Proof of Immortality II

[Jabba]

- The formula: P(A|me) = P(me|A) P(A)/(P(me|A) P(A) + P(me|~A) P(~A))

The likelihood of me, given A, is the key term in the formula. I claim that it should be one over an enormous number. You guys Claim that it should be 1.00.
- My claim is based upon the conclusion that I am sufficiently "set apart" to warrant something less than one -- something a lot less than one.
- You guys don't think that what I say sets me apart does any such thing.
- I think that's our key disagreement.
- Do you agree?
- If my wording seems strange it's because I'm trying to dictate.

No, it is not. Our claim - mine at least, and I think I have agreement from some other posters - is that the likelihood of you, given A, is one over an enormous number. We think that's the likelihood of you predicted by A.
I disagree that you are set apart in any way whatsoever. You were one of many possible outcomes.

– But Dave, if I am not set apart, The likelihood of me, given A, is one. The appropriate entry for P(me|A) is one.

I don't follow.

I thought the "set apart" thing was to explain why we should think your existence was significant even though it was just one of many possible unlikely outcomes.

Dave,
- I don't follow either...
- The "set apart" thing was to explain why we should think my existence was significant even though it was just one of many possible unlikely outcomes. So, if I am not set apart, the likelihood of my existence, given A, should be one.

 

[Hokulele]

You aren't set apart.

 

[Giordano]

Dave,
So, if I am not set apart, the likelihood of my existence, given A, should be one.

Still wrong! Please see my post in response to your first posting of this error, just above.

 

[Giordano]

Dave,

- The "set apart" thing was to explain why we should think my existence was significant even though it was just one of many possible unlikely outcomes.

Just to clarify: you are special- there is only one of you. You may be the most important person on Earth, to you. However, probably everyone feels that to some extent, so you are not distinct from anyone else in that regard. (personally, my wife and kids are probably more important to me than I am, when the issue has come up, but that probably also applies to a lot of people).

But even given that you are special to you, your use of statistics is wrong. It doesn't prove what you think it does because it doesn't help you be special at all. You propose way too many souls for that to work. The statistics only apply if you believe that you in particular were a previously arranged target and that something or someone planned in advance to create Jabba. If that is what you believe, then your theory of reincarnation does not help in any way with the numbers: you need a Jabba-friendly god. Being this is the Religion section, okay, propose that. But your idea of applying math to prove reincarnation is just deal wrong.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- I don't follow either...
- The "set apart" thing was to explain why we should think my existence was significant even though it was just one of many possible unlikely outcomes. So, if I am not set apart, the likelihood of my existence, given A, should be one.

Why?

 

[Loss Leader]

Dave,
- I don't follow either...
- The "set apart" thing was to explain why we should think my existence was significant even though it was just one of many possible unlikely outcomes. So, if I am not set apart, the likelihood of my existence, given A, should be one.

Please stop posting nonsense. The likelihood of your existence is incalculable because we have only one data point - that you exist. Since the current model predicts that you will exist (or allows for it), there is nothing to question.

There is no prior information, there is no new information.

There are just two choices:

1. A model for which there is consistent evidence which allows for your existence has allowed for your existence.

- or -

2. A model, for which there is no evidence whatsoever, allows for your existence.

 

[jond]

- The formula: P(A|me) = P(me|A) P(A)/(P(me|A) P(A) + P(me|~A) P(~A))

The likelihood of me, given A, is the key term in the formula. I claim that it should be one over an enormous number. You guys Claim that it should be 1.00.
- My claim is based upon the conclusion that I am sufficiently "set apart" to warrant something less than one -- something a lot less than one.
- You guys don't think that what I say sets me apart does any such thing.
- I think that's our key disagreement.
- Do you agree?

- If my wording seems strange it's because I'm trying to dictate.

Jabba- I don't wish to speak for anyone else, but here's where we (you and I) disagree: There is a difference in likelihood of you (meaning the collection of atoms that makes up your body) and the "you" that you are talking about (which is not a thing, but is instead a process.) I absolutely claim that the probability of "you" (the one you're talking about) is 1--the only "you" that you could be. That's because it's an ongoing process and not a thing (like your body, for instance).

The likelihood of you (meaning the collection of atoms that is you, but not the one you're really talking about) is definitely 1/a very small number. Though I contend that that number gets quite a bit smaller as we move away from the bingeing of time, to the beginnings of the solar system, to the beginnings of life, and to the evolution that's brought us to where we are today. Humans exist in large numbers, (and did so when your parents had the relations that resulted in your existence) so it's not at all unlikely that you exist.

 

[tsig]

– But Dave, if I am not set apart, The likelihood of me, given A, is one. The appropriate entry for P(me|A) is one.

You're immortal because you're special?

 

[Akhenaten]

- The formula: P(A|me) = P(me|A) P(A)/(P(me|A) P(A) + P(me|~A) P(~A))

What about it?

P(A|tyrannosaurus) = P(tyrannosaurus|A) P(A)/(P(tyrannosaurus|A) P(A) + P(tyrannosaurus|~A) P(~A)) is far more interesting.

The likelihood of me, given A, is the key term in the formula.

If that's the case then you ought to have avoided creating such a muddle about what you actually mean by "the likelihood of me".

I claim that it should be one over an enormous number. You guys Claim that it should be 1.00.

This difference arises solely from your penchant for confusing the prospects of your eventual existence given the state of the Universe just after it began with the obvious reality of your current existence.

The fault here lies with the complete inability of Jabbanetics™ to present cogent arguments.

- My claim is based upon the conclusion that I am sufficiently "set apart" to warrant something less than one -- something a lot less than one.

No, your claim is based upon a the supposition that immortality is a thing.

Your refusal to even address the many arguments that have been put forth over the course of the last two years speaking against the tenability of the idea that consciousness (or "selfdom" or whatever other silly pseudonym you happen to favour this week) can survive without the support of a living, functioning neurosystem is what's turned this thread into nothing more than a long-running joke.

- You guys don't think that what I say sets me apart does any such thing.

What sets you apart is a unique inability to find an effective means of expressing your own meaningless assertions.

- I think that's our key disagreement.

No, our key disagreement is borne of your refusal to address the question, "How are you defining immortality?"

- Do you agree?

Are you asking the LCP what are the key disagreements that "us guys" have with your claptrap?

How would he know, Jabba, any better than you might yourself?

You still don't have a handle on this whole 'forum' concept, do you?

- If my wording seems strange it's because I'm trying to dictate.

Your wording seems strange because you're trying to enunciate nonsense. The mechanism by which you chose to do so is irrelevant.

 

[Akhenaten]

– But Dave, if I am not set apart, The likelihood of me , given A, is one. The appropriate entry for P(me |A) is one.

As long as your personal interpretations of "I" and "me" remain in disaccord with the consensus then the appropriate entry for P(me|A) might just as easily be "pomegranate".

 

[Giordano]

Jabba, I will repeat the question first raised by another poster: what of T. rex or other extinct animals? Weren't they immortal and reincarnated by your theory? Where are they now?

Oh, I have yet to hear from Jabba exactly what is reincarnated in his theory that reassures him that he will never truly die. Exactly what part of him is the "soul" that will continue? Self-identity, appearance, preferences, loves, hates, etc. What part? At least my children have ~50% of my DNA and some versions of some of the same world views. One even has some of my facial features and my height. Do reincarnated "souls" do better than than that at reproducing me? What part will never die?

 

[pakeha]

As long as your personal interpretations of "I" and "me" remain in disaccord with the consensus then the appropriate entry for P(me|A) might just as easily be "pomegranate".

Yes, that's the essence of Jabba's error.

 

[Nonpareil]

Dave,
- I dohttp://www.fallacyfiles.org/texsharp.htmlttp://www.fallacyfiles.org/texsharp.htmlttp://www.fallacyfiles.org/texsharp.html't follow either...
- The "set apart" thing was to explain why we should think my existence was significant even though it was just one of many possible unlikely outcomes. So, if I am not set apart, the likelihood of my existence, given A, should be one.

You may want to read up on the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. You're painting the bullseye over an arbitrary point - after the shot has been taken.

 

[AdMan]

You may want to read up on the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. You're painting the bullseye over an arbitrary point - after the shot has been taken.

As has been pointed out to him countless times in this and the previous threads. He still doesn't seem to understand this is what he's resorting to, and neither has he explained why it's not that fallacy.

 

[Nonpareil]

As has been pointed out to him countless times in this and the previous threads. He still doesn't seem to understand this is what he's resorting to, and neither has he explained why it's not that fallacy.

Not surprising, but I figured it was best to at least make an effort. I have this horrible tendency to believe that even the most stubbornly ignorant can be educated.

and you people just keep letting me down

 

[Giordano]

Jabba simply does not respond to any post that he knows invalidates his proposal. But I think he reads all posts enough to know to which to refuse to answer

 

[Akhenaten]

Dave,
- I don't follow either...

- The "set apart" thing was to explain why we should think my existence was significant even though it was just one of many possible unlikely outcomes.

The set apart thing was to explain why we should think your existence was significant which was to explain why we should think you're special which, I have no doubt, will eventually be used to explain why we should think that you're set apart.

We've been this way before.

So, if I am not set apart, the likelihood of my existence, given A, should be one.

1.0 You aren't set apart.

1.1 The likelihood of your existence is one.

6.3.1.2.1.1. Therefore the A that you've given yourself is bogus.

2.0 Etcetera.

 

[Akhenaten]

Jabba simply does not respond to any post that he knows invalidates his proposal. But I think he reads all posts enough to know to which to refuse to answer

Presactly.

 

[Mojo]

That's because it's an ongoing process and not a thing (like your body, for instance).

We've sort of been ignoring this for some time, and pointing out that even if we accept Jabba's erroneous description of the "self" his argument still completely fails to "prove immortality", but it's always worth pointing out.

Jabba's argument is spherically wrong.

 

[jond]

We've sort of been ignoring this for some time, and pointing out that even if we accept Jabba's erroneous description of the "self" his argument still completely fails to "prove immortality", but it's always worth pointing out.

Jabba's argument is spherically wrong.

Right. I'm just wanting to avoid the inevitable "but that's not the YOU I'm talking about" nonsense coming back.