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 July 2017, 12:23 PM   #201
jt512
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,639
Originally Posted by Toontown View Post
I don't believe that sequence would surprise you at all. Nor should it. It means nothing, signifies nothing.

Duh. Of course it shouldn't surprise anyone. Jabba's existence should surprise hm even less. Since could only observe his existence, there is absolutely nothing for him to be surprised about. And, yeah, I know your whole subjectivity/objectivity spiel by heart, and it is utter nonsense.
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 5th July 2017, 01:39 PM   #202
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,299
Originally Posted by Toontown View Post
I don't believe that sequence would surprise you at all.

Why not? You have already stated that we should be astounded that unlikely events happen.
__________________
"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 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 July 2017, 01:44 PM   #203
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,299
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I'm currently trying to focus on the sharpshooter issue...

Answering this question will help you to do that:

- If someone else existed in your place, and advanced the same argument for immortality as you are advancing, would that argument be valid?
__________________
"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 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 July 2017, 04:17 PM   #204
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 20,852
Jabba, please consider this:

Let's say you selected a person, and you wanted to estimate the likelihood that person is Swedish. "The person is Swedish" is your hypothesis S; you can estimate P(S) as the simple ratio of the population of Swedes to the world's total population.

Oh, enter new information B: The person has blue eyes. If we know the likelihood a person would have blue eyes, P(B), and the likelihood a Swede would have blue eyes, P(B|S), we can use Bayes Theorem and this new information to improve our estimated likelihood the person is Swedish, P(S|B).

That would be P(S|B) = P(S) x P(B|S) / P(B).

That all works, but let's now switch to your immortality thing. You've selected a person (it happens to be you), and you are considering the hypothesis H the person exists in a materialistic reality. You make up a number for P(H); it is a wild-ass guess, actually. Now you want to apply new information to improve the estimate.

The new information -- the the person has a sense of existence, E -- isn't new information. The parallel to the Swede analogy stops here because the sense of existence is part of being a sentient human in a materialistic reality. The sense of existence "target" was already hit under H, so you cannot be surprised about it now. P(E|H) = 1.

If you work through all the constraints, you should conclude that P(E) >= P(H) and, from that, that P(H|E) >= P(H).

This is opposite the conclusion you desire.
__________________
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

Last edited by jsfisher; 5th July 2017 at 04:30 PM.
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 July 2017, 09:37 PM   #205
Toontown
Philosopher
 
Toontown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,960
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
Duh. Of course it shouldn't surprise anyone. Jabba's existence should surprise hm even less. Since could only observe his existence, there is absolutely nothing for him to be surprised about. And, yeah, I know your whole subjectivity/objectivity spiel by heart, and it is utter nonsense.
You're losing a step.

You're losing the step where Jabba should be surprised that he has the opportunity to observe his existence, assuming the standard cosmological model and his interpretation of H are correct.

You don't know my whole subjectivity/objectivity spiel by heart. If you did, you wouldn't be calling it "utter nonsense".
__________________
"I did not say that!" - Donald Trump
Toontown is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2017, 09:59 PM   #206
jt512
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,639
Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
If you work through all the constraints, you should conclude that P(E) >= P(H) and, from that, that P(H|E) >= P(H).

That's false.
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 5th July 2017, 10:34 PM   #207
jt512
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,639
Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
Jabba, please consider this:

Let's say you selected a person, and you wanted to estimate the likelihood that person is Swedish. "The person is Swedish" is your hypothesis S; you can estimate P(S) as the simple ratio of the population of Swedes to the world's total population.

Oh, enter new information B: The person has blue eyes. If we know the likelihood a person would have blue eyes, P(B), and the likelihood a Swede would have blue eyes, P(B|S), we can use Bayes Theorem and this new information to improve our estimated likelihood the person is Swedish, P(S|B).

That would be P(S|B) = P(S) x P(B|S) / P(B).

That all works, but let's now switch to your immortality thing. You've selected a person (it happens to be you), and you are considering the hypothesis H the person exists in a materialistic reality. You make up a number for P(H); it is a wild-ass guess, actually. Now you want to apply new information to improve the estimate.

The new information -- the the person has a sense of existence, E -- isn't new information. The parallel to the Swede analogy stops here because the sense of existence is part of being a sentient human in a materialistic reality. The sense of existence "target" was already hit under H, so you cannot be surprised about it now. P(E|H) = 1.

If you work through all the constraints, you should conclude that P(E) >= P(H) and, from that, that P(H|E) >= P(H).

This is opposite the conclusion you desire.
Oh, wait. You have P(E|H) = 1 as a premise. I didn't see that. Never mind.
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 July 2017, 12:08 AM   #208
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,356
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
Duh. Of course it shouldn't surprise anyone. Jabba's existence should surprise hm even less. Since could only observe his existence, there is absolutely nothing for him to be surprised about. And, yeah, I know your whole subjectivity/objectivity spiel by heart, and it is utter nonsense.
I don't agree with this, and there's a useful analogy to explain it (can't remember who came up with it).

You're going to be executed by 20 sharpshooters from 20 feet away. They aim, fire, and you're still alive. They all missed. Would you be surprised by your continued existence? Certainly. You would very much want to know why you're not dead even though you know you're not dead. You would assume the outcome was rigged on your behalf.

In Bayes, this is the problem of old evidence, where things that are already known and have already happened obviously have a probability of 1. But if they have a probability of 1, how can they confirm anything? When Einstein developed relativity theory, its prediction of Mercury's orbit was hugely significant, but Mercury's orbit was already known at the time, so why should a theory get any credit for predicting something that was already known? The trick is to pretend the evidence wasn't already known. If Mercury's orbit hadn't already been known, would relativity's prediction of it be very confirming? Yes, because the theory wasn't ad hoc in anyway.

Jabba finds his existence surprising, for the obvious reasons (ancestor X has to be in right place and right time, etc.). Anyone's existence is like winning a fantastic lottery. The reason our existence isn't really surprising is there are a lot of lottery winners (and counterfactually, potential lottery winners). If I wasn't here, there a lot of potential someone elses like me who would be here and be wondering about their existence. Unlike the sharpshooter case, coincidence is an acceptable explanation for existence.

This is where I think Jabba gets it wrong. He thinks his existence is like winning a lottery, where the odds of winning are fantastically remote. OK, fair enough. But, where he goes wrong, is he thinks his winning ticket was the only ticket sold. If that were the case, he would be right to be surprised. If there was a lottery just for you, and the odds were fantastic, and you won, you'd be suspicious. But his ticket wasn't the only winning ticket. There is Jabba(a) who would have won, if the numbers were a little different (if sperm X had made it instead of sperm Y), and Jabba(b), and Jabba(c)...If enough tickets are sold, someone's going to win, no matter what the odds are.

So our existence is surprising, but not in any way that requires an explanation beyond coincidence or luck.
Fudbucker 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 July 2017, 10:34 AM   #209
JimOfAllTrades
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 365
Originally Posted by Toontown View Post
I'll tell you what would surprise you, if you're not a P-zombie. And even if you are a P-zombie, you would be compelled to simulate surprise...

Your random sequence of cards turns out to be a code which, when keyed into cyberspace, invokes a Genie who materializes and grants you one wish. The Genie marvels at your luck, explaining that there is a different card sequence code corresponding to every person on the planet. But a valid code can only invoke the Genie if the code is specifically communicated to another person.

And you would owe it all to me, for triggering you to post that particular sequence.
I guess that would be surprising, but I don't see where it's analogous to Jabba's scenario.

Jabba seems to be saying that for him to be alive at this moment in time is such a long shot that something analogous to stacking a deck of cards to achieve a "good" outcome must have happened to cause him to be alive now.

Everyone else seems to be saying that there is no stacking required, because once you have a functioning human brain consciousness and a sense of self will appear as a an emergent property of that brain. It won't be any specific consciousness, but whatever one it is will then be alive and aware and able to marvel at their "luck".

Using the paying card analogy, that seems to more like everyone gets a deck of cards and whatever sequence you deal is your sequence. There is no specific sequence required, it just needs to be the one that that person deals. Any sequence is just as unlikely as any other, but we shouldn't be surprised that a particular sequence appeared because once you start dealing some sequence must appear.

Looking at the equation that that quantifies the variables from an objective point of view may be able to tell us how likely it is for us to exist as a group, but looking at that same equation from the subjective point of view does us no good if the results are the same for everyone, namely that they exist.
JimOfAllTrades 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 July 2017, 11:37 AM   #210
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,517
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
I don't agree with this, and there's a useful analogy to explain it (can't remember who came up with it).

You're going to be executed by 20 sharpshooters from 20 feet away. They aim, fire, and you're still alive. They all missed. Would you be surprised by your continued existence? Certainly. You would very much want to know why you're not dead even though you know you're not dead. You would assume the outcome was rigged on your behalf.

As I explained before, you are getting the Texas Sharpshooter completely backwards. In this analogy, you are the target, pretty much by definition. As more and more shots accumulate, you can refine the odds of each hypothesis.

With Jabba's existence, there is no target at all, no additional shots, and no possible way to change how the odds of each hypothesis are calculated.

The analogy is fine for understanding how Bayesian analysis works, but since Jabba's problem is that he is using Bayes inappropriately, this analogy is useless from the start.
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2017, 01:02 PM   #211
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,848
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I now suspect that I was wrong about the Bayesian formulas accounting for the sharpshooter fallacy... Not to say that I won't change my mind (again), but for now I'm thinking that if there's nothing to set me apart from the crowd, the unlikelihood of my current existence, under the hypothesis being evaluated, has no relevance to the posterior probability of that hypothesis -- whoever exists will have that same unlikelihood.
- I know that's what you've been saying all along, but I was beginning to think that I might have a clear savior for my 'targetness' -- the formula itself!

- Anyway, I don't think so anymore...
- Not to worry -- I have a better savior: targetness. A target doesn't need to be pre-selected. More to come.

- But again, a theorist often has a 'feel' for a hypothesis before he/she can express it effectively.
Originally Posted by JesseCuster View Post
If you really think that, then I don't think you know what the word target actually means.

Target:
A person, object, or place selected as the aim of an attack.
Select as an object of attention or attack.
An objective or result towards which efforts are directed.
Etc.


The word target loses any meaning if you don't need to declare what you intend to hit or achieve before you try and achieve your objective.

You're doing your utmost best to try and try and make everyone else think you're not guilty of the sharpshooter fallacy, but you're truly doing a lousy job of it. Either you don't actually understand what the sharpshooter fallacy is or you're being disingenuous in trying to sweep it under the carpet.
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Jesse,
- You're right. I used the wrong word. I should have said "pre-specified."
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Try this.
- You and I move about 200 yards from a barn in Texas. I take my old M-14 with me, tell you that I'm a sharpshooter, and start firing away at the barn. We walk back to the barn and find a tiny shot group centered around a small hole in the barn wall.
- I didn't need to pre-specify my target...
- And, in this case, we'd have a high degree of targetness.
- If my shot group wasn't all that small, we'd have a lower degree of targetness.
Originally Posted by JesseCuster View Post
Changing the phrase from "pre-selected" to "pre-specified" in no way addresses my point.
What's the difference between a pre-selected target and a pre-specified target?
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Jesse,
- Pre-specified means that you have told someone, or have otherwise indicated your selection, prior to shooting. I'm saying that there are ways for others to know what your target was, without be told.
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
No. For the purposes of determining how to evaluate the significance of the data in your model, "telling someone else" or "others knowing about it" has nothing to do with it. Please stop just making stuff up.
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
<snip>...Jay,
- Sure it does. That way we know what the shooter is shooting at, and we can give him a score accordingly. I must not understand your objection...
Edited by Loss Leader:  Edited for Rule 11, Moderated thread.
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
No, it doesn't.
The crux of the fallacy is when the significance of the data is determined, not whether that significance is communicated to someone else. You would do better to stop torturing analogies and look at your argument instead. You're conflating problems that arise only in your analogies, not in your argument.
Which is why I've asked you several times to attempt to explain what you think the Texas sharpshooter fallacy is and why it's a fallacy.
Jay,
- Note above that I included when the significance of the data was included -- "prior to shooting." That's typically how we know what the target was. I'm claiming, however, that there are other ways of being "pretty sure" what the target was. A farmer shoots a deer -- we can be pretty sure he was shooting at the deer.
__________________
"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 July 2017, 02:39 PM   #212
jt512
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,639
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
When Einstein developed relativity theory, its prediction of Mercury's orbit was hugely significant, but Mercury's orbit was already known at the time, so why should a theory get any credit for predicting something that was already known? The trick is to pretend the evidence wasn't already known. If Mercury's orbit hadn't already been known, would relativity's prediction of it be very confirming? Yes, because the theory wasn't ad hoc in anyway.
And that's where Jabba goes wong. His hypotheses are ad hoc. Neither of his hypotheses predicted Jabba, specifically, would exist. In fact, there was no hypothesis that Jabba, specifically, would exist until Jabba noticed his existence and then tailored hypotheses to fit that evidence. I contrast, what would have be impressive is if there had been a pre-existing hypothesis that predicted that Jabba, specifically, would exist.

Again, the card analogy. Jabba finds a deck of cards laying on the table and observes they are in the following sequence: JC, QS, 9H, 3H, JS, KH, 5D, 10H, JD, 6S, 5S, 8S, 5H, 7H, 6H, QC, JH, 4C, KS, QH, 3D, 7D, 3C, 9C, 10S, 5C, KC, 3S, 10D, 7S, 7C, 8D, 2S, 6D, AD, QD, 9D, AC, 9S, 2H, 2D, AS, 6C, 8H, 8C, 4H, 2C, 4D, AH, KD, 10C, 4S. He reasons that the probability that a random shuffle would have produced that sequence is 1 in 1068, but if they were intentionally set in that sequence, then the probability of the sequence would be 1. Therefore, they almost certainly were intentionally set in that sequence. The problem is that there was no hypothesis before the sequence was observed that predicted that that specific sequence would be the set sequence. That was hypothesis was tailor-made after observing the sequence. The hypothesis itself was conditioned on the observed data.

Jabba is committing the same fallacy.


Jabba finds his existence surprising, for the obvious reasons (ancestor X has to be in right place and right time, etc.). Anyone's existence is like winning a fantastic lottery. The reason our existence isn't really surprising is there are a lot of lottery winners (and counterfactually, potential lottery winners). If I wasn't here, there a lot of potential someone elses like me who would be here and be wondering about their existence. Unlike the sharpshooter case, coincidence is an acceptable explanation for existence.

This is where I think Jabba gets it wrong. He thinks his existence is like winning a lottery, where the odds of winning are fantastically remote. OK, fair enough. But, where he goes wrong, is he thinks his winning ticket was the only ticket sold. If that were the case, he would be right to be surprised. If there was a lottery just for you, and the odds were fantastic, and you won, you'd be suspicious. But his ticket wasn't the only winning ticket. There is Jabba(a) who would have won, if the numbers were a little different (if sperm X had made it instead of sperm Y), and Jabba(b), and Jabba(c)...If enough tickets are sold, someone's going to win, no matter what the odds are.

So our existence is surprising, but not in any way that requires an explanation beyond coincidence or luck.[/quote]
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 July 2017, 03:36 PM   #213
Toontown
Philosopher
 
Toontown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,960
Originally Posted by JimOfAllTrades View Post
I guess that would be surprising, but I don't see where it's analogous to Jabba's scenario.
It's more analogous than you think. That sequence was jt512's lucky sequence before he dealt it. He just didn't know it was his lucky sequence until after he dealt it and the Genie popped in. If he had dealt any other sequence, the Genie would have remained in his bottle.

Likewise Jabba's specific brain. From the moment of the big bang, assuming H (always assuming H), there was (presumably) one possible brain, and only one possible brain, that would be none other than Jabba, if said brain were to come into existence. A reasonably acceptable fact which, when viewed subjectively, quite reasonably brings Jabba's interpretation of H into question.

Originally Posted by JimOfAllTrades View Post
Everyone else seems to be saying that there is no stacking required, because once you have a functioning human brain consciousness and a sense of self will appear as a an emergent property of that brain. It won't be any specific consciousness, but whatever one it is will then be alive and aware and able to marvel at their "luck".
Well, if they're saying that, then I don't know what the hell they're talking about. No "stacking" is required, but the subjective perspective very strongly implies that a different interpretation of H damn well might be required.

The problem with "everyone else"'s reasoning is the obvious fact that all those other "unlikely" events are not really unlikely at all. Spacetime kicked in. Things had to happen. Only specified events can be unlikely. Like, for example, one specific brain which is (specified by H) to be the only brain that could ever be you.

Originally Posted by JimOfAllTrades View Post
Looking at the equation that quantifies the variables from an objective point of view may be able to tell us how likely it is for us to exist as a group, but looking at that same equation from the subjective point of view does us no good if the results are the same for everyone, namely that they exist.
"That they exist" is not the "result" of the equation. "That (I) exist" is a prerequisite given - an observation.

Nor does the equation "tell us how likely it is for us to exist". That would have to be estimated using available information. The estimate may not need to be very precise, depending on the other variables.

The equation is tailored to attempt to choose between discrete hypotheses purporting to account for one's (observed) existence.

The "marveling" at the unlikelihood of one's existence (under H, always under H) is more properly viewed as the degree of skepticism toward the interpretation of H that purports to account for said (observed) existence.
__________________
"I did not say that!" - Donald Trump
Toontown is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2017, 04:23 PM   #214
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 23,541
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
A farmer shoots a deer -- we can be pretty sure he was shooting at the deer.

But Jabba -

You're not talking about a farmer shooting A deer. You're talking about a farmer shooting one specific deer out of all the deer in the entire world. You're talking about running DNA tests and saying, "Yes, this was exactly the deer the farmer intended to shoot." If the farmer let that be known beforehand, we might be impressed that he was able to hunt and kill one specific deer. Otherwise, it doesn't matter.

You keep talking about the very small chance that you would be born and raised exactly as you were. If you were talking about the chance that anyone anywhere ever in the entire universe were to start a thread like this, it would be the same as a farmer shooting any old deer.

As it stands, your analogy actually hurts your argument. It certainly doesn't help it.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2017, 04:32 PM   #215
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,916
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Note above that I included when the significance of the data was included...
But then you went on to obfuscate that most important part with all sorts of irrelevant quibbling over the mechanics of selection. You're trying to draw attention away from the broken chronology in your argument.

Rather than quoting walls of posts from our previous discussion, which I can read just fine by myself, why don't you try to tell us in your own words what the Texas sharpshooter fallacy is, and why it's a fallacy? Maybe it will help you understand why your argument is wrong.

Quote:
I'm claiming, however, that there are other ways of being "pretty sure" what the target was.
Your way begs the question.

Quote:
A farmer shoots a deer -- we can be pretty sure he was shooting at the deer.
No, we can't without asking the farmer. Why would you think otherwise? You really don't seem to grasp the notion that you can't define a target simply as whatever was hit. This is why you need to buckle down and explain to your audience what you think the Texas sharpshooter fallacy is and why it's a fallacy.
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 July 2017, 05:44 PM   #216
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,356
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
And that's where Jabba goes wong. His hypotheses are ad hoc. Neither of his hypotheses predicted Jabba, specifically, would exist. In fact, there was no hypothesis that Jabba, specifically, would exist until Jabba noticed his existence and then tailored hypotheses to fit that evidence. I contrast, what would have be impressive is if there had been a pre-existing hypothesis that predicted that Jabba, specifically, would exist.

Again, the card analogy. Jabba finds a deck of cards laying on the table and observes they are in the following sequence: JC, QS, 9H, 3H, JS, KH, 5D, 10H, JD, 6S, 5S, 8S, 5H, 7H, 6H, QC, JH, 4C, KS, QH, 3D, 7D, 3C, 9C, 10S, 5C, KC, 3S, 10D, 7S, 7C, 8D, 2S, 6D, AD, QD, 9D, AC, 9S, 2H, 2D, AS, 6C, 8H, 8C, 4H, 2C, 4D, AH, KD, 10C, 4S. He reasons that the probability that a random shuffle would have produced that sequence is 1 in 1068, but if they were intentionally set in that sequence, then the probability of the sequence would be 1. Therefore, they almost certainly were intentionally set in that sequence. The problem is that there was no hypothesis before the sequence was observed that predicted that that specific sequence would be the set sequence. That was hypothesis was tailor-made after observing the sequence. The hypothesis itself was conditioned on the observed data.

Jabba is committing the same fallacy.


Jabba finds his existence surprising, for the obvious reasons (ancestor X has to be in right place and right time, etc.). Anyone's existence is like winning a fantastic lottery. The reason our existence isn't really surprising is there are a lot of lottery winners (and counterfactually, potential lottery winners). If I wasn't here, there a lot of potential someone elses like me who would be here and be wondering about their existence. Unlike the sharpshooter case, coincidence is an acceptable explanation for existence.

This is where I think Jabba gets it wrong. He thinks his existence is like winning a lottery, where the odds of winning are fantastically remote. OK, fair enough. But, where he goes wrong, is he thinks his winning ticket was the only ticket sold. If that were the case, he would be right to be surprised. If there was a lottery just for you, and the odds were fantastic, and you won, you'd be suspicious. But his ticket wasn't the only winning ticket. There is Jabba(a) who would have won, if the numbers were a little different (if sperm X had made it instead of sperm Y), and Jabba(b), and Jabba(c)...If enough tickets are sold, someone's going to win, no matter what the odds are.

So our existence is surprising, but not in any way that requires an explanation beyond coincidence or luck.
[/quote]

I don't exactly follow the card analogy, but I get the gist. I think we are both saying the same thing: our existence, improbable as it may be, is not surprising (i.e., does not require us to look beyond coincidence).
Fudbucker 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 July 2017, 06:49 PM   #217
jt512
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,639
In my previous response, I failed to delete some of the post I was responding to. The post should have looked like this. If a moderator reads this and is willing to fix my post, that would be great. Otherwise, here is what I meant to post:

Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
When Einstein developed relativity theory, its prediction of Mercury's orbit was hugely significant, but Mercury's orbit was already known at the time, so why should a theory get any credit for predicting something that was already known? The trick is to pretend the evidence wasn't already known. If Mercury's orbit hadn't already been known, would relativity's prediction of it be very confirming? Yes, because the theory wasn't ad hoc in anyway.
And that's where Jabba goes wong. His hypotheses are ad hoc. Neither of his hypotheses predicted Jabba, specifically, would exist. In fact, there was no hypothesis that Jabba, specifically, would exist until Jabba noticed his existence and then tailored hypotheses to fit that evidence. I contrast, what would have be impressive is if there had been a pre-existing hypothesis that predicted that Jabba, specifically, would exist.

Again, the card analogy. Jabba finds a deck of cards laying on the table and observes they are in the following sequence: JC, QS, 9H, 3H, JS, KH, 5D, 10H, JD, 6S, 5S, 8S, 5H, 7H, 6H, QC, JH, 4C, KS, QH, 3D, 7D, 3C, 9C, 10S, 5C, KC, 3S, 10D, 7S, 7C, 8D, 2S, 6D, AD, QD, 9D, AC, 9S, 2H, 2D, AS, 6C, 8H, 8C, 4H, 2C, 4D, AH, KD, 10C, 4S. He reasons that the probability that a random shuffle would have produced that sequence is 1 in 1068, but if they were intentionally set in that sequence, then the probability of the sequence would be 1. Therefore, they almost certainly were intentionally set in that sequence. The problem is that there was no hypothesis before the sequence was observed that predicted that that specific sequence would be the set sequence. That was hypothesis was tailor-made after observing the sequence. The hypothesis itself was conditioned on the observed data.

Jabba is committing the same fallacy.
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 July 2017, 10:35 PM   #218
JimOfAllTrades
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 365
Originally Posted by Toontown View Post
Likewise Jabba's specific brain. From the moment of the big bang, assuming H (always assuming H), there was (presumably) one possible brain, and only one possible brain, that would be none other than Jabba, if said brain were to come into existence. A reasonably acceptable fact which, when viewed subjectively, quite reasonably brings Jabba's interpretation of H into question.

(small snip)

No "stacking" is required, but the subjective perspective very strongly implies that a different interpretation of H damn well might be required.
But if the subjective view tells everybody the same thing (Hmmm, funny I should exist now given my idea of what H is) then we learn nothing new from it. If my subjective view gave me different information than your subjective view gives you, then there might be something to be gained by "compare and contrast".

That leaves the objective view: given that there could have been almost an infinite number of brains, any of which would have caused a "self" to emerge, why we should we be surprised that one of the possible combinations occurred?

Why should we give more credence (or any credence) to the subjective view?
JimOfAllTrades 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 July 2017, 11:28 PM   #219
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,299
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Jay,
- Note above that I included when the significance of the data was included -- "prior to shooting." That's typically how we know what the target was. I'm claiming, however, that there are other ways of being "pretty sure" what the target was. A farmer shoots a deer -- we can be pretty sure he was shooting at the deer.

If there's only one deer, or a sufficiently small number of deer that it would be unlikely that a shot fired at random would hit one, then there is something special about hitting a deer. That is not analogous to your "particular self" rather than one of your "potential selves" getting to inhabit your body. You have not established that there is anything special about your "particular self".

If the farmer was completely surrounded by deer, so that wherever he fired the shot it would hit one, how would you know that he was aiming for the particular deer that he hit?
__________________
"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 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 8th July 2017, 11:05 AM   #220
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,848
Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
Jabba, please consider this:
Let's say you selected a person, and you wanted to estimate the likelihood that person is Swedish. "The person is Swedish" is your hypothesis S; you can estimate P(S) as the simple ratio of the population of Swedes to the world's total population.
Oh, enter new information B: The person has blue eyes. If we know the likelihood a person would have blue eyes, P(B), and the likelihood a Swede would have blue eyes, P(B|S), we can use Bayes Theorem and this new information to improve our estimated likelihood the person is Swedish, P(S|B).
That would be P(S|B) = P(S) x P(B|S) / P(B).
That all works, but let's now switch to your immortality thing. (1) You've selected a person (it happens to be you), and you are considering the hypothesis H the person exists in a materialistic reality. (2) You make up a number for P(H); it is a wild-ass guess, actually. Now you want to apply new information to improve the estimate.
3)The new information -- the the person has a sense of existence, E -- isn't new information. 4) The parallel to the Swede analogy stops here because the sense of existence is part of being a sentient human in a materialistic reality. The sense of existence "target" was already hit under H, so you cannot be surprised about it now. P(E|H) = 1.
If you work through all the constraints, you should conclude that P(E) >= P(H) and, from that, that P(H|E) >= P(H).
`This is opposite the conclusion you desire.
Jabba, please consider this:
Let's say you selected a person, and you wanted to estimate the likelihood that person is Swedish. "The person is Swedish" is your hypothesis S; you can estimate P(S) as the simple ratio of the population of Swedes to the world's total population.
Oh, enter new information B: The person has blue eyes. If we know the likelihood a person would have blue eyes, P(B), and the likelihood a Swede would have blue eyes, P(B|S), we can use Bayes Theorem and this new information to improve our estimated likelihood the person is Swedish, P(S|B).
That would be P(S|B) = P(S) x P(B|S) / P(B).
That all works, but let's now switch to your immortality thing.
(1) You've selected a person (it happens to be you), and you are considering the hypothesis H the person exists in a materialistic reality.

- I'd like to re-word that in order to make sure that we are really talking about the same thing. I would say that H (OOFLam) implies that reality includes only what we currently consider to be physical.

(2) You make up a number for P(H); it is a wild-ass guess, actually. Now you want to apply new information to improve the estimate.
[- What percentage of credible scientists would you think suspect that there is probably more than what we now consider to be physical? Is 10% too much?

3) The new information -- the the person has a sense of existence, E -- isn't new information.
- It is new info if it wasn't considered in the prior probability of H.

4) The parallel to the Swede analogy stops here because the sense of existence is part of being a sentient human in a materialistic reality. The sense of existence "target" was already hit under H, so you cannot be surprised about it now. P(E|H) = 1...
- I think that the answer is that I/we should be surprised -- we just take our existence for granted, when it's the very last thing we should take for granted.
__________________
"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 9th July 2017, 04:44 AM   #221
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,848
TreeBranch2-TexasSharpshooter

Continued from #137 ([quote=Jabba;11902181])
20. If you really think that, then I don't think you know what the word target actually means.
Target:
A person, object, or place selected as the aim of an attack.
Select as an object of attention or attack.
An objective or result towards which efforts are directed.
Etc.
The word target loses any meaning if you don't need to declare what you intend to hit or achieve before you try and achieve your objective.
You're doing your utmost best to try and try and make everyone else think you're not guilty of the sharpshooter fallacy, but you're truly doing a lousy job of it. Either you don't actually understand what the sharpshooter fallacy is or you're being disingenuous in trying to sweep it under the carpet.

21. You're right. I used the wrong word. I should have said "pre-specified."
22. Try this.
- You and I move about 200 yards from a barn in Texas. I take my old M-14 with me, tell you that I'm a sharpshooter, and start firing away at the barn. We walk back to the barn and find a tiny shot group centered around a small hole in the barn wall.
- I didn't need to pre-specify my target...
- And, in this case, we'd have a high degree of targetness.
- If my shot group wasn't all that small, we'd have a lower degree of targetness.
23. Changing the phrase from "pre-selected" to "pre-specified" in no way addresses my point.*
What's the difference between a pre-selected target and a pre-specified target?
24. Pre-specified means that you have told someone, or have otherwise indicated your selection,*prior to shooting.*I'm saying that there are ways for others to know what your target was, without being told.
25. No. For the purposes of determining how to evaluate the significance of the data in your model, "telling someone else" or "others knowing about it" has nothing to do with it. Please stop just making stuff up.
26. Sure it does. That way we know what the shooter is shooting at, and we can give him a score accordingly. I must not understand your objection...
27. No, it doesn't. The crux of the fallacy is when the significance of the data is determined, not whether that significance is communicated to someone else. You would do better to stop torturing analogies and look at your argument instead. You're conflating problems that arise only in your analogies, not in your argument.
28. Note above that I included when the significance of the data was included -- "prior to shooting." That's typically how we know what the target was. I'm claiming, however, that there are other ways of being "pretty sure" what the target was. A farmer shoots a deer -- we can be pretty sure he was shooting at the deer.
__________________
"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 9th July 2017, 09:52 AM   #222
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,916
Jabba, please just use the normal quotation convention of the forum. You're obfuscating the argument by making people read your ever-growing summary of prior posts in order to find what, if anything, you've added new. We can read the prior posts ourselves and follow the argument without your help.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I'd like to re-word that in order to make sure that we are really talking about the same thing. I would say that H (OOFLam) implies that reality includes only what we currently consider to be physical.
First, no you don't get to reword your opponents' arguments. If you're not "talking about the same thing" when you summarize another's argument, then you're the one who's wrong. Much of your argument is based on putting words in your opponents' mouths.

Second, there is no such thing as "OOFLAM" in your critics' claim. That's your straw man, and your point of equivocation for deciding whether H or ~H is the singular argument. Please use the words your critics use when they state their arguments. H is materialism. Materialism is the theory that reality is composed only of the physical. You don't get to imply that there must be something beyond that and try to say it's still materialism. You must evaluate P(E|H) as if materialism were true -- your critics' version, not yours.

Quote:
What percentage of credible scientists would you think suspect that there is probably more than what we now consider to be physical? Is 10% too much?
Your begging of the question is not cured by inviting others to beg the question, nor to invite speculation about how others would beg the same question. The degrees-of-freedom problem with your argument is that it makes up everything. It doesn't largely matter what the actual numbers are if they all simply spring from your imagination. That process leaves too many degrees of freedom in your model for it to predict anything.

Quote:
I think that the answer is that I/we should be surprised -- we just take our existence for granted, when it's the very last thing we should take for granted.
You equivocate "suprise." That you ascribe great profound significance to your self-awareness is not data. That's just hype.
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 9th July 2017, 09:59 AM   #223
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,916
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
If the farmer was completely surrounded by deer...
Or the farmer may simply be a lousy shot and was instead aiming at a coyote, or the gun accidentally discharged coincidentally in the direction of a deer.

You can't infer intent from outcome reliably. But this is precisely what Jabba's argument is based on. The only significance in the seven billion "targets" that were "hit" is that they were hit. He can establish no prior significance, so he has to beg that question. The farmer analogy is a red herring because it introduces the alien notion of a deliberated intent. This is what he hopes he can back-door into the argument -- that the universe somehow "intended" to choose these seven billion lucky incarnates, and that's what makes them special. He even has a word "targetness" to express this tacked-on notion.
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 10th July 2017, 04:55 AM   #224
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: 24,724
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Try this.
- You and I move about 200 yards from a barn in Texas. I take my old M-14 with me, tell you that I'm a sharpshooter, and start firing away at the barn. We walk back to the barn and find a tiny shot group centered around a small hole in the barn wall.
- I didn't need to pre-specify my target...
- And, in this case, we'd have a high degree of targetness.
- If my shot group wasn't all that small, we'd have a lower degree of targetness.
What you're actually doing in this series of threads, though, is only firing one shot at the barn, then expressing amazement at how tightly grouped the bullet hole is.

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 10th July 2017, 12:51 PM   #225
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,848
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Or the farmer may simply be a lousy shot and was instead aiming at a coyote, or the gun accidentally discharged coincidentally in the direction of a deer.

You can't infer intent from outcome reliably. But this is precisely what Jabba's argument is based on. The only significance in the seven billion "targets" that were "hit" is that they were hit. He can establish no prior significance, so he has to beg that question. The farmer analogy is a red herring because it introduces the alien notion of a deliberated intent. This is what he hopes he can back-door into the argument -- that the universe somehow "intended" to choose these seven billion lucky incarnates, and that's what makes them special. He even has a word "targetness" to express this tacked-on notion.
Jay,
- In this case, "Targetness" essentially means "degree of reliability."
- If we found out that a particular farmer shot a deer, and that's all we knew, my estimate for the likelihood that he was shooting at that deer would be at least 90% -- there would be some chance that he hit the wrong deer. But then, I'd say that the likelihood that he was shooting at A deer was at least 99%.
__________________
"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 10th July 2017, 01:14 PM   #226
Toontown
Philosopher
 
Toontown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,960
Originally Posted by JimOfAllTrades View Post
But if the subjective view tells everybody the same thing (Hmmm, funny I should exist now given my idea of what H is) then we learn nothing new from it.
Speak for yourself.

You have learned nothing new from it. But your reasoning as to why you've learned nothing new from the subjective perspective is a non-sequitur. It does not follow that you can learn nothing from a perspective simply because others could choose the same perspective.

I have learned that, given Jabba's interpretation of H, I simply would not exist. Note that I did not say "could not". I said "would not" There is a difference, but that difference is negligible.

Don't believe me? Try to beat some truly daunting odds. Then, when you repeatedly fail miserably, realize that the odds against whatever dauntingly unlikely thing you tried to do pales to insignificance compared to the giganogargantuan prior odds against your specific brain, given Jabba's H.

The endeavor will be fruitless, if the odds are truly daunting, but you might learn some respect for truly daunting odds, and what they mean in a personal and practical sense. And from that respect might come the realization that it really doesn't make any sense to believe you've already beaten such odds. And from that the further realization that the interpretation of reality that stacked such prior odds against you is very unlikely to be correct.

Originally Posted by JimOfAllTrades View Post
If my subjective view gave me different information than your subjective view gives you, then there might be something to be gained by "compare and contrast".
The difference is not between two subjective perspectives. The difference is between the subjective and the objective perspectives.

But in your specific case, as your next statement and my response to it demonstrate, the greater difference is your "switcheroo" interpretation of the objective view.

Originally Posted by JimOfAllTrades View Post
That leaves the objective view:
Thereby losing information, in the form of a very heavy implication that you would not exist if Jabba's interpretation of H is correct.

You are not "left" with the objective view. You have simply defaulted to it, after some flawed reasoning.

Originally Posted by JimOfAllTrades View Post
given that there could have been almost an infinite number of brains, any of which would have caused a "self" to emerge, why we should we be surprised that one of the possible combinations occurred?
I can't speak for anyone else, but I am not taken in by your "switcheroo". You have quite obviously swapped out the prior probability of a specific event happening with the prior probability that "something" would happen.

Surprise can indeed be supressed by wrongfully equating the sum of the prior probabilities of everything that could possibly happen with the prior probability of a specific event. Apparently, this surprise-suppression tactic works for some people even if the specific event was both ridiculously unlikely and also specifically required in order for the observer to ever observe anything at all (given Jabba's H).

Originally Posted by JimOfAllTrades View Post
Why should we give more credence (or any credence) to the subjective view?
That, apparently, is the question that tries hard core deterministic materialists' emergent thought processes arising from functioning brains.

Short answer: All perspective-derived information is equally valid. But not necessarily equally informative. This includes both the objective and subjective perspectives we are discussing.

For example, a "front loading" blackjack dealer often unconsciously flashes his hole card when he slides it under his up card. But you'll only see the hole card if you're sitting in seat 7. That doesn't mean the other players information is less valid than the seat 7 information. Only less useful for a specific purpose. They can still see their cards and the dealer's up card. They can still see the hot hostess, and they can make fully valid use of the information they're getting. The view from seat 7 is no more valid, but does provide information which is more useful for the specific purpose of beating the dealer.

But maybe you can't see one of player 1's cards from seat 7, but all the other players can see it. So everyone is seeing exactly the same number of cards, just not exactly the same cards.

You'd rather be sitting in seat 7 for the purpose of beating he dealer. But maybe that's not the best position for scoping out the hot hostess.

BTW, don't bother heading off to Vegas in search of front-loading dealers. They've changed their technique so that hole card flashing no longer happens.
__________________
"I did not say that!" - Donald Trump
Toontown is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2017, 02:13 PM   #227
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,848
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
But Jabba -

You're not talking about a farmer shooting A deer. You're talking about a farmer shooting one specific deer out of all the deer in the entire world. You're talking about running DNA tests and saying, "Yes, this was exactly the deer the farmer intended to shoot." If the farmer let that be known beforehand, we might be impressed that he was able to hunt and kill one specific deer. Otherwise, it doesn't matter.

You keep talking about the very small chance that you would be born and raised exactly as you were. If you were talking about the chance that anyone anywhere ever in the entire universe were to start a thread like this, it would be the same as a farmer shooting any old deer.

As it stands, your analogy actually hurts your argument. It certainly doesn't help it.
LL,
- I do currently accept that in order for my current existence to be a legitimate target -- and the likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam, properly fill the role of P(E|H) in the Bayesian formula -- I need to be somehow "set apart from the crowd" (or something similar). I have offered my argument for that case previously, but can't seem to find it now...
- Anyway, here's my rough explanation.
- Just to sort of "set the stage," we all take our current existence totally for granted, when it really should be the very last thing we take for granted...
- Even if I am just a process, and not a "thing1." I am still the only "thing2" that I know exists. Everything else (1&2) could just be my imagination.
- If I didn't currently exist, there might as well be nothing -- and, if I never existed, there might as well never be anything.
- That makes me special!
- I assume that you have the same credentials, and are special also.
- That ought to get us started...
__________________
"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 11th July 2017, 01:00 AM   #228
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,299
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Or the farmer may simply be a lousy shot and was instead aiming at a coyote, or the gun accidentally discharged coincidentally in the direction of a deer.

I introduced the idea of a farmer completely surrounded by deer, so that he is bound to hit one of them, because it is precisely analogous to Jabba's argument on this point. Jabba's argument relies on the existence of an infinite number of "potential selves", one of which must inhabit his body. According to Jabba these "potential selves" are identical. There is no sign of a "small hole", or whatever, that sets the lucky "self" apart from the others.

Quote:
You can't infer intent from outcome reliably. But this is precisely what Jabba's argument is based on. The only significance in the seven billion "targets" that were "hit" is that they were hit. He can establish no prior significance, so he has to beg that question. The farmer analogy is a red herring because it introduces the alien notion of a deliberated intent. This is what he hopes he can back-door into the argument -- that the universe somehow "intended" to choose these seven billion lucky incarnates, and that's what makes them special. He even has a word "targetness" to express this tacked-on notion.

"A farmer shoots a deer -- we can be pretty sure he was shooting at the deer" is pretty much the epitome of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.
__________________
"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 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 12th July 2017, 07:43 AM   #229
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,011
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
LL,
- I do currently accept that in order for my current existence to be a legitimate target -- and the likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam, properly fill the role of P(E|H) in the Bayesian formula -- I need to be somehow "set apart from the crowd" (or something similar). I have offered my argument for that case previously, but can't seem to find it now...
- Anyway, here's my rough explanation.
- Just to sort of "set the stage," we all take our current existence totally for granted, when it really should be the very last thing we take for granted...
- Even if I am just a process, and not a "thing1." I am still the only "thing2" that I know exists. Everything else (1&2) could just be my imagination.
- If I didn't currently exist, there might as well be nothing -- and, if I never existed, there might as well never be anything.
- That makes me special!
In what way does that make you special?
__________________
"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 12th July 2017, 08:43 AM   #230
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,848
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
1) I introduced the idea of a farmer completely surrounded by deer, so that he is bound to hit one of them, because it is precisely analogous to Jabba's argument on this point. Jabba's argument relies on the existence of an infinite number of "potential selves", one of which must inhabit his body. According to Jabba these "potential selves" are identical. There is no sign of a "small hole", or whatever, that sets the lucky "self" apart from the others...
2) "A farmer shoots a deer -- we can be pretty sure he was shooting at the deer" is pretty much the epitome of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.
Mojo,
-Re:
1) I am currently accepting that something does have to set the particular deer apart from the infinity surrounding the farmer.
2)- All you know is that a farmer shot a deer. How likely is it that he was surrounded by deer? I'd say much closer to zero than to one.
- How likely is it that he was shooting at a group of deer, and he happened to hit one that he wasn't shooting at? I was generous, and allowed that 10%.
- For me, 90% is pretty sure.
__________________
"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 12th July 2017, 08:49 AM   #231
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,916
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
In this case, "Targetness" essentially means "degree of reliability."
No, "targetness" doesn't mean anything. It's a word you made up to embody your desire to post-select data with impunity.

Quote:
If we found out that a particular farmer shot a deer, and that's all we knew, my estimate for the likelihood that he was shooting at that deer would be at least 90%
Begging the question. Making up numbers here doesn't justify your making up numbers for the real problem. You're trying very hard to find some analogy or construct that lets you designate whatever was hit as the intended target. You need to understand first that this is a fallacy and second that your critics are going to call you on it every time, in every form.

Now would be a good time for you to explain, in your own words, what the Texas sharpshooter fallacy is and why it's a fallacy. When you can explain it to someone else, them maybe you'll understand why your argument is wrong.
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 12th July 2017, 08:54 AM   #232
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,916
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
That makes me special!
No, under H you are not special. Having a profound emotional reaction to your self-awareness has absolutely nothing to do with the statistical significance of that data arising. The "special snowflake" argument has been refuted several times. Your subjective predilection for your favorite lottery numbers has jack-squat to do with the statistics of whether they get chosen. Superstition is not mathematics.
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 12th July 2017, 09:15 AM   #233
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,517
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Jay,
- In this case, "Targetness" essentially means "degree of reliability."
- If we found out that a particular farmer shot a deer, and that's all we knew, my estimate for the likelihood that he was shooting at that deer would be at least 90% -- there would be some chance that he hit the wrong deer. But then, I'd say that the likelihood that he was shooting at A deer was at least 99%.

That is exactly the definition of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. You could just as easily say "if we found out that a particular farmer shot a rock, and that's all we knew, my estimate for the likelihood that he was shooting at that rock would be at least 90%". We could also just as easily say, "if we found out that a particular farmer shot into the sky and hit nothing at all, and that's all we knew, my estimate for the likelihood that was was trying to not hit anything would be at least 90%."

Defining whatever he hit to be the target after he hit it is a failure in logic. It doesn't matter how significant that thing might be after the fact.
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 10:10 AM   #234
carlitos
"ms divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 17,633
Hi Jabba! Remember this:

Quote:
- I think that I can essentially prove immortality using Bayesian statistics.
You are pulling numbers out of thin air.


Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Jay,
- In this case, "Targetness" essentially means "degree of reliability."
- If we found out that a particular farmer shot a deer, and that's all we knew, my estimate for the likelihood that he was shooting at that deer would be at least 90% -- there would be some chance that he hit the wrong deer. But then, I'd say that the likelihood that he was shooting at A deer was at least 99%.
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 12th July 2017, 11:11 AM   #235
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,299
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- In this case, "Targetness" essentially means "degree of reliability."
- If we found out that a particular farmer shot a deer, and that's all we knew, my estimate for the likelihood that he was shooting at that deer would be at least 90% -- there would be some chance that he hit the wrong deer. But then, I'd say that the likelihood that he was shooting at A deer was at least 99%.

You have still not established how this is relevant to your argument. You claim that you can disprove "OOFLam" because, once your body exists, the likelihood of your particular "self", rather than another of an infinite number of "potential selves", will occupy it is infinitely small. But, under "OOFLam", one of them would have to, wouldn't it? You aren't talking about a particular type of object, such as a deer, being hit rather than just part of the landscape; you are talking about one possible outcome out of the set of outcomes, without establishing that there is anything special about that particular outcome. Saying that it is special because it is the one that happens to have occurred is the epitome of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

What, other than the fact that you exist, distinguishes you from all the other "potential" Jabbas?

And, if one of the infinite number of other Jabbas existed in your place, would your argument be valid if they advanced 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 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 13th July 2017, 01:00 AM   #236
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,299
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Mojo,
-Re:
1) I am currently accepting that something does have to set the particular deer apart from the infinity surrounding the farmer.

What sets your particular "self" apart from all the "potential selves"? If one of them existed in your place, and presented the same argument for immortality that you are presenting, would the argument be valid?

Quote:
2)- All you know is that a farmer shot a deer. How likely is it that he was surrounded by deer? I'd say much closer to zero than to one.

Your argument involves an infinite number of "potential selves", one of which must, surely, inhabit your body. Are you withdrawing the infinite number of "potential selves" from your argument? Are you claiming that, once your body exists, it is unlikely to have a "self"?

Quote:
- How likely is it that he was shooting at a group of deer, and he happened to hit one that he wasn't shooting at? I was generous, and allowed that 10%.
- For me, 90% is pretty sure.

Making up numbers won't make your analogy relevant.
__________________
"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 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 13th July 2017, 05:24 AM   #237
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,848
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
No, "targetness" doesn't mean anything. It's a word you made up to embody your desire to post-select data with impunity...
- It is a word I made up, but it does basically means "degree of reliability." A claimed target doesn't need to be pre-specified in order for us to estimate its probability of actually being the target. There are different aspects of the post-specified target that relate to the likelihood of it being the real target. These determine the reliability of the professed target being the real target.
__________________
"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 13th July 2017, 07:45 AM   #238
CriticalThanking
Designated Hitter
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: On in memory
Posts: 3,003
"With my next shot, I'm going to miss your ear by 3 inches." Should you be afraid or not?

If you end up with one between the eyes, can you be sure I was intending to shoot you? What was your degree of targetness?
CriticalThanking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2017, 09:04 AM   #239
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,916
I wrote that one cannot reliably infer the intent from the outcome alone. Jabba wants to parlay that into justification for his (wrong) argument that there would exist a spectrum of reliability for such an inference. He's invented a new word to hide that equivocation -- "targetness." Of course reliability exists on a spectrum. However, inference from outcome alone lies at the "unreliable" end of that spectrum. That's why I wrote what I wrote.

Not all inference is unreliable. For example, logic formulated to be deductively strong still requires an inference, but in a deduction-strength argument that inference can have the effect of fact. But Jabba's argument is a begged question, not a logicaly deductive syllogism. Inferring from a begged question has no strength at all.

Jabba tends to argue from analogies that have little to do with his actual argument. For the past few weeks he's been stuck on the story that illustrates the Texas sharpshooter fallacy without really attempting to understand what the fallacy actually is and how it actually works. A number of posters have identified the problem with that.

Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
You could just as easily say "if we found out that a particular farmer shot a rock, and that's all we knew, my estimate for the likelihood that he was shooting at that rock would be at least 90%". We could also just as easily say, "if we found out that a particular farmer shot into the sky and hit nothing at all, and that's all we knew, my estimate for the likelihood that was was trying to not hit anything would be at least 90%."
Jabba isn't inferring from outcome alone. His analogies imply additional information in the form of the characterizations. The target is a game animal. This is additional information. The actor is a conscious being that can have an intent, not some random occurrence. That too is additional information. He is further a rural resident, from which we can glean additional information if we choose. The contemplated action is shooting a firearm -- not out of keeping with the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, but still something that conveys information that isn't merely the outcome.

Shooting is the verb that is the analogue to selecting the data in the illustration. Change "shoot" to "rape" and see how that alters the inference. Change it to "marry" and see how it alters the inference. We can look at a number of verbs that all convey some manner of selection -- and thus properly analogize that element of Jabba's argument. And we see that the "proper" inference varies widely with the connotations the verb brings with it, not with the fact that the action succeeded (i.e., that the selection was made). That's the additional information that drives the inference one way or another. Change "farmer" to "stock analyst." How does that affect the inference? Change "deer" to (as some mentioned) "rock" or "sky." Or "wife." How does that change the inference?

Once again, telling a story in which the implied details -- aside from the mere "success" of the outcome -- all seem to line up doesn't mean that's a proper analogue to Jabba's argument. To wit:

Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
What, other than the fact that you exist, distinguishes you from all the other "potential" Jabbas?
Jabba can provide no additional details for his selection of lucky incarnates that would be analogous to the additional information he sneaks into his deer-hunting story. He wants us to simply agree that they exist in his proof for immortality, and take the form of such fluffy nonsense as "I am a special person and we shouldn't take our special-snowflake status for granted." And thus, that the analogy is somehow relevant to his argument. The analogy provides marginal information that his proof does not. And it is upon that marginal information that the inference turns, not the outcome. "I am special because I was chosen, and I was chosen because I'm special." Stripped of all of its question-begging analogy and pseudo-affirmational puff, the argument remains one of invalid post-selection. Until Jabba is able to conceive of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy in its abstract logical form and not just an amusing story of someone shooting at a barn, it's likely the discussion will remain mired here.

Jabba: You're simply wrong. You can't "get past" the Texas sharpshooter fallacy problem in your argument because you can't demonstrate yet that you understand what that problem is. And if we ever get to the point where you stop trying to hide the begged question in increasingly irrelevant analogies, you still have a dozen or so other fatal flaws to address. You've acknowledged that they exist, because you asked permission to quote them. Yet after that, you said that you only had to "get past" the Texas sharpshooter fallacy and the rest of your argument would fall into place. This suggests that you have answers for all the other fatal flaws, but so far you haven't given any indication what those answers would be. In order to support your confidence in the eventual success of your proof, would you please write a sentence or two for each fatal flaw describing how your answer to it will play out, once we get to them? Thanks.
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 13th July 2017, 11:39 AM   #240
Humots
Critical Thinker
 
Humots's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 336
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
LL,
- I do currently accept that in order for my current existence to be a legitimate target -- and the likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam, properly fill the role of P(E|H) in the Bayesian formula -- I need to be somehow "set apart from the crowd" (or something similar). I have offered my argument for that case previously, but can't seem to find it now...
- Anyway, here's my rough explanation.
- Just to sort of "set the stage," we all take our current existence totally for granted, when it really should be the very last thing we take for granted...
- Even if I am just a process, and not a "thing1." I am still the only "thing2" that I know exists. Everything else (1&2) could just be my imagination.
- If I didn't currently exist, there might as well be nothing -- and, if I never existed, there might as well never be anything.
- That makes me special!
- I assume that you have the same credentials, and are special also.
- That ought to get us started...

You didn't try very hard then.

Right here. Posted 26th September 2014.

And as follows:

Quote:
- in the following attempt at a syllogism, Numbers 1, 2 and 3 are the best I can do at expressing why I think that I am special, or that I should be set apart, and deserve such a small likelihood of existing. For now, that's probably the best that I can do.

1. I, in one form or the other (thing, process or illusion), am the only thing that I know exists.
2. Also, I am the only eyes on the universe that I have.
3. Consequently, if I never existed it would be as if nothing ever existed...

4. Given A, the likelihood of me ever existing is something like 1/1080!.
5. Whereas, the prior probability of A being incorrect is something like 1%, or better.
6. So, in the Bayesian formula, the likelihood of me ever existing, given A, is much smaller than the prior probability of A being incorrect.
7. In other words, I am either unimaginably lucky or A is incorrect.

8. In still other words, given me, it is much more probable that A is incorrect then that A is correct
Humots 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 04:37 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.