Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[Belz...]

Mojo,
- The "new data" I'm using is the scientific supposition(s) of how a "self" (or the process/illusion of a self) comes about. This aspect of the surrounding data has not been taken into account (as far as I can tell) by Scientific consideration re the prior probability of OOFLam.

Yawn. It'd be really nice if at some point you didn't post what you want to do, are doing, or using or thinking about and actually went in and posted something on topic.

 

[godless dave]

Mojo,
- The "new data" I'm using is the scientific supposition(s) of how a "self" (or the process/illusion of a self) comes about. This aspect of the surrounding data has not been taken into account (as far as I can tell) by Scientific consideration re the prior probability of OOFLam.

I don't understand how that's new data, or what you think hasn't been taken into account.

The scientific hypothesis is that if two humans mate it might result in one or more human offspring who, if they make it to term and their brains are functioning normally, will be conscious.

What about your existence deviates from that hypothesis?

 

[The Sparrow]

Mojo,
- The "new data" I'm using is the scientific supposition(s) of how a "self" (or the process/illusion of a self) comes about. This aspect of the surrounding data has not been taken into account (as far as I can tell) by Scientific consideration re the prior probability of OOFLam.

Good Lord. So rather than consider evidence, science should use your made up numbers to get to a presupposition of souls, then embrace or discard evidence according to how it lines up with that 'mathematical proof.'

Sounds like creationists doing 'science' to prove the bible is correct.

 

[Jabba]

I don't understand how that's new data, or what you think hasn't been taken into account.

The scientific hypothesis is that if two humans mate it might result in one or more human offspring who, if they make it to term and their brains are functioning normally, will be conscious.

What about your existence deviates from that hypothesis?

Dave,
- Given that explanation for my current existence, my current existence is totally unlikely.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- Given that explanation for my current existence, my current existence is totally unlikely.

Why? Was it totally unlikely for your parents to mate?

And how is it new data?

 

[Belz...]

Dave,
- Given that explanation for my current existence, my current existence is totally unlikely.

Actually the likelihood of your existence is 1 (certain).

 

[Hokulele]

Dave,
- Given that explanation for my current existence, my current existence is totally unlikely.

It's the same on both sides of your equation. That's the problem.

 

[jond]

Dave,
- Given that explanation for my current existence, my current existence is totally unlikely.

And yet, you propose a scenario where you need both that explanation AND a non material soul which somehow must connect with your body AND make the brain do all the things that we know it does when conscious. Somehow you posit that your explanation is more likely??? No, Jabba.

 

[The Sparrow]

Dave,
- Given that explanation for my current existence, my current existence is totally unlikely.

If it was TOTALLY unlikely, you wouldn't exist.
You exist, so therefore you are wrong.

 

[The Sparrow]

Dave,
- Given that explanation for my current existence, my current existence is totally unlikely.

Texas sharpshooter - you are doing it again.

You think your particular self is a specific target, and you are imagining that as incredibly unlikely.
You are NOT the TARGET, you just happened. I am not the target either. I have blue eyes because my dad did. Unlike all my siblings, I am bald, probably from my mom's father. I have a mood disorder, probably a combination of nature and nurture. It is just genes.

 

[JayUtah]

Mojo,
- The "new data" I'm using is the scientific supposition(s) of how a "self" (or the process/illusion of a self) comes about. This aspect of the surrounding data has not been taken into account (as far as I can tell) by Scientific consideration re the prior probability of OOFLam.

Your hypothesis H is that the scientific model can produce consciousness. You're trying to disprove the hypothesis so that you can invoke a false dilemma and say that having disproven it, some other anonymous hypothesis ~H (what you claim, but wrongly notated) must be responsible for producing consciousness. You've assigned prior probabilities P(H) and P(~H) to each of those hypotheses, even though it's ill-formed for you to do so for P(~H). The new data in your model is E, the observation that your consciousness exists in your present form. You purport that this new data is highly unlikely to have arisen in the case of the scientific model, in other words that P(E|H) is very small. Thus you conclude that P(H|E) is also very small and that this means the posterior probability P(~H|E) must be very large. Not that this is a valid way of thinking about the problem, but it's the way you've been presenting it up until now.

What you're trying to do now is scrape together a whole bunch of speculative hogwash and pin it straw-man fashion on the scientific model, insisting it would somehow have to account for it. But the conditions you're trying to place on H actually apply only to ~H, and only via your supposition. You're making up all sorts of excuses for why the target has to be drawn around your bullet hole that try (but fail) to avoid the real reason that that's where the bullet hole is.

 

[JayUtah]

Given that explanation for my current existence, my current existence is totally unlikely.

Non sequitur.

 

[badnewsBH]

Texas sharpshooter - you are doing it again.

You think your particular self is a specific target, and you are imagining that as incredibly unlikely.
You are NOT the TARGET, you just happened. I am not the target either. I have blue eyes because my dad did. Unlike all my siblings, I am bald, probably from my mom's father. I have a mood disorder, probably a combination of nature and nurture. It is just genes.

It could also be jeans; if they're too tight that would certainly spoil my mood.

I can't understand why people think these explanations are more likely. Brains aren't complicated enough, I guess. They just have to have a magical personality force as a power supply or whatnot.

 

[Belz...]

Your hypothesis H is that the scientific model can produce consciousness. You're trying to disprove the hypothesis so that you can invoke a false dilemma and say that having disproven it, some other anonymous hypothesis ~H (what you claim, but wrongly notated) must be responsible for producing consciousness. You've assigned prior probabilities P(H) and P(~H) to each of those hypotheses, even though it's ill-formed for you to do so for P(~H). The new data in your model is E, the observation that your consciousness exists in your present form. You purport that this new data is highly unlikely to have arisen in the case of the scientific model, in other words that P(E|H) is very small. Thus you conclude that P(H|E) is also very small and that this means the posterior probability P(~H|E) must be very large. Not that this is a valid way of thinking about the problem, but it's the way you've been presenting it up until now.

What you're trying to do now is scrape together a whole bunch of speculative hogwash and pin it straw-man fashion on the scientific model, insisting it would somehow have to account for it. But the conditions you're trying to place on H actually apply only to ~H, and only via your supposition. You're making up all sorts of excuses for why the target has to be drawn around your bullet hole that try (but fail) to avoid the real reason that that's where the bullet hole is.

I have no idea how you manage to have the stamina to keep doing this after so long. I've switched to sarcasm mode a while ago.

 

[The Sparrow]

I have no idea how you manage to have the stamina to keep doing this after so long. I've switched to sarcasm mode a while ago.

I think it's good mental excercise. Keeps your chops up at defeating bogus arguments.

 

[godless dave]

I think it's good mental excercise. Keeps your chops up at defeating bogus arguments.

I thought I was just wasting time at work but I'll go with what you said.

 

[Hokulele]

I have no idea how you manage to have the stamina to keep doing this after so long. I've switched to sarcasm mode a while ago.

What keeps it interesting is to see exactly which fallacy or mistake is made at each step, and address that one specifically. Sometimes the wooly, waffly language makes it tricky to identify instantly, so it is fun to see what the argument really boils down to.

 

[Mojo]

Mojo,
- The "new data" I'm using is the scientific supposition(s) of how a "self" (or the process/illusion of a self) comes about. This aspect of the surrounding data has not been taken into account (as far as I can tell) by Scientific consideration re the prior probability of OOFLam.

The "scientific supposition" is that consciousness is the result of brain processes, and that once your body exists whatever consciousness it happens to be producing is your consciousness.

You are trying to beg the question by foisting an infinite number of "potential selves" in the hypothesis you oppose. That is a strawman argument, and it makes your argument irrelevant to the actual hypothesis.

 

[Belz...]

What keeps it interesting is to see exactly which fallacy or mistake is made at each step, and address that one specifically.

If jabba managed to come up with new stuff, I'd agree with that, but...

 

[The Sparrow]

If jabba managed to come up with new stuff, I'd agree with that, but...

Agreed, it is frustrating when he loops back to a previous argument and starts it over again after its already been destroyed.