Proof of Immortality III

[ComfySlippers]

- Think I'll try a new tact.

- I'll try to organize.
​

NO. NO.. NO. NO. NO. NO!

- Below is how I perceive the first level of sub issues.

Forget your stupid bloody sub issues!

<-GibberSnip->

- I suspect that many of you will have problems with my proposed organization. Please (non-sarcastically), tell me what they are.

You make up crap.
You don't listen when people tell you it's crap.
You're trying another reset.

- Once past that, we'll address the specific sub-issues one at a time (given that we can somewhat agree upon what constitutes the first layer of sub-issues).

NO. NO.. NO. NO. NO. NO!

Give up. Call it a day. Get a new hobby.

 

[godless dave]

Why not just present evidence that souls exist? That's our sticking point here.

As I said earlier:

- Here's the idea.
1. A certain physical state results in an emergent property we call consciousness.
2. Each new consciousness intrinsically involves what I've been calling a "self."
3. I 'sense,' or imagine, this self to be immaterial.
4. I assume that most humans who have thought about this self also sense, or imagine, it to be immaterial.
5. This is what reincarnationists believe is an immaterial and immortal "soul" that following bodily death returns to existence time after time.
6. Reincarnationists may be wrong, and an immaterial and immortal soul may be a null class -- but it is still a real "class."
7. Here, i"m claiming that it is not a null class, and that if it isn't a null class, science has no clue as to "who" this immaterial "self" will be.
8. Which is the big difference between ME and Mt Rainier.
9. And, is why the likelihood of my current existence (my self) given OOFLam is virtually zero, and why the likelihood of Rainier's exact shape given the natural laws governing geology is virtually one.

So your OOFLam model includes the existence of a soul, and it's the likelihood of a particular soul existing under OOFLam that you're using to argue that OOFLam is less likely to be true than a model where souls exist but can survive the death of the physical body.

I don't subscribe to any model where souls exist. I think both OOFLam and ~OOFLam as you've defined them are wrong. I subscribe to a model where people have only one finite life because souls don't exist.

Alternatively, you could acknowledge that your belief in reincarnation depends on your belief in souls, and since you take the latter on faith, you have no way of convincing others that your belief is true.

 

[Humots]

- Think I'll try a new tact.

- I'll try to organize.
​

- Below is how I perceive the first level of sub issues.
1) Is the formula I'm using appropriate for determining the posterior probability of OOFLam?
2) Is the number I have entered for P(H) appropriate?
3) Is the number I have entered for P(~H) appropriate?
4) Is the number I have entered for P(E|H) appropriate?
5) Is the number I have entered for P(E|~H) appropriate?

- I suspect that many of you will have problems with my proposed organization. Please (non-sarcastically), tell me what they are.
- Once past that, we'll address the specific sub-issues one at a time (given that we can somewhat agree upon what constitutes the first layer of sub-issues).

1) No.
2) No.
3) No.
4) No.
5) No.

Your whole argument is inappropriate. And I am not being sarcastic.

 

[JayUtah]

Please (non-sarcastically), tell me what they are.

We already have, several times. You don't know this branch of mathematics and how to apply it. Specifically, you wrongly believe it's a viable method to prove what you believe. I gave you a detailed explanation some months ago about how you misuse Bayesian methods, which you ignored at the time and continue to ignore. Further, you were told by a professor of statistics that this is the wrong approach, and you have neither acknowledged that error nor followed up.

Aside from that, you simply pluck numbers out of thin air and pretend that Bayesian methods give them some sort of rigor. No model or methodology -- even Bayes -- transforms guesses into facts.

At the broader scope, your proposal is a false dilemma; you believe you can prove your belief by showing that one alternative is improbable.

You have been informed many times of these problems. Do not simply ignore your critics and then beg to reset the discussion.

...somewhat agree upon what constitutes the first layer of sub-issues.

Same stall tactic as in your Shroud thread. You propose to hold everyone hostage, preventing any further progress, until everyone agrees ahead of time that your approach is valid and produces the desired result. It isn't.

There are no "sub-issues." There is only your inability to provide evidence and your many failed attempts to prevail by word games.

 

[Agatha]

- Think I'll try a new tact.

Tack. Not tact.

- I'll try to organize.
​

[/LEFT]- Below is how I perceive the first level of sub issues.
1) Is the formula I'm using appropriate for determining the posterior probability of OOFLam?

No.

2) Is the number I have entered for P(H) appropriate?

Non.

3) Is the number I have entered for P(~H) appropriate?

Nein.

4) Is the number I have entered for P(E|H) appropriate?

Niet.

5) Is the number I have entered for P(E|~H) appropriate?

Nej.

- I suspect that many of you will have problems with my proposed organization. Please (non-sarcastically), tell me what they are.
- Once past that, we'll address the specific sub-issues one at a time (given that we can somewhat agree upon what constitutes the first layer of sub-issues).

Entirely non-sarcastically: your "ooflam" does not match the scientific model and your numbers (all of them) have no evidential backing.

 

[Loss Leader]

1) Is the formula I'm using appropriate for determining the posterior probability of OOFLam?

No. Bayesian statistics are only useful when there is new information. You have no new information, just a jumble of ideas, one of which you've set aside to call "new" so as to make your numbers work.

Information is also known as evidence, none of which you have.

2) Is the number I have entered for P(H) appropriate?

No. It comes from nowhere other than your imagination. Nor is it a comfort to anyone that you're willing to let it be as large as possible. We all know you're just going to divide by infinity so that whatever the number is it becomes zero.

3) Is the number I have entered for P(~H) appropriate?

For the sake of Anne Hathaway's Oscar, no. The whole thing is a false dichotomy. You're limiting ~H to one particular thing, whereas the set of ~H is infinitely diverse. Also, you have no evidence to even believe that your one thing is even possible.

4) Is the number I have entered for P(E|H) appropriate?
5) Is the number I have entered for P(E|~H) appropriate?

The Hebrews would say: לא

 

[JoeMorgue]

Jabba

Using words, phrases and language that already exists in the manner that they are normally used present your actual evidence or reasoning for a non-material aspects to a person's mental functioning that is separate from and/or survives the death of the physical body.

Don't make up any new words or phrases. Don't create a new "subcategory" for the discussion. Don't perform a fringe reset back to square one. Don't play the befuddled old man routine. Don't "prepare" to do anything.

AT LONG LAST WILL YOU JUST PRESENT YOUR FLIPPIN' EVERLOVING GODFORSAKEN ARGUMENT!?

It's been five years and this discussion has advanced nowhere. A random word generator would have presented a better argument through random chance by this point. Half a decade. Two separate message boards. Multiple continued threads. All over a belief that billions of people have and present simply as an admitted faith based belief. Can you even begin to wrap your mind mind around how insane this is? You have failed on the task of presenting your argument on an epic level. You simply have to be aware of this one some level.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

The game's the thing

 

[JoeMorgue]

The game's the thing

Oh I doubt there's a person in this discussions that didn't realize this a long time ago.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

I don't think it hurts to underline it now and then

 

[Jabba]

- Think I'll try a new tact.

- I'll try to organize.
​

- Below is how I perceive the first level of sub issues.
1) Is the formula I'm using appropriate for determining the posterior probability of OOFLam?
2) Is the number I have entered for P(H) appropriate?
3) Is the number I have entered for P(~H) appropriate?
4) Is the number I have entered for P(E|H) appropriate?
5) Is the number I have entered for P(E|~H) appropriate?

- I suspect that many of you will have problems with my proposed organization. Please (non-sarcastically), tell me what they are.
- Once past that, we'll address the specific sub-issues one at a time (given that we can somewhat agree upon what constitutes the first layer of sub-issues).

- I'm trying to lay out all your 'reservations' in an organized fashon, and address them one at a time. Maybe, you guys will ultimately win this debate -- but, if we can actually do this in an organized way, we'll have a 'book' to which we can direct our friends, and where they can decide for themselves. Immortality or Bust?

1) Is the formula I'm using appropriate for determining the posterior probability of OOFLam?
- Dr Hoerl said that it is -- so hopefully, we can skip that sub-issue and move on to #2?

 

[John Jones]

- I'm trying to lay out all your 'reservations' in an organized fashon, and address them one at a time. Maybe, you guys will ultimately win this debate -- but, if we can actually do this in an organized way, we'll have a 'book' to which we can direct our friends, and where they can decide for themselves. Immortality or Bust?

1) Is the formula I'm using appropriate for determining the posterior probability of OOFLam?
- Dr Hoerl said that it is -- so hopefully, we can skip that sub-issue and move on to #2?

I'm not wasting my time. You routinely ignore every argument or fact that disagrees with your claim.

 

[I Am The Scum]

... but, if we can actually do this in an organized way, we'll have a 'book' to which we can direct our friends, and where they can decide for themselves.

Chapter 1: Jabba Makes Up Numbers

 

[godless dave]

- I'm trying to lay out all your 'reservations' in an organized fashon, and address them one at a time. Maybe, you guys will ultimately win this debate -- but, if we can actually do this in an organized way, we'll have a 'book' to which we can direct our friends, and where they can decide for themselves. Immortality or Bust?

We could direct them to the first few pages of the first thread. Nothing significant has changed since then.

 

[Agatha]

- I'm trying to lay out all your 'reservations' in an organized fashon, and address them one at a time. Maybe, you guys will ultimately win this debate -- but, if we can actually do this in an organized way, we'll have a 'book' to which we can direct our friends, and where they can decide for themselves. Immortality or Bust?

1) Is the formula I'm using appropriate for determining the posterior probability of OOFLam?
- Dr Hoerl said that it is -- so hopefully, we can skip that sub-issue and move on to #2?

I disagree with Dr Hoerl on that matter, and I believe several other people do too. Dr Hoerl is not posting in this thread so we cannot discover why he felt Bayes Theorem was an appropriate tool.

I do not think this sub-issue of your can be skipped, given the large number of posts explaining why Bayes Theorem is not just inappropriate but is also being used to give unevidenced ideas a veneer of "science" they do not deserve.

 

[Jabba]

We could direct them to the first few pages of the first thread. Nothing significant has changed since then.

,
Dave,
- I'll take a look, but even if it's all covered, it isn't well organized

 

[Loss Leader]

but, if we can actually do this in an organized way, we'll have a 'book' to which we can direct our friends, and where they can decide for themselves. Immortality or Bust?

We could print it on a business card:

1. Assume the existence of an immortal soul.
2. [wave hands in the air]
3. The immortal soul exists​

 

[Jabba]

I disagree with Dr Hoerl on that matter, and I believe several other people do too. Dr Hoerl is not posting in this thread so we cannot discover why he felt Bayes Theorem was an appropriate tool.

I do not think this sub-issue of your can be skipped, given the large number of posts explaining why Bayes Theorem is not just inappropriate but is also being used to give unevidenced ideas a veneer of "science" they do not deserve.

Agatha,
- OK.
- Lets see if we can list the various reservations to using Bayes in this context.

 

[abaddon]

Agatha,
- OK.
- Lets see if we can list the various reservations to using Bayes in this context.

What? Again? How many times is that now?

Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk

 

[The Sparrow]

Again Jabba, who are you trying to convince? No matter what anyone says you just keep repeating what you already believe and ignoring what others say. What is the point again?