much better than everyone else at "perceiving" things.

Quote:
I perceive an aspect of me (my "self") that is not determined by my chemistry and cannot be replicated by replicating my chemistry.
"I feel that I'm right" is not an argument. "I perceive things that I declare to be outside science" is not an argument. This is exactly what it means to beg the question. This is very, very far from the mathematical proof you promised.

Quote:
It's good to be back.
No, it isn't. You just did the umpteenth fringe reset of the thread and are back peddling the same nonsense you started with.

Go do something else with your life, Jabba. You're really no good at this.

Last edited by JayUtah; 15th February 2017 at 08:00 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 15th February 2017, 08:31 AM   #136
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 8,197
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I couldn't stay away for long. Though, I'm not sure how long I can stay around either.
I predict more than long enough to state the same things over and over but somehow paradoxically not long enough to actually answer a single question.

Quote:
I think that I finally have a satisfactory answer for the Mt Rainier, Texas Sharp Shooter, bucket of sand issue. The simple answer is that we have no real reason to doubt their scientific explanations -- whereas, we do have real reasons to doubt the scientific explanation for my existence (actually, science has no explanation for my existence).
Just wrong. And not even new wrong. The same old wrong.

Quote:
I don't think that any of you agree with me about that, but I still do -- and, I still think that you guys don't agree because you can't, or aren't willing to, grasp the concept of "self" to which I'm referring. I perceive an aspect of me (my "self") that is not determined by my chemistry and cannot be replicated by replicating my chemistry.
Stop it. Just stop it. Stop begging us to agree with you so we'll agree with you.

WE ARE NOT DISAGREEING WITH YOU BECAUSE WE ARE JUST REFUSING TO UNDERSTAND YOU WHAT PART OF THAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Hating a bad thing does not make you good." - David Wong
JoeBentley is 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 15th February 2017, 09:09 AM   #137
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
 
wollery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,772
Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I couldn't stay away for long. Though, I'm not sure how long I can stay around either.



- I think that I finally have a satisfactory answer for the Mt Rainier, Texas Sharp Shooter, bucket of sand issue. The simple answer is that we have no real reason to doubt their scientific explanations -- whereas, we do have real reasons to doubt the scientific explanation for my existence (actually, science has no explanation for my existence).

- I don't think that any of you agree with me about that, but I still do -- and, I still think that you guys don't agree because you can't, or aren't willing to, grasp the concept of "self" to which I'm referring. I perceive an aspect of me (my "self") that is not determined by my chemistry and cannot be replicated by replicating my chemistry.



- It's good to be back.


Meet the new bollocks, same as the old bollocks.
__________________
"You're a sick SOB. You know that, Wollery?" - Roadtoad

"Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!" --George Carlin
wollery 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 15th February 2017, 09:10 AM   #138
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,049
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I couldn't stay away for long. Though, I'm not sure how long I can stay around either.

- I think that I finally have a satisfactory answer for the Mt Rainier, Texas Sharp Shooter, bucket of sand issue. The simple answer is that we have no real reason to doubt their scientific explanations -- whereas, we do have real reasons to doubt the scientific explanation for my existencep.
Name one.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I perceive an aspect of me (my "self") that is not determined by my chemistry and cannot be replicated by replicating my chemistry.
What leads you to believe that it isn't just your physical brain?
__________________
"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 15th February 2017, 06:28 PM   #139
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,084
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
That's no good: he needs a LCP who doesn't understand what he's saying so he can pretend that if people understood what he's saying they would agree with him.
But that would mean that he's being... dishonest.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th February 2017, 10:05 AM   #140
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,049
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
...we do have real reasons to doubt the scientific explanation for my existence
Name one.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I perceive an aspect of me (my "self") that is not determined by my chemistry and cannot be replicated by replicating my chemistry.

What leads you to believe that it isn't just your physical brain?
25 hours later and still no answers.
__________________
"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 16th February 2017, 01:42 PM   #141
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,726
It's almost like he's gobsmacked that his last nonsensical argument was blow out of the skies.
__________________
"I have no clue" - King of the Americas
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 17th February 2017, 09:11 AM   #142
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,049
48 hours.
__________________
"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 17th February 2017, 09:30 AM   #143
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,230
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
It's almost like he's gobsmacked that his last nonsensical argument was blow out of the skies.
Almost, but not quite like that, because it's just the same nonsensical argument he's been making for years, and the same blowout he's encountered for years. It's highly unlikely that he's at all surprised, at this point.

He's probably just trying to resist the urge to do another fringe reset as long as he can.
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 Back to Top
Old 17th February 2017, 09:46 AM   #144
HighRiser
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: High above Indianapolis
Posts: 1,793
I think he's busy wording a considered and concise response to all the unanswered criticisms of his argument.

Much in the same way that the beach is not near shore.
__________________
Congratulations, you have successfully failed to model something that you assert "isn't noticeable". -The Man

Science is not hopelessly hobbled just because it knows the difference between fact and imagination. -JayUtah
HighRiser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th February 2017, 05:47 PM   #145
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,726
Originally Posted by HighRiser View Post
I think he's busy wording a considered and concise response to all the unanswered criticisms of his argument.

Much in the same way that the beach is not near shore.
Hah! I suppose it could happen.
__________________
"I have no clue" - King of the Americas
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 17th February 2017, 06:00 PM   #146
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,726
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Almost, but not quite like that, because it's just the same nonsensical argument he's been making for years, and the same blowout he's encountered for years. It's highly unlikely that he's at all surprised, at this point.

He's probably just trying to resist the urge to do another fringe reset as long as he can.

Jabba? Do you have a rejoinder to this? It's all about your paralytic arguments.
__________________
"I have no clue" - King of the Americas
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 28th February 2017, 09:04 AM   #147
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,905
- Not to worry. I'm back

- I donít really understand the formula Iíve been using... I just accepted it -- it was in a book -- even though it didn't seem to make sense. I just assumed that I was missing something.
- Could be that you guys were trying to explain this to me and I either wasn't reading, or just wasn't understanding, your explanations. Obviously, I'm not admitting any wrong-doing -- I simply didn't have time to scrutinize nearly all of your posts, and naturally focused on the friendlier ones...
- Anyway, my first problem is that the formula always has the denominator larger than the numerator -- whatever the issue -- and the complementary hypothesis always outweighs the null(?) hypothesis.
- What am I missing, or misunderstanding?

P(H|E) = P(E|H)*P(H)/( P(E|H)*P(H)+P(E|~H)*P(~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
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico Ť probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th February 2017, 09:07 AM   #148
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: 17,348
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Not to worry. I'm back

- I donít really understand the formula Iíve been using... I just accepted it -- it was in a book -- even though it didn't seem to make sense. I just assumed that I was missing something.
- Could be that you guys were trying to explain this to me and I either wasn't reading, or just wasn't understanding, your explanations. Obviously, I'm not admitting any wrong-doing -- I simply didn't have time to scrutinize nearly all of your posts, and naturally focused on the friendlier ones...
- Anyway, my first problem is that the formula always has the denominator larger than the numerator -- whatever the issue -- and the complementary hypothesis always outweighs the null(?) hypothesis.
- What am I missing, or misunderstanding?

P(H|E) = P(E|H)*P(H)/( P(E|H)*P(H)+P(E|~H)*P(~H)).
What you are "missing" is the utter absence of any evidence for the existence of a "soul", much less for its "immortality".
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 28th February 2017, 09:26 AM   #149
HighRiser
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: High above Indianapolis
Posts: 1,793
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
What you are "missing" is the utter absence of any evidence for the existence of a "soul", much less for its "immortality".
Therefore any numbers Jabba plugs into the formula are not based on anything that can be considered objective in any way, shape, or form.
__________________
Congratulations, you have successfully failed to model something that you assert "isn't noticeable". -The Man

Science is not hopelessly hobbled just because it knows the difference between fact and imagination. -JayUtah
HighRiser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th February 2017, 09:38 AM   #150
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,942
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I donít really understand the formula Iíve been using... I just accepted it -- it was in a book -- even though it didn't seem to make sense. I just assumed that I was missing something.

You've been insisting that your formula proves your personal beliefs to be true for four years and you didn't really understand it?

Please, Jabba, have some respect for the people who read this thread. Don't hide your reboot in some question about math. If you really want to understand your mathematical errors, just reread this thread. It's all been explained dozens of times with hundreds of examples.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th February 2017, 09:42 AM   #151
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,895
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- What am I missing, or misunderstanding?
Everything that has been posted to you.
__________________
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 28th February 2017, 09:57 AM   #152
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,905
-Am I using the wrong 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
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico Ť probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th February 2017, 09:58 AM   #153
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,314
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I donít really understand the formula Iíve been using...
You don't say.

Quote:
I just assumed that I was missing something.
You are missing something: a competent understanding of when such a model produces usable results.

Quote:
Could be that you guys were trying to explain this to me and I either wasn't reading, or just wasn't understanding, your explanations[?]
No "could be" about it. You've been treated to several in-depth explanations from several different sources -- including myself -- on just how you are misusing this model.

You spent going-on five years ignoring them entirely.

It wasn't a matter of not understanding them. You simply pretended the explanations didn't exist. So put away Befuddled Old Man, because he's never been a credible character. You never sought to understand. You were never motivated to grasp whether your argument has any merit whatsoever. And once again here's Befuddled Old Man trying to disarm criticism; "Gee, guys, I guess I just don't get it. Would you mind running through it all again for my benefit? Maybe this time I'll hit upon the niggling little detail I can debate pointlessly at length for another six months."

Quote:
Obviously, I'm not admitting any wrong-doing -- I simply didn't have time to scrutinize nearly all of your posts, and naturally focused on the friendlier ones...
That's a euphemistic analysis of what your critics have been telling you all along. You ignore criticism almost entirely and grasp frantically for any semblance of agreement. Your "effective debate" strategy consists of nothing but biding the debate until something comes along that you can snatch up and style as support for your existing beliefs.

Not only are you refusing -- once again -- to conceive that you might possibly be wrong, you're adopting your standard de minimis concession. You still think your argument cannot be as colossally wrong as it is, on as deep a fundamental level as it is. You are still holding out hope that you can just "tweak" the arithmetic and suddenly resolve all the massively wrong-headed thinking your argument entails.

Do not pretend it was anything other than that, and do not pretend that you have now suddenly changed your ways, and do not pretend that this is anything more than your latest attempt at a fringe reset.

If your lament is that you never had time to read all the attempts to instruct and educate you, your penance -- now as it ever was -- is to go back and read them again. There is no legitimate basis for you to insinuate that we're going to need to repeat it all over again for you. Those four-plus years of prior posts haven't gone anywhere. So maybe you can atone for the rudeness with which you've treated your critics over the years by going back and reading what they already wrote and attempt to understand it.

Quote:
What am I missing, or misunderstanding?
The fact that Bayes' Theorem in no way lets you conjure up fact out of nothing more than numbers you invent. Your problem isn't arithmetical. Your problem is that you fail deeply to understand how to make any sort of statistical model. But that's not even the depth of your problem. Your problem is that you desperately want to pretend there is an objective justification of proof for mysticism, and you project your angst onto your critics upon finding out there isn't any such thing.
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 28th February 2017, 09:59 AM   #154
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,314
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
-Am I using the wrong formula?
Yes. Which is to say, you're pretending that any formula will give you usable results for numbers you just make up. You haven't even remotely considered the possibility that one cannot prove immortality mathematically.
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 28th February 2017, 10:00 AM   #155
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,895
Actually, let's take that post a step ate a while...

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Not to worry. I'm back
Bit of a problem there. You faithfully promised that you were out for good. What conclusion should we draw from that in your opinion?

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I donít really understand the formula Iíve been using...
What? After all of these years of endless posts, NOW you claim to not understand what you were posting? Really?

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I just accepted it -- it was in a book -- even though it didn't seem to make sense. I just assumed that I was missing something.
Tempting but declined as the feeble tactic that it obviously is. Tell me, do you accept that quidditch is a real sport? After all, it is written in a book...

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Could be that you guys were trying to explain this to me and I either wasn't reading, or just wasn't understanding, your explanations.
You stated that you were not reading replies many times. How is it anyone else's problem but yours if you decline to read replies?

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Obviously, I'm not admitting any wrong-doing -- I simply didn't have time to scrutinize nearly all of your posts, and naturally focused on the friendlier ones...
Why exactly is admitting or not admitting a grievous offence an issue? You simply made that notion up out of whole shroud. Oops, I meant cloth.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Anyway, my first problem is that the formula always has the denominator larger than the numerator
No it doesn't. The only way that can happen is if one wilfully makes up numbers out of fat air.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
-- whatever the issue -- and the complementary hypothesis always outweighs the null(?) hypothesis.
No. The null is the default until sufficient evidence otherwise is provided.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- What am I missing, or misunderstanding?
Since you ask, everything.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
P(H|E) = P(E|H)*P(H)/( P(E|H)*P(H)+P(E|~H)*P(~H)).
Oh, great. The formula you state you don't understand. That does not help your case.
__________________
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 28th February 2017, 10:13 AM   #156
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,049
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- What am I missing, or misunderstanding?
Among the things you are misunderstanding:
  1. P(E|H) is not any kind of number over infinity. The likelihood of something existing does not have anything to do with the number of potential things of the same category that could exist over all time.
  2. H does not include souls. The likelihood of a particular soul existing given H is zero. It's not some number over infinity, it's just zero, because given H, souls don't exist
  3. "Only One Finite Life At Most" is not a hypothesis. It's a statement that could apply to a variety of hypotheses. "The human sense of self is solely the product of a functioning human brain" is more like a hypothesis.
  4. It only makes sense to refer to "a hypothesis and its complement" if both hypotheses are mutually exclusive and if they are the only two possible hypotheses. That is, if one is false, the other has to be true, and vice versa.
__________________
"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; 28th February 2017 at 10:18 AM.
godless dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th February 2017, 12:04 PM   #157
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,655
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Not to worry. I'm back

- I donít really understand the formula Iíve been using... I just accepted it -- it was in a book -- even though it didn't seem to make sense. I just assumed that I was missing something.
- Could be that you guys were trying to explain this to me and I either wasn't reading, or just wasn't understanding, your explanations. Obviously, I'm not admitting any wrong-doing -- I simply didn't have time to scrutinize nearly all of your posts, and naturally focused on the friendlier ones...
- Anyway, my first problem is that the formula always has the denominator larger than the numerator -- whatever the issue -- and the complementary hypothesis always outweighs the null(?) hypothesis.
- What am I missing, or misunderstanding?

P(H|E) = P(E|H)*P(H)/( P(E|H)*P(H)+P(E|~H)*P(~H)).
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
-Am I using the wrong formula?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...47#post8757747

Originally Posted by Jabba
- Obviously, this will only meet with derision, but I can't resist pointing it out anyway -- I'm actually a certified Statistician, and LOVE probability.
__________________
"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 February 2017, 12:42 PM   #158
CriticalThanking
Designated Hitter
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: On in memory
Posts: 3,038
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
-Am I using the wrong formula?
Yes. To my knowledge, there is no formula that lets you predict an untestable hypothesis with unquantifiable inputs. You can certainly put numbers in and get a number out, but it has no usable meaning.

You might as well use fluid dynamics equations to predict the flow rate of souls since you find it deeply comforting to believe a soul has an assumed viscosity and souls travel in a celestial pipe of an assumed diameter and resistance. You can get an answer. What you don't get is a meaningful answer.

[ETA - ninjaed by others as work demands I not spend all day watching this thread. It's small comfort that I really had this all typed out long before the rest of you posted. ]
CT

Last edited by CriticalThanking; 28th February 2017 at 12:44 PM. Reason: Why the heck not?
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
Old 28th February 2017, 09:14 PM   #159
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,942
Originally Posted by CriticalThanking View Post
You might as well use fluid dynamics equations to predict the flow rate of souls since you find it deeply comforting to believe a soul has an assumed viscosity and souls travel in a celestial pipe of an assumed diameter and resistance. You can get an answer. What you don't get is a meaningful answer.

As the number of souls build up, the pressure in the pipe increases until the pipe can't contain them. An infinite number of souls would create infinite pressure and burst any pipe of any diameter. Thus, there must be a finite amount of souls. Since there are an infinite possible number of people, the finite number of souls will have to be infinitely recycled. Thus: Immortality.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st March 2017, 07:02 AM   #160
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,726
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
As the number of souls build up, the pressure in the pipe increases until the pipe can't contain them. An infinite number of souls would create infinite pressure and burst any pipe of any diameter. Thus, there must be a finite amount of souls. Since there are an infinite possible number of people, the finite number of souls will have to be infinitely recycled. Thus: Immortality.
:golf clap:
__________________
"I have no clue" - King of the Americas
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
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 09:01 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.