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.
Closed Thread
Old 1st March 2017, 07:34 AM   #161
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,847
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Among the things you are misunderstanding:
  1. P(E|H) is not any kind of number over infinity. The likelihood of something existing does not have anything to do with the number of potential things of the same category that could exist over all time.
  2. H does not include souls. The likelihood of a particular soul existing given H is zero. It's not some number over infinity, it's just zero, because given H, souls don't exist
    .
  3. "Only One Finite Life At Most" is not a hypothesis. It's a statement that could apply to a variety of hypotheses. "The human sense of self is solely the product of a functioning human brain" is more like a hypothesis.
  4. It only makes sense to refer to "a hypothesis and its complement" if both hypotheses are mutually exclusive and if they are the only two possible hypotheses. That is, if one is false, the other has to be true, and vice versa.
Dave,
- I'll try again. One at a time.
  1. P(E|H) is not any kind of number over infinity. The likelihood of something existing does not have anything to do with the number of potential things of the same category that could exist over all time...

- If a lottery had an infinite # of tickets to draw a single ticket from -- one of those tickets being yours -- what would be the likelihood of yours being drawn?
__________________
"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 Ť probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor

Last edited by Jabba; 1st March 2017 at 07:39 AM.
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 Back to Top
Old 1st March 2017, 07:47 AM   #162
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,011
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I'll try again. One at a time.
  1. P(E|H) is not any kind of number over infinity. The likelihood of something existing does not have anything to do with the number of potential things of the same category that could exist over all time...

- If a lottery had an infinite # of tickets to draw a single ticket from -- one of those tickets being yours -- what would be the likelihood of yours being drawn?
That's not analogous to this situation.

At any given time, only certain people can be conceived. In the latter half of 1969, there was a finite number of people alive who were capable of conceiving children. Two of them were my parents. There was only a finite number of ways all those people alive at that time could have combined to make more people.

That doesn't even include the likelihood of them meeting, the likelihood of fertilization, the likelihood of the embryo implanting, and all the other events that had to happen for me to exist.
__________________
"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

Last edited by godless dave; 1st March 2017 at 07:49 AM.
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 Back to Top
Old 1st March 2017, 07:59 AM   #163
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,118
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
[...]
- If a lottery had an infinite # of tickets to draw a single ticket from -- one of those tickets being yours -- what would be the likelihood of yours being drawn?
If my aunt had a pair of balls, she'd be my uncle.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 1st March 2017, 08:06 AM   #164
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,771
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I'll try again. One at a time.
No, don't simply repeat your long-debunked argument. And no, you don't get to take your opponents "one at a time" and then excuse yourself from not understanding why your argument was debunked several times over by the people you simply decided not to listen to.

Quote:
If a lottery had an infinite # of tickets...
For reasons amply explained, and thoroughly -- by your own admission -- ignored over the years by you, the scientific model of consciousness is not anything like a lottery. Specifically, in it there is no pre-existing "pool" of any kind related to the organisms that come into existence and exhibit consciousness. A lottery has a fixed-sized pool of eligible tickets that exist in enumerable form prior to the drawing. This is how we can use statistical models to reason about the likelihood of winning a lottery. Conscious existence, under the scientific model, has no such enumerable pool of "eligible" (but not yet existing) organisms. You cannot reckon the statistical likelihood of one particular organism coming into existence as if it were a lottery.

Last edited by JayUtah; 1st March 2017 at 09:12 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 Back to Top
Old 1st March 2017, 08:44 AM   #165
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22,189
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
If my aunt had a pair of balls, she'd be my uncle.
If I had a kettle of boiling water, I could have a cup of tea. If I had a cup. And some tea.
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 Back to Top
Old 1st March 2017, 10:08 AM   #166
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,847
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
That's not analogous to this situation.

At any given time, only certain people can be conceived. In the latter half of 1969, there was a finite number of people alive who were capable of conceiving children. Two of them were my parents. There was only a finite number of ways all those people alive at that time could have combined to make more people.

That doesn't even include the likelihood of them meeting, the likelihood of fertilization, the likelihood of the embryo implanting, and all the other events that had to happen for me to exist.
- I still think it is analogous.
- As you know, I consider each potential combination of human sperm cell and ovum (whatever the dates and places) as representing a potential different human being (What if we could freeze them all?). I don't understand why you don't.
__________________
"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 Ť 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 Back to Top
Old 1st March 2017, 10:14 AM   #167
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22,189
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I still think it is analogous.
They are not analogous under H.

Quote:
- As you know, I consider each potential combination of human sperm cell and ovum (whatever the dates and places) as representing a potential different human being (What if we could freeze them all?). I don't understand why you don't.
We don't because we know you are equivocating "potential different human being", to mean "immortal soul", "sense of self", etc. whenever convenient to your argument.

Under H, there is no such thing as a "potential different human being" as you are trying to use the term. And that is why combinations of human sperm cell and ovum are not analogous to lottery drawings.

Last edited by theprestige; 1st March 2017 at 10:15 AM.
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 Back to Top
Old 1st March 2017, 10:25 AM   #168
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,771
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I still think it is analogous.
It has been explained to you how it is not. You're back to ignoring your critics and trying to foist the notion of a soul onto the scientific hypothesis for consciousness.

Surprise, surprise. You're back doing the same silly song and dance you've done for more than four years.

Quote:
I consider each potential combination of human sperm cell and ovum (whatever the dates and places) as representing a potential...
That arbitrary consideration doesn't make it statistically valid. This was explained to many times in the posts you chose to ignore.
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 Back to Top
Old 1st March 2017, 10:33 AM   #169
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,011
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I still think it is analogous.
- As you know, I consider each potential combination of human sperm cell and ovum (whatever the dates and places) as representing a potential different human being (What if we could freeze them all?). I don't understand why you don't.
Because I don't believe in time travel.

Because I do believe in causality.

I could potentially have children, who could potentially have children. But my children can't exist unless I existed first. My grandchildren can't exist unless my children exist. The existence of a particular human depends on the existence of that humans parents, and their existence depends on the existence of their parents. My grandchildren aren't potential human beings right now because their potential parents don't exist.

When we calculate the odds for winning a raffle or lottery, we don't have to worry about raffles or lotteries that existed in the past because they have no bearing on the odds of winning this one, quite unlike the case for the existence of a particular human being.
__________________
"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

Last edited by godless dave; 1st March 2017 at 10:34 AM.
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 Back to Top
Old 1st March 2017, 11:07 AM   #170
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 23,278
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I'll try again. One at a time.
  1. P(E|H) is not any kind of number over infinity. The likelihood of something existing does not have anything to do with the number of potential things of the same category that could exist over all time...

- If a lottery had an infinite # of tickets to draw a single ticket from -- one of those tickets being yours -- what would be the likelihood of yours being drawn?

So, you're just right back to the very same thing. I'm unsurprised.

Let me put it this way: A lottery of any sort cannot have an infinite number of tickets. Who would print them? It would take an infinite amount of time and an infinite supply of ink. It would require infinite computer processing power and infinite money to buy them. So this is not an analogy to anything.

Infinity is not a number.

The correct analogy is this: There is a large, large number of lottery tickets. Yours is picked. They hand you $20 million and a 1099 form. You put it in your bank, invest it, take the family on a cruise, create education trusts for your grandchildren, give some to the local food pantry ... and then you insist that it is impossible for you to have won because the odds were so low.

Congratulations, Jabba, you beat the odds. That doesn't make you special.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st March 2017, 11:18 AM   #171
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 6,841
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
If my aunt had a pair of balls, she'd be my uncle.
I think it actually goes like, "if my aunt had a pair of balls, the likelihood of her having an immortal soul is crammed into the provable formula of 1 + 1 = squid."

I shall await your prompt response.

The likelihood of my returning to respond is wholly dependent upon my vacuous proclivities of the day.
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st March 2017, 11:48 AM   #172
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,847
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
They are not analogous under H.


We don't because we know you are equivocating "potential different human being", to mean "immortal soul", "sense of self", etc. whenever convenient to your argument.

Under H, there is no such thing as a "potential different human being" as you are trying to use the term. And that is why combinations of human sperm cell and ovum are not analogous to lottery drawings.
- So, I need to back further up...
- Somehow, we need to agree upon the thing/process to which I'm referring.
- According to science, there is a particular conscious thing/process that first came into existence when my physical body evolved to a certain complexity. This thing/process never existed before, will cease to exist when my body dies, and will never exist again. This is the "self" to which I'm referring.
- I contend that science is wrong about the very temporary nature of this thing/process.
__________________
"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 Ť probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor

Last edited by Jabba; 1st March 2017 at 11:49 AM.
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 Back to Top
Old 1st March 2017, 11:51 AM   #173
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,509
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- As you know, I consider each potential combination of human sperm cell and ovum (whatever the dates and places) as representing a potential different human being (What if we could freeze them all?). I don't understand why you don't.

What about identical twins? Do you believe that identical twins are actually one human being?

Edit: This problem is highlighted further with your last post. In your opinion, at what point does this "thing/process" begin? Is it at conception? Birth? Some point in between?

And no, "according to science", there is no particular conscious thing/process. That is entirely your invention.
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon

Last edited by Hokulele; 1st March 2017 at 11:54 AM.
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 Back to Top
Old 1st March 2017, 12:00 PM   #174
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,908
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- So, I need to back further up...
- Somehow, we need to agree upon the thing/process to which I'm referring.
- According to science, there is a particular conscious thing/process that first came into existence when my physical body evolved to a certain complexity. This thing/process never existed before, will cease to exist when my body dies, and will never exist again. This is the "self" to which I'm referring.
- I contend that science is wrong about the very temporary nature of this thing/process.
The first thing you need to understand that "thing" and "process" are different. One (thing) is an entity, the other (process) an action. According to science the self is a process, that only happens while the brain is functioning. It is not a thing, which might exist separately from the brain.

We all understand that you contend that science is wrong about that, but in order to show that science is wrong, you're going to need to demonstrate the existence of this thing you claim exists separately from the brain. It's not a question of statistics.
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 Back to Top
Old 1st March 2017, 12:16 PM   #175
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,011
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- So, I need to back further up...
- Somehow, we need to agree upon the thing/process to which I'm referring.
- According to science, there is a particular conscious thing/process that first came into existence when my physical body evolved to a certain complexity. This thing/process never existed before, will cease to exist when my body dies, and will never exist again. This is the "self" to which I'm referring.
- I contend that science is wrong about the very temporary nature of this thing/process.
None of that explains why the number of potential selves over all time is at all relevant to the likelihood of a particular one of those selves existing.
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 1st March 2017, 12:29 PM   #176
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 23,278
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- So, I need to back further up...
- Somehow, we need to agree upon the thing/process to which I'm referring.
- According to science, there is a particular conscious thing/process that first came into existence when my physical body evolved to a certain complexity. This thing/process never existed before, will cease to exist when my body dies, and will never exist again. This is the "self" to which I'm referring.
- I contend that science is wrong about the very temporary nature of this thing/process.

A process is not a thing. The two words are not interchangeable.

Your statement about what "science" says is wrong. Our current science says that there is no such thing as a self, just a complex process that creates within the healthy organism an illusion of continuity.

If the consciousness is a thing, then describe your consciousness. What aspects have been the same since birth? What aspects will you carry on to your next life?

You have never answered this question, Jabba - never in four years. If your consciousness is an unchanging thing, define its characteristics.

And don't think for a moment that anyone is fooled as you cast about wildly for some sort of reset. This has all been done a hundred times. If you would go back and read your own thread, you would: a) see that; and b) perhaps stop being so disrespectful as to pretend you didn't see that.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st March 2017, 12:32 PM   #177
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,103
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I still think it is analogous.

And you are still wrong, because souls don't exist in he model you're trying to disprove.

Quote:
- As you know, I consider each potential combination of human sperm cell and ovum (whatever the dates and places) as representing a potential different human being (What if we could freeze them all?). I don't understand why you don't.

The human genome is of finite size, so there are only a finite number of combinations.

And in any case, your particular existence requires your particular genome to exist under the hypothesis you favour, just as much as it does under the hypothesis you oppose. So not only does the human genome not get you the factor of infinity your 'proof' requires, but even if it did it would apply just as much to your hypothesis. It's irrelevant.
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 1st March 2017, 12:34 PM   #178
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,771
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Somehow, we need to agree upon the thing/process to which I'm referring.
No. First you need to stop trying to equivocate between "thing" and "process." You believe in a soul that is a thing. The scientific hypothesis for consciousness is that it is a process -- that is, the sense of consciousness is one result of a process. The difference is that a thing may be enumerable but a process is not. You don't get to sneak your soul into the scientific hypothesis through the back door.

Second you need to understand that you don't get to dictate what the scientific hypothesis says. One of the many, many things you have demonstrated you don't understand about your attempted model is that when reckoning P(E|H) is that you must accept H as it is formulated, not as you think or wish it might be.

Quote:
According to science, there is a particular conscious thing/process that first came into existence when my physical body evolved to a certain complexity.
Third, you need to stop trying to tell us what the scientific hypothesis is. We will tell you what it is.

Consciousness under the scientific model is not "particular." It is not a thing. It is not enumerable any more than "going 60 mph" is enumerable. When the organism reaches a certain degree of maturity it begins to undergo a process. One result of that process is that the organism has a sense of consciousness. Organisms are enumerable. A process is not.

Quote:
This thing/process never existed before, will cease to exist when my body dies, and will never exist again. This is the "self" to which I'm referring.
The "self" that you're referring to has absolutely no basis in the scientific hypothesis. As we explained to you for months, you're just making all this up and trying to pin it on the scientific hypothesis.

Quote:
I contend that science is wrong about the very temporary nature of this thing/process.
You can "contend" all you want; without evidence it means nothing but sheer denial. You cannot provide any evidence of science's wrongness. You can't even represent the scientific hypothesis correctly. You're just redeploying the same straw man you have for years, ignoring all the replies, and shoving Befuddled Old Man out onstage to make excuses for you when you get caught.
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 Back to Top
Old 1st March 2017, 12:37 PM   #179
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,103
Jabba, if your argument is valid, then because the likelihood of your existence under the hypothesis in which you have an independently existing soul which must associate with your body is infinitely less than the likelihood of your existence under the hypothesis that your consciousness is produced by your brain, then you have disproved immortality.
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 1st March 2017, 12:48 PM   #180
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22,189
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- So, I need to back further up...
Not really, no.
Quote:
- Somehow, we need to agree upon the thing/process to which I'm referring.
We do agree: Under the scientific model H, it's a process. Under the Jabba model H', it's a thing. We have never disagreed about this. You just keep confusing the two.
Quote:
- According to science, there is a particular conscious thing/process that first came into existence when my physical body evolved to a certain complexity. This thing/process never existed before, will cease to exist when my body dies, and will never exist again. This is the "self" to which I'm referring.
Nope. According to science, there is a particular conscious process. According to you, there is a particular conscious thing. See our points of agreement, above. The "self" you're referring to is a thing. It stands in contrast to the "self" science refers to, which is a process.

Quote:
- I contend that science is wrong about the very temporary nature of this thing/process.
That is indeed what you contend. Where you run into difficulty is when you try to prove science wrong by replacing H with H'. That can't work.
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 Back to Top
Old 1st March 2017, 12:50 PM   #181
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,011
Where I differ with many of you is that I'm willing to call a working brain a conscious thing. That doesn't help Jabba's math though.
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 1st March 2017, 12:52 PM   #182
CriticalThanking
Designated Hitter
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: On in memory
Posts: 2,977
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- So, I need to back further up...
- Somehow, we need to agree upon the thing/process to which I'm referring.
You have tried this before. You are saying nothing new.
Quote:
- I contend that science is wrong about the very temporary nature of this thing/process.
Then get yourself to publishing in the appropriate journals. By all means, try to convince others how the science is wrong. Present evidence.

Simply saying "the likelihood of existing given my arbitrary assumptions is so low that these grains of sand Mt. Rainier you must be immortal" won't cut it. Neither will ignoring all the eloquent input from others.
CriticalThanking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st March 2017, 01:06 PM   #183
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,103
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Where I differ with many of you is that I'm willing to call a working brain a conscious thing. That doesn't help Jabba's math though.

That is just saying that consciousness is a property of the brain, which is what we've been telling Jabba all along.
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 1st March 2017, 01:16 PM   #184
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,771
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Where I differ with many of you is that I'm willing to call a working brain a conscious thing.
A working brain is a conscious thing in the same way that a car going 60 mph is a moving thing. Things are enumerable. "Is conscious" is not. "Is moving" is not. Expressed as such, these are properties of a thing. "Conscious" is not enumerable. "Moving" is not enumerable. Expressed as such, these are processes. I doubt we're so far off in our nomenclature as you fear.

Quote:
That doesn't help Jabba's math though.
Not at all, illustrative of the fact that an argument can simultaneously have many things wrong with it. I agree of your analysis of his statistical model as well.
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 Back to Top
Old 1st March 2017, 01:40 PM   #185
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22,189
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Where I differ with many of you is that I'm willing to call a working brain a conscious thing. That doesn't help Jabba's math though.
And I'm willing to call a working car a thing. But that doesn't mean "going 60mph" can only be explained as the car drawing from an existential pool of "potential going 60mph", and that therefore "going 60mph" must either be infinite or immortal.
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 Back to Top
Old 1st March 2017, 01:40 PM   #186
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,118
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- So, I need to back further up...
- Somehow, we need to agree upon the thing/process to which I'm referring.
- According to science, there is a particular conscious thing/process that first came into existence when my physical body evolved to a certain complexity. This thing/process never existed before, will cease to exist when my body dies, and will never exist again. This is the "self" to which I'm referring.
- I contend that science is wrong about the very temporary nature of this thing/process.

It's like deja vu all over again!

Has time stood still?

Is this 2012?
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 1st March 2017, 01:56 PM   #187
Pixel42
SchrŲdinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,335
Guys, are you really going to do this all over again?

Jabba's mistakes and faulty arguments have been utterly demolished already. Many times. If he doesn't already understand why they're worthless he never will. Just tell him to read the thread.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st March 2017, 01:58 PM   #188
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,011
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Guys, are you really going to do this all over again?

Jabba's mistakes and faulty arguments have been utterly demolished already. Many times. If he doesn't already understand why they're worthless he never will. Just tell him to read the thread.
That would be the smart thing to do.
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 1st March 2017, 02:12 PM   #189
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- So, I need to back further up...
- Somehow, we need to agree upon the thing/process to which I'm referring.
- According to science, there is a particular conscious thing/process that first came into existence when my physical body evolved to a certain complexity. This thing/process never existed before, will cease to exist when my body dies, and will never exist again. This is the "self" to which I'm referring.
- I contend that science is wrong about the very temporary nature of this thing/process.
My Dear Mr. Savage:

I know the "thing/process" to which you are referring--you have called it the "soul".

Your own physical body did not "evolve"; it developed.

Please support your contention with facts...
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st March 2017, 02:13 PM   #190
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- So, I need to back further up...
- Somehow, we need to agree upon the thing/process to which I'm referring.
- According to science, there is a particular conscious thing/process that first came into existence when my physical body evolved to a certain complexity. This thing/process never existed before, will cease to exist when my body dies, and will never exist again. This is the "self" to which I'm referring.
- I contend that science is wrong about the very temporary nature of this thing/process.
My Dear Mr. Savage:

I know the "thing/process" to which you are referring--you have called it the "soul". As long as you continue to conflate "thing" and "process" you will continue to err.

Your own physical body did not "evolve"; it developed.

Please support your contention with facts...
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st March 2017, 02:14 PM   #191
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,118
Jabba,

Read the threads.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 1st March 2017, 02:15 PM   #192
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,847
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Where I differ with many of you is that I'm willing to call a working brain a conscious thing. That doesn't help Jabba's math though.
Dave,
- But each brain has a different consciousness, its own consciousness -- that it does not share with any other brain, that never existed before the existence of this brain, and will never exist after the existence of this brain.
__________________
"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 Ť 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 Back to Top
Old 1st March 2017, 02:23 PM   #193
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 23,278
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- But each brain has a different consciousness, its own consciousness -- that it does not share with any other brain, that never existed before the existence of this brain, and will never exist after the existence of this brain.

Wrong, Jabba. Wrong.

Each brain is running a process that creates within itself an illusion of consciousness and continuity. There is no real basic thing called consciousness. If there were, you could define it. What are its characteristics? What of it survives from your first birthday to your forty-first? What survives death and reincarnates?

You can't answer these questions. You will pretend they don't exist. And you will continue to be: 1) wrong; and 2) remarkably disrespectful of those who have explained this to you already.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st March 2017, 02:24 PM   #194
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,011
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- But each brain has a different consciousness, its own consciousness -- that it does not share with any other brain, that never existed before the existence of this brain, and will never exist after the existence of this brain.
Yes, because each brain is a different brain, that is not connected to any other brain, that never existed before and will never exist again after it dies.
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 1st March 2017, 02:35 PM   #195
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,771
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
But each brain has a different consciousness, its own consciousness --
No. You're still confused about the difference between a process and a thing.
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 Back to Top
Old 1st March 2017, 07:10 PM   #196
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,118
Jabba,

You've got nearly 5 years of replies to your unfounded claims.

Start reading.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 1st March 2017, 08:26 PM   #197
sackett
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 4,968
Why are you so afraid of death, Jabba? Are you afraid of sleep? A dreamless sleep?

Do you fear death more than you fear making a fool of yourself? Think: When you're gone, the memory of your foolishness may very well outlast any other memory of you.

You won't be aware of that, of course, not after your dying moment, but until then it might weigh on you. Oh yes, honey, it might.
__________________
Fill the seats of justice with good men; not so absolute in goodness as to forget what human frailty is. -- Thomas Jefferson

What region of the earth is not filled with our calamities? -- Virgil
sackett is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st March 2017, 08:36 PM   #198
Toontown
Philosopher
 
Toontown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,893
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Not to worry. I'm back

- I don’t really understand the formula I’ve been using... I just accepted it -- it was in a book -- even though it didn't seem to make sense. I just assumed that I was missing something.
- Could be that you guys were trying to explain this to me and I either wasn't reading, or just wasn't understanding, your explanations. Obviously, I'm not admitting any wrong-doing -- I simply didn't have time to scrutinize nearly all of your posts, and naturally focused on the friendlier ones...
- Anyway, my first problem is that the formula always has the denominator larger than the numerator -- whatever the issue -- and the complementary hypothesis always outweighs the null(?) hypothesis.
- What am I missing, or misunderstanding?

P(H|E) = P(E|H)*P(H)/( P(E|H)*P(H)+P(E|~H)*P(~H)).
You are not the only regular participant in this thread who does not understand the formula. A good many of your detractors also do not understand it, especially the ones who keep repeating the mantra "The probability that I exist is 1".

The formula, in plain English:

The probability that I would have come to exist given H is equal to (the probability that I would have come to exist given H times the probability that H is true) divided by (the probabiliity that I would have come to exist given H plus the probability that I would have come to exist given something other than H times the probability that something other than H is true)

The formula uses the observed existence of one's sentient experience as a test of the "H" hypothesis. The mathematical question the formula poses is "How likely is it that I would be observing anything at all if H is true?" The question is anthropic in nature.

The formula is formally correct. "H" and "not H" need to be approximately defined. The probabilies may also be approximated, if one is looking for an approximate answer to the question posed.

An approximate answer can be quite compelling, if one is convinced that the approximations are within reason, and that no reasonable change to any approximation would significantly alter the conclusion.

I think one might well use the formula to rule out a particular interpretation of the science. But any interpretation of the science is not the science itself. An interpretation is simply what someone thinks the science implies, or "H".

Your difficulty, in terms of achieving your stated goal, is that the formula is entirely subjective. You might well use the formula to completely convince yourself that "H" is either correct or not.

But you cannot use the formula to prove anything to anyone else. The formula applies only to the user, and no one is compelled to be a user.

Many, in fact, would be unable to force themselves to be users even if they wanted to be users. Some people simply have no faith in probabilistic approximations.

I happen to disagree with those people. I think the ability and the willingness to make and use probabilistic approximations is essential. I think we all successfully use such approximations every day of our lives, and could not get by without them.

Additionally, I think there are many here among us who, aside from feeling life is but a joke, also do not understand that probability is not about randomness. Probability is simply a methodology for making fuzzy determinations in the light of incomplete information. In that sense, probability is useful when randomness causes our knowledge to be incomplete. But that is as far as the relation between probability and randomness goes. Probability works the same in a deterministic universe as in an indeterministic one. the formulations are the same, the ranges of outcomes are the same, the fuzzy determinations, and their reliability, are the same, whether the universe is deterministic or indeterministic.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
"I did not say that!" - Donald Trump

Last edited by Toontown; 1st March 2017 at 09:30 PM.
Toontown is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st March 2017, 08:53 PM   #199
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 6,841
Originally Posted by Toontown View Post
You are not the only regular participant in this thread who does not understand the formula. A good many of your detractors also do not understand it, especially the ones who keep repeating the mantra "The probability that I exist is 1".

The formula, in plain English:

The probability that I would have come to exist given H is equal to (the probability that I would have come to exist given H times the probability that H is true) divided by (the probabiliity that I would have come to exist given H plus the probability that I would have come to exist given something other than H times the probability that something other than H is true)

The formula uses the observed existence of oneself as a test of the "H" hypothesis. The mathematical question the formula poses is "How likely is it that I would be observing anything at all if H is true?" The question is anthropic in nature.

The formula is formally correct. "H" and "not H" need to be approximately defined. The probabilies may also be approximated, if one is looking for an approximate answer to the question posed.

An approximate answer can be quite compelling, if one is convinced that the approximations are within reason, and that no reasonable change to any approximation would significantly alter the conclusion.

I think one might well use the formula to rule out "H", but what the alternative to "H" might be is another question.

Your difficulty, in terms of achieving your stated goal, is that the formula is entirely subjective. You might well use the formula to completely convince yourself that "H" is either correct or not.

But you cannot use the formula to prove anything to anyone else. The formula applies only to the user, and no one is compelled to be a user.

Many, in fact, would be unable to force themselves to be users even if they wanted to be users. Some people simply have no faith in probabilistic approximations.

I happen to disagree with those people. I think the ability and the willingness to make and use probabilistic approximations is essential. I think we all successfully use such approximations every day of our lives, and could not get by without them.

Additionally, I think there are many here among us who, aside from feeling life is but a joke, also do not understand that probability is not about randomness. Probability is simply a methodology for making fuzzy determinations in the light of incomplete information. In that sense, probability is useful when randomness causes our knowledge to be incomplete. But that is as far as the relation between probability and randomness goes. Probability works the same in a deterministic universe as in an indeterministic one. the formulations are the same, the ranges of outcomes are the same, the fuzzy determinations, and their reliability, are the same, whether the universe is deterministic or indeterministic.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
Good post! As to the highlighted, how is it misunderstood?
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st March 2017, 09:10 PM   #200
Toontown
Philosopher
 
Toontown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,893
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
Good post! As to the highlighted, how is it misunderstood?
I was still editing the post when you posted. The finished version is a little different from your quote.

"The probability that I exist is 1" is either a red herring or a non-sequitur, in terms of the formula, depending on the intent of the claimant.

The probability that any observed evidence exists is always 1. Even if the evidence takes the form of the absence of something, the absence of that something exists.
__________________
"I did not say that!" - Donald Trump

Last edited by Toontown; 1st March 2017 at 09:22 PM.
Toontown is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

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 05:57 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

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