Proof of Immortality III

[Mojo]

1. He states a belief in X.
2. He claims it can be proven.
3. He creates a false dilemma so he can cast aspersions and call it disproving the alternative.
4. He purports that Bayesian inference can resolve the dilemma by making the alternatives to his belief seem virtually impossible.
5. He makes up numbers for the model.
6. He tap-dances among the categories the number represents to avoid facing the false dilemma.
7. He alludes to qualitative evidence but provides only attribution and assumption.
8. He chides his critics for being too left-brained to accept his handwaving.
9. He complains that he would be better received elsewhere.
10. He avoids refutations by claiming he doesn't understand them or doesn't have time to read them.
11. He stalls by repeatedly restating his claims and asking for clarifications on others' posts.
12. He quotes his critics' posts and tries to "summarize" them by simply putting his words in their mouths so that he can...
13. ...repeatedly reset the argument and make it look like the reset was meant to address their challenges.

You forgot:

14. He gives the strawman he wishes to argue against a silly-sounding name.

 

[JayUtah]

No [Bayesian analysis] does not.

It would marginally apply if he had a structurally valid argument and some data. Which is to say, if you problem is

I have a number of different statistical models for a particular phenomenon. I want to see which one of them is the best predictor of real-world data.​

then it is valid to use Bayes' theorem to apply the data to each of the hypothetical models. Jabba is strenuously gesticulating in a way that suggests he wants his argument to resemble that use case. But for the various reasons elaborated by many of his critics, it is not.

You haven't provided any evidence. Don't sit there and pretend we're being unreasonable.

Jabba has provided attribution. That is, he names a list of curious phenomenon and argues that dualism explains them. He attributes them to dualism, and calls the result "indirect" evidence. That isn't proof. That some hypothesis explains a phenomenon doesn't make the phenomenon proof of the hypothesis. Many fringe theorists fall into this trap, some perhaps even innocently. It's not any more complicated to unravel than any other brand of circular reasoning.

Imagine you have a photograph with an indistinct, shadowy figure standing near a house. The UFO enthusiasts say that's a space alien. Their hypotheses of how aliens visit earth explains the observation in the photo. Ditto religious folk, who interpret the indistinct figure as a guardian angel. Then the ghost hunters say it's a ghost, and their beliefs of how ghosts affect photographic film explain the photograph.

But the photo isn't evidence of any of the claims made about it.

We aren't going to let you get a foot in the door just so you can pretend we all agree with you.

Correct; it's not just a matter of recognizing Jabba's pattern of softening his claim until someone agrees it's reasonable, whereupon he reinstates the full vigor of the claim and cites you as in agreement. In this case it's a matter of correctly affording no degree of credibility to a claim whose cause and effect is pure speculation. He literally speculates that a soul exists, is immortal, and is an explanation for the anecdotes he cites. And he wants people to afford him enough credibility for that blatantly begged question that he can Bayes it up into proof.

You aren't writing code. You don't have to make nested if/than statements.

And too much nesting makes bad code anyway.

 

[jt512]

Let S1 = {0, 1}, let S10 = {0, 1}^10, let X1 be a random variable with codomain S1, let X10 be a random variable with codomain S10 where X10 = X1^10 = {X1, X1, ... , X1}, let p = {p_1, p_2, ... , p_10} be a sequence of outcomes of X1 with length 10. p is both a sample size of 10 in X1 and a sample size of 1 in X10.

Let H1 be some hypothesis regarding X1, and let C be the relative prior probability of H1 vs ~H1, A the relative posterior probability of H1 vs ~H1, and B the relative conditional probability of p given H1 vs p given ~H1. Each p_i can be either 0 or 1, let B0 be the relative conditional probability of 0 given H1 vs 0 given ~H1 and B1 likewise for 1. Then

A = C * B = C * B0^k * B1^l where k is the number of 0's in p and l the number of 1's in p.

The latter expression, C * B0^k * B1^l, is the same as if we had considered p a sample size of 10 from S1. The important bit here is the decomposition of X10 as X1^10 which, given the independence between the p_i, allows us to write P(p) = P(p_1) * P(p_2) * ... * P(p_10)

When you're making statistical inferences about the distribution of binary integers, then your sample space is the space of binary integers. This is true whether you obtain your data points singly or as strings of 10. If your string of 10 binary integers comprises 10 iid binary integers, then to make inferences about your distribution of binary integers, the batch is a sample of 10 binary integers.

If you have a string of 10 binary integers, and you wish to make a statistical inference about the distribution of 10-bit strings from your sample, then you have a sample 1 10-bit string. This gives you no more information about your distribution of 10-bit strings then a sample of 1 binary integer gives you about the distribution of binary integers. Of course, if you can assume that that elements of the string are iid, then you can treat the string as a sample of size 10 and make your target of inference the distribution of the binary integers, as above, and then calculate the distribution of 10-bit strings, but here again, your target of statistical inference was the distribution of bits, not strings.

The point is that the target of statistical inference determines what the sample space is and hence what a "data point" is. In the context of your conversations with MRC_Hans and Loss Leader, this is what was relevant. Though they didn't make it explicit, they were both talking about the normal situation where the target of statistical inference was given—eg, the distribution of heads and tails. If that is the target, then 1 coin flip is a sample of size 1; 10 coin flips, a sample of size 10. Their point was that if you have a sample of size 10 coin flips, you have more information about the distribution of coin flips then if you have a sample of 1 coin flip. Your response that a string of 10 coin flips can be considered a sample of size 1 was irrelevant to their argument, because, for the purpose of making an inference about the distribution of heads and tails it is a sample of 10 heads and tails.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

You forgot:

14. He gives the strawman he wishes to argue against a silly-sounding name.

15. If the "other side" gives up, you have won "Effective Debate." You just need to fill in the forms to collect your $1million.

 

[Pixel42]

15. If the "other side" gives up, you have won "Effective Debate." You just need to fill in the forms to collect your $1million.

That really does seem to be the strategy: to keep repeating the same faulty assertions and arguments over and over again until people get fed with explaining why they're faulty and give up, and then declare victory.

 

[John Jones]

That really does seem to be the strategy: to keep repeating the same faulty assertions and arguments over and over again until people get fed with explaining why they're faulty and give up, and then declare victory.

Yes. He's certainly done it before in that shroud thread.

 

[Jabba]

- Anyway, at this point, I do believe that a neutral audience would agree with my argument -- so, I'm pretty well satisfied with it...

- To me, the most questionable assertion I make is that the likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam, is an appropriate concept for P(E|H). This is where the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy comes in.
- So here, I claim that my current existence can be set aside as a special case (a target) -- and (I think), is in line with ToonTown's claims.
- But then, I don't think that I need to be a special case in order to render an unimaginably small posterior probability to OOFLam. I claim that the only reason we need a special case, in our consideration, is simply to provide a reasonable alternative to chance. In the lottery example, the winner has to be a special case in order for us to suspect something other than chance as being responsible -- but, in this case, we already have such an alternative -- ~OOFLam.
- Simply speaking, there is a reasonable possibility that OOFLam is not correct, and my current existence is so unlikely -- given OOFLam -- that OOFLam must not be correct.

 

[Jabba]

That really does seem to be the strategy: to keep repeating the same faulty assertions and arguments over and over again until people get fed with explaining why they're faulty and give up, and then declare victory.

Pixel,
- Please elaborate just one of your objections, and I'll try to answer it.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Simply speaking, there is a reasonable possibility that OOFLam is not correct, and my current existence is so unlikely -- given OOFLam -- that OOFLam must not be correct.

You just keep restating your goal. We know what you are trying to prove. We are asking you to prove it.

STOP STALLING.

 

[John Jones]

- Anyway, at this point, I do believe that a neutral audience would agree with my argument -- so, I'm pretty well satisfied with it...

[...].

If you believed your own tripe you would find a neutral audience and try it out on them.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Pixel,
- Please elaborate just one of your objections, and I'll try to answer it.

Oh for... people have been elaborating on their objections to your nonsense for half a decade and you haven't answered one.

STOP STALLING.

 

[jond]

- Anyway, at this point, I do believe that a neutral audience would agree with my argument -- so, I'm pretty well satisfied with it...

Ha ha ha ha ha!!! You're so funny!!!

- To me, the most questionable assertion I make is that the likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam, is an appropriate concept for P(E|H). This is where the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy comes in.
- So here, I claim that my current existence can be set aside as a special case (a target) -- and (I think), is in line with ToonTown's claims.
- But then, I don't think that I need to be a special case in order to render an unimaginably small posterior probability to OOFLam. I claim that the only reason we need a special case, in our consideration, is simply to provide a reasonable alternative to chance. In the lottery example, the winner has to be a special case in order for us to suspect something other than chance as being responsible -- but, in this case, we already have such an alternative -- ~OOFLam.
- Simply speaking, there is a reasonable possibility that OOFLam is not correct, and my current existence is so unlikely -- given OOFLam -- that OOFLam must not be correct.

The likelihood of OOFLam is exactly the same as the likelihood of your body existing. Yet somehow you think it's MORE likely that an immaterial soul exists and it somehow connects with your body. Care to show the math on how that works? Remember that in your model you still have the unlikeliness of your body, plus the unlikeliness of your soul, plus the unlikeliness of your soul connecting with your body. I'm quite sure any neutral party would be more than satisfied that you're very wrong.

 

[abaddon]

It's the "everyone secretly agrees with me" reset.

Again.

 

[JayUtah]

- Anyway, at this point, I do believe that a neutral audience would agree with my argument...

Asked and answered. This is the audience you have chosen, so stop covering up for your failure by accusing that audience of being closed-minded and biased. They have given you the reasons why they don't accept your argument and you have ignored those reasons in favor of simply repeating your claims ad nauseam. The error is yours, not theirs, and it is not alleviated by appealing to some other imaginary audience.

so, I'm pretty well satisfied with it...

Face-saving. You can't make your argument work, so you pretend there's nothing wrong with it and blame your critics instead for not being more accepting, just as you have done in all your other threads here. In fact, you have selected experts in the field to consult about your attempt to prove immortality, and they too have told you your argument won't work. Satisfaction in the face of concerted explanation to the contrary is merely delusion.

This is where the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy comes in.

And you commit it unrepentantly in your argument. This, not some imaginary bias or entrenchment, is why your critics reject your argument.

But then, I don't think that I need to be a special case...

Equivocation -- that's what your argument is, in fact, based on: your contention that the scientific model cannot predict you as the individual presently constituted.

...reasonable alternative to chance.

There is no "chance" in this problem. There is only the scientific model, which explains all the pertinent observations. You have concocted a fantasy in which the scientific model's ability to create myriad individuals is somehow "virtually impossible." Your handwaving is not proof that "chance" is involved or that your caricature of the scientific model is what your critics hold.

...the winner has to be a special case in order for us to suspect something other than chance as being responsible...

Asked and answered -- Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

-- but, in this case, we already have such an alternative -- ~OOFLam.

Asked and answered -- false dilemma. This, not some imagined bias or entrenchment, is why your critics reject your argument.

Simply speaking, there is a reasonable possibility that OOFLam is not correct...

Asked and answered -- begging the question. You have stated no rationale that is, in fact, reasonable. Your feelings are not a reason. Your fervent desire is not a reason. Your naked attribution of various phenomena to your hypothesis is not a reason. You can show that there are reasons to believe the scientific model is incorrect only by stating credible observations that it cannot explain, which you cannot do. You only Google for anecdotes and tall tales and attribute those to your belief.

This, not some imagined bias or entrenchment, is why your critics reject your argument.

All of these have been covered before at length. Do not insult your critics by calling them closed-minded and biased until you are able to actually confront and refute the real reasons they object to your argument, which they have made abundantly clear to you.

 

[JayUtah]

Please elaborate just one of your objections, and I'll try to answer it.

No you won't, and your admitted unwillingness to read and answer other people's posts doesn't oblige them to repeat themselves. Your critics have plainly and repeatedly stated their objections. Quit stalling and address them. And as I stated before, it's rather comical to watch you accuse your critics out of one side of your mouth for being closed-minded and biased, and out of the other side of your mouth beg their indulgence for your inability to follow the debate. Make up your mind -- are you a guru or a dotard? They're incompatible characters.

 

[JayUtah]

It's the "everyone secretly agrees with me" reset.

Again.

Indeed, it's the same play as the denouement of his defunct Shroud thread. He admitted there that he had lost the debate, and then spent years trying to prove that he only lost because his critics had unfairly and prejudicially rejected his argument. That led to the comical repetition of attempts to force his critics to agree ahead of time that his evidence was valid as a condition of him re-opening the debate.

And here we are again. Despite offering a blatantly illogical argument, Jabba has concluded that we're just an irrationally tough audience. And he's already conjured up in his mind a more sympathetic audience to cheer him on. That makes his argument more about ego reinforcement than about whether there's an immortal soul. I've been saying now for quite some time that Jabba isn't interested in an immortal soul or the purported burial shroud of Jesus. It's all about proving his belief that skeptic thinking is limited and biased.

 

[Loss Leader]

- Anyway, at this point, I do believe that a neutral audience would agree with my argument -- so, I'm pretty well satisfied with it...

- To me, the most questionable assertion I make is that the likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam, is an appropriate concept for P(E|H). This is where the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy comes in.
- So here, I claim that my current existence can be set aside as a special case (a target) -- and (I think), is in line with ToonTown's claims.
- But then, I don't think that I need to be a special case in order to render an unimaginably small posterior probability to OOFLam. I claim that the only reason we need a special case, in our consideration, is simply to provide a reasonable alternative to chance. In the lottery example, the winner has to be a special case in order for us to suspect something other than chance as being responsible -- but, in this case, we already have such an alternative -- ~OOFLam.
- Simply speaking, there is a reasonable possibility that OOFLam is not correct, and my current existence is so unlikely -- given OOFLam -- that OOFLam must not be correct.

Utter nonsense.

If the scientific middle accounts for your existence, as you admit it does, then why "must" it be incorrect?

To use your own very poor example, how does a win by the cousin of the lottery commissioner show that the lottery "must" be rigged? It may be. I would certainly support some kind of inquiry. But the possibility remains that it wasn't fixed and he won fairly.

How does something go from possible to impossible merely by decreasing its odds?

 

[godless dave]

This whole "chance" thing is a red herring anyway. Jabba has been treating the birth of a new human self as if it's a single event like a card draw, when really it's the culmination of a long series of events. The prior probability of the event changes depending on what point in time you estimate the probability.

12 billion years ago my particular existence was highly unlikely.

100 years ago, when my grandparents were still chasing hoops with sticks or whatever children did in those days, it was much less unlikely - but still impossible to predict.

50 years ago when my parents got married it became more likely.

45 years ago, there were still millions of different ways their DNA could combine, so my specific existence was unlikely - but a completely different degree of unlikelihood than what could have been calculated 12 billion years ago.

Causality matters. Time matters. I didn't come into existence the way a neutron emerges from decaying uranium.

 

[Jabba]

Utter nonsense.

If the scientific middle accounts for your existence, as you admit it does, then why "must" it be incorrect?

To use your own very poor example, how does a win by the cousin of the lottery commissioner show that the lottery "must" be rigged? It may be. I would certainly support some kind of inquiry. But the possibility remains that it wasn't fixed and he won fairly.
How does something go from possible to impossible merely by decreasing its odds?

LL,
- I agree. The win by the cousin doesn't prove anything -- it merely supports an inquiry...
- But, to make it somewhat analogous to our situation, we do the inquiry and find that the cousin got out of jail a few months back and has been living with his cousin ever since.

 

[Pixel42]

Pixel,
- Please elaborate just one of your objections, and I'll try to answer it.

OK. This:

LL,
- I agree. The win by the cousin doesn't prove anything -- it merely supports an inquiry...
- But, to make it somewhat analogous to our situation, we do the inquiry and find that the cousin got out of jail a few months back and
has been living with his cousin ever since.

I object to the highlighted, because no such caveats are required to make the situation analogous.

Your existence is analogous to a random ticket buyer winning the lottery. No cousin of anyone involved with the lottery, let alone a convict cousin, need be imagined. Just a random number coming up, the ticket for which was bought by a random person.

To use the card hand analogy: you are not a royal flush or a full house, you're any old random selection of cards. If you think otherwise (and it appears you do) please explain why.