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 7th March 2017, 07:58 AM   #321
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,602
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Am I wrong about that?
Gee, Jabba, what do the twenty replies say that were posted since you proposed it?
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2017, 07:58 AM   #322
Toontown
Philosopher
 
Toontown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,769
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post

The real question here, after all, isn't the ludicrous unlikelihood of Jabba's specific experiences (they are ludicrously unlikely) but whether his specific experiences can be considered to have been specially rather than randomly selected from the class of all possible experiences (they can not).

I agree. I'd challenge anyone who sticks to this Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy explanation to explain what is wrong with the following argument (or any other such argument) where I condition on my own existence in the second statement:

If my parents hadn't met then I wouldn't exist.
I exist.
Therefor, my parents have met.
But, from my perspective, there is a negligible but non-zero probability that your parents never met, and your mother was artificially inseminated with your father's sperm. Therefore, according to the fallacy fitters, your statement is false, you have cherry-picked a special case, and you have committed the TS fallacy.

This is essentially the argument of most of the professional TS fallacy fitters.

I would disregard that miniscule probability (from my perspective) and accept your conclusion. I would almost certainly be correct, but I would also be accused of having committed the TS fallacy, based solely on the miniscule probability that I'm wrong.

But I wouldn't bet on it if losing the bet means the world explodes. Even though the world almost certainly wouldn't explode, the payoff wouldn't justify the miniscule risk.
__________________
"I did not say that!" - Donald Trump

Last edited by Toontown; 7th March 2017 at 08:08 AM.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2017, 08:06 AM   #323
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,715
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
298- Am I wrong about that?
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
A perfect copy of me would exhibit a perfect copy of that process.
A perfect copy of me would exhibit a perfect copy of that process.
__________________
"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 7th March 2017, 08:16 AM   #324
caveman1917
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,279
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
No. You've missed my point. My point is that Jabba's observation of his existence is not in the unconditional sample space*; it's in the restricted sample space that is conditioned on his existence—i.e., where his existence is a given.

*If you think it is, then what is the probability that he would have observed his nonexistence?
The same goes for mine, doesn't it? Yes, after conditioning on E the sample space is restricted to the ellipse representing E, in both your and my diagram (you've made a second diagram representing this, just pretend that I have such a second diagram for mine as well). My point was to show you that this, in and of itself, does not entail that E doesn't differentiate between the hypotheses - that solely depends on where the line goes through E (whether through the middle or off on the side).
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2017, 08:19 AM   #325
caveman1917
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,279
Originally Posted by Toontown View Post
But, from my perspective, there is a negligible but non-zero probability that your parents never met, and your mother was artificially inseminated with your father's sperm.
Yes, I didn't feel like writing it out completely in Bayesian form, so I just put in the form of a simple syllogism - after all we know that Bayesian inference reduces to propositional logic in the limit where the probabilities go to 0 or 1. But as you can see in a further post I ended up having to write it out in full anyway, because of an edge case where we'd otherwise get a divide by zero error in P(E|~H,E) when ~H n E = empty set.

Quote:
But I wouldn't bet on it if losing the bet means the world explodes.
You should always bet on something if losing the bet means the world explodes. Because if the world explodes you'd be dead, and hence you can assign zero probability to finding yourself having lost the bet, therefor the bet is always positive ev
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin

Last edited by caveman1917; 7th March 2017 at 08:25 AM.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2017, 08:59 AM   #326
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,312
- I'll try again.

232
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
...
In scientific models for consciousness, it is exactly as traceable as the cause and effect that led to a particular brain existing, because they are the same thing. My particular brain can never exist again. If you somehow made an exact copy of my brain, It would exhibit an exact copy of my consciousness.
236
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- But, it wouldn't exhibit your particular self-awareness. "You" would not be reincarnated.
239
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
For exactly the same reason it wouldn't be my particular brain. It would be a copy.
If two separate brains could produce the same self-awareness that would mean the scientific explanation for self-awareness is wrong.
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
...
Dave,
- In other words, there is a "thing," or process, that is exhibited in you that would not be exhibited in a perfect copy of you (see 232-239, above)...
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Am I wrong about that?
- Yes, or 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2017, 09:05 AM   #327
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,715
I already answered twice.

Both answers were identical.

But there were two separate 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2017, 09:11 AM   #328
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,602
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I'll try again.
You were given an entire page of answers, Jabba. If you feel the need to try harder, try harder at reading the debate instead of just posting to it.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2017, 09:14 AM   #329
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,602
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
I already answered twice.

Both answers were identical.

But there were two separate answers.
I saw what you did there. Sadly it looks as if Jabba isn't even trying to conceal his obstructionism anymore.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2017, 12:02 PM   #330
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,312
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
I already answered twice.

Both answers were identical.

But there were two separate answers.
Dave,
- Unfortunately, I'm still not sure what you're saying, but I think you're saying that there is a "thing," or process, that is exhibited in you that would not be exhibited in a perfect copy of you. If I'm right, do you have a name that I can use for that thing or process?
__________________
"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; 7th March 2017 at 12:04 PM.
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 7th March 2017, 12:06 PM   #331
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,715
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Unfortunately, I'm still not sure what you're saying, but I think you're saying that there is a "thing," or process, that is exhibited in you that would not be exhibited in a perfect copy of you.
I'm saying that a perfect copy of me would behave exactly as the original did, and that it would be self-aware in exactly the same away they original was, would be conscious in exactly the same way the original was, and would have subjective experiences in exactly the same way the original did.

It would be separate from the original because two is more than one. All processes it exhibits would be identical to the processes exhibited by the original.

My brain is conscious.

A copy of my brain would be conscious in exactly the same way. It would be impossible to tell them apart.

Everything about the copy would be separate from the original but none of it would be different from the original.
__________________
"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; 7th March 2017 at 12:17 PM.
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 7th March 2017, 12:16 PM   #332
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,336
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
And how about your grandparent's parents? were there not eight of those?

The results are more interesting if you consider how descendents fit into Jabba's formula. For example, if Jabba has 4 grandchildren then it is 4 times more likely that one of them exists than it is that he exists.
__________________
"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 7th March 2017, 12:20 PM   #333
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,602
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Unfortunately, I'm still not sure what you're saying...
Send Befuddled Old Man back to the green room and read the thread, Jabba. Everyone else manages it; so can you. You can start with all the posts telling you that what you're contriving and trying to paste onto the scientific hypothesis isn't even remotely the same kind of concept as what science actually theorizes on this point. You're not slightly wrong here, you're wildly wrong.

Quote:
...but I think you're saying that there is a "thing," or process...
No.

A process is not a thing. Nor is it a "thing." A process is a process, and it doesn't come in individually prepackaged units that you can count up and imagine exist "potentially" in infinite numbers so as to conjure up your Big Denominator. And for pete's sake stop trying to cram your words into your critics' mouths. This is the umpteenth time you've introduced such an attempt with, "What I think you're trying to say..."

Quote:
...that is exhibited in you that would not be exhibited in a perfect copy of you.
Exhibited by you. The difference is important. The sense of self isn't inside you somewhere. It's a property that the intelligent organism exhibits. If you simply must phrase it in passive voice, do it properly. The sense of self is a property exhibited by a functioning human nervous system.

A perfect copy of you would exhibit the same property in exactly the same way. "Same" is a word that here means "indistinguishable from" or "identical in all respects to." It does not -- nor was ever intended to mean -- "being of one entity with." Many of us have already had to descend to pedantic lengths to rid you of this equivocation, but you seem to be having none of it.

Quote:
If I'm right, do you have a name that I can use for that thing or process?
A soul. You're trying very desperately and very ham-fistedly to trick godless dave into agreeing that what he's talking about is your concept of a soul. Do you really think you're fooling anyone?

Last edited by JayUtah; 7th March 2017 at 12:21 PM.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2017, 12:34 PM   #334
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,336
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Unfortunately, I'm still not sure what you're saying, but I think you're saying that there is a "thing," or process, that is exhibited in you that would not be exhibited in a perfect copy of you. If I'm right, do you have a name that I can use for that thing or process?

Jabba,
- What I think you're saying is that you are aware that your "proof" is a crock, so you are resorting to misrepresenting what other people have 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2017, 12:42 PM   #335
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 22,517
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Unfortunately, I'm still not sure what you're saying, but I think you're saying that there is a "thing," or process, that is exhibited in you that would not be exhibited in a perfect copy of you.

And Natalie Portman is a "duck" or an Oscar Award Winner.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2017, 02:41 PM   #336
jt512
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,541
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
The same goes for mine, doesn't it? Yes, after conditioning on E the sample space is restricted to the ellipse representing E, in both your and my diagram (you've made a second diagram representing this, just pretend that I have such a second diagram for mine as well). My point was to show you that this, in and of itself, does not entail that E doesn't differentiate between the hypotheses - that solely depends on where the line goes through E (whether through the middle or off on the side).
No. It doesn't matter where the line through E goes. Evidence discriminates between hypotheses when it changes the probability of those hypotheses. Imagine you've been in a coma your whole life. One day you wake up and observe that you exist. You're in the conditional sample space, because you could not have observed otherwise. What does your observing you exist inform you about the probability that you were born by natural means or by artificial insemination? Nothing. Whatever those probabilities were before you woke up, they're the same after you woke up.

Jabba's got the same problem. His observing that he exists is completely uninformative about how he came to exist. And Bayes can't save him, because the likelihood ratio, when conditioned on his existence, is 1.
jt512 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2017, 03:54 PM   #337
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,256
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
... therefore Jabba weighs as much as a duck. No wait.
Did he shoot an elephant in his pajamas?
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2017, 04:21 PM   #338
HighRiser
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: High above Indianapolis
Posts: 1,694
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
Did he shoot an elephant in his pajamas?
Really big guy or really small elephant?
__________________
Congratulations, you have successfully failed to model something that you assert "isn't noticeable". -The Man

Science is not hopelessly hobbled just because it knows the difference between fact and imagination. -JayUtah
HighRiser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2017, 04:29 PM   #339
Beady
Philosopher
 
Beady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: 42d 45'23.3"N, 84d 35' 10.8'W, 840'>MSL
Posts: 6,230
Originally Posted by HighRiser View Post
Really big guy or really small elephant?
Apparently you flunked Groucho Studies.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
__________________
Ahh, screw it!
Beady 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 7th March 2017, 05:12 PM   #340
Toontown
Philosopher
 
Toontown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,769
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
Imagine you've been in a coma your whole life. One day you wake up and observe that you exist. You're in the conditional sample space, because you could not have observed otherwise. What does your observing you exist inform you about the probability that you were born by natural means or by artificial insemination? Nothing. Whatever those probabilities were before you woke up, they're the same after you woke up.
Your analogy is not equivalent to Jabba' use of his formula, if that is your intent. In your analogy, the subject is equally likely to wake up irrespective of how he was conceived. Furthermore, upon awakening, the subject has no basis on which to form any competing hypotheses at all. He knows nothing at all except that he exists.

Jabba has bases upon which to form or recognize the existence of competing hypotheses, does so, and argues that he expects to observe nothing if H is true, and expects to find himself in the conditional space only if his alternative hypothesis is true.

Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
Jabba's got the same problem. His observing that he exists is completely uninformative about how he came to exist. And Bayes can't save him, because the likelihood ratio, when conditioned on his existence, is 1.
I agree with this to the extent that casting doubt on one interpretation of reality does not reveal how he did come to exist. There are too many other possibilities. And Jabba's alternative is not well supported by evidence.

~H could be something like 'Every possible universe exists, and one of the possibilities inevitably includes me". And there is even support for that explanation. It is an implication of inflation theory, which is in turn an implication of quantum mechanics. As Tegmark successfully argued, the implications of a theory are part of the theory, and as well supported as any other part the theory.
__________________
"I did not say that!" - Donald Trump
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2017, 05:49 PM   #341
jt512
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,541
Originally Posted by Toontown View Post
Jabba has bases upon which to form or recognize the existence of competing hypotheses, does so, and argues that he expects to observe nothing if H is true...

Trouble is, it is impossible that Jabba would observe nothing.
jt512 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2017, 05:58 PM   #342
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 20,512
It's the Texas Sharpshooter's Fallacy. "What are the chances of me being here to observe things, if I weren't in some way special?"

Spray a machine gun at the side of a barn, then draw a circle around the bullet hole nearest the edge. "What are the chances of this hole being so near the edge, if it weren't special in some way?"
theprestige 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 7th March 2017, 06:46 PM   #343
Toontown
Philosopher
 
Toontown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,769
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
Trouble is, it is impossible that Jabba would observe nothing.
That's semantic nitpicking. If Jabba doesn't exist, he observes nothing.
__________________
"I did not say that!" - Donald Trump
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2017, 07:43 PM   #344
Toontown
Philosopher
 
Toontown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,769
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
It's the Texas Sharpshooter's Fallacy. "What are the chances of me being here to observe things, if I weren't in some way special?"
that doesn't even parse. What are the chances if you're special? What are the chances if you're not special?

The chances, whatever they are, do not depend on you being in any way special. You can be completely non-special and still correctly estimate a ridiculously low probability of being here to observe things assuming a specific interpretation of reality is true.

You might, however, not be a complete bozo if you subsequently look for another interpretation of reality that doesn't require childlike faith that you've emerged triumphant over ludicrous odds. That belief kind of would mean you think you're a special lucky snowflake. I suppose not being a complete bozo might make you a little special. But nothing serious.
__________________
"I did not say that!" - Donald Trump

Last edited by Toontown; 7th March 2017 at 07:49 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2017, 07:53 PM   #345
jt512
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,541
Originally Posted by Toontown View Post
If Jabba doesn't exist, he observes nothing.

Exactly. He's stuck arguing from a conditional universe in which he must exist, so he observing his existence is a foregone conclusion under any hypothesis about how he came to exist. Hence his observing his own existence cannot discriminate between any hypotheses about how he came to exist.
jt512 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2017, 08:01 PM   #346
sackett
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 4,858
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
Trouble is, it is impossible that Jabba would observe nothing.
Oh

No

It's

Not.
__________________
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 7th March 2017, 08:28 PM   #347
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 22,517
Originally Posted by sackett View Post
Oh

No

It's

Not.

Oh

Yes

It

Is

If Jabba is around to observe the universe, he will find himself. He will never observe a universe in which he doesn't exist. Thus, it is impossible for him to find a universe in which he doesn't exist.

Any backwards-facing probability that he wouldn't exist is hopelessly muddied by the fact that he has no other sample space.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2017, 10:26 PM   #348
Toontown
Philosopher
 
Toontown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,769
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
Exactly. He's stuck arguing from a conditional universe in which he must exist, so he observing his existence is a foregone conclusion under any hypothesis about how he came to exist. Hence his observing his own existence cannot discriminate between any hypotheses about how he came to exist.
Of course he exists if he uses himself as evidence. Just like any other evidence. All evidence exists in a similar conditional probability space. It has to exist before you can use it.

Not to worry. Jabba can only attempt to use evidence he doesn't have if the evidence is not him. So it all works out nicely.

The following numbered items are foregone conclusions:

1. If H* is true, the prior odds would have been stacked sky high against Jabba ever being around to argue against it.

2. If H is not true, his existence would invariably have him arguing correctly against H. His nonexistence would have him not making any mistakes either. So no way to go wrong here.

3. Jabba would only argue incorrectly if both H is true and Jabba miraculously beats the giganogargantuan odds H stacks against him. Clearly, (3.) needs a lot of help from (2.), probability-wise, to stay in the ball game. (3.) needs to be as likely as (2.) just to break even. I wouldn't bet on it.

*When I say "H", I mean an interpretation of broadly accepted science, not the science itself. As should ~H be, IMO.

None of which requires Jabba to be immortal (though it might help).

But a "fallacy" which might well* have Jabba more likely to argue correctly than incorrectly against H strikes me as an odd kind of fallacy. Give me a fallacy like that, and I'll use it.

Where I think Jabba went wrong is when he tried to advance an alternative to H that was based on nothing but anecdotes. I don't think the formula is the problem.

*And I only say "might well" because I have no intention of going through the hassle of advancing one of the more obvious alternative interpretations of the science which would play better than H + Jabba. Partly because I fear the trademark stubborn, troll-like, mundanity-clutching opposition would quickly get on my last nerve. And partly because it's Jabba's job to advance a playable alternative.

All I'm interested in is studying the pathological denial of probability.
__________________
"I did not say that!" - Donald Trump
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2017, 10:35 PM   #349
jt512
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,541
Originally Posted by Toontown View Post
All evidence exists in a similar conditional probability space.
No, you flip a coin, and either heads or tails can occur, not just heads. In the universe in which you flip the coin, either outcome can occur. In contrast, in the universe in which Jabba observes himself, Jabba can only exist. Jabba cannot in principle observe the alternative.

Last edited by jt512; 7th March 2017 at 10:51 PM.
jt512 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2017, 11:23 PM   #350
Toontown
Philosopher
 
Toontown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,769
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
If Jabba is around to observe the universe, he will find himself. He will never observe a universe in which he doesn't exist. Thus, it is impossible for him to find a universe in which he doesn't exist.
Jabba doesn't need to observe a universe in which he doesn't exist. Under H, his existence is all but ruled out. All he needs to see is one universe in which he exists to rule out being ruled out.

If Joe Hypothesis says you're not supposed to see something at all, ever, except in the extremely rare case when you see it in a pig's eye, and right away you see that very something you're not ever supposed to see, according to Joe Hypothesis, does your childlike faith in Joe compel you to assume you're looking into a pig's eye?

Do you refuse to doubt Joe because you you can never see anything at all unless you see something Joe says you should never see? Well, don't worry about it. You can safely bet your bottom dollar you won't see anything you shouldn't see if Joe is right.

Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Any backwards-facing probability that he wouldn't exist is hopelessly muddied by the fact that he has no other sample space.
That's not true either. Nothing prevented Jabba from inferring the sample space in which he doesn't exist. He doesn't have to actually behold it. In fact, infer it is precisely what he did. He said, "Hey, I'm not supposed to be here. According to H, I shouldn't be alive."

You, for another example, will never see yourself when you're dead, but you have inferred the sample space in which you end up dead, haven't you? Even though you've never seen a dead Loss Leader, and never will.
__________________
"I did not say that!" - Donald Trump
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2017, 11:29 PM   #351
Toontown
Philosopher
 
Toontown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,769
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
No, you flip a coin, and either heads or tails can occur, not just heads. In the universe in which you flip the coin, either outcome can occur. In contrast, in the universe in which Jabba observes himself, Jabba can only exist. Jabba cannot in principle observe the alternative.
Again, Jabba can't directly observe the unobservable. But he can infer the possibility of it.

Say you're flipping a coin in the dark, and the setup is such that a light comes on only if it's heads. You don't have to see the tails to know tails could have happened if the light comes on and you see the heads.

A probability does not cease to exist simply because you do not directly observe it's outcome.
__________________
"I did not say that!" - Donald Trump
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2017, 02:48 AM   #352
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,484
Originally Posted by Toontown View Post
Of course he exists if he uses himself as evidence. Just like any other evidence. All evidence exists in a similar conditional probability space. It has to exist before you can use it.

Not to worry. Jabba can only attempt to use evidence he doesn't have if the evidence is not him. So it all works out nicely.

The following numbered items are foregone conclusions:

1. If H* is true, the prior odds would have been stacked sky high against Jabba ever being around to argue against it.

2. If H is not true, his existence would invariably have him arguing correctly against H. His nonexistence would have him not making any mistakes either. So no way to go wrong here.

3. Jabba would only argue incorrectly if both H is true and Jabba miraculously beats the giganogargantuan odds H stacks against him. Clearly, (3.) needs a lot of help from (2.), probability-wise, to stay in the ball game. (3.) needs to be as likely as (2.) just to break even. I wouldn't bet on it.

*When I say "H", I mean an interpretation of broadly accepted science, not the science itself. As should ~H be, IMO.

None of which requires Jabba to be immortal (though it might help).

But a "fallacy" which might well* have Jabba more likely to argue correctly than incorrectly against H strikes me as an odd kind of fallacy. Give me a fallacy like that, and I'll use it.

Where I think Jabba went wrong is when he tried to advance an alternative to H that was based on nothing but anecdotes. I don't think the formula is the problem.

*And I only say "might well" because I have no intention of going through the hassle of advancing one of the more obvious alternative interpretations of the science which would play better than H + Jabba. Partly because I fear the trademark stubborn, troll-like, mundanity-clutching opposition would quickly get on my last nerve. And partly because it's Jabba's job to advance a playable alternative.

All I'm interested in is studying the pathological denial of probability.
#3 appears to be a very obvious fallacy, though not the Texas Sharpshooter one. It is assuming the consequent. You are saying in effect that one proves the impossibility of Jabba given H by assuming Jabba given H is impossible.
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2017, 08:17 AM   #353
Toontown
Philosopher
 
Toontown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,769
Originally Posted by Garrette View Post
#3 appears to be a very obvious fallacy, though not the Texas Sharpshooter one. It is assuming the consequent. You are saying in effect that one proves the impossibility of Jabba given H by assuming Jabba given H is impossible.
False on two counts. Read the thread.

1. I've never said Jabba given H is impossible. I've stated the obvious, that the prior odds against Jabba given H were giganogargantuan. You've even conceded this yourself, in what was apparently a previous incarnation.

2. I've assumed nothing. I have numerous posts supporting #3. I do not need or intend to write a book about it every time I point it out.
__________________
"I did not say that!" - Donald Trump
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2017, 08:44 AM   #354
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 19,643
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
298- Am I wrong about that?
Yes, you are wrong about that. An identical copy would exhibit an identical process.

Hans
__________________
Don't. Just don't.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2017, 08:53 AM   #355
sackett
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 4,858
LL, you owe Our Jabba an apology. He can travel through time, space, the universe, and even (I bet) Home Depot and never observe one slightest thing. That's his superpower, fa chrissakes!

Hail Jabba, Cosmic Master of Oblivion!
__________________
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 8th March 2017, 09:04 AM   #356
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,312
330
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Unfortunately, I'm still not sure what you're saying, but I think you're saying that there is a "thing," or process, that is exhibited in you that would not be exhibited in a perfect copy of you. If I'm right, do you have a name that I can use for that thing or process?
331
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
I'm saying that a perfect copy of me would behave exactly as the original did, and that it would be self-aware in exactly the same away they original was, would be conscious in exactly the same way the original was, and would have subjective experiences in exactly the same way the original did.
It would be separate from the original because two is more than one. All processes it exhibits would be identical to the processes exhibited by the original.
My brain is conscious.
A copy of my brain would be conscious in exactly the same way. It would be impossible to tell them apart.
Everything about the copy would be separate from the original but none of it would be different from the original.
Dave,

- So, I will assume that your answer is, "Yes. There is a 'thing,' or process, that is exhibited in me that would not be exhibited in a perfect copy of me." That will be my first premise in arguing for an infinity of potential selves. I'll call this process a "particular self-awareness."

- I will also use this premise to try to explain the difference between you (or me) and Mt Rainier -- the basic idea being that your particular self-awareness is not at all cause and effect traceable and is therefore infinitely unlikely according to Bayesian statistics. Whereas, Mt Rainier is quite traceable.

- In my next post -- with a little bit of luck -- I'll try again to explain why the combining of one of Dad's sperm cells with one of Cleopatra's ova (and numerous other current impossibilities) does represent a potential self.

- After that, I'll try again to effectively lay out my own doubts, and my hoped for resolutions.

- After that, I'll try to focus on each sub-issue long enough to make some headway in promoting my specific conclusions.
__________________
"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; 8th March 2017 at 09:07 AM.
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2017, 09:07 AM   #357
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,635
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
330

331Dave,
- So, I will assume that your answer is, "Yes. There is a 'thing,' or process, that is exhibited in me that would not be exhibited in a perfect copy of me." That will be my first premise in arguing for an infinity of potential selves. I'll call this process a "particular self-awareness."
- I will also use this premise to try to explain the difference between you (or me) and Mt Rainier -- the basic idea being that your particular self-awareness is not at all cause and effect traceable and is therefore infinitely unlikely according to Bayesian statistics. Whereas, Mt Rainier is quite traceable.
- In my next post -- with a little bit of luck -- I'll try again to explain why the combining of one of Dad's sperm cells with one of Cleopatra's ova (and numerous other current impossibilities) does represent a potential self.
- After that, I'll try again to effectively lay out my own doubts, and my hoped for resolutions.
- After that, I'll try to focus on each sub-issue long enough to make some headway in promoting my specific conclusions.
You really, REALLY need to learn to read for comprehension. Dave is in NO WAY agreeing with you.
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 8th March 2017, 09:14 AM   #358
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,715
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
330

331Dave,

- So, I will assume that your answer is, "Yes. There is a 'thing,' or process, that is exhibited in me that would not be exhibited in a perfect copy of me." That will be my first premise in arguing for an infinity of potential selves. I'll call this process a "particular self-awareness."
You assumed wrong. Please read the post that you quoted.

Originally Posted by Godless Dave
Everything about the copy would be separate from the original but none of it would be different from the original.
__________________
"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 8th March 2017, 09:17 AM   #359
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,602
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
So, I will assume that your answer is, "Yes.
NO.

His answer was clearly no, as it was for all the rest of us. Specifically, no one is validating your equivocations. As many times as you play word games trying to make it sound as if people are saying what you want them to say, they clearly and unequivocally tell you what their objections are.

You simply don't care.

Quote:
That will be my first premise...
I will also use this premise...
In my next post -- with a little bit of luck -- I'll try again...
After that, I'll try again...
After that, I'll try to focus on each sub-issue...
Nice try. You failed as usual by begging the question. So now apparently your plan is to cram a foisted agreement into the mouth of the only person you pay attention to and bluster stubbornly ahead with the same argument that has failed time and again over the past four years.

So given this new demonstration that you simply don't care what anyone but you says, my question comes back: Why should anyone with a brain pay the slightest attention to you? That's not a rhetorical question. I really hope you have the wontons to actually answer it. Give someone a reason they should engage with you.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2017, 11:04 AM   #360
sackett
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 4,858
I meant Cosmic Master of the Obtuse. But everybody already knew that.
__________________
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
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 10:39 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.