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 5th March 2017, 06:11 PM   #281
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,372
And how about your grandparent's parents? were there not eight of those?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon 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 5th March 2017, 06:12 PM   #282
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,372
And how about your great-grandparents? Must there not have been sixteen of those?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon 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 5th March 2017, 06:15 PM   #283
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,680
... therefore Jabba weighs as much as a duck. No wait.
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.
John Jones 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 5th March 2017, 06:15 PM   #284
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,372
By now, I assume you know where this goes. If one rolls back the generations to the time of jesus, you have more ancestors than people that have ever lived over all time.

Can you explain that?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon 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 5th March 2017, 06:20 PM   #285
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,372
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
... therefore Jabba weighs as much as a duck. No wait.
If the duck has four legs it must be a table. Or a dog. Or something.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon 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 5th March 2017, 07:28 PM   #286
jt512
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,568
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
If my parents hadn't met then I wouldn't exist.
I exist.
Therefor, my parents have met.

The argument is valid. What it has to do with the validity of Jabba's argument or the Texas sharpshooter counterargument is unclear.

Quote:
Consider a sequence of 100 coin tosses, resulting in a string of heads and tails. This specific sequence is special in the sense of being ludicrously unlikely, it has a probability of 2^{-100}, but it is not special in the sense of not being randomly sampled from the class of all possible such sequences.

It really is just that simple, and I cannot comprehend how Jabba can fail to understand that that is the fallacy he is committing. However, I do see the relationship with the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. In the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, we have a lot of observed random data, and we arbitrarily single out some data that we like. The only difference between the coin analogy and the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, is that in the coin analogy, the relevant random events that are being ignored (and make the reasoning fallacious) are potential events, rather than realized ones.

Last edited by jt512; 5th March 2017 at 08:07 PM.
jt512 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2017, 08:30 PM   #287
caveman1917
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,550
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
The argument is valid. What it has to do with the validity of Jabba's argument or the Texas Sharpshooter counterargument is unclear.
The Texas Sharpshooter (TS) argument attacks Jabba's argument on the basis of conditioning on his own existence, yet that is not the problem with it. There is nothing wrong, in and of itself, with conditioning on one's own existence. If there were then it would also invalidate my argument above about my parents having met. Just because I chose to condition on my own existence doesn't mean I committed the TS fallacy or consider myself a "special snowflake" or whatever other form the counterargument has taken so far.

Quote:
It really is just that simple, and I cannot understand how Jabba can fail to understand that that is the fallacy he is committing.
I think the problem with Jabba's argument is that he is committing the fallacy for one hypothesis but not for the other.

Suppose we observe such a coin toss sequence, and want to use it to differentiate between whether it was produced by someone tossing a coin while saying "souls are mortal" or doing it while saying "souls are immortal". Jabba's argument would then go like this:

If the person was saying "souls are mortal" while tossing the coin then it is extremely unlikely that this specific sequence would have been produced. Therefor, the person was saying "souls are immortal" while tossing the coin.

The first statement is true, and this negates the counterarguments based on his existence purportedly not being unlikely. The problem with the conclusion is that it ignores that the specific sequence produced is equally unlikely irrespective of whether the person producing it was saying souls are mortal or not. The correct argument would be:

If the person was saying "souls are mortal" while tossing the coin then it is extremely unlikely that this specific sequence would have been produced.
If the person was saying "souls are immortal" while tossing the coin then it is equally unlikely that this specific sequence would have been produced.
Therefor, observing this specific sequence of coin tosses does not allow us to differentiate between the hypotheses about what the person was saying while tossing it.

Quote:
However, I do see the relationship with the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. In the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, we have a lot of observed random data, and we arbitrarily special out some data that we like. The only difference between the coin analogy and Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, is that in the coin analogy, the relevant other random events that are being ignored (and make the reasoning fallacious) are potential events, rather than realized ones.
I guess it depends on how one understands the TS fallacy. In my understanding it is the fallacy of failing to distinguish between producing an outcome consistent with a given target and producing a target consistent with a given outcome. A person is a sharpshooter if they can do the former, while anyone can do the latter.
__________________
"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

Last edited by caveman1917; 5th March 2017 at 08:32 PM.
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 Back to Top
Old 6th March 2017, 02:06 AM   #288
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
 
AdMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,293
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I think I'm done...

- As you might expect, I still think I'm right -- but I also think that I've run out of steam.
- I kept hoping that I could figure out a way to express my opinion so that a couple of road dogs here would see what I mean and, at least roughly, agree -- but, no such luck.

- As you also might expect, I can't resist repeating the basic idea -- i.e., seems like there has to be an infinity of potential selves/"souls" (whatever they are). And, if so, OOFLam must be wrong -- given OOFLam, the likelihood of my current existence should be virtually zero. And, any reasonably possible alternative explanation should outweigh chance and luck by a long shot.
- I think that does it...

- Though, I think I'll write to Marilyn vos Savant.
- I may be back.
And he was, of course. With the exact same nonsense.

Why do people keep trying to argue with him? I think it's maybe just some weird trolling experiment to see how long it can last, and how long he can keep others arguing.
__________________
As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities.
- Voltaire.

Last edited by AdMan; 6th March 2017 at 02:08 AM.
AdMan 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 6th March 2017, 07:34 AM   #289
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,656
- This is getting really exciting -- I just wish I could keep up...

- Re Dave's argument, I think we're sort of tripping over two sub-issues: how many potential selves are there -- and, how am I different from Mt Rainier?
- I'm claiming that there is an infinity of potential selves in the same way that there is an infinity of potential Volkswagons. I say that because recycling your brain would not recycle your particular self-awareness -- it would not bring reincarnation. In that sense, this new brain/self would be different; it would be somebody else.
- I say that I am different from MT Rainier because while the characteristics of my brain are traceable, my particular self-awareness is not.

- There is a sub-sub-issue here. What can we count as potential selves? Dave says, for instance, that we can't count potential merging of ova from Cleopatra with sperm from my dad. (JT and Caveman, how would you respond to that?)

- Then, re the arguments of JT and Caveman: so far I sort of agree with them. I see this as the weak link in my case... But then, I do think that we can each be considered "special" (I think I can explain why), but that we hardly need to be special if our likelihood of currently existing is 7 billion over infinity...
__________________
"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

Last edited by Jabba; 6th March 2017 at 07:36 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 6th March 2017, 08:07 AM   #290
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,461
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I just wish I could keep up...
You can. You just don't want to. You tell us it's because you don't have time to read all the posts, but that's simply not credible. I can read all the daily posts in this thread in under ten minutes. Remember the part last year where you let slip that the real reason was because you found some poster's comments too difficult to address? If you ignore people because you have no answer to their questions and statements, that means you lose the debate. That's what losing means.

Quote:
how many potential selves are there -- and, how am I different from Mt Rainier?
Statistically it doesn't matter how many "potential selves" you think there are. It's not a concept that gives you the Big Denominator you need in order to work the equation you admit you don't understand. Part of that lack of understanding to which you allude is the mistaken notion that "potential" anythings have the slightest to do with the likelihood of anything existing.

Scientifically, your individuality bears as much on the likelihood of your existence as that of Mt Ranier bears on its existence. Your sense of self is a product of electrochemical processes in your brain. It is an emergent property of a functioning nervous system. It is no different than the shape of Mt Ranier being an emergent property of the ordinary -- although highly complex -- natural forces that shaped it. It's clear you desperately want your sense of self to have a more mystical or profound explanation than that, but that desire doesn't compel science to invent things for which there is no evidence, in order to address your subject sense of wonder at your own consciousness. You don't get to falsify the scientific hypothesis on the basis that it doesn't address all the crap you make up and try to paste onto it.

Quote:
I'm claiming that there is an infinity of potential selves in the same way that there is an infinity of potential Volkswagons. I say that because recycling your brain would not recycle your particular self-awareness -- it would not bring reincarnation.
Correct -- it would bring about two brains that have an identical sense of self-awareness. Science has no problem with this because "sense of self-awareness" under the scientific hypothesis is not a thing that existed prior to your biological birth, or in any sort of enumerable form. It's not a thing at all. It's a process, and you still stubbornly refuse to think of the sense of self-awareness under the scientific hypothesis as anything different than the soul you're trying to prove exists.

Quote:
In that sense, this new brain/self would be different; it would be somebody else.
No, it wouldn't be different. It would just be an identical copy. You're trying to argue that difference and cardinality are the same thing. The new brain would be separate from the first, but not different. Its sense of self would be expressed separately from the first, but it would not be different. But of course we already explained several times why the cardinality-only argument fails. You simply don't care. You're too "busy" to debate effectively.

Quote:
I say that I am different from MT Rainier because while the characteristics of my brain are traceable, my particular self-awareness is not.
Under the scientific hypothesis, everything that creates your sense of self-awareness is traceable as the product of a functioning nervous system. Merely claiming repeatedly over and over to the contrary does not change anything. After more than four years, you need to have an argument that gets a better toehold than just repeating your desired beliefs over and over.

Keep in mind that the part of the equation you're discussing is P(E|H), which requires you to address H as it is actually formulated, not as you wish or demand it to be. If you want to introduce the mystical "something" that you think is your soul, that goes under ~H and has no bearing in this computation.

Quote:
But then, I do think that we can each be considered "special" (I think I can explain why)...
You can't. You've had nearly five years to show evidence of a thing that makes you "special" in that particular way, and you can't do it. You just repeat your claims and beg the question. Then you beg for more time under the insinuation that you don't "understand" the argument. Quite obviously you do, as evidenced by how you selectively ignore the most important parts of it. And what you style as your attempts to improve your understanding by beating the dead horse of 'sub-issues" indefinitely are really just thinly veiled excuses to play the same debate over and over again.
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 6th March 2017, 08:08 AM   #291
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,866
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- This is getting really exciting -- I just wish I could keep up...

- Re Dave's argument, I think we're sort of tripping over two sub-issues: how many potential selves are there -- and, how am I different from Mt Rainier?
- I'm claiming that there is an infinity of potential selves in the same way that there is an infinity of potential Volkswagons. I say that because recycling your brain would not recycle your particular self-awareness -- it would not bring reincarnation. In that sense, this new brain/self would be different; it would be somebody else.
- I say that I am different from MT Rainier because while the characteristics of my brain are traceable, my particular self-awareness is not.
And you still haven't said why your particular self-awareness is not traceable. Your self-awareness is part of your brain. If we know where your brain came from, we know where your self-awareness came from, because the latter is part of the former.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- There is a sub-sub-issue here. What can we count as potential selves? Dave says, for instance, that we can't count potential merging of ova from Cleopatra with sperm from my dad. (JT and Caveman, how would you respond to that?)
This sub-issue is irrelevant because the number of potential selves over all time has nothing do to with the likelihood of a particular self awareness existing.

Above you said there are an infinite number of potential Volkswagens. But you have no problem accepting that the likelihood of a potential Volkswagen existing is not some number over infinity. What's the difference?
__________________
"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 6th March 2017, 09:03 AM   #292
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,866
And he's gone.
__________________
"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 6th March 2017, 09:34 AM   #293
HighRiser
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: High above Indianapolis
Posts: 1,754
Don't fret. He'll be back.
__________________
Congratulations, you have successfully failed to model something that you assert "isn't noticeable". -The Man

Science is not hopelessly hobbled just because it knows the difference between fact and imagination. -JayUtah
HighRiser 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 6th March 2017, 10:48 AM   #294
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,680
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- This is getting really exciting -- I just wish I could keep up...

- Re Dave's argument, I think we're sort of tripping over two sub-issues: how many potential selves are there -- and, how am I different from Mt Rainier?
- I'm claiming that there is an infinity of potential selves in the same way that there is an infinity of potential Volkswagons. I say that because recycling your brain would not recycle your particular self-awareness -- it would not bring reincarnation. In that sense, this new brain/self would be different; it would be somebody else.
- I say that I am different from MT Rainier because while the characteristics of my brain are traceable, my particular self-awareness is not.

- There is a sub-sub-issue here. What can we count as potential selves? Dave says, for instance, that we can't count potential merging of ova from Cleopatra with sperm from my dad. (JT and Caveman, how would you respond to that?)

- Then, re the arguments of JT and Caveman: so far I sort of agree with them. I see this as the weak link in my case... But then, I do think that we can each be considered "special" (I think I can explain why), but that we hardly need to be special if our likelihood of currently existing is 7 billion over infinity...
Go back and read the threads.
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.
John Jones 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 6th March 2017, 01:21 PM   #295
jt512
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,568
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- There is a sub-sub-issue here. What can we count as potential selves? Dave says, for instance, that we can't count potential merging of ova from Cleopatra with sperm from my dad. (JT and Caveman, how would you respond to that?)

Don't know; don't care. My only interest in this thread is understanding the pathological use of probability.
jt512 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th March 2017, 01:37 PM   #296
caveman1917
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,550
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Suppose we observe such a coin toss sequence, and want to use it to differentiate between whether it was produced by someone tossing a coin while saying "souls are mortal" or doing it while saying "souls are immortal". Jabba's argument would then go like this:

If the person was saying "souls are mortal" while tossing the coin then it is extremely unlikely that this specific sequence would have been produced. Therefor, the person was saying "souls are immortal" while tossing the coin.
Maybe the problem is the implicit expectation that the probabilities have to add to 1. So given that one possibility (sequence produced by person saying "souls are mortal") can be established to have an extremely low probability there is the implicit conclusion that the other possibility (sequence produced by person saying "souls are immortal") must have a high probability. The error then being that likelihoods, unlike priors or posteriors, don't have to add to 1 or anything else in particular.
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 6th March 2017, 02:31 PM   #297
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 22,908
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- This is getting really exciting -- I just wish I could keep up...

Go reread your own thread. Anything other is insulting.
__________________
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 6th March 2017, 02:53 PM   #298
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,656
230
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave...
- I claim that while our particular characteristics are largely traceable to cause and effect, this process that I'm calling our particular self-awareness is not at all traceable to cause and effect -- we cannot reproduce it chemically -- and our particular processes, scientifically speaking, can never exist again.
232
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
...
In scientific models for consciousness, it is exactly as traceable as the cause and effect that led to a particular brain existing, because they are the same thing. My particular brain can never exist again. If you somehow made an exact copy of my brain, It would exhibit an exact copy of my consciousness.
236
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- But, it wouldn't exhibit your particular self-awareness. "You" would not be reincarnated.
239
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
For exactly the same reason it wouldn't be my particular brain. It would be a copy.
If two separate brains could produce the same self-awareness that would mean the scientific explanation for self-awareness is wrong.


291
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
And you still haven't said why your particular self-awareness is not traceable. Your self-awareness is part of your brain. If we know where your brain came from, we know where your self-awareness came from, because the latter is part of the former...
Dave,

- In other words, there is a "thing," or process, that is exhibited in you that would not be exhibited in a perfect copy of you (see 232-239, above). I've been calling that your particular self-awareness. Do you have a name for it?

- In most humans, this process "cares, and it "senses, or imagines, a continuation that it would like to continue. You seem to be saying that such care is just an illusion and nothing to be concerned about -- i.e., it needn't be considered in our ethics.
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 6th March 2017, 02:58 PM   #299
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 21,513
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
230

232

236

239


291
Dave,

- In other words, there is a "thing," or process, that is exhibited in you that would not be exhibited in a perfect copy of you (see 232-239, above). I've been calling that your particular self-awareness. Do you have a name for it?

- In most humans, this process "cares, and it "senses, or imagines, a continuation that it would like to continue. You seem to be saying that such care is just an illusion and nothing to be concerned about -- i.e., it needn't be considered in our ethics.
Five years of trying to work your soul into the scientific hypothesis, and this pathetic non sequitur is the best you can do?

And you can't even own it yourself, but have to dishonestly impugn Dave, to get it out there?
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 6th March 2017, 03:20 PM   #300
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,789
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
230

232

236

239


291
Dave,

- In other words, there is a "thing," or process, that is exhibited in you that would not be exhibited in a perfect copy of you (see 232-239, above). I've been calling that your particular self-awareness. Do you have a name for it?

- In most humans, this process "cares, and it "senses, or imagines, a continuation that it would like to continue. You seem to be saying that such care is just an illusion and nothing to be concerned about -- i.e., it needn't be considered in our ethics.
This might be a good time to consider actually reading the many responses you've had in this thread. Including the ones that point out that "thing" and "process" are not the same.
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 6th March 2017, 03:23 PM   #301
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,708
Originally Posted by jond View Post
This might be a good time to consider actually reading the many responses you've had in this thread. Including the ones that point out that "thing" and "process" are not the same.

Including the ones you just quoted, Jabba.
__________________
"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 6th March 2017, 03:25 PM   #302
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,866
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
230

232

236

239


291
Dave,

- In other words, there is a "thing," or process, that is exhibited in you that would not be exhibited in a perfect copy of you (see 232-239, above).
A perfect copy of me would exhibit a perfect copy of that process.


Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- In most humans, this process "cares, and it "senses, or imagines, a continuation that it would like to continue. You seem to be saying that such care is just an illusion and nothing to be concerned about -- i.e., it needn't be considered in our ethics.
I haven't said anything like that. What I've said is that what cares, senses, and imagines is part of your physical brain.
__________________
"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 6th March 2017, 03:28 PM   #303
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,461
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
In other words...
No, don't put words in his mouth.

Quote:
...there is a "thing," or process...
No, it is a process, not a thing. Do not equivocate.

Quote:
that is exhibited in you...
No, exhibited by the organism. Don't attempt to sneak your incarnation preconception under the radar. The scientific hypothesis does not consider that properties exist independently of the entities that exhibit them. The sense of self is not something that lives inside an organism any more than "going 60 mph" lives inside of an automobile.

Quote:
that would not be exhibited in a perfect copy of you (see 232-239, above). I've been calling that your particular self-awareness.
An identical sense of self would be exhibited were you able to perfectly recreate the organism. You want this to be "particular" in a specific way that simply makes no sense under the scientific hypothesis. And to hype up the semblance of justification for that fanciful particularity, you constantly equivocate among the concepts of cardinality, identity, and separation. Your critics have a very clear understanding of what these concepts are, and they are attempting to educate you. You seem more interested in maintaining an obfuscation.

Quote:
Do you have a name for it?
A soul. And it has no business being talked about under the auspices of P(E|H). What you're describing is not something that exists in the scientific hypothesis. It is a concept you made up and are trying, by various dishonest means, to get people to agree is part of their hypothesis when it is not.

Quote:
In most humans, this process "cares, and it "senses, or imagines, a continuation that it would like to continue. You seem to be saying that such care is just an illusion and nothing to be concerned about -- i.e., it needn't be considered in our ethics.
Ethics is not part of the proof of the existence of a soul. Do not attempt to muddy the waters of what the scientific hypothesis says the sense of self is, as opposed to what consequences follow from its existence.
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 6th March 2017, 03:31 PM   #304
jt512
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,568
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post

I agree. I'd challenge anyone who sticks to this Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy explanation to explain what is wrong with the following argument (or any other such argument) where I condition on my own existence in the second statement:

If my parents hadn't met then I wouldn't exist.
I exist.
Therefor, my parents have met.

Consider this cartoon drawing of the joint hypothesis–sample space, where E is the event "I, Jabba, exist," and H and ~H are two hypotheses about how Jabba came to exist. If I could draw the cartoon to scale, the oval representing E would be invisibly small, at least on the side of the cartoon representing the so-called scientific, or random, hypothesis.


But if Jabba is conditioning on his own existence, then his joint space is reduced to the oval:


Conditioned on his own existence, the probability of his existence is 1 under either hypothesis. Hence, the observation that he exists is not evidence for either hypothesis over the other.

These cartoons also illustrate the connection between conditioning on E and the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. All the events outside of the oval—the target—are ignored.
jt512 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th March 2017, 04:03 PM   #305
caveman1917
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,550
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
Consider this cartoon drawing of the joint hypothesis–sample space, where E is the event "I, Jabba, exist," and H and ~H are two hypotheses about how Jabba came to exist. If I could draw the cartoon to scale, the oval representing E would be invisibly small, at least on the side of the cartoon representing the so-called scientific, or random, hypothesis.


But if Jabba is conditioning on his own existence, then his joint space is reduced to the oval:


Conditioned on his own existence, the probability of his existence is 1 under either hypothesis. Hence, the observation that he exists is not evidence for either hypothesis over the other.
Only because H|E = ~H|E in your diagram. Please do it again but this time draw it such that H|E >> ~H|E and you will see the error with your reasoning (the highlighted "hence") here. Yes, the observation that he exists is not evidence for either hypothesis over the other but it is not because conditioned on his own existence the probability of his existence is 1.

Quote:
These cartoons also illustrate the connection between conditioning on E and the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. All the events outside of the oval—the target—are ignored.
There is no connection, you're mixing several different things together which only happen to play out this way because you've considered the special case where H|E = ~H|E.
__________________
"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

Last edited by caveman1917; 6th March 2017 at 04:05 PM.
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 Back to Top
Old 6th March 2017, 04:40 PM   #306
jt512
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,568
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Only because H|E = ~H|E in your diagram. Please do it again but this time draw it such that H|E >> ~H|E and you will see the error with your reasoning (the highlighted "hence") here. Yes, the observation that he exists is not evidence for either hypothesis over the other but it is not because conditioned on his own existence the probability of his existence is 1.

I should have been clearer. I am not saying that P(H|E) = P(~H|E). I'm just a lousy graphic artist; the vertical line is in the middle of the oval only because that was the easiest place to put it. What I'm saying is that P(E|H,E) = P(E|~H,E) = 1. Hence, the evidence does not discriminate between H and ~H, and therefore the posterior probabilities of the hypotheses equal their prior probabilities.
jt512 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th March 2017, 06:08 PM   #307
caveman1917
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,550
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
I should have been clearer. I am not saying that P(H|E) = P(~H|E).
Then your argument is certainly incorrect. Let's refer back to my parents having met:

Let H be "my parents have met"
Let ~H be "my parents have not met"
Let E be "I exist"
Let P(H|E) = 0.9999[*]
Let P(~H|E) = 0.0001[*]

Let's go through your statements one by one:

Quote:
What I'm saying is that P(E|H,E) = P(E|~H,E) = 1.
P(E|H,E) = P(E|~H,E) = 1. Or in words, the probability that I exist given that my parents have met and that I exist equals the probability that I exist given that my parents have not met and that I exist, both of which equal 1. This is true - trivially so in fact, the probability of an event conditioned on itself is always 1 irrespective of the event being "I exist" or anything else.

Quote:
Hence, the evidence does not discriminate between H and ~H
Hence, the evidence that I exist does not discriminate between my parents having met and my parents not having met. Clearly this argument is starting to go wrong here.

Quote:
and therefore the posterior probabilities of the hypotheses equal their prior probabilities.
And therefor the posterior probabilities of the hypotheses, about my parents having met or not, equal their prior probabilities. Nope, this is not a correct conclusion.

Are you seeing the error you are making?

* I'd rather put 1 and 0 but then we'd get a division by zero error in P(E|~H,E), so let the small discrepancy stand for the possibility of artificial insemination from an anonymous sperm bank or something.
__________________
"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

Last edited by caveman1917; 6th March 2017 at 06:22 PM.
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 Back to Top
Old 6th March 2017, 06:26 PM   #308
jt512
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,568
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Then your argument is certainly incorrect. Let's refer back to my parents having met:

Let H be "my parents have met"
Let ~H be "my parents have not met"
Let E be "I exist"
Let P(H|E) = 0.9999[*]
Let P(~H|E) = 0.0001[*]

Let's go through your statements one by one:



P(E|H,E) = P(E|~H,E) = 1. Or in words, the probability that I exist given that my parents have met and that I exist equals the probability that I exist given that my parents have not met and that I exist, both of which equal 1. This is true - trivially so in fact, the probability of an event conditioned on itself is always 1 irrespective of the event being "I exist" or anything else.



Hence, the evidence that I exist does not discriminate between my parents having met and my parents not having met. Clearly this argument is starting to go wrong here.



And therefor the posterior probabilities of the hypotheses, about my parents having met or not, equal their prior probabilities. Nope, this is not a correct conclusion.

Are you seeing the error you are making?

No.

Quote:
* I'd rather put 1 and 0 but then we'd get a division by zero error in P(E|~H,E), so let the small discrepancy stand for the possibility of artificial insemination from an anonymous sperm bank or something.

Exactly. The mere fact that you exist does not discriminate between different hypotheses with non-zero probabilities about how you came to exist.
jt512 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th March 2017, 06:48 PM   #309
caveman1917
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,550
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
No.
There should be a "speechless" emoticon on this forum.

Quote:
Exactly. The mere fact that you exist does not discriminate between different hypotheses with non-zero probabilities about how you came to exist.
There are two persons, person1 and person2. Let H be "person1 and person2 have met". Can you give an estimate of the prior P(H)? And remember that you can not use the information that I exist as the child of person1 and person2 in constructing your estimate, that information will only come later.
__________________
"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

Last edited by caveman1917; 6th March 2017 at 06:50 PM.
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 Back to Top
Old 6th March 2017, 07:04 PM   #310
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 20,543
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- In other words, there is a "thing," or process, that is exhibited in you that would not be exhibited in a perfect copy of you
At the instant of the cloning were complete, both entities would have the identical "sense of self". That "sense of self" is a process continually evolving in response to, among other things, input from the environment, so after that brief instance of being identical, the two would accumulate a growing number of differences as time moved on.

They would be different. However, at no point would it be possible to identify one as the original and the other as the copy.
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group.

"He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost
jsfisher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th March 2017, 07:22 PM   #311
jt512
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,568
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
There should be a "speechless" emoticon on this forum.


There are two persons, person1 and person2. Let H be "person1 and person2 have met". Can you give an estimate of the prior P(H)? And remember that you can not use the information that I exist as the child of person1 and person2 in constructing your estimate, that information will only come later.

Describe the joint sample–hypothesis space of the experiment you have in mind.

In the meantime here is a thought experiment. Almost all pennies that are found lying on the ground got there by somebody dropping them. But one penny in 1 million lying on the ground was beamed into position by aliens from the planet Xenu. Now I go for my morning walk, and I find a penny on the ground. How does my finding that penny on the ground alter the probabilities of how it got there?
jt512 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th March 2017, 07:28 PM   #312
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 22,908
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- In other words, there is a "thing," or process, that is exhibited in you that would not be exhibited in a perfect copy of you (see 232-239, above).

Wrong, Jabba. Wrong. Consciousness is not a thing, whether you put it in quotes or really near the word process. That's like saying Amy Adams is a "refrigerator" or actress.


Quote:
i.e., it needn't be considered in our ethics.

Whoa! What??? At no time has anyone anywhere in this thread broached the subject of morality or ethics. Your backwards argument is apparent: If you don't agree with Jabba, then you think murder should be legal. That's just ... nonsense.
__________________
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 6th March 2017, 07:39 PM   #313
caveman1917
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,550
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
Describe the joint sample–hypothesis space of the experiment you have in mind.
H = "my parents have met"
E = "I exist"

Here's a visual diagram (approximately to scale):
__________________
"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

Last edited by caveman1917; 6th March 2017 at 07:43 PM.
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 Back to Top
Old 6th March 2017, 07:47 PM   #314
jt512
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,568
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
H = "my parents have met"
E = "I exist"

Here's a visual diagram (approximately to scale):
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ictureid=11185

Jesus, it took me a whole afternoon to do my graphics, and I still couldn't get the line off center. I'm about to have dinner. I'll get back to this.
jt512 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th March 2017, 07:50 PM   #315
caveman1917
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,550
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
Jesus, it took me a whole afternoon to do my graphics, and I still couldn't get the line off center. I'm about to have dinner. I'll get back to this.
I just used Paint (on windows), draw a rectangle and draw an ellipse, takes less than a minute in total. Anyway, enjoy the dinner.
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 6th March 2017, 07:53 PM   #316
jt512
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,568
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
H = "my parents have met"
E = "I exist"

Here's a visual diagram (approximately to scale):
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ictureid=11185

Actually, I can comment on this now. If that's your sample space, then you're not committing the fallacy of conditioning on the observation.
jt512 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th March 2017, 08:00 PM   #317
jt512
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,568
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
I just used Paint (on windows), draw a rectangle and draw an ellipse, takes less than a minute in total. Anyway, enjoy the dinner.

For better or worse, I did mine in R using programming statements. I guess there's a reason that graphic artists don't work using the command line.
jt512 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th March 2017, 08:35 PM   #318
caveman1917
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,550
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
Actually, I can comment on this now. If that's your sample space, then you're not committing the fallacy of conditioning on the observation.
It's the same sample space as yours above but with E moved a bit to the side to account for my earlier objection:
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Only because H|E = ~H|E in your diagram.
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 6th March 2017, 09:25 PM   #319
jt512
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,568
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
It's the same sample space as yours above but with E moved a bit to the side to account for my earlier objection:

No. You've missed my point. My point is that Jabba's observation of his existence is not in the unconditional sample space*; it's in the restricted sample space that is conditioned on his existence—i.e., where his existence is a given.

*If you think it is, then what is the probability that he would have observed his nonexistence?

Last edited by jt512; 6th March 2017 at 10:14 PM.
jt512 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th March 2017, 07:47 AM   #320
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,656
298
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- In other words, there is a "thing," or process, that is exhibited in you that would not be exhibited in a perfect copy of you (see 232-239, above)...
- Am I wrong about 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 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 11:37 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.