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 1st March 2018, 09:58 AM   #81
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by jond View Post
How does adding a soul make your current existence more likely?
- If I'm immortal, I always exist. And if my soul/self is reincarnated over and over, I'm much more likely to currently exist than if I exist for only one finite time, at most, over all of time.
__________________
"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 1st March 2018, 10:06 AM   #82
JesseCuster
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 832
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- If I'm immortal, I always exist. And if my soul/self is reincarnated over and over, I'm much more likely to currently exist than if I exist for only one finite time, at most, over all of time.
If that were true, it would be true for every single thing in existence, ergo, according to your argument, every single thing in existence exists forever...

If bananas were immortal, then they'd always exist. And if bananas were reincarnated over and over, the banana sitting in my fruit bowl, is much more likely to currently exist than if it existed for only one finite time, at most, over all of time.

Therefore the banana in my fruit bowl is immortal.
JesseCuster 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 1st March 2018, 10:08 AM   #83
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 29,366
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- If I'm immortal, I always exist. And if my soul/self is reincarnated over and over, I'm much more likely to currently exist than if I exist for only one finite time, at most, over all of time.
What do you remember about your existence in 1888?
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 1st March 2018, 10:09 AM   #84
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,370
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
If I'm immortal, I always exist.
Equivocation. The "I" that always exists in your claim above is not the same "I" that exists for a finite century, 1942-2042. Your existence cannot be both infinite such as to fudge your probability in one direction, and finite so as to fudge it in the other direction.

Quote:
...I exist for only one finite time, at most, over all of time.
You exist in a finite time right now in both models. That's all the data you have.
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 1st March 2018, 10:09 AM   #85
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,245
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- If I'm immortal, I always exist. And if my soul/self is reincarnated over and over, I'm much more likely to currently exist than if I exist for only one finite time, at most, over all of time.
JayUtah already explained just the other day why that argument doesnt work, and you ignored him. Meanwhile:

1. In the materialist model, your body alone explains your current existence. You claim that the likelihood of your body existing is virtually zero. But adding a soul changes nothing about the circumstances that led to your bodys existence. You therefore must figure out the probability of your souls existence and multiply that by the probability of your bodys existence. Report back with the numbers.

2. How do you know that your soul gets reincarnated over and over? What if it only happens once every 500 years? Or once every 1500 years? Or has a limit on how many incarnations it gets to have? It needs to be in a body to explain your current existence, because bodies do exist and self identify.

3. This soul thing apparently has no characteristics, brings none of your memories, none of your thoughts, none of your emotions, nothing at all that ties it to Jabba. How is it at all meaningful to suggest that some chap in 1888 who self identified as Sam Jones was actually Jabba?
jond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2018, 10:09 AM   #86
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,724
This has already been explained to you a thousand times Jabba even before you mistaking the thread nannies for support caused you think you actually accomplished something.

By your "logic" every thing and process in the universe has to be eternal because what are the odds of it happening at the time in happened or existing at the time it existed.

But whatever you'll just bleat "But that's not the saaaaaame!" again.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2018, 10:18 AM   #87
Monza
Alta Viro
 
Monza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,052
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Monza
- For some reason, you've made contradictory statements above. If immortality is real -- and I think it is -- I did exist in 1888, and will exist in 2119 (if time gets that far).
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
No, those were your contradictory statements.



If you existed in 1888, where are your memories of the events?
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
No. He cited YOU for contradictory statements. Maybe you know the resaon for that.

Hans

Thank you, Belz and MRC_Hans. Yes, the contradiction was from Jabba as he answered the questions one way and then flipped to the other. I quoted his latest response, but he may have changed his mind since then.

Jabba, what is the difference between an immortal person and a mortal one? How can we tell the difference?
Monza 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 1st March 2018, 10:21 AM   #88
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,323
Originally Posted by JesseCuster View Post
If that were true, it would be true for every single thing in existence, ergo, according to your argument, every single thing in existence exists forever...

If bananas were immortal, then they'd always exist. And if bananas were reincarnated over and over, the banana sitting in my fruit bowl, is much more likely to currently exist than if it existed for only one finite time, at most, over all of time.

Therefore the banana in my fruit bowl is immortal.
Bravo, bravissimo!
__________________
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 1st March 2018, 10:26 AM   #89
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 76,363
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I've become more informed over the last few years
Unsupported assertion.

Quote:
after I recognized what seemed to me mathematical support for my "epiphany" of 1956.
SIXTY years ago? No wonder there's been no progress in 5 years.

Quote:
- Given OOFLam, the likelihood of my current existence is virtually zero
Only because you pull numbers out of your ass and refuse to justify them, and because you misrepresent materialism and science, to name only two things.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 1st March 2018, 10:28 AM   #90
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 76,363
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- If I'm immortal, I always exist.
And yet you have no evidence for your existence prior to 1942.

Quote:
And if my soul/self is reincarnated over and over, I'm much more likely to currently exist than if I exist for only one finite time, at most, over all of time.
No, that is nonsensical.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 1st March 2018, 10:29 AM   #91
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,370
Jabba is trying to say P(current existence|reincarnation) must be greater than P(current existence|materialism), but it appears he is equivocating P(current existence). In one instance it's (wrongly) said to be a uniformly distributed random variable. In the other instance it's (wrongly) a tautology. But while reckoning P(current existence|reincarnation) he is allowed to assume reincarnation occurs and involves immortal souls. He can't make immortal souls part of the data, but he can invoke what he hypothesizes about immortal souls to reckon how well reincarnation would explain his current existence. A more pressing problem is that anything that would underly the prior P(reincarnation) is entirely speculative at this point. So while Jabba can finely tailor his hypothesis to invent a rosy likelihood that it so very much better explains his current existence than materialism, every speculative step he takes there is a step backwards when it comes time to talk about the priors. That's how properly-constructed Bayesian inference keeps us from reaching foolish conclusions.

Last edited by JayUtah; 1st March 2018 at 10:39 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 1st March 2018, 10:42 AM   #92
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,724
I think it's simpler than that.

Again Jabba just has a normal everyday belief in a magical soul from God. The only thing that makes Jabba any different is for some reason he has to pretend he's some rational mathematical genius that thinks this because he did the math instead of one of those plebian "believers."

And the rationalization he's decided to land on is the insane "It's more probable to encounter an event if it last forever than if it last for only a set amount of time"

I'm reminded of the line from Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy where the titular guide mathematically proves that nobody exist.

Quote:
Universe

The Universe is a very big thing that contains a great number of planets and a great number of beings. It is Everything. What we live in. All around us. The lot. Not nothing. It is quite difficult to actually define what the Universe means, but fortunately the Guide doesn't worry about that and just gives us some useful information to live in it.

Area

The area of the Universe is infinite. Infinity is a hard concept to grasp; the Guide gives us this definition:

Bigger than the biggest thing ever and then some. Much bigger than that in fact, really amazingly immense, a totally stunning size, real 'wow, that's big', time. Infinity is just so big that by comparison, bigness itself looks really titchy. Gigantic multiplied by colossal multiplied by staggeringly huge is the sort of concept we're trying to get across here.

Imports

None. This is a by-product of infinity; it is impossible to import things into something that has infinite volume because by definition there is no outside to import things from.

Exports

None, for similar reasons as imports.

Population

None. Although you might see people from time to time, they are most likely products of your imagination. Simple mathematics tells us that the population of the Universe must be zero. Why? Well given that the volume of the universe is infinite there must be an infinite number of worlds. But not all of them are populated; therefore only a finite number are. Any finite number divided by infinity is as close to zero as makes no odds, therefore we can round the average population of the Universe to zero, and so the total population must be zero.
The logic is as airtight as Jabba's except for one minor difference... in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy the math is supposed to be the joke, unlike Jabba's math which just is a joke.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2018, 11:07 AM   #93
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,189
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- If I'm immortal, I always exist. And if my soul/self is reincarnated over and over, I'm much more likely to currently exist than if I exist for only one finite time, at most, over all of time.
Not in any sense for which you claim to have evidence. Your whole claim of existence is based on a sense of self, remember? And that sense of self is a collection of memories and physical stimuli. None of that corresponds to the always-existing soul you claim you must be.
__________________
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 1st March 2018, 12:45 PM   #94
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,615
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- If I'm immortal, I always exist. And if my soul/self is reincarnated over and over, I'm much more likely to currently exist than if I exist for only one finite time, at most, over all of time.
Cool. Now all you have to do is prove reincarnation is real and we will be talking!
The Sparrow 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 1st March 2018, 01:35 PM   #95
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,370
Originally Posted by The Sparrow View Post
Cool. Now all you have to do is prove reincarnation is real...
...and works the way he says it does.

That's why this isn't a proof. It's a what-if.
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 1st March 2018, 01:50 PM   #96
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,724
We should also point Jabba still hasn't advanced beyond the "If you agree to agree that I'm correct before I prove anything I can prove I am correct" stage of the argument... and still fails at even doing that.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2018, 01:59 PM   #97
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 76,363
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I'm reminded of the line from Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy where the titular guide mathematically proves that nobody exist.

Quote:
None. Although you might see people from time to time, they are most likely products of your imagination. Simple mathematics tells us that the population of the Universe must be zero. Why? Well given that the volume of the universe is infinite there must be an infinite number of worlds. But not all of them are populated; therefore only a finite number are. Any finite number divided by infinity is as close to zero as makes no odds, therefore we can round the average population of the Universe to zero, and so the total population must be zero.
Wow, that is literally the same logic as Jabba's.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 1st March 2018, 03:43 PM   #98
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Maybe they know enough about Bayesian statistics to realize that the implication you see isn't real.
- Maybe so.
- That would make a lot of sense. But so far, the more I think about it, the less I see room for error.
- I've noticed that you've been absent since 2/21. Since I've been making a lot of claims in that period, I've also been hoping that you didn't disagree with those particular claims. I suspect that was just wishful thinking -- but, can you tell me, specifically, where (I don't assume it's singular)you still disagree with my argument?
__________________
"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 1st March 2018, 03:54 PM   #99
jt512
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,739
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
The latter. Here's Bayes:
P(A|B) = P(B|A)/PB P(A)
A and B are events. The blue part is usually called the likelihood ratio. The blue part is what Jabba thought he was asking for -- in his wording, "the Bayesian likelihood." In jt512's post, he calls it the "weight of evidence," which makes sense when you consider that when Bayes' theorem is used to drawn an inference, event B is usually data, or evidence, gleaned from the outside world. A is the event that a certain hypothesis is true. P(A) is the probability that your hypothesis is true, irrespective of what new evidence might tell you. The role of the blue part is to either attenuate or amplify the probability of your hypothesis based on how much worse or better it explains B, the evidence, over chance.

Actually, what I was referring to was the following form of Bayes' Theorem, which is especially convernient for comparing hypotheses:

P(A|B) / P(A'|B) = P(B|A) / P(B|A') P(A)/P(A') ,

or in words,

(posterior odds) = (likelihood ratio) (prior odds) ,

where A and A' are two hypotheses. The first term on the rhs is what is normally referred to as the likelilood ratio (after all it is a ratio of likelihoods), the term I said was sometimes called the weight of the evidence. Notice that it does not involve the priors, unlike P(B|A)/P(B), since B usually must be calculated from the Law of Total Probability, which requires knowing the priors for each hypothesis.

Last edited by jt512; 1st March 2018 at 04:07 PM.
jt512 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2018, 04:05 PM   #100
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,370
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
That would make a lot of sense. But so far, the more I think about it, the less I see room for error.
And maybe you don't see room for error because of the same ineptitude that prevents you from seeing the error itself. You're still just begging the question that you're proficient enough not only to do the work but to validate your own efforts. You haven't shown any evidence that you are even remotely competent at statistical reasoning. Pray tell us what special brand of "thinking about it" magically endows you with a skill you clearly don't have.

Quote:
...but, can you tell me, specifically, where (I don't assume it's singular) you still disagree with my argument?
You've been told at length what's wrong with your argument. Stop flitting from poster to poster, searching for the path of least resistance. Stop asking people to repeat themselves incessantly for your benefit. Stop ignoring everyone.
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 1st March 2018, 04:07 PM   #101
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,370
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
Actually, what I was referring to was the following form of Bayes' Theorem...
Yep, I've seen it formulated that way too.
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 1st March 2018, 04:12 PM   #102
JesseCuster
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 832
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- OK. Again, I'm not very good with the terminology.
BTW, this is quite the excuse you have. Any time you make a claim about maths and probability that is provably false or betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of the subject, you can just dismiss it by claiming that you're actually correct, you just lack the jargon and technical qualifications to express it correctly.

I've only been following this discussion on and off for a while, but I can see what the others mean by your 'befuddled old man' routine you use to handwave away any claim you put forth that turns out to be provably false.

And on top of this you're churned out an excuse about how some maths course at college 40 years ago was cancelled which is why you don't have the necessary maths background. That's an epically pathetic excuse, given that you first came up with this idea some 60 years ago and have had literally decades to undertake the necessary studies to fill in the gaps in your knowledge.

Doubly so, when you have, in the past, insisted upon describing yourself as a "certified statistician". You're a certified statistician, which is why you understand the maths and why you're correct about all the maths, but you're also just a poor befuddled non-expert who just lacks the qualifications to express the maths using the correct terminology, which is why you appear to be wrong all the time...

The more I read of this discussion, the more I understand the lack of sympathy your opponents have for you, their disdain for your intellectually dishonest tactics, and the harshness of their criticism.
JesseCuster 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 1st March 2018, 06:17 PM   #103
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
 
ferd burfle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Just short of Zeta II Reticuli
Posts: 1,416
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- If I'm immortal, I always exist. And if my soul/self is reincarnated over and over, I'm much more likely to currently exist than if I exist for only one finite time, at most, over all of time.

There is no point in discussing this until you give succinct definitions for the two highlighted words. You never have and we know you never will.
__________________
"You do not know anyone as stupid as Donald Trump. You just dont.-Fran Lebowitz
"A target doesn't need to be preselected"-Jabba
ferd burfle 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 1st March 2018, 06:19 PM   #104
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 29,366
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Maybe so.
- That would make a lot of sense. But so far, the more I think about it, the less I see room for error.
Which should tell you how much in error your thinking is. Is that why you can't face the numerous fatal flaws in your arguments?
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 1st March 2018, 06:22 PM   #105
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 76,363
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- That would make a lot of sense. But so far, the more I think about it, the less I see room for error.
Less room for error in made-up numbers?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 2nd March 2018, 05:33 AM   #106
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
Actually, what I was referring to was the following form of Bayes' Theorem, which is especially convernient for comparing hypotheses:

P(A|B) / P(A'|B) = P(B|A) / P(B|A') P(A)/P(A') ,

or in words,

(posterior odds) = (likelihood ratio) (prior odds) ,

where A and A' are two hypotheses. The first term on the rhs is what is normally referred to as the likelilood ratio (after all it is a ratio of likelihoods), the term I said was sometimes called the weight of the evidence. Notice that it does not involve the priors, unlike P(B|A)/P(B), since B usually must be calculated from the Law of Total Probability, which requires knowing the priors for each hypothesis.
jt,
- Do you accept that the formula I'm using is appropriate for evaluating complementary hypotheses? That's
- P(H|E) = P(E|H) x P(H)/(P(E|H) x P(H) + P(E|~H) x P(~H)).
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2018, 05:36 AM   #107
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,724
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
jt,
- Do you accept that the formula I'm using is appropriate for evaluating complementary hypotheses? That's
- P(H|E) = P(E|H) x P(H)/(P(E|H) x P(H) + P(E|~H) x P(~H)).
We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2018, 06:17 AM   #108
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- If I'm immortal, I always exist. And if my soul/self is reincarnated over and over, I'm much more likely to currently exist than if I exist for only one finite time, at most, over all of time.
Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
Not in any sense for which you claim to have evidence. Your whole claim of existence is based on a sense of self, remember? And that sense of self is a collection of memories and physical stimuli. None of that corresponds to the always-existing soul you claim you must be.
js,
- I think you're just saying that reincarnation is impossible?
__________________
"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 2nd March 2018, 06:20 AM   #109
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Monza
- For some reason, you've made contradictory statements above. If immortality is real -- and I think it is -- I did exist in 1888, and will exist in 2119 (if time gets that far).
Originally Posted by Monza View Post
Thank you, Belz and MRC_Hans. Yes, the contradiction was from Jabba as he answered the questions one way and then flipped to the other. I quoted his latest response, but he may have changed his mind since then.

Jabba, what is the difference between an immortal person and a mortal one? How can we tell the difference?
Monza,
- Please point me to where I made these contradictory statements.
__________________
"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 2nd March 2018, 06:26 AM   #110
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,245
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
js,
- I think you're just saying that reincarnation is impossible?
What should be obvious, and which you have been told multiple times by multiple members is: if what is reincarnated is your "sense of self" but the reincarnation doesn't share your sense of self, how does it make any sense to consider it the same self?
jond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2018, 06:30 AM   #111
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,724
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
js,
- I think you're just saying that reincarnation is impossible?
Stop being intentionally dense and asking the same thing over and over.

Stop being intentionally dense and asking the same thing over and over.

Stop being intentionally dense and asking the same thing over and over.

Stop being intentionally dense and asking the same thing over and over.

Stop being intentionally dense and asking the same thing over and over.

Stop being intentionally dense and asking the same thing over and over.

Stop being intentionally dense and asking the same thing over and over.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2018, 06:36 AM   #112
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
And maybe you don't see room for error because of the same ineptitude that prevents you from seeing the error itself. You're still just begging the question that you're proficient enough not only to do the work but to validate your own efforts. You haven't shown any evidence that you are even remotely competent at statistical reasoning. Pray tell us what special brand of "thinking about it" magically endows you with a skill you clearly don't have.



You've been told at length what's wrong with your argument. Stop flitting from poster to poster, searching for the path of least resistance. Stop asking people to repeat themselves incessantly for your benefit. Stop ignoring everyone.
Jay,
- Give me your specifics -- either numbered, or one at a time. And, don't tell me to go look for myself for your specifics -- you've written about as much as everyone else combined, and each post is full of name-calling. That's why I can't keep up...
- Anyway, do you accept that the formula I'm using is appropriate for evaluating complementary hypotheses? That's
- P(H|E) = P(E|H) x P(H)/(P(E|H) x P(H) + P(E|~H) x P(~H)).
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2018, 06:39 AM   #113
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,724
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Give me your specifics -- either numbered, or one at a time. And, don't tell me to go look for myself for your specifics -- you've written about as much as everyone else combined, and each post is full of name-calling. That's why I can't keep up...
Nobody believes you can't keep up.

Nobody believes you can't keep up.

Nobody believes you can't keep up.

Nobody believes you can't keep up.

Nobody believes you can't keep up.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2018, 06:40 AM   #114
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 29,366
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
js,
- I think you're just saying that reincarnation is impossible?
Wait... Are you trying to say that reincarnation is possible?
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 2nd March 2018, 06:43 AM   #115
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by jond View Post
What should be obvious, and which you have been told multiple times by multiple members is: if what is reincarnated is your "sense of self" but the reincarnation doesn't share your sense of self, how does it make any sense to consider it the same self?
jond,
- I'm claiming -- like the reincarnationists -- that your self is more than your memories. It's this "more" that I think might continue to exist, and recur in different brains.
__________________
"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 2nd March 2018, 06:48 AM   #116
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Wait... Are you trying to say that reincarnation is possible?
Robo,
- Possible, yes.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico 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 2nd March 2018, 06:54 AM   #117
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,566
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
jond,
- I'm claiming -- like the reincarnationists -- that your self is more than your memories. It's this "more" that I think might continue to exist, and recur in different brains.
Fine! You are free to think that. Does it make your current brain more likely to exist?

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans 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 2nd March 2018, 06:58 AM   #118
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by jond View Post
What should be obvious, and which you have been told multiple times by multiple members is: if what is reincarnated is your "sense of self" but the reincarnation doesn't share your sense of self, how does it make any sense to consider it the same self?
jond,
- The claim is that the new brain does share my sense of self -- it just (in most cases) does not share any (conscious) memories.
- I used to hypnotize people. Twice I age-regressed them back to "previous lifetimes," and they came up with something. I sort of suspect that they just made up their stories, but then, it could be that hypnosis allowed them to access unconscious memories...
__________________
"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 2nd March 2018, 07:00 AM   #119
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Fine! You are free to think that. Does it make your current brain more likely to exist?

Hans
- No.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"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 2nd March 2018, 07:00 AM   #120
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 29,366
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Robo,
- Possible, yes.
I would need to see some evidence that it's possible.
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
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:58 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

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