Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

 International Skeptics Forum Continuation Proof of Immortality VIII

 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.
 6th March 2018, 04:21 PM #361 The Sparrow Graduate Poster     Join Date: Sep 2015 Location: Central Canada Posts: 1,626 Originally Posted by JoeMorgue .... - You can't use "probability" to make things that have already happened impossible. ..... This is gold! Last edited by jsfisher; 6th March 2018 at 05:21 PM. Reason: Fixed broken quote tag
 6th March 2018, 05:58 PM #362 RoboTimbo Hostile Nanobacon     Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Springwood, NJ Posts: 29,374 Originally Posted by Jabba Mojo, - You're right in your first, and (I think) second paragraph -- under H there's no multiplier. - But under ~H, the multiplier is 1 -- which is why ~H is not automatically less probable than H. - Regarding your third paragraph, I have 'conceded' that the probability of my existence -- either brain or self -- is 1, but I have not conceded that the likelihood of my existence -- either brain or self -- is 1. You've already calculated the probability of your existence under ~H to be .0064 and you've shown that the probability of your existence under H is 1. You did calculate it to be .0064, didn't you? You were asked about it several times.
 7th March 2018, 02:18 AM #364 Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles     Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD Posts: 28,159 That's a very nice refutation of the Bayesian overload argument, but I think you meant 9,999 chances in 10,000 of winning a meaningless bit of fluff. Dave __________________ Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right? Tony Szamboti: That is right
 7th March 2018, 06:28 AM #365 Jabba Philosopher     Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 5,613 Originally Posted by godless dave Under ~H, doesn't my current existence require both my brain and my self? - Yes. __________________ "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 è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
 7th March 2018, 06:32 AM #366 Belz... Fiend God     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details Posts: 76,590 Originally Posted by Jabba - Yes. So it requires two separate entities to exist rather than one. Which one is more likely, you think? __________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward
 7th March 2018, 06:55 AM #367 JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man     Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 14,873 Originally Posted by Jabba - Yes. Jabba, You act as if you didn't just respond in a way that is a direct admission that your entire argument is broken. YOU JUST ADMITTED YOU ARE WRONG. And yet you're gonna plow ahead as if nothing about the discussion has changed same as the last 500 times you go argued into a corner. __________________ "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
 7th March 2018, 06:58 AM #368 godless dave Great Dalmuti     Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 8,266 Originally Posted by Jabba - Yes. And the likelihood of your brain existing is the same in both models? __________________ "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
 7th March 2018, 07:08 AM #369 RoboTimbo Hostile Nanobacon     Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Springwood, NJ Posts: 29,374 Originally Posted by Jabba - But under ~H, the multiplier is 1 -- which is why ~H is [u]not[/u] [u]automatically[/u] less probable than H. Why is the multiplier for ~H 1?
 7th March 2018, 07:11 AM #370 Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles     Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD Posts: 28,159 Originally Posted by Belz... So it requires two separate entities to exist rather than one. Which one is more likely, you think? That, though, is what caveman1917 is criticising; his argument is that, if two different parts or attributes of a single entity have an existence that is in some way conditional upon each other, then it's fallacious to argue that their joint existence is any less probable than the separate existence of one of them. That in itself is a fallacious statement, of course, because the conjunction fallacy only applies to cases where the simultaneous existence of two entities is claimed to be more probable than that of one entity independent of the other; it doesn't, for example, address the claim that it's equally probable for a person to have a head, and both a head and a torso, as he loves to pretend it does. More important, though, is that ~H requires a specific instance to be chosen from each of two populations, of which one is the exact same one that must be chosen under H. Since the other entity must also be chosen from a large population, it's virtually certain that the probability of this specific Jabba, rather than some other variation of Jabba, existing, must be lower under ~H than H. And since virtual proof is the standard we're supposed to be aiming for... Dave __________________ Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right? Tony Szamboti: That is right
 7th March 2018, 07:12 AM #371 Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles     Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD Posts: 28,159 Originally Posted by RoboTimbo Why is the multiplier for ~H 1? Because Jabba really, really, really wants it to be. Dave __________________ Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right? Tony Szamboti: That is right
 7th March 2018, 07:15 AM #372 JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man     Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 14,873 Originally Posted by Dave Rogers That, though, is what caveman1917 is criticising... Caveman1917 was criticizing the fact that skeptics dare to exist, nothing more. __________________ "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
 7th March 2018, 07:26 AM #373 Belz... Fiend God     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details Posts: 76,590 Originally Posted by Dave Rogers That, though, is what caveman1917 is criticising Yeah but he's wrong and his torso analogy is ridiculous: the whole body is a system. The soul is an added, independant thing that's joined with the body, so it's not a fallacy to look at their separate likehlihoods. __________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward
 7th March 2018, 07:28 AM #374 JayUtah Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 16,388 Originally Posted by Dave Rogers Because Jabba really, really, really wants it to be. Which makes me think he should have contacted the behavioral sciences faculty at SUNY, since his proof has more to do with that than with statistics.
 7th March 2018, 07:30 AM #375 JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man     Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 14,873 Originally Posted by Belz... Yeah but he's wrong and his torso analogy is ridiculous: the whole body is a system. The soul is an added, independant thing that's joined with the body, so it's not a fallacy to look at their separate likehlihoods. And the fact that Jabba is specifically using the various "probabilities" he's made up out of nothing to compare and contact the chance his body and "self" are going to exists and at what time as the main core of his argument. Jabba is literally trying to argue that increasing variables reduces probability. __________________ "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
 7th March 2018, 07:42 AM #376 Belz... Fiend God     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details Posts: 76,590 Originally Posted by JoeMorgue And the fact that Jabba is specifically using the various "probabilities" he's made up out of nothing to compare and contact the chance his body and "self" are going to exists and at what time as the main core of his argument. Jabba is literally trying to argue that increasing variables reduces probability. At this point, though, he'd have to give the soul a probability ABOVE 1 in order to make ~H more likely than H, which is endlessly amusing. __________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward
 7th March 2018, 07:49 AM #377 JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man     Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 14,873 Originally Posted by Belz... At this point, though, he'd have to give the soul a probability ABOVE 1 in order to make ~H more likely than H, which is endlessly amusing. Well I'm still of the mind that following Jabba down his absurd "Equations" rabbit hole was a bad call to make. His numbers are all made up nonsense. His "equation" is just a mathematical Gish Gallop, yet another case of Jabba trying to set us off on side pointless side fetch quest while the central core of his argument is still a pile of leaves that has convinced itself it's a pile of straw that aspires to one day be part of a strawman. And it's the thing that's attracted the most thread nannies. You can't make a 3 potatoes, an air filter for a 85 Jeep CJ, and a cup of sugar equal a spacestation by fixing the equation'sPEMDAS. __________________ "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
 7th March 2018, 08:11 AM #378 Jabba Philosopher     Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 5,613 Originally Posted by Mojo Remember, Jabba: under H, "selves" don't exist as discrete entities (as you have recently admitted). Talking about the likelihood of it existing under H is not even wrong. If the likelihood of your brain existing is the same in H as it is in ~H then the likelihood that you are observed to exist cannot be greater under ~H than it is under H, because under H once your brain exists, you exist. It's a single event, not a conjunction of two events as you are trying to portray it. Mojo, - You're right -- it isn't even wrong, cause it's right.. - In ~H, the existence of my self does not depend upon my brain. In H, it does. That makes the likelihood of my self's existence under ~H much greater than it is under 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 è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
 7th March 2018, 08:12 AM #379 Jabba Philosopher     Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 5,613 Originally Posted by MRC_Hans You contemplate your self. Does your brain exist? Have you any experience of contemplating your self while your brain did not exist? Hans - Not that I recall. __________________ "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 è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
 7th March 2018, 08:14 AM #380 Belz... Fiend God     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details Posts: 76,590 Originally Posted by Jabba - You're right -- it isn't even wrong, cause it's right.. There are NO SOULS under H! Quote: In ~H, the existence of my self does not depend upon my brain. But without a body it can't observe itself, can it? Quote: In H, it does. That makes the likelihood of my self's existence under ~H much greater than it is under H. You've already agreed that under H the likelihood of your self is 1. You can't go higher than 1. What part of that is giving you trouble? __________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward
 7th March 2018, 08:19 AM #381 godless dave Great Dalmuti     Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 8,266 Originally Posted by Jabba Mojo, - You're right -- it isn't even wrong, cause it's right.. - In ~H, the existence of my self does not depend upon my brain. But your current existence does. Originally Posted by Jabba Originally Posted by godless dave Under ~H, doesn't my current existence require both my brain and my self? - Yes. __________________ "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
 7th March 2018, 08:24 AM #382 RoboTimbo Hostile Nanobacon     Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Springwood, NJ Posts: 29,374 Originally Posted by Jabba - In ~H, the existence of my self does not depend upon my brain. And how were you defining "self" again? Quote: In H, it does. That makes the likelihood of my self's existence under ~H much greater than it is under H. It's greater than 1? How does that work?
 7th March 2018, 08:25 AM #383 zooterkin Nitpicking dilettanteDeputy Admin     Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 41,505 Originally Posted by Jabba Mojo, - You're right -- it isn't even wrong, cause it's right.. - In ~H, the existence of my self does not depend upon my brain. In H, it does. That makes the likelihood of my self's existence under ~H much greater than it is under H. __________________ 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 Ezekiel 23:20
 7th March 2018, 08:30 AM #384 JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man     Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 14,873 Originally Posted by RoboTimbo And how were you defining "self" again? A body + a soul. Quote: It's greater than 1? How does that work? It doesn't. __________________ "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
 7th March 2018, 08:57 AM #385 JayUtah Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 16,388 Originally Posted by Jabba You're right -- it isn't even wrong, cause it's right.. We discussed this. That's not what that phrase means. It means you're so far afield that it's difficult to know where to begin in correcting you. Quote: In ~H, the existence of my self does not depend upon my brain. No, under ~H as you've described it there is no meaningful existence unless you have both a soul and a brain, and your data E is your current existence which obviously requires a brain. The soul has perception, memory, and self-awareness only when connected to a brain. You're now trying to equivocate the meaning of "exist." Quote: In H, it does. Under H as we've described it, all that's required is a brain. Quote: That makes the likelihood of my self's existence under ~H much greater than it is under H. Exactly the opposite, I'm afraid. Occam, and all that.
 7th March 2018, 09:05 AM #386 theprestige Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 30,457 Originally Posted by Belz... Yeah but he's wrong and his torso analogy is ridiculous: the whole body is a system. The soul is an added, independant thing that's joined with the body, so it's not a fallacy to look at their separate likehlihoods. arguments from analogy always fail
 7th March 2018, 12:11 PM #389 Mojo Mostly harmless     Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 30,613 Originally Posted by Jabba Mojo, - You're right -- it isn't even wrong, cause it's right.. No, it's not even wrong because it is nonsense. Quote: - In ~H, the existence of my self does not depend upon my brain. In H, it does. That makes the likelihood of my self's existence under ~H much greater than it is under H. No, you have stated that the brain is a given under H. Understand? If the brain is a given, then so is anything that depends on it. You are claiming that the likelihood of your existence under ~H is much greater than 1. __________________ "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
 7th March 2018, 12:12 PM #390 Monza Alta Viro     Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 2,052 Originally Posted by Jabba - Not that I recall. In the perfect copy analogy, you continually claimed that the copy wouldn't be you, even though he shares all of your memories, preferences, physical attributes, etc. But someone who lived, say in the 19th century, who doesn't have your memories, likes/dislikes, feelings, thoughts, body, or even gender, is actually you?
 7th March 2018, 03:31 PM #391 Jabba Philosopher     Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 5,613 Originally Posted by jsfisher That does not change what I said. You have told us that P(B) = 1. If the brain exists, then P(E|H) must be one because under H, the brain is sufficient for E. js, - P(E) is also 1. But, P(E|H) is still 10-100. By P(B)=1, I just meant that the brain is a given. By P(E)=1, I meant that the self is also a given. I don't know if that's official terminology... - Whatever, B and E are both givens, whereas in P(E|H) H is a given, but E is not. - This is confusing stuff, and some of my terminology probably makes it more confusing. __________________ "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 è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
 7th March 2018, 03:46 PM #392 Jabba Philosopher     Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 5,613 Originally Posted by Jabba js, - It's certainly a confusing element -- but, in P(E|H), H is the given and we're asking how likely is E, if H is true. And, we can ask that even if E has not occurred. Originally Posted by jt512 No. Given either H or ~H, you can only ask if E occurred if E had occurred, becasue E is you. That is the fundamental flaw in your argument. jt, - In regard to this particular issue, I think that I see your point. In this particular case E happens to be me -- but, in every(?) other issue E is not me, and could have not occurred. __________________ "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 è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
 7th March 2018, 03:51 PM #393 jond Illuminator     Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 3,252 Originally Posted by Jabba js, - P(E) is also 1. But, P(E|H) is still 10-100. By P(B)=1, I just meant that the brain is a given. By P(E)=1, I meant that the self is also a given. I don't know if that's official terminology... - Whatever, B and E are both givens, whereas in P(E|H) H is a given, but E is not. - This is confusing stuff, and some of my terminology probably makes it more confusing. Why on earth not? Under H, the brain generates the sense of self, you have agreed to this. It is one and the same with the brain. If the brain is a given so is the self, it’s what brains do!
 7th March 2018, 03:52 PM #394 jond Illuminator     Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 3,252 Originally Posted by Jabba jt, - In regard to this particular issue, I think that I see your point. In this particular case E happens to be me -- but, in every(?) other issue E is not me, and could have not occurred. You have, for 5 years, been insisting that you are talking about your current existence. Anything else is irrelevant.
 7th March 2018, 03:53 PM #395 JayUtah Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 16,388 Originally Posted by Jabba P(E|H) is still 10-100. No, it's a number you made up so that the answer would come out the way you wanted. Quote: By P(B)=1, I just meant that the brain is a given. By P(E)=1, I meant that the self is also a given. I don't know if that's official terminology... It's deliberately equivocal terminology. Under materialism there is no difference between the brain and the self. You're trying to sneak in an extra event while evaluating materialism so that you can pretend it's very improbable for that second event to occur. Otherwise your proof failed the very second you conceded that the brain and the self are identical under materialism. Since we have that confession on record, you're done. Quote: This is confusing stuff, and some of my terminology probably makes it more confusing. You are confused. No one else is. As usual, you are trying to obfuscate and equivocate around a clear error by deliberate word games. Your critics are not fooled.
 7th March 2018, 03:55 PM #396 JayUtah Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 16,388 Originally Posted by Jabba In this particular case E happens to be me -- but, in every(?) other issue E is not me, and could have not occurred. Your proof does not deal with "every other issue." Your proof requires the specificity that comes from your existence aside from any other. That's the only way your conflated random variables are supposed to give you the tiny little numbers your proof relies on.
 7th March 2018, 04:00 PM #397 Belz... Fiend God     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details Posts: 76,590 Originally Posted by Jabba But, P(E|H) is still 10-100. No, you said that the brain generates the self and that the brain is a given under H. Since you need the brain under H for the self to observe itself, that means that P(E|H) is 1. Quote: - Whatever, B and E are both givens, whereas in P(E|H) H is a given, but E is not. Of course it is. You cannot observe yourself without the self, which is generated by the brain, which is a given under H. Ergo the likelihood is 1. Quote: - This is confusing stuff None of this is confusing. It's only confusing because you want a different outcome and you can't get it because your logic is flawed. __________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward
 7th March 2018, 04:24 PM #398 RoboTimbo Hostile Nanobacon     Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Springwood, NJ Posts: 29,374 Originally Posted by Jabba js, - P(E) is also 1. But, P(E|H) is still 10-100. No, it most assuredly is not a random small number you made up. It is 1. Quote: By P(B)=1, I just meant that the brain is a given. By P(E)=1, I meant that the self is also a given. The "self", as you are calling it, is a process of the brain. If the brain is a given, the "self" is also a given. It is 1. Quote: I don't know if that's official terminology... Then you are entirely out of your depth, as has been evident for years. Quote: - Whatever, B and E are both givens, whereas in P(E|H) H is a given, but E is not. Under materialism, the probability is 1, as you've shown. Your made up nonsense is .0062, according to some math that you claim to have done. 1 > .0062 Quote: - This is confusing stuff, and some of my terminology probably makes it more confusing. Nope, not confusing at all, except to you. That's why you're wrong where you think you're right. You simply don't understand. I accept your concession that you were horribly misled by teenage angst and now realize you've been wrong all these decades.
 7th March 2018, 05:01 PM #399 jsfisher ETcorngods survivorModerator     Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 22,192 Originally Posted by Jabba js, - P(E) is also 1. But, P(E|H) is still 10-100. By P(B)=1, I just meant that the brain is a given. By P(E)=1, I meant that the self is also a given. I don't know if that's official terminology... P(E) is the probability of event E (your sense of self in this case). P(E) = 1 means event E is a certainty. P(B) is the probability of event B (the existence of your brain in this case). P(B) = 1 means event B is a certainty. If that is not what you meant, you need to try again. __________________ A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group. "He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost
 7th March 2018, 10:23 PM #400 jt512 Graduate Poster   Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,740 Originally Posted by Jabba jt, - In regard to this particular issue, I think that I see your point. In this particular case E happens to be me -- That's the case of E you have been using. So, you have now conceded that your argument has been incorrect (that's a huge step). Your observing E cannot be evidence for H over ~H or vice versa. Quote: ...but, in every(?) other issue E is not me, and could have not occurred. Since you have admitted that your argument fails with E being your own existence, you can, if you wish, reformulate your argument using some other evidence. I don't think it will help, but you can no longer justify continuing your argument with E being your own existence.

International Skeptics Forum