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 22nd June 2017, 09:31 PM   #81
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,260
Originally Posted by Waterman View Post
You call for dealing with one issue at a time… however many of your posts that initiate the extended responses that you complain about are in fact lists (map) of incomplete ideas and logical fallacies that, to fully address, require the long post. If you want those that disagree with you to limit it to a topic or two at a time you should also do the same.

In addition your problem statement is incomplete and a strawman and you frequent use language in a very loose way, relying on multiple definitions of non-specific words as it suits your argument. We need to start at the beginning, for there even to be a rational discussion.

What repeatable, scientific observation has been made that is not consistent with the current scientific consensus that consciousness (and self-identity) is a brain function based on physical condition and accumulated experience.
The bolded jumped out at me. Two points:
Science doesn't tell us what the ultimate nature of reality is. It says what electrons do, but doesn't tell us whether those electrons exist in a physical universe independent from us, exist in a simulation, exist as an idea in some god's mind, or exist in a dream. There's no reason why the behavior of a dream-electron should be any different than the behavior of a physical-electron or simulated electron.

Science has done a spectacularly bad job at explaining why moving electrons across synaptic gaps in the right way gives rise to consciousness and subjective experience. Supposing you could make a brain out of water, pumps and valves that is functionally identical to an organic brain, the water-brain should be conscious (I think some poster years back used to argue for conscious rope-brains), and yet it seems ludicrous that a big enough collection of water, pumps, and valves could ponder it's own existence. Someone asserting that rope-brains are conscious (or a whole universe of conscious beings could be simulated by moving rocks around) is on the same shaky ground as a person asserting leprechauns exist and only show up when we're not looking.

I was watching a youtube video on the nature of consciousness and someone asserted that panpsychism is all the rage now, and the next day I saw this NBC article: "Is the Universe Conscious?". Science seems to be actually going backward on theories of consciousness.

TLDR: Science can't tell us what the nature of reality is, and science doesn't seem to be a useful tool when it comes to why/how brains are conscious. For examining my own consciousness, no scientific book can compare to my own introspection. You can read about pain all you like, but you'll never know what it is until you feel it yourself.

Last edited by Fudbucker; 22nd June 2017 at 09:33 PM.
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 23rd June 2017, 12:03 AM   #82
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 77,742
Mod WarningSeveral posts have been reported for being off-topic, derailing, Rule 12 and Rule 0 breaches. To do a full clean-out will take some time. Whilst waiting for a mod to have time to do such a clean-out I'm placing the thread on moderated status. As ever do not try to continue the on-topic discussions elsewhere on the forum to avoid the moderated status of this thread.
Posted By:Darat
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 23rd June 2017, 10:39 AM   #83
Waterman
Thinker
 
Waterman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 242
Originally Posted by Waterman
What repeatable, scientific observation has been made that is not consistent with the current scientific consensus that consciousness (and self-identity) is a brain function based on physical condition and accumulated experience.
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Science doesn't tell us what the ultimate nature of reality is. It says what electrons do, but doesn't tell us whether those electrons exist in a physical universe independent from us, exist in a simulation, exist as an idea in some god's mind, or exist in a dream. There's no reason why the behavior of a dream-electron should be any different than the behavior of a physical-electron or simulated electron.
I disagree on the severe limitations you have put on what science can tell us about the world. The Scientific Method is a process of making observations, testing those observations to attempt to eliminate bias and drawing provisional conclusions based on those observations. As long as a system behaves in a consistent manner and repeatable tests can be performed science can make inferences about the function of the system even if it doesn’t yet have a mechanism for how that works. Just because we don't know everything doesn't mean that we know nothing..
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Science has done a spectacularly bad job at explaining why moving electrons across synaptic gaps in the right way gives rise to consciousness and subjective experience. Supposing you could make a brain out of water, pumps and valves that is functionally identical to an organic brain, the water-brain should be conscious (I think some poster years back used to argue for conscious rope-brains), and yet it seems ludicrous that a big enough collection of water, pumps, and valves could ponder it's own existence. Someone asserting that rope-brains are conscious (or a whole universe of conscious beings could be simulated by moving rocks around) is on the same shaky ground as a person asserting leprechauns exist and only show up when we're not looking.
For the purposes of this discussion the nature of the chemistry is not relevant. Just as the angle of the molecules in water don’t matter to estimating how deep a flood is. What has been consistently observed is that the consciousness is a product of a functioning brain (regardless of the mechanism involved) and the self-identity is based on the brain function and accumulated experiences.

It is the claim of the OP that there is something else involved. I am merely asked for what observations (not speculations or theories) lead him to that conclusion.

Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
TLDR: Science can't tell us what the nature of reality is, and science doesn't seem to be a useful tool when it comes to why/how brains are conscious. For examining my own consciousness, no scientific book can compare to my own introspection. You can read about pain all you like, but you'll never know what it is until you feel it yourself.
However the principal point of this discussion is not HOW and WHY (which is I am sure a very interesting and complicated subject) but an argument for a non-corporal soul that has no properties and carries no memories but is somehow reincarnated or returns to a soul pool to merge with other souls and portions injected into new humans as they are created and affects the probability of their existence.
__________________
So that is how you do this...
Waterman 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 23rd June 2017, 03:34 PM   #84
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,260
Originally Posted by Waterman View Post
I disagree on the severe limitations you have put on what science can tell us about the world. The Scientific Method is a process of making observations, testing those observations to attempt to eliminate bias and drawing provisional conclusions based on those observations. As long as a system behaves in a consistent manner and repeatable tests can be performed science can make inferences about the function of the system even if it doesn’t yet have a mechanism for how that works. Just because we don't know everything doesn't mean that we know nothing..
I agree, it's a good method and has it's uses, but it's not really equipped to deal with metaphysical issues. What scientific experiment could I run to determine whether this is all a dream or a simulation? There are some tests people are running based on computational restraints we might see in a simulation, and some of the results are interesting, but we'll probably never know whether we're in one or not unless the simulators want us to know.

Quote:
For the purposes of this discussion the nature of the chemistry is not relevant. Just as the angle of the molecules in water don’t matter to estimating how deep a flood is. What has been consistently observed is that the consciousness is a product of a functioning brain (regardless of the mechanism involved) and the self-identity is based on the brain function and accumulated experiences.
I probably wasn't clear enough. There is a school of thought that if you make something that is functionally identical to an organic brain, it should be conscious, and there are a lot of things you can use to duplicate the workings of a brain: transistors, ropes and pulleys, water and pumps, etc.

Quote:
It is the claim of the OP that there is something else involved. I am merely asked for what observations (not speculations or theories) lead him to that conclusion.
The OP doesn't make good arguments. It's low-hanging fruit. I seized on your comment because it could be an interesting discussion.


Quote:
However the principal point of this discussion is not HOW and WHY (which is I am sure a very interesting and complicated subject) but an argument for a non-corporal soul that has no properties and carries no memories but is somehow reincarnated or returns to a soul pool to merge with other souls and portions injected into new humans as they are created and affects the probability of their existence.
I don't agree with the OP's argument. My point is that the scientific method is not useful for certain areas. The existence (or non-existence) of souls is one of those areas. One should be agnostic about it. Do you agree?
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 24th June 2017, 07:15 AM   #85
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,752
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Then the hypothesis is wrong.

Keep in mind that "very unlikely" does not mean "impossible".

Given a regulation 52 card deck of playing cards, it's very unlikely I will be dealt a royal flush. If I am dealt a royal flush, that is not evidence against the hypothesis that this is a regulation 52 card deck of playing cards. If I am dealt two forests, a mountain, a Fireball, a Lightning Bolt, and Sol Ring, and a Shivan Dragon, then it's definitely not a regulation 52 card deck of playing cards.
- I think this is just an issue of finding the right words. Hopefully, the following will help.
- In re-evaluating an old hypothesis based on new info, the likelihood of the new info -- given the old hypothesis -- is a key variable. There are three (or,two) other variables -- so, whether it affects the probability of the hypothesis, and how it affects the probability, are indefinite. For instance, while an event could be very unlikely to occur -- given the hypothesis -- it could be even more unlikely -- given the complementary hypothesis.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." 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 24th June 2017, 05:03 PM   #86
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,647
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I think this is just an issue of finding the right words.
The right words have already been found. There already exists a language in which to express statistical inference and other reasoning. The problem with your argument is not that you can't find the right words, but that you can't deal with the meanings of words that already exist. Hence you are constantly trying to rephrase the argument in newly ambiguous language.

Further, it is endemic to your argument that you must thoroughly understand statistical reasoning, much more so than your critics if you want to prevail. When an argument is made from a position of purported expertise, one way to test that foundation is to determine whether the proponent is conversant in the specialized language of the field he professes, or whether he has to make up his own vocabulary. Advertising that you're groping for words, either in statistics or philosophy, is not a point in your favor.

Quote:
In re-evaluating an old hypothesis...
No. In Bayes there is no "old" hypothesis. There is only the hypothesis. The probabilities we assign to it may evolve over time, but the hypothesis must remain constant for the method to have any validity.

Quote:
...based on new info,...
Your model remains vague and equivocal over what you consider data. It appears that you include, in your notion of the data in your model, conclusory and explanatory elements that are not appropriate to that term. The data are observations, not conclusions drawn from the observations, attempts to explain the observation, or any similar sort of interpretation. Specifically, your notion of the data in this model includes elements of a soul -- i.e., elements from your desired hypothesis. That makes your model incorrect.

Quote:
There are three (or,two) other variables -- so, whether it affects the probability of the hypothesis, and how it affects the probability, are indefinite.
Your model is underconstrained because you simply make up all the values that go into it. You backfill pseudo-scientific and pseudo-mathematical explanations for them, but you made it clear that you assumed the values of these quantities before you reasoned about the factors that affect them. You're post-justifying decisions you already made about how the different terms in the model should behave. That's begging the question.

Quote:
For instance, while an event could be very unlikely to occur -- given the hypothesis -- it could be even more unlikely -- given the complementary hypothesis.
Your model commits the false-dilemma fallacy. There are many hypotheses in play, and you deal with only two of them. One of them -- yours -- you refuse to specify, ostensibly so it can't be tested. Not all negations of materialism lead to immortality, and keeping your hypothesis vague also keeps it from being proven.

Further, we proved that any hypothesis that requires incarnation is automatically less probable than materialism because it would have to proceed from the materialist hypothesis and add to it other elements that incur their own probability. You have been confronted several times with this refutation. Each time you tell us you think there must be "more to it," but you have never provided anything more.

A comprehensive list of these and other fatal errors was presented to you weeks ago, which you have not addressed.
JayUtah 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 24th June 2017, 05:45 PM   #87
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,440
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
For instance, while an event could be very unlikely to occur -- given the hypothesis -- it could be even more unlikely -- given the complementary hypothesis.

Wrong.
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon

Last edited by Loss Leader; 24th June 2017 at 07:59 PM. Reason: Fixed quote tag
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 25th June 2017, 07:33 AM   #88
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,952
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I think this is just an issue of finding the right words. Hopefully, the following will help.
- In re-evaluating an old hypothesis based on new info, the likelihood of the new info -- given the old hypothesis -- is a key variable. There are three (or,two) other variables -- so, whether it affects the probability of the hypothesis, and how it affects the probability, are indefinite. For instance, while an event could be very unlikely to occur -- given the hypothesis -- it could be even more unlikely -- given the complementary hypothesis.
And still, "very unlikely" does not mean "impossible".
__________________
"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 25th June 2017, 11:31 AM   #89
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,856
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I think this is just an issue of finding the right words. Hopefully, the following will help.
- In re-evaluating an old hypothesis based on new info, the likelihood of the new info -- given the old hypothesis -- is a key variable. There are three (or,two) other variables -- so, whether it affects the probability of the hypothesis, and how it affects the probability, are indefinite. For instance, while an event could be very unlikely to occur -- given the hypothesis -- it could be even more unlikely -- given the complementary hypothesis.
Here's JayUtah's post which you continue to ignore. Now might be a good time to read it, thoroughly, and respond to all the points he raises.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3198
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 25th June 2017, 02:02 PM   #90
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,260
Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
Wrong.
Not necessarily. In Bayesian epistemology, probabilities of events can be assigned given certain hypotheses. Pr(E/H).
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 25th June 2017, 02:11 PM   #91
caveman1917
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,815
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Further, we proved that any hypothesis that requires incarnation is automatically less probable than materialism because it would have to proceed from the materialist hypothesis and add to it other elements that incur their own probability.
You proved no such thing.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 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 25th June 2017, 04:42 PM   #92
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,873
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I think this is just an issue of finding the right words. Hopefully, the following will help.
[...]
You've tried the ploy that your interlocutors are not bright enough to follow you many times.

Don't bother going down that road again.
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.
John Jones 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 25th June 2017, 05:43 PM   #93
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 64,938
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I think this is just an issue of finding the right words.
You act as if we're on the first page of the original thread.

No, we've got the words, and the arguments, and the evidence, and you've actually got nothing. At some point you have to realise this.
__________________
"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"
Argumemnon 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 25th June 2017, 05:57 PM   #94
Waterman
Thinker
 
Waterman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 242
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
I agree, it's a good method and has it's uses, but it's not really equipped to deal with metaphysical issues. What scientific experiment could I run to determine whether this is all a dream or a simulation? There are some tests people are running based on computational restraints we might see in a simulation, and some of the results are interesting, but we'll probably never know whether we're in one or not unless the simulators want us to know.
If something has a consistent effect on the world as we experience it, it can be studied using the scientific method. How would you determine / deal with a metaphysical event/thing. How would you know that the effect is real or only imagined? Speculation and imagination are fun and can be interesting but what can you do with it? If we are in a simulation or dream how would that affect your life decisions? How would you pierce the veil?

Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
I probably wasn't clear enough. There is a school of thought that if you make something that is functionally identical to an organic brain, it should be conscious, and there are a lot of things you can use to duplicate the workings of a brain: transistors, ropes and pulleys, water and pumps, etc.
It seems reasonable that a system capable of storing new information, processing that information, and combining it in new and novel ways is capable of becoming conscious provided sufficient complexity. No metaphysics involved.

Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
I don't agree with the OP's argument. My point is that the scientific method is not useful for certain areas. The existence (or non-existence) of souls is one of those areas. One should be agnostic about it. Do you agree?
I will take the position that while I cannot ‘disprove’ the existence of the soul is does not seem necessary to posit their existence to sufficiently explain our existence. As such, it is an unnecessary complication and should be discarded until such time that additional data is collected to warrant reconsideration. I place souls in the same bucket as Thor, Pele, Faries and Krishna they held explanatory power in the prescientific days because little was understood about the nature of the world and how things happened. The more that science pierced the natural world's veil, the less and less there was for the super natural world to do until it was functionally unemployed and probably didn’t exist in the first place despite the fervent hopes/beliefs of many.
__________________
So that is how you do this...
Waterman 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 25th June 2017, 07:35 PM   #95
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,260
Originally Posted by Waterman View Post
If something has a consistent effect on the world as we experience it, it can be studied using the scientific method.
Not necessarily.. A being (or programmer) that only affects the world (simulation) when's no one's looking would never be discovered. That doesn't mean the effects wouldn't be there. And, of course, one-time events would be very hard to prove-disprove. For years, we wondered about rogue-waves. Suppose there's a phenomena that only happens once every ten thousand years? It would be very hard to discover.

Quote:
How would you determine / deal with a metaphysical event/thing. How would you know that the effect is real or only imagined? Speculation and imagination are fun and can be interesting but what can you do with it? If we are in a simulation or dream how would that affect your life decisions? How would you pierce the veil?
Try to communicate with the simulation programmers? I think if it could be discovered for sure that we were in a simulation, the implications would be profound. So, on that level, it's interesting stuff.


Quote:
It seems reasonable that a system capable of storing new information, processing that information, and combining it in new and novel ways is capable of becoming conscious provided sufficient complexity. No metaphysics involved.
Take a look at that comic I linked to. See if you agree with it.

Quote:
I will take the position that while I cannot ‘disprove’ the existence of the soul is does not seem necessary to posit their existence to sufficiently explain our existence. As such, it is an unnecessary complication and should be discarded until such time that additional data is collected to warrant reconsideration. I place souls in the same bucket as Thor, Pele, Faries and Krishna they held explanatory power in the prescientific days because little was understood about the nature of the world and how things happened. The more that science pierced the natural world's veil, the less and less there was for the super natural world to do until it was functionally unemployed and probably didn’t exist in the first place despite the fervent hopes/beliefs of many.
I partially agree, except for consciousness. It's always been a "hard problem" and will remain a "hard problem". I don't see science being able to explain why moving electrons around should give rise to subjective experience. Science can explain neuro-correlates, but not why brain-states give rise to mental-states. I'm a dualist on brain/mental states, so it allows a little wiggleroom for bizzare theories to pop up, like panpsychism, integrated-information theory, and whether there's an immaterial part of ourselves.
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 25th June 2017, 07:49 PM   #96
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,440
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Not necessarily. In Bayesian epistemology, probabilities of events can be assigned given certain hypotheses. Pr(E/H).

Not when the even has already happened. Then its probability is, and will always be, 1.
__________________
"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 26th June 2017, 12:31 AM   #97
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,023
Originally Posted by Waterman View Post
*snip*
I will take the position that while I cannot ‘disprove’ the existence of the soul is does not seem necessary to posit their existence to sufficiently explain our existence. As such, it is an unnecessary complication and should be discarded until such time that additional data is collected to warrant reconsideration. I place souls in the same bucket as Thor, Pele, Faries and Krishna they held explanatory power in the prescientific days because little was understood about the nature of the world and how things happened. The more that science pierced the natural world's veil, the less and less there was for the super natural world to do until it was functionally unemployed and probably didn’t exist in the first place despite the fervent hopes/beliefs of many.
Precisely.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2017, 06:31 AM   #98
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,752
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
And still, "very unlikely" does not mean "impossible".
- No. But, very unlikely here is VERY unlikely, and easily wins out in the Bayesian formula -- if we can dismiss the sharp shooter fallacy, and allow a reasonable possibility that H is not correct.
__________________
"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
"Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." 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 26th June 2017, 06:49 AM   #99
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 38,151
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- No. But, very unlikely here is VERY unlikely, and easily wins out in the Bayesian formula -- if we can dismiss the sharp shooter fallacy, and allow a reasonable possibility that H is not correct.
Gibberish. Your whole argument is the sharpshooter fallacy.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2017, 07:37 AM   #100
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 27,770
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- No. But, very unlikely here is VERY unlikely, and easily wins out in the Bayesian formula -- if we can dismiss the sharp shooter fallacy, and allow a reasonable possibility that H is not correct.
If we ignore one of the fallacies that is fatal to your claim, then you're right? Is that your argument?

Describe for me again, what is the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy and why is it a fallacy?
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 26th June 2017, 07:43 AM   #101
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,873
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- No. But, very unlikely here is VERY unlikely, and easily wins out in the Bayesian formula -- if we can dismiss the sharp shooter fallacy, and allow a reasonable possibility that H is not correct.
Dismiss it all you like - you're still doing it.
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.
John Jones 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 26th June 2017, 07:49 AM   #102
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,836
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- No. But, very unlikely here is VERY unlikely, and easily wins out in the Bayesian formula -- if we can dismiss the sharp shooter fallacy, and allow a reasonable possibility that H is not correct.

Jabba, here's a question that you haven't so far addressed, that rełates direcy to this:

If someone else existed instead of you, would your argument for immortality be valid if they presented it?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2017, 08:06 AM   #103
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,952
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- No. But, very unlikely here is VERY unlikely, and easily wins out in the Bayesian formula -- if we can dismiss the sharp shooter fallacy, and allow a reasonable possibility that H is not correct.
You haven't dismissed the Texas sharp shooter fallacy.

The possibility of H not being correct has no bearing on P(E|H).

You still have to contrast P(E|~H) with P(E|H). P(E|~H) might be as unlikely or more unlikely than P(E|H).
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm
godless dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2017, 08:23 AM   #104
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,647
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
But, very unlikely here is VERY unlikely...
No, because your formulation for P(E|H) is nonsensical gibberish. Further, you started with the proposition that P(E|H) was very unlikely and have simply been trying for years to find a pseudo-rational justification for what you preconcluded was true. You haven't been trying to determine what P(E|H) actually might be. See my previous writings for details.

Quote:
...and easily wins out in the Bayesian formula
No, because you have not computed P(K|E) where K is your hypothesis. You've employed a false-dilemma fallacy to avoid having to compute it, or even talk about it. Nor have you dealt with the fact that since K is an additional step beyond H (i.e., incarnation requires a body, which is all H requires), P(K) can never be more than equal to P(H). See my previous writings for details. Your claim of victory is not predicated on the facts of the debate and is therefore premature.

Quote:
if we can dismiss the sharp shooter fallacy, and allow a reasonable possibility that H is not correct.
No, the Texas sharpshooter fallacy is only one of about a dozen individually fatal flaws we have identified in your argument. If you were to somehow overcome this initial one, the rest of your argument will not simply magically fall into place. Your reluctance to examine the entirely of your argument is embodied in your desire that we focus on "sub-issues" to exhaustion, which results in literal years of unproductive inertia. As a result, you never address the criticism from more than one part of your argument at a time. This leads you wrongly to boast that there is ever only one thing wrong at a time with your argument. This is why I have insisted upon a comprehensive answer this time. You need to deal soberly with the grand degree to which your argument is simply nonviable.

More to the point, you propose no repair to your argument that avoids the post-selection fallacy, Jabba. Your efforts toward that flaw have simply been to beg that it shouldn't be considered an error and promise additional defenses that you never deliver. Your critics are not obligated to overlook major flaws in your reasoning simply because you stubbornly think you're right.
JayUtah 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 26th June 2017, 08:51 AM   #105
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,647
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Not necessarily. In Bayesian epistemology, probabilities of events can be assigned given certain hypotheses. Pr(E/H).
But read Jabba's statement carefully. You are correct that, for any hypothesis, we can attain a probability vis-à-vis some event. Where it is less correct is under the auspices of the false dilemma. Jabba denotes the hypotheses in play as H and ~H, which ostensibly covers the universe. Because P(H) + P(~H) = 1 is a simple law of probability (and, for some data E, P(H|E) + P(~H|E) = 1), Jabba wants to compute one and then infer the other. This is what everyone does when trying to sneak a false dilemma past his critics. The problem in Jabba's argument is that -- depending on the day -- H is a singular hypothesis and ~H is the disjunction of all other hypotheses, or ~H is the singular hypothesis and H the disjunction of all else.

One day, H is "we are mortal" and ~H is "we are immortal," but then Jabba's test for P(E|H) involves only one select theory -- scientific materialism. It does not, as it should, include all the theories that aren't materialism but don't also lead to immortality.

Other days, H is strictly materialism and ~H is everything else; Jabba purposely keeps his set of options broad because he isn't willing to nail down in exactly what way we might be immortal so that no particular hypothesis has to pass any sort of test. He considers it a strength of his argument that it includes Christian resurrection, Buddhist reincarnation, etc. That set is a disjunction. In some cases the hypotheses in it contradict each other. In the vast remnant of probability Jabba says results from subtracting 1- P(H|E), there lurks an resolved horde of possible hypotheses, not all of which mean immortality. Remember, if H is the singular hypothesis of scientific materialism then hypotheses that contradict scientific materialism but do not result in immortality live in ~H. Therefore Jabba cannot argue that ~H is composed only of all the different ways in which we can be immortal, that P(~H|E) is meaningful toward immortality because of that, and thus that P(~H|E) represents any probability regarding immortality. At best he'd have shown that materialism is improbable among all the ways in which we cannot be immortal. (Jabba tried to soften his argument by saying he would only prove immaterialism, not immortality.)

To fully fix the probability of immortality against materialism, he has to choose one or more hypotheses (I denote them K, L,...) out of ~H -- from among the ones that do result in immortality -- and compute P(K|E), P(L|E) and so forth and show that one of them is markedly more probable than P(H|E). By "the complementary hypothesis" in Jabba's statement, he means (by his notation) everything that isn't materialism, but really (by his words) immortality. This is the equivocation that everyone sees but him.
JayUtah 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 26th June 2017, 09:18 AM   #106
Monza
Alta Viro
 
Monza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,857
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- No. But, very unlikely here is VERY unlikely, and easily wins out in the Bayesian formula -- if we can dismiss the sharp shooter fallacy, and allow a reasonable possibility that H is not correct.
But we can't dismiss the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. Your logical arguments have an error and ignoring it isn't going to help.
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 26th June 2017, 09:50 AM   #107
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 64,938
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- No. But, very unlikely here is VERY unlikely, and easily wins out in the Bayesian formula
Have you any idea how many vanishingly impropable events happen around you every day?

Quote:
-- if we can dismiss the sharp shooter fallacy, and allow a reasonable possibility that H is not correct.
Jabba, you can't dismiss the fallacy. It's essential to your argument and it being a fallacy makes your argument wrong.
__________________
"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"
Argumemnon 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 26th June 2017, 10:01 AM   #108
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,836
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- No. But, very unlikely here is VERY unlikely, and easily wins out in the Bayesian formula -- if we can dismiss the sharp shooter fallacy, and allow a reasonable possibility that H is not correct.

But remember: if H is the hypothesis that you have a body and an immortal soul, you existence is also VERY unlikely; at least as unlikely as it is under hypotheses in which you only have a body. If your argument leads you to conclude that the hypothesis that your consciousness is produced by your body is incorrect, you must also conclude that the hypothesis that your consciousness can exist independently of your body is incorrect.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2017, 10:43 AM   #109
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 21,759
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- No. But, very unlikely here is VERY unlikely,
The magnitude of unlikelihood doesn't matter to the argument

Quote:
and easily wins out in the Bayesian formula
Bayes doesn't work that way

Quote:
-- if we can dismiss the sharp shooter fallacy,
Fallacies cannot be dismissed, only avoided

Quote:
and allow a reasonable possibility that H is not correct.
It's a fallacy to assume the thing you're trying to prove.
theprestige 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 26th June 2017, 08:11 PM   #110
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 20,653
Mod WarningWell, now, where are we? Oh, yeah, we are now 70+ posts lighter in this thread.

Things you may not have realized:
* The topic is not about debating techniques.
* The topic is not about how the discussion here might be commemorated elsewhere.
* The topic is not about copyright law, neither US nor international.

In fact, the topic is (supposed to be) about immortality and proof thereof. Most of you knew that, I am sure. This is a forum all about discussion. Please see if you can do that.
Posted By:jsfisher
__________________
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; 27th June 2017 at 04:30 AM. Reason: Fixed Freudian slip typo
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 26th June 2017, 09:57 PM   #111
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,260
Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
Not when the even has already happened. Then its probability is, and will always be, 1.
That is technically true, but if we operated that way (if Pr(E) is always just ONE), evidence would never confirm/disconfirm a belief. So we pretend and say what is likelihood of the evidence, if we tried to predict it in advance?

I don't know if the OP is a Bayesian. That could explain the quote you objected to.
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 26th June 2017, 10:00 PM   #112
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,260
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
But read Jabba's statement carefully. You are correct that, for any hypothesis, we can attain a probability vis-à-vis some event. Where it is less correct is under the auspices of the false dilemma. Jabba denotes the hypotheses in play as H and ~H, which ostensibly covers the universe. Because P(H) + P(~H) = 1 is a simple law of probability (and, for some data E, P(H|E) + P(~H|E) = 1), Jabba wants to compute one and then infer the other. This is what everyone does when trying to sneak a false dilemma past his critics. The problem in Jabba's argument is that -- depending on the day -- H is a singular hypothesis and ~H is the disjunction of all other hypotheses, or ~H is the singular hypothesis and H the disjunction of all else.

One day, H is "we are mortal" and ~H is "we are immortal," but then Jabba's test for P(E|H) involves only one select theory -- scientific materialism. It does not, as it should, include all the theories that aren't materialism but don't also lead to immortality.

Other days, H is strictly materialism and ~H is everything else; Jabba purposely keeps his set of options broad because he isn't willing to nail down in exactly what way we might be immortal so that no particular hypothesis has to pass any sort of test. He considers it a strength of his argument that it includes Christian resurrection, Buddhist reincarnation, etc. That set is a disjunction. In some cases the hypotheses in it contradict each other. In the vast remnant of probability Jabba says results from subtracting 1- P(H|E), there lurks an resolved horde of possible hypotheses, not all of which mean immortality. Remember, if H is the singular hypothesis of scientific materialism then hypotheses that contradict scientific materialism but do not result in immortality live in ~H. Therefore Jabba cannot argue that ~H is composed only of all the different ways in which we can be immortal, that P(~H|E) is meaningful toward immortality because of that, and thus that P(~H|E) represents any probability regarding immortality. At best he'd have shown that materialism is improbable among all the ways in which we cannot be immortal. (Jabba tried to soften his argument by saying he would only prove immaterialism, not immortality.)

To fully fix the probability of immortality against materialism, he has to choose one or more hypotheses (I denote them K, L,...) out of ~H -- from among the ones that do result in immortality -- and compute P(K|E), P(L|E) and so forth and show that one of them is markedly more probable than P(H|E). By "the complementary hypothesis" in Jabba's statement, he means (by his notation) everything that isn't materialism, but really (by his words) immortality. This is the equivocation that everyone sees but him.
That's a good critique of his argument.
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 27th June 2017, 01:49 AM   #113
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,440
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
That is technically true, but if we operated that way (if Pr(E) is always just ONE), evidence would never confirm/disconfirm a belief.

Well, that is the point. You can't use Jabba's existence to discriminate between either hypothesis, as it doesn't change the probability of either one. In this specific case, the 1 is the 1 is the 1. It is easier to note it as being the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, as most people can recognize it by description, rather than by math, but it is describing the exact same failure in logic.

Quote:
So we pretend and say what is likelihood of the evidence, if we tried to predict it in advance?

Not really, as jt512 noted much earlier in the discussion, the "test" is based on the same data set that was used to determine the hypotheses. It gets us absolutely nowhere.

Quote:
I don't know if the OP is a Bayesian. That could explain the quote you objected to.

It is Bayesian in form, but that is about it. Everything else in the OP is pretty much determined rectally.
__________________
"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 27th June 2017, 01:55 AM   #114
MarkCorrigan
Winter is Coming
 
MarkCorrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 8,367
"But if we can get past my stabbing him 73 times in the chest, I'm sure I can prove I didn't murder him..."
__________________
Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data.
It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz

Now I lay me down to sleep, a bag of peanuts at my feet.
If I die before I wake, give them to my brother Jake.
MarkCorrigan 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 27th June 2017, 05:26 AM   #115
Waterman
Thinker
 
Waterman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 242
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Not necessarily.. A being (or programmer) that only affects the world (simulation) when's no one's looking would never be discovered. That doesn't mean the effects wouldn't be there. And, of course, one-time events would be very hard to prove-disprove. For years, we wondered about rogue-waves. Suppose there's a phenomena that only happens once every ten thousand years? It would be very hard to discover.
If there are such rare independent phenomena that cannot be extrapolated by associated data or are at whim of omniscient intelligences then you are correct it would not be detectable. However if it is undetectable how do you know what you are positing is real and not speculation or an over active imagination.

Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Try to communicate with the simulation programmers? I think if it could be discovered for sure that we were in a simulation, the implications would be profound. So, on that level, it's interesting stuff.
Yes, if true, the implications would be profound. But how would you know it is nothing more than a vivid imagination. What knowledge / evidence led you to consider this as a position worth seriously exploring more than for entertainment value or mental gymnastics?

Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Take a look at that comic I linked to. See if you agree with it.
I looked at it and it was speculative musings of “Ifs” given infinite x, y, z… fun to think about but does not appear to be useful in arriving at any conclusions. Patterning rocks seems to be a cumbersome data management system but unless… Ah you are equating the placement of rocks as the cell states in our brains and the rock mover as the dualistic component. That does seem to be an unnecessary complication. You are saying that the brain is static unless a mover is present. How does this translate to less complex brains in living organisms. Do they have a ‘rock mover’ as well?

Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
I partially agree, except for consciousness. It's always been a "hard problem" and will remain a "hard problem". I don't see science being able to explain why moving electrons around should give rise to subjective experience. Science can explain neuro-correlates, but not why brain-states give rise to mental-states. I'm a dualist on brain/mental states, so it allows a little wiggleroom for bizzare theories to pop up, like panpsychism, integrated-information theory, and whether there's an immaterial part of ourselves.
So are you approaching the problem consciousness believing in dualism looking to support it or after a careful review of the information you conclude dualism? This appears to be a bit of special pleading and argument form ignorance… see bolded above. As science begins to study a phenomenon to narrow down further research and often does not provide a causal explanation until much, much follow up. Despite this I am not aware of any scientific evidence that requires dualism as an explanation. There is a wide gap between knowing everything and knowing nothing.
__________________
So that is how you do this...
Waterman 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 27th June 2017, 08:18 AM   #116
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,752
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
You haven't dismissed the Texas sharp shooter fallacy...
- From 3634 in previous 'chapter.'
- I'm still not sure, but more specifically, this is why I think we don't have to worry about any Texas Sharp Shooter.
- There are 4 variables involved in the Bayesian approach: 2 prior probabilities, and 2 likelihoods.
- In the lottery situation, if the winner can't be set apart from the crowd, we accept that the prior probability of a rigged game is essentially zero, and the fact that the specific winner had just 1 chance in, say, 10 million, doesn't carry any weight.
- In my situation, I'm not limiting my claim to myself; I'm suggesting that we are all in the same boat. Consequently, I don't want to set myself apart from the rest of you guys, and the conclusion rests entirely upon the prior probabilities.
__________________
"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
"Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." 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 27th June 2017, 11:32 AM   #117
JesseCuster
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 637
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- No. But, very unlikely here is VERY unlikely, and easily wins out in the Bayesian formula -- if we can dismiss the sharp shooter fallacy, and allow a reasonable possibility that H is not correct.
You keep saying this, or variations on it. Each time I read you asking others to ignore or dismiss or try and forget about or whatever, the Texas sharpshooter fallacy that is one of the huge problems at the the core of your argument, this is what it reads like to me:

"My argument actually makes perfect sense and is logically sound, and you would all see this, if only you just would please ignore and dismiss the logical fallacies that make it nonsensical and unsound"
JesseCuster 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 27th June 2017, 01:26 PM   #118
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,752
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
...
The possibility of H not being correct has no bearing on P(E|H)...
- No. But, it does have a bearing on P(H|E).
__________________
"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
"Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." 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 27th June 2017, 01:29 PM   #119
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,752
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
...
You still have to contrast P(E|~H) with P(E|H). P(E|~H) might be as unlikely or more unlikely than P(E|H).
- Please say again why you would think that.
__________________
"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
"Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." 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 27th June 2017, 01:53 PM   #120
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,440
Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
Originally Posted by Fudbucker
So we pretend and say what is likelihood of the evidence, if we tried to predict it in advance?
Not really, as jt512 noted much earlier in the discussion, the "test" is based on the same data set that was used to determine the hypotheses. It gets us absolutely nowhere.

To expand on this a bit, we would some form of new data in order to determine which hypothesis is best supported by the evidence. For example, if we found a bunch of empty soda cans outside a school building, we could make a hypothesis regarding where one finds cans: near schools vs. near other buildings. In order to move past the initial framing, we would need new data. We can't just use the original cans by the school we based the initial hypotheses on, we would have to check near other schools and other buildings to see if which hypothesis holds up.

Ironically enough, we could change our evaluation of these hypotheses if in fact Jabba were immortal and we had evidence of Jabbas existing outside his current lifetime. Since Jabba has already claimed that his notion of "self" has absolutely no identifying or persisting characteristics outside of the body it inhabits, so can't be proven to have existed in any other time, he has basically eliminated his own best hope for turning this into an actual Bayesian proof out of the gate. He himself has closed the door on any evidence that might budge the probabilities in any direction.

It's almost as if the Texas Sharpshooter had been aiming at his own foot the entire time.
__________________
"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
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 08:06 PM.
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.