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 6th March 2018, 08:23 AM   #321
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,453
"If you agree to already agree that I'm correct before I start I can prove I'm only likely to exist if I already exist, therefore I'm immortal in a way that doesn't actually mean any distinct part of me is immortal. Also scientists and skeptics are big mean poopie heads who don't know how to argue effectively."
__________________
"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 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, 08:32 AM   #322
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,393
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- 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.
No. In the materialist hypothesis, the current existence of your self is an inevitable consequence of the current existence of your brain, which you've taken as a given in both hypotheses. Therefore, the existence of your self given the materialist hypothesis is 1. Your proof now relies on the probability of your existence under the complement of materialism being greater than 1, which is a bit of a high hurdle to clear.

Dave
ETA: Sorry, beaten to it by RoboTimbo.
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2018, 08:47 AM   #323
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 30,349
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.

Jabba, you have admitted that, if H is true, souls don't exist and your consciousness is produced by your brain, and therefore that your consciousness is determined by the state of your brain. That means that the existence of your brain and the existence of your consciousness are a single event under H; there is no additional "self". You have no business multiplying their probabilities together to come up with the likelihood of your "current existence".

On the other hand, you would get the same answer by doing so because since you have admitted that the probability of your brain existing is 1, so is the probabity of your consciousness existing, and 1 multiplied by 1 is 1.

You have conceded that the likelihood of your existence under H is 1. You lose.
__________________
"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; 6th March 2018 at 09:01 AM.
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2018, 09:00 AM   #324
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 39,208
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.
But under materialism it is no different than the presence of Mt. Tahoma.
Which you refuse to accept.
__________________
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 6th March 2018, 09:18 AM   #325
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
This is an extraordinary piece of nonsense. If you currently exist, the likelihood of your current existence is 1.

Hans
- No, it isn't. The likelihood [P(E|H)] of the event depends upon the 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 6th March 2018, 09:25 AM   #326
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
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
Hans,
- I've addressed this issue numerous times -- doing it any better, if possible, would take a long time. Consequently, I'm putting it off till later.
__________________
"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, 09:33 AM   #327
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Because both hypotheses require your current brain to exist. If your current brain did not exist, neither would your self.

Hans
- ~H does not require that my current brain exist. ~H includes the possibility of different states of being, of a "spiritual" (non-physical, in at least our current understanding of "physical") being.
__________________
"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, 09:38 AM   #328
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,453
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I've addressed this issue numerous times
You've "addressed" diddly squat. You've stalled, made excuses, and ignored.
__________________
"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 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, 09:39 AM   #329
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 30,349
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- ~H does not require that my current brain exist.

No, but E, the observation of your existence, does.
__________________
"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 6th March 2018, 09:42 AM   #330
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,001
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
The likelihood [P(E|H)] of the event depends upon the hypothesis.
And you've been shown explicitly how the number 1 derives from the hypothesis.
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, 09:43 AM   #331
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 29,244
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Hans,
- I've addressed this issue numerous times -- doing it any better, if possible, would take a long time. Consequently, I'm putting it off till later.
No, you've flailed about wildly whenever confronted with the fact that you are employing the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. You've never explained it to us godless skeptics because you know you are employing it even though you haven't shown the capacity to understand it.

That is a fatal flaw in your argument which you've not been able to resolve and you know you can't. There will never be a later for you to put it off to.
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, 09:50 AM   #332
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 29,244
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I'm claiming that my brain is a given in both hypotheses
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- ~H does not require that my current brain exist.
How is it a given and not required at the same time?
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, 09:57 AM   #333
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,001
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I've addressed this issue numerous times...
No, you haven't. You've just repeated your bald assertions and repeated the same errors over and over, apparently under the presumption that your critics wouldn't be able to tell that it's nonsense. All you do is foist. You don't listen or think.

Quote:
...doing it any better, if possible, would take a long time.
It's already taken five years, and that only because you don't listen to anyone. You lost this debate years ago, and you know it. You even admitted it and flounced, but then came back for more under the banner of "I just couldn't stay away." (Which makes your stomping and whining over your allegedly shabby treatment even more comical.)

No, this is not some mind-bending conundrum that only the brightest minds at the brightest universities can work out. Your proof is a set of very simple errors being committed from a position of arrogance and poorly-recalled, decades-old, incomplete elementary coursework. You aren't the teacher. You aren't the Jedi master of statistics. You clearly don't know what you're talking about, and everyone can see this.

Quote:
Consequently, I'm putting it off till later.
No, you're just blatantly running away from a quite simple and correct rebuttal. You need to understand something here, Jabba. You are not an expert in statistics. You're obviously bluffing. You are not succeeding at convincing anyone -- and your critics are quite confidently able and qualified to detect your failed attempt. Further, your constant gaslighting is both ineffective and insulting.

Your proof for years has revolved around you trying to cram things into the event E that are not there, and trying to hobble materialism in ways that don't pertain to it. This week your critics have succeeded in circumscribing all those errors into a small enough set of documented concessions to which they've carefully led you, which you cannot conveniently "forget," and which illustrate the central flaw in your reasoning. That is not cured by insisting that your critics just don't understand statistical reasoning and that you're some unsung genius. It is not cured by you retreating back to the referee's role and pretending to organize the debate for everyone's benefit.
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, 10:00 AM   #334
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
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?
Dave,
- Your brain is a given in our problem -- and in that sense, its "probability" is 1 for both H and ~H. The likelihood of your brain existing is less than 10-100 for both H and ~H.
- Under ~H, the likelihood of your self existing is .0062, while the likelihood of your self existing under H is still 10-100.
__________________
"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, 10:05 AM   #335
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,266
Under ~H, doesn't my current existence require both my brain and my self?
__________________
"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, 10:31 AM   #336
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 30,349
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Your brain is a given in our problem -- and in that sense, its "probability" is 1 for both H and ~H. The likelihood of your brain existing is less than 10-100 for both H and ~H.
- Under ~H, the likelihood of your self existing is .0062, while the likelihood of your self existing under H is still 10-100.

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.
__________________
"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 6th March 2018, 10:34 AM   #337
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 40,905
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Under ~H, the likelihood of your self existing is .0062, while the likelihood of your self existing under H is still 10-100.
__________________
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
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2018, 10:37 AM   #338
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,393
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Under ~H, the likelihood of your self existing is .0062, while the likelihood of your self existing under H is still 10-100.
Jabba,

You've made these numbers up. You can't use made-up numbers to prove that one thing is more probable than another; all that you've proved is that you can make up two numbers and know which is larger.

(Which, by the way, was not necessarily a given, so well done there.)

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2018, 10:47 AM   #339
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,001
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Your brain is a given in our problem [for both H and ~H] ... while the likelihood of your self existing under H is still 10-100.
There is no separate "self" under H. It is functionally the same thing as the brain under materialism. It is nonsensical in materialism to try to talk about them as separate concepts. You keep trying to add a "self" as a separate event, solely so you can apply the inappropriate calculation you've contrived to make materialism "impossible."

Last edited by JayUtah; 6th March 2018 at 11:11 AM.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2018, 11:43 AM   #340
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 39,208
Jabba,
Just admit the truth, you want for something to be true, but you can't demonstrate it by any means, living your life is more important that any other factor
__________________
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 6th March 2018, 11:43 AM   #341
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,399
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- ~H does not require that my current brain exist. ~H includes the possibility of different states of being, of a "spiritual" (non-physical, in at least our current understanding of "physical") being.
You contemplate your self. Does your brain exist? Have you any experience of contemplating your self while your brain did not exist?

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, 11:45 AM   #342
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 29,244
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Your [u]brain[/u] is a given in our problem
And under materialism, your "self", as you've been calling it, is a process of that brain.

Quote:
-- and in that sense, its "[u][u]probability[/u][/u]" is 1 for both H and ~H. The [u]likelihood[/u] of your [u]brain[/u] existing is less than 10[sup]-100[/sup] for both H and ~H.
No, as you've already explained. The probability of your "self", if the brain is a given, is 1.

Quote:
- Under ~H, the [u]likelihood[/u] of your [u]self[/u] existing is .0062,
Well, it's your made up nonsense, so you can assign whatever made up number you want to it.

Quote:
while the likelihood of your [u]self[/u] existing under H is still 10[sup]-100[/sup].
What you don't get to do is make up numbers for materialism, any more than you get to plunk a soul onto it.

1 > .0062 (or whatever number you've made up for your made up nonsense)
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, 12:01 PM   #343
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 73,219
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- No, it isn't.
You have already agreed that it is here.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness


Last edited by Belz...; 6th March 2018 at 12:05 PM.
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, 12:03 PM   #344
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 73,219
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Your brain is a given in our problem -- and in that sense, its "probability" is 1 for both H and ~H. The likelihood of your brain existing is less than 10-100 for both H and ~H.
You're playing with words to try to avoid the fact that you agreed that the brain is a GIVEN, and that the self is from the brain, ergo also a given. That means the likelihood is 1. You can't escape this now that you've admitted to these other things.

Quote:
- Under ~H, the likelihood of your self existing is .0062
Show your source for this number, please.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness


Last edited by Belz...; 6th March 2018 at 12:04 PM.
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, 12:05 PM   #345
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 73,219
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
There is no separate "self" under H. It is functionally the same thing as the brain under materialism. It is nonsensical in materialism to try to talk about them as separate concepts.
As Jabba agreed to here.
__________________
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, 12:09 PM   #346
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,001
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- ~H does not require that my current brain exist. ~H includes the possibility of different states of being...
But your characterization of those others states as being devoid of perception and memory contradicts any ability to observe your existence. Further, you've modeled each incarnation as a discrete event, thereby requiring a new "current brain" at each incarnation in order to make the observation. Not only does ~H require your current brain under the conditions you've stipulated for reincarnation, your desire to lump all those incarnations together as some magical class of events, for the sake of your numerator, will actually require a series of individual "current brains," not just one.

It's pretty much time for you to realize that your critics can easily see you're just making all this up on the fly, not really thinking through it, and thus visibly floundering. Frantically throwing a bunch of pseudo-philosophy against the wall does not fix your math.
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, 12:13 PM   #347
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 73,219
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
But your characterization of those others states as being devoid of perception and memory contradicts any ability to observe your existence. Further, you've modeled each incarnation as a discrete event, thereby requiring a new "current brain" at each incarnation in order to make the observation. Not only does ~H require your current brain under the conditions you've stipulated for reincarnation, your desire to lump all those incarnations together as some magical class of events, for the sake of your numerator, will actually require a series of individual "current brains," not just one.
Yes. Jabba has defined himself into a corner. He's basically defeated his own argument about the multiple "now" centuries, because he's admitted that only his "current" self could ever make the observation of his existence, whatever the current one is. Therefore the solution is identical whether we consider H or ~H, and that line of argument can be discarded as superfluous.
__________________
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, 12:13 PM   #348
carlitos
"ms divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 18,342
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Your course in the late 70's was cut short in response to the Kent State shootings more than 5 years before in May 1970?
What are the odds of that?
carlitos 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, 12:18 PM   #349
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,001
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
As Jabba agreed to here.
Oh, indeed he did. I made -- or tried to make -- a big point out of this being the watershed week when all of the key concessions we needed to extract from Jabba have all been made at the same time. He has previously conceded to them one at a time. But here, at last, people have been able to pinion him to a set of key concessions, all with undeniable quotations and links to where they were made.

Sadly, that doesn't mean Jabba won't just revoke whichever of those concessions he needs to go away in order to have another five years of "effective debate," one of whose principles -- as Jabba practices it -- is that concessions can simply be dispelled by saying he made a mistake by agreeing to it. It doesn't matter whether the proposition is an inevitable outcome of cogent reasoning. If it becomes too inconvenient, Jabba has previously found a way to make it invalid.

Put bluntly, he doesn't care in the least that his critics can point to stuff he said that he no longer wants to be responsible for.
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, 12:30 PM   #350
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 73,219
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
What are the odds of that?
At least 3 to 1 against, I'd think.
__________________
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, 12:32 PM   #351
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 29,244
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
What are the odds of that?
.0062, to be charitable.
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, 12:32 PM   #352
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,001
...Or, now that I think about it, he's just as likely to try to play some word game (as usual) to escape from the notion that "self" means self and "brain" means brain, as those words are used today in this debate. "These are really difficult concepts." You know, that thing he says when he has to go make up new meanings for words.
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, 01:07 PM   #353
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 73,219
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Put bluntly, he doesn't care in the least that his critics can point to stuff he said that he no longer wants to be responsible for.
That's alright because I don't care in the least what excuses he uses to avoid admitting his failure. It's there for all to see.
__________________
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, 01:34 PM   #354
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,097
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.
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.
__________________
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 6th March 2018, 02:47 PM   #355
jt512
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,738
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. 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.
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 6th March 2018, 03:40 PM   #356
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Jabba, you have admitted that, if H is true, souls don't exist and your consciousness is produced by your brain, and therefore that your consciousness is determined by the state of your brain. That means that the existence of your brain and the existence of your consciousness are a single event under H; there is no additional "self". You have no business multiplying their probabilities together to come up with the likelihood of your "current existence".

On the other hand, you would get the same answer by doing so because since you have admitted that the probability of your brain existing is 1, so is the probabity of your consciousness existing, and 1 multiplied by 1 is 1.

You have conceded that the likelihood of your existence under H is 1. You lose.
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.
__________________
"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

Last edited by Jabba; 6th March 2018 at 03:44 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 6th March 2018, 03:48 PM   #357
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,001
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
But under ~H, the multiplier is 1 -- which is why ~H is not automatically less probable than H.
But it cannot be more probable than H. Your claim is that it's vastly more probable. Do you concede now that this cannot be the case?

Quote:
...but I have not conceded that the likelihood of my existence -- either brain or self -- is 1.
You conditioned that likelihood on an additional, contrived event that does not occur under H.
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, 03:49 PM   #358
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 73,219
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Mojo,

- You're right in your first, and (I think) second paragraph -- under H there's no multiplier.
And since you agreed here that the brain is a given under H and here that the self is generated by the brain, the self's also a given.

Quote:
- But under ~H, the multiplier is 1
Only if the soul is a given. 1x1 = 1, after all. But then Occam's Razor still defeats you.

Quote:
- 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.
Your words games are irrelevant. You're after the fact, so likelihoods are beyond the scope of this topic. You lose.
__________________
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, 04:03 PM   #359
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,453
- All of your numbers are made up. Rearranging the equation for the 90th billionth will not change that.
- You've been told this countless times. You are being rude by continuing to ignore it.

- You can't use "probability" to make things that have already happened impossible. Death has already been proven as a concept... a whole lot of times. You making up alternatives to it and applying made up probabilities to them is a waste of time.
- You've been told this countless times. You are being rude by continuing to ignore it.

- You've already admitted your ulterior motives, dishonest debating tactics, and desire to misquote and misuse the people in this thread.
- You are being rude by continuing to argue as if those facts are not already known.

- Underline, bolding, scare quoting, italicizing, or otherwise changing the formatting of words does not magically chance their meaning.
- You've been told this multiple times. You are being rude by continuing to ignore it.

- We've made it clear that we recognize the "Befuddled Old Man" routine as a dishonest stalling tactic. None of us buy it.
- You've been told this multiple times. You are being rude by continuing to ignore it.

- "Stating a claim" is not providing evidence, arguments, facts, reasons, or justification for a claim.
- You've been told this multiple times. You are being rude by continuing to ignore it.

- Arguing that something works "Under a hypothesis" where the hypothesis is some nonsense you made up is asking us to simply agree you are right because we agree you are right.
- This has already been explained to you multiple times. You are being rude by continuing to ignore it.

- You consistently ask for answers to questions you've already been given multiple times, only to ignore them yet again and plow ahead as if every aspects of your nonsense has been addressed a dozen times from every possible answer.
- You have already been called on this behavior multiple times. You are being rude by continuing to repeat it.

- You will ignore this post, just as you ignore all posts that don't fit into your script or that you can dishonestly pretend agree with you.
- You have already been called on this behavior multiple times. You are being rude by continuing to repeat it.
__________________
"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 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, 04:19 PM   #360
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 30,349
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
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.

But your 'argument' requires your existence under H to be much less likely than it is under ~H. You are now saying that they are, at best for you, equal.

Quote:
- 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.

Your failure to understand the implications of your own claims doesn't alter them.
__________________
"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; 6th March 2018 at 04:48 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
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 09:10 PM.
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.