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 5th March 2018, 02:10 PM   #281
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 30,349
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Yeah.
- It is the weak evidence I had before. Though, there is a lot more weak evidence out there -- you just got to look for it.
- But again, would you give the reincarnation hypothesis any prior probability at all?

Not without evidence, no.

Jabba, a prior probability isn't, as you seem to think, something you pull from your nether regions; it's an estimate based on the existing evidence.
__________________
"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 5th March 2018, 02:12 PM   #282
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,453
I'm pretty sure we could use dark magic to resurrect Thomas Bayes himself and he would not agree to any of Jabba's nonsense.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
JoeMorgue 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 5th March 2018, 02:18 PM   #283
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 73,220
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I'm pretty sure we could use dark magic to resurrect Thomas Bayes himself and he would not agree to any of Jabba's nonsense.
Yeah but he wouldn't be the saaaame so it wouldn't count.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... 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 5th March 2018, 02:21 PM   #284
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,453
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Yeah but he wouldn't be the saaaame so it wouldn't count.
Touche.

What if we managed to reincarnate him as a dwarf Filipino hairdresser?
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
JoeMorgue 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 5th March 2018, 02:29 PM   #285
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 73,220
Oh, then he's good to go.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... 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 5th March 2018, 02:44 PM   #286
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,742
Hey just checking in and saw the way the conversation is heading at the moment. Wanted to let you all know that 31% of my particular self is actually Bayes so I'm a bit of an authority. Of course another 12% was most recently a potted plant in Stockholm but one takes what one can get.

Feel free to ask me anything you need, or more simply you could refer to any of my prior posts since Jabba never really moves on or replies properly anyway. I'll swing by in another week or two maybe!
SOdhner 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 5th March 2018, 02:51 PM   #287
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
The likelihood of my current existence is in regard to a hypothesis, not to actuality.
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
And that hypothesis is H, and you said in H your brain is a given.
- I should have said that the likelihood of my current self is in regard to a hypothesis, not to actuality.
__________________
"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 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2018, 02:53 PM   #288
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,266
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I should have said that the likelihood of my current self is in regard to a hypothesis, not to actuality.
But in H your self and your brain are the same thing.
__________________
"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 5th March 2018, 03:04 PM   #289
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 73,220
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I should have said that the likelihood of my current self is in regard to a hypothesis, not to actuality.
It makes no difference:

Originally Posted by Jabba
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Do you accept that the materialist model is that the brain generates the process?
- Yes.
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
jond,
- No. Yours is still the Conjunction Fallacy-Fallacy. IOW, I'm not making a Conjunction Fallacy. In my formula, the brain is a given, and it's Probability is 1. So, if I multiplied the brain's probability [P(B)] times the prior probability of .01, I still get .01.
So the brain generates the self under materialism, and the brain has a probability of 1. Thereofre your self has a probability of 1 under materialism. Ergo OOFLAM has a likelihood of 1, ergo your entire theory collapses. Thanks for playing.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... 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 5th March 2018, 03:14 PM   #290
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Yeah.
- It is the weak evidence I had before. Though, there is a lot more weak evidence out there -- you just got to look for it.
- But again, would you give the reincarnation hypothesis any prior probability at all?
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Not without evidence, no.

Jabba, a prior probability isn't, as you seem to think, something you pull from your nether regions; it's an estimate based on the existing evidence.
Mojo,
- Yeah. I accept that the evidence is weak -- but strong enough to give a prior probability of at least .01.
- And even if you figure that the prior probability is only .0000000001 (but my formula is otherwise correct) the posterior probability of ~OOFLam -- given the current existence of my self --is much greater than the posterior probability of OOFLam -- given the current existence of my self.
__________________
"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 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2018, 03:25 PM   #291
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,001
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
but strong enough to give a prior probability of at least .01.
Show how you computed this.

Quote:
...the posterior probability of ~OOFLam -- given the current existence of my self...
...is derived from a purely made-up number. You made it up because it's a very small number, and only because it's a very small number. You did that because your attempt to invent a new number that's both zero and non-zero didn't work. You propose a very small number not because you've computed it to be so, but because you decided ahead of time that it needed to be a small number for your proof to come out the way you needed.

There's no science or math in any of that. It's just begging the question with numbers.

Last edited by JayUtah; 5th March 2018 at 03:34 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 5th March 2018, 03:26 PM   #292
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 29,244
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Mojo,
- Yeah. I accept that the evidence is weak -- but strong enough to give a prior probability of at least .01.
Can you show where you did the math to arrive at that figure?

Quote:
- And even if you figure that the prior probability is only .0000000001
Or that figure?

Quote:
(but my formula is otherwise correct)
It isn't.

Quote:
the posterior probability of ~OOFLam -- given the current existence of my self --is much greater than the posterior probability of OOFLam
Can you link to where that was shown? On this page you've said that the likelihood of your existence under materialism is 1. Which is what everyone has been telling you.

Quote:
-- given the current existence of my self.
And the "self", under materialism, is generated by the brain, which is a given. Right.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2018, 03:54 PM   #293
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 39,208
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Mojo,
- Yeah. I accept that the evidence is weak -- but strong enough to give a prior probability of at least .01.
21 meter salute



__________________
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 5th March 2018, 05:00 PM   #294
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 30,349
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Mojo,
- Yeah. I accept that the evidence is weak -- but strong enough to give a prior probability of at least .01.
- And even if you figure that the prior probability is only .0000000001 (but my formula is otherwise correct) the posterior probability of ~OOFLam -- given the current existence of my self --is much greater than the posterior probability of OOFLam -- given the current existence of my self.

Does "OOFLam" include immaterial souls, or is it a model in which your consciousness is produced by your brain?
__________________
"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 5th March 2018, 05:37 PM   #295
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 73,220
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Mojo,
- Yeah. I accept that the evidence is weak -- but strong enough to give a prior probability of at least .01.
You have ZERO evidence. How is that strong enough for anything?

Quote:
- And even if you figure that the prior probability is only .0000000001 (but my formula is otherwise correct) the posterior probability of ~OOFLam -- given the current existence of my self --is much greater than the posterior probability of OOFLam -- given the current existence of my self.
Yes, if you plug in made-up numbers which automatically and by definition make ~H more likely, ~H will be more likely. Meanwhile, you admitted that H has a probability of 1, so I don't know why you're still arguing about this.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... 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 5th March 2018, 06:21 PM   #296
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Does "OOFLam" include immaterial souls, or is it a model in which your consciousness is produced by your brain?
Mojo,
- The latter.
- But, if you only have a brain -- which produces your self -- and no immaterial soul, the likelihood of you currently existing is less than 10-100, even though you currently exist. Likelihood isn't based upon actuality; it's based upon the hypothesis being evaluated. Something happens and you wonder how that affects the probability of a particular (and, relevant) hypothesis.
__________________
"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 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2018, 06:31 PM   #297
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,001
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
But, if you only have a brain -- which produces your self -- and no immaterial soul, the likelihood of you currently existing is less than 10-100...
No, it isn't. That's a number you pulled out of your bunghole. You've done nothing to validly connect it to anything.

Quote:
Likelihood isn't based upon actuality; it's based upon the hypothesis being evaluated.
The hypothesis being evaluated is materialism. Under materialism, having a brain guarantees having a self. You keep trying to replace materialism with a straw man of your own devising. Your critics have finally cornered you into admitting what materialism really is. Now under that admission, your whole argument evaporates -- just as it does for anyone who actually knows how to work these problems instead of vaguely remembering half-finished courses from decades ago.

Quote:
Something happens and you wonder how that affects the probability of a particular (and, relevant) hypothesis.
What happens is that you exist and have a brain. That's the self under materialism. If materialism is the hypothesis on which the likelihood ratio is conditioned, then the likelihood ratio is not some imaginary small number. As you admitted earlier, the weight of evidence is indiscriminate in this case.
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 5th March 2018, 06:32 PM   #298
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
But in H your self and your brain are the same thing.
- In H, your self is produced by your brain -- which is exactly why the likelihood that your self would currently exist -- given H -- is so small.
__________________
"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 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2018, 06:32 PM   #299
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,001
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- In H, your self is produced by your brain -- which is exactly why the likelihood that your self would currently exist -- given H -- is so small.
No, that doesn't follow.
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 5th March 2018, 06:36 PM   #300
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 73,220
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- In H, your self is produced by your brain -- which is exactly why the likelihood that your self would currently exist -- given H -- is so small.
That is the exact opposite of the logical conclusion. It's like saying that the earth has a great gravity field and that this is exactly why we should be able to fly.

If under materialism the self is produced by the brain, which you already admitted here, and the brain under materialism has a likelihood of 1, which you already admitted here, then the self has a likelihood of 1 under materialism. That destroys your entire, 60-year quest for proving immortality.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... 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 5th March 2018, 06:39 PM   #301
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,001
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Likelihood isn't based upon actuality; it's based upon the hypothesis being evaluated. Something happens and you wonder how that affects the probability of a particular (and, relevant) hypothesis.
No. You don't "wonder" how one event affects the probability of another event. You know it. Or you compute it. Instead you just make stuff up. Of course likelihood is based on actuality in the sense that what actually happens or would happen describes how the events A and B should convolve. As I've said now for years, you're literally just making up numbers, applying some poorly-recalled algebra, and pretending you've proven something by 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 5th March 2018, 06:58 PM   #302
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,097
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- In H, your self is produced by your brain -- which is exactly why the likelihood that your self would currently exist -- given H -- is so small.
You told us that the brain was a given. P(B) = 1. And so P(E | H) must equal 1.
__________________
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
jsfisher 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 5th March 2018, 07:02 PM   #303
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 29,244
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- In H, your self is produced by your brain -- which is exactly why the likelihood that your self would currently exist -- given H -- is so small.
How can a likelihood of 1 be considered small? You seem to have reverted to gibber, Jabba.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2018, 10:07 PM   #304
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 30,349
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Mojo,
- The latter.
- But, if you only have a brain -- which produces your self -- and no immaterial soul, the likelihood of you currently existing is less than 10-100, even though you currently exist. Likelihood isn't based upon actuality; it's based upon the hypothesis being evaluated. Something happens and you wonder how that affects the probability of a particular (and, relevant) hypothesis.

According to you, "the brain is a given". That means that the likelihood that you exist under a hypothesis in which consciousness is produced by, and therefore entirely determined by, the brain is 1.

Are you claiming that the brain is a given under your favoured hypothesis, but extremely unlikely under "OOFLam"?
__________________
"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; 5th March 2018 at 10:11 PM.
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 5th March 2018, 10:46 PM   #305
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,006
The "H" in Jabba's P(E|H) is not materialism. It is a straw"H" believed by nobody invented out of whole cloth for no purpose other than for Jabba to argue. In Jabba's argument, materialism rightly belongs in the set of "~H" because Jabba has specifically excluded materialism from "H".

The argument gets so involved that people forget that Jabba's OOFLAM is not materialism, it is something else that Jabba simply made up.

Thus, in the Jabbaverse, materialism is far more likely than his concocted "H".

Fine by me, but possibly an unintended consequence for Jabba.

I counter propose that Jabba's "H" should be OFF(one finite function).

Jabba wont like this but he can head right OFF because under OFF he is going to die. As are we all.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2018, 02:25 AM   #306
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,399
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Mojo,
- Yeah. I accept that the evidence is weak -- but strong enough to give a prior probability of at least .01.
- And even if you figure that the prior probability is only .0000000001 (but my formula is otherwise correct) the posterior probability of ~OOFLam -- given the current existence of my self --is much greater than the posterior probability of OOFLam -- given the current existence of my self.
This remains false, no matter how many times you assert it.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
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 6th March 2018, 02:28 AM   #307
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,399
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Mojo,
- The latter.
- But, if you only have a brain -- which produces your self -- and no immaterial soul, the likelihood of you currently existing is less than 10-100, even though you currently exist. Likelihood isn't based upon actuality; it's based upon the hypothesis being evaluated. Something happens and you wonder how that affects the probability of a particular (and, relevant) hypothesis.
This is an extraordinary piece of nonsense. If you currently exist, the likelihood of your current existence is 1.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
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 6th March 2018, 02:32 AM   #308
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,399
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- In H, your self is produced by your brain -- which is exactly why the likelihood that your self would currently exist -- given H -- is so small.
No. Texas sharpshooter again. You decide to contemplate some specific self, but it could be any self.

The H hypothesis is not that YOU exist and have a self. It is that somebody exists and has a self. You then point to some specific existing self ("you") and draw the target around it.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
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 6th March 2018, 07:02 AM   #309
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
You told us that the brain was a given. P(B) = 1. And so P(E | H) must equal 1.
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.
__________________
"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 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2018, 07:13 AM   #310
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,001
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
It's certainly a confusing element
The gaslighting doesn't help, Jabba. It's actually a very simple element. The Texas sharpshooter fallacy is one of the most intuitively obvious of all the logical fallacies. Would you care to explain in your own words why it's a fallacy?

Quote:
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.
Your choice of what E is in your proof depends entirely on its having actually occurred. You're trying to give it significance in retrospect.
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 6th March 2018, 07:30 AM   #311
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
According to you, "the brain is a given". That means that the likelihood that you exist under a hypothesis in which consciousness is produced by, and therefore entirely determined by, the brain is 1.

Are you claiming that the brain is a given under your favoured hypothesis, but extremely unlikely under "OOFLam"?
- No.
- I'm claiming that my brain is a given in both hypotheses, and the probability of my brain is, therefore, 1 in both.
- Consequently, when I multiply the probability of my brain times the likelihood of the current existence of my self -- given the two different hypotheses -- I'm effectively left with only the likelihoods of each -- i.e., 10-100 for H, and .0062 for ~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 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2018, 07:32 AM   #312
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,001
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I'm effectively left with only the likelihoods of each -- i.e., 10-100 for H
A number you admit you merely made up.
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 6th March 2018, 07:32 AM   #313
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
This remains false, no matter how many times you assert it.

Hans
- How/why is it false?
__________________
"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 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2018, 07:33 AM   #314
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,001
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
How/why is it false?
See the various chapters of this thread.
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 6th March 2018, 07:37 AM   #315
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 73,220
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
js,
- It's certainly a confusing element
There is nothing confusing about it.

Quote:
-- but, in P(E|H), H is the given and we're asking how likely is E, if H is true.
Yes, and since you've admitted that the brain causes the self under H, the odds of your existence under H, in which the brain is a given, is 1.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... 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 6th March 2018, 07:38 AM   #316
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 73,220
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- How/why is it false?
Because you made up the numbers.

This is the seven quadrillionth time that someone has told you this.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... 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 6th March 2018, 07:38 AM   #317
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,399
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- How/why is it false?
Because both hypotheses require your current brain to exist. If your current brain did not exist, neither would your self.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
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 6th March 2018, 08:04 AM   #318
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,266
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- In H, your self is produced by your brain -- which is exactly why the likelihood that your self would currently exist -- given H -- is so small.
OK so the likelilhood of my brain existing under H is very small, and not a given as you said earlier.

What's the likelihood of my brain existing under ~H?
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm
godless dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2018, 08:10 AM   #319
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 29,244
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- No.
- I'm claiming that my brain is a given in both hypotheses, and the probability of my brain is, therefore, 1 in both.
- Consequently, when I multiply the probability of my brain times the likelihood of the current existence of my self -- given the two different hypotheses -- I'm effectively left with only the likelihoods of each -- i.e., 10-100 for H, and .0062 for ~H.
The "self", as you're calling it, is a process of the brain in the materialist hypothesis. So with the brain being a given, the probability of your "self" is 1.

(Materialism) 1 > .0062 (Jabba's made up number for his made up nonsense)

You've proven materialism. Well done.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2018, 08:19 AM   #320
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,006
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
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.
No, you are not. What you are asking is how likely is E given a completely ****** up H.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
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 03:09 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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.