Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[Pixel42]

- Dave,
- Once again, I don't understand...
- I'm just trying to show that if OOFLam is correct, I really shouldn't currently exist. Given OOFLam, the likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam, is virtually zero. But since I do currently exist, OOFLam must be wrong...
- My basic question is whether or not we can say that an hypothesis is probably wrong, if the likelihood of an event -- given the hypothesis -- is virtually zero, and the event occurs. If the likelihood is something over infinity, would seem like we could.

Jabba the mistakes you are making have been explained to you patiently, in detail. and in the simplest possible terms, many many times. Why are you simply repeating them as if it was the first time you'd ever made them? Go back and read the responses you got any of the previous times you posted the same faulty arguments, and this time try to understand them.

 

[jond]

- Dave,
- Once again, I don't understand...

Yes, that is obvious.

- I'm just trying to show that if OOFLam is correct, I really shouldn't currently exist. Given OOFLam, the likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam, is virtually zero. But since I do currently exist, OOFLam must be wrong...

No, the likelihood of your existence under OOFLam is exactly the same as the likelihood of your body's existence. You continue to refuse to acknowledge this basic fact.

- My basic question is whether or not we can say that an hypothesis is probably wrong, if the likelihood of an event -- given the hypothesis -- is virtually zero, and the event occurs. If the likelihood is something over infinity, would seem like we could.

Why do you continue to ignore the fact that your scenario, which involves both a body and a soul which somehow drives the brain, is FAR LESS LIKELY than the existence of your body alone?

 

[jond]

Jabba the mistakes you are making have been explained to you patiently, in detail. and in the simplest possible terms, many many times. Why are you simply repeating them as if it was the first time you'd ever made them? Go back and read the responses you got any of the previous times you posted the same faulty arguments, and this time try to understand them.

It almost seems like Jabba is ignoring this on purpose?

 

[JimOfAllTrades]

- Dave,
- Once again, I don't understand...
- I'm just trying to show that if OOFLam is correct, I really shouldn't currently exist. Given OOFLam, the likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam, is virtually zero.

Yes, but when asked to explain why the likelihood of your current existence given OOFLam is "virtually zero", you eventually get to this:

Dave,
- I am talking about H -- I just claim that H is wrong.
- I claim that there is an aspect of your self that does not depend upon your chemistry

In the real scientific models of consciousness, every aspect of your self depends on your brain, so the likelihood of your current existence given H is exactly the same as the likelihood of your body existing and being alive. And that likelihood isn't calculated by taking the number of humans currently alive and dividing by infinity.

Jabba, read this again and again until you understand. If you want to calculate the probability you existence under H, you have to use what H actually claims.

 

[Mojo]

- Dave,
- Once again, I don't understand...

Can't, or won't?

- I'm just trying to show that if OOFLam is correct, I really shouldn't currently exist. Given OOFLam, the likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam, is virtually zero. But since I do currently exist, OOFLam must be wrong...
- My basic question is whether or not we can say that an hypothesis is probably wrong, if the likelihood of an event -- given the hypothesis -- is virtually zero, and the event occurs. If the likelihood is something over infinity, would seem like we could.

Nope. If you have your factor of one over infinity in there, you're still talking about the likelihood of your current existence under the hypothesis that you have a soul (or "potential self", or whatever you're currently calling it) that exists independently of your body.

 

[aleCcowaN]

- Dave,
- Once again, I don't understand...
- I'm just trying to show that if OOFLam is correct, I really shouldn't currently exist. Given OOFLam, the likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam, is virtually zero. But since I do currently exist, OOFLam must be wrong...
- My basic question is whether or not we can say that an hypothesis is probably wrong, if the likelihood of an event -- given the hypothesis -- is virtually zero, and the event occurs. If the likelihood is something over infinity, would seem like we could.

That was explained to you at least 30 times in the last months, so go back to any instance of such explanation -there are so many that you won't have troubles finding one- and come back quoting the explanation and pointing exactly what part you didn't understand.

 

[Dancing David]

Dave,

- I didn't understand what you meant...

- Anyway, one step at a time.
- Do you accept that even if your self is only an illusion or process, it is still real? Your brain/body is alive, and it produces, or receives, a sense of continuous self?

Do you agree that when someone with schizophrenia experiences the internal stimuli of auditory hallucination, they think they they are real voices?

 

[Dancing David]

- But, duplication of your brain would not reproduce the same sense of self? You would no longer be living -- it would be somebody else. And, you would never exist again.

And your body tomorrow will not be the same body that it is today, the sense of a continuous self is illusory. Just like the persistence of motion when you watch an old time movie

 

[Dancing David]

Dave,
- So, scientifically speaking, you never had to exist at all -- and Bayesian thinking, the likelihood of your current existence is virtually zero.
,

No its not, organic beings exist on this planet and they reproduce, that is not the same as the odds of one randomly assembling the the depths of the Orion nebula

 

[Dancing David]

Dave,
- I would say that your sense of self is different -- it is not the result of your chemistry. There is nothing about the banana that isn't reproducible, but your sense of self is not at all reproducible.

Which part of an organic self is not part of chemistry?

(ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha)^1000

 

[Agatha]

The 'OOFLAM' that you are arguing against is NOT the scientific model. It is a mishmash of your own creation.

Unless and until your 'H' or your 'OOFLAM' or whatever is your phrase du jour comports with the actual scientific model, all you are doing is setting up a strawman, arguing against it and calling it a win.

'H' doesn't include such things as division by infinity. It doesn't include such nonsense as 'existence' being less likely than 'existence PLUS soul'.

You have to address this, Jabba, or you will spend another four years tilting at imaginary windmills and being unable to fathom why your interlocutors are throwing parties in the untouched real windmills.

 

[aleCcowaN]

NOTE FOR LURKERS

The lengths Jabba will go to pretend he's still on topic. He was basically left out thousands of posts ago when he couldn't understand the elementary mistakes he made in dozens of different ways.

But this all is so funny. Let's continue to pretend the discussion isn't over.

 

[Loss Leader]

-
- I'm just trying to show that if OOFLam is correct, I really shouldn't currently exist. Given OOFLam, the likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam, is virtually zero. But since I do currently exist, OOFLam must be wrong...
- My basic question is whether or not we can say that an hypothesis is probably wrong, if the likelihood of an event -- given the hypothesis -- is virtually zero, and the event occurs. If the likelihood is something over infinity, would seem like we could.

People exist. That group is made up of lots of individuals. Each individual had a very low chance of existing. But each one who is here defied those odds. There is absolutely nothing unusual about low chance events. They happen billions of times a second.

Not to be crude, but your father's sperm numbered around 100,000,000 the night you were conceived. Yet one sperm beat the odds and fertilized the egg. Why? Because one of them [/i]had to[/i]. If it wasn't that one, it would have been the one next to it. It wasn't even necessarily the fastest swimmer, as male sperm first have to surround the egg and work together to weaken the egg cell wall.

We have no reason to doubt a system that is actually producing the results we expect to see - even if any given result has very low odds.

Virtually zero is not zero. And, anyway, who you are is not a thing to begin with. The original Jabba was two haploid cells joined together about the size of a small grain of sand. I trust that you weigh more than that now. The vast majority of you wasn't even born. And the two haploids may have died decades ago.

This disproves oofyam

Only One Finite Yellow At Most.

 

[jt512]

- My basic question is whether or not we can say that an hypothesis is probably wrong, if the likelihood of an event -- given the hypothesis -- is virtually zero, and the event occurs. If the likelihood is something over infinity, would seem like we could.

No. The whole point of Bayes' Theorem is that the probability of a hypothesis cannot be determined just by the likelihood of the evidence under that hypothesis. The probability of the hypothesis depends also on the likelihood of the evidence under the alternative hypothesis and the prior probabilities of each hypothesis.

 

[Jabba]

- Dave,
- Once again, I don't understand...
- I'm just trying to show that if OOFLam is correct, I really shouldn't currently exist. Given OOFLam, the likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam, is virtually zero. But since I do currently exist, OOFLam must be wrong...
- My basic question is whether or not we can say that an hypothesis is probably wrong, if the likelihood of an event -- given the hypothesis -- is virtually zero, and the event occurs. If the likelihood is something over infinity, would seem like we could.

No. The whole point of Bayes' Theorem is that the probability of a hypothesis cannot be determined just by the likelihood of the evidence under that hypothesis. The probability of the hypothesis depends also on the likelihood of the evidence under the alternative hypothesis and the prior probabilities of each hypothesis.

jt,
- What if the prior probabilities are 99% for H, 1% for ~H and the likelihoods are something over infinity for E|H and about 60% for E|~H?

 

[Hokulele]

jt,
- What if the prior probabilities are 99% for H, 1% for ~H and the likelihoods are something over infinity for E|H and about 60% for E|~H?

They aren't. You are just making those numbers up without any basis.

 

[Mojo]

- What if the prior probabilities are 99% for H, 1% for ~H and the likelihoods are something over infinity for E|H and about 60% for E|~H?

Then H is not the hypothesis you are trying to disprove.

 

[godless dave]

jt,
- What if the prior probabilities are 99% for H, 1% for ~H and the likelihoods are something over infinity for E|H and about 60% for E|~H?

The likelihood is not something over infinity for E|H.

 

[jond]

jt,
- What if the prior probabilities are 99% for H, 1% for ~H and the likelihoods are something over infinity for E|H and about 60% for E|~H?

Why do you continue to ignore the fact that your scenario (which includes both a body and a soul, and a means of having the soul control the brain) is FAR LESS LIKELY than H, which only requires a body?

 

[CriticalThanking]

Jabba, I'll play. You claim the banana and the soul are different. Please enumerate the testable qualities of a soul and I will compare them to those of a banana.