Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

[wea]

.. ompholoskepsis.

omphaloskepsis

(I had to go look that up, new word learnt thx JJ )

 

[Belz...]

Banana.

It really is SUCH a fun word! What's the likelihood of such a fun word being created?

Der banana?

 

[Jabba]

I don't know the exact starting position of every divisible piece of matter at the time of the Big Bang, so I can't compute the probability. If there is true randomness at the quantum level, then at the time of the Big Bang the current state of the universe would have been one of a very large number of possible futures. So the likelihood that I would eventually exist 13 billion years or so later would have been very small. As would the likelihood of a particular blade of grass existing, and pretty much everything else.

Dave,
- Here's how I see it so far...

- "Likelihood" depends upon the hypothesis being tested. I assume that in regard to the current existence of a particular blade of grass, the hypothesis being tested would just be that the laws of modern biology are accurate -- and, were we to study a typical square foot of grass, we wouldn't find any reason to think otherwise (something like that). We would not subject one of the blades of grass to its random likelihood.
- My critical position in regard to our "selves" is that they are probably not physical -- or, if they are some kind of strange energy, or frequency or something similar, they are not physically traceable. And consequently, their probability has to be dealt with as pure chance...

- Then, in regard to the current existence of my self, or your self, the hypothesis we are currently considering is OOFLam, and given OOFLam, YOU and I are extremely unlikely. We are much more likely under ~OOFLam.

- But then, that something is extremely unlikely under the hypothesis being tested is only the beginning of our calculations. To apply that finding in our evaluation, we need to show that you and I can be considered reasonable "targets." We aren't just holes in the side of the barn. We have implications?
- If we can agree upon what makes for unlikely, I'll try to move on to what makes for a target.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- Here's how I see it so far...

- "Likelihood" depends upon the hypothesis being tested. I assume that in regard to the current existence of a particular blade of grass, the hypothesis being tested would just be that the laws of modern biology are accurate -- and, were we to study a typical square foot of grass, we wouldn't find any reason to think otherwise (something like that). We would not subject one of the blades of grass to its random likelihood.
- My critical position in regard to our "selves" is that they are probably not physical -- or, if they are some kind of strange energy, or frequency or something similar, they are not physically traceable. And consequently, their probability has to be dealt with as pure chance...

But that's not the hypothesis being tested. H is the hypothesis that the "self" is entirely physical, as physical as a blade of grass.

- But then, that something is extremely unlikely under the hypothesis being tested is only the beginning of our calculations. To apply that finding in our evaluation, we need to show that you and I can be considered reasonable "targets." We aren't just holes in the side of the barn. We have implications?

- If we can agree upon what makes for unlikely, I'll try to move on to what makes for a target.

If it's the same as what you posted last time, which you called something like "target meaningful", don't bother. That was just the Texas sharpshooter fallacy with a little fallacy of special pleading sprinkled on top.

I don't have any more implications than a blade of grass or a mountain.

 

[Belz...]

- My critical position in regard to our "selves" is that they are probably not physical -- or, if they are some kind of strange energy, or frequency or something similar, they are not physically traceable. And consequently, their probability has to be dealt with as pure chance...

A kind of energy? Do you even know what energy is?

- Then, in regard to the current existence of my self, or your self, the hypothesis we are currently considering is OOFLam, and given OOFLam, YOU and I are extremely unlikely.

Unsupported assertion. Your entire argument rests on this.

And being unlikely means nothing.

 

[jond]

- My critical position in regard to our "selves" is that they are probably not physical -- or, if they are some kind of strange energy, or frequency or something similar, they are not physically traceable. And consequently, their probability has to be dealt with as pure chance...

As you have been told an infinite number of times, this is where you diverge from science. At this point, modern neuroscientists are quite confident that our "selves" are a process in our brains. They are an emergent property of a functioning brain, not an entity that exists separate from the brain.

Your version of H is a fiction of your own making, not the scientific hypothesis. As you've been shown, and ignored, the scientific hypothesis (the self is a process in the brain) is FAR more likely than your fictional hypothesis.

 

[Loss Leader]

- My critical position in regard to our "selves" is that they are probably not physical -- or, if they are some kind of strange energy, or frequency or something similar, they are not physically traceable. And consequently, their probability has to be dealt with as pure chance...

Jabba -

You personally asked what the likelihood of anyone's existence was at the big bang give a purely materialistic conception of the universe.

Now you answer your own question by rejecting materialism.

Why don't you stay on track at least insofar as a topic that you brought up?

What is the chance of a single specific person coming into existence at the time of the big bang under a materialistic hypothesis? What is the chance of a single specific banana coming into existence under the same circumstances? Are the two the same?

 

[JayUtah]

Here's how I see it so far.

That's how you've seen it for the past five years. And in that time your argument cannot seem to progress beyond repeating your claims over and over, ignoring everyone who speaks to you, then whining because your critics don't fall for your amateurish word games and groveling for agreement.

Please let us know when you plan to stop simply preaching from a pulpit and start participating in a debate.

"Likelihood" depends upon the hypothesis being tested.

Specifically, when computing the likelihood ratio, you reckon P(H|E) as if H were true, and P(E|~H) as if H were not true. You don't get to attach things to H that don't belong to it in order to make P(H|E) seem very small. In your case you're taking your concept of a non-corporeal sense of self from ~H and applying it to H. That's clearly wrong. Under H the sense of self is a property solely of the physical organism.

I assume that in regard to the current existence of a particular blade of grass, the hypothesis being tested would just be that the laws of modern biology are accurate

Just as it would for humans, and just as the likelihood of mountains existing would rely upon an accurate model of geology. The problem is that you want to say humans are just "somehow" different than any other biological organism and that the property they exhibit of a sense of self is somehow magically different than other properties exhibited by other biological organisms, and other properties exhibited by non-biological organisms.

Under H you have no basis for doing so. So you beg the question that there is something magical about humans. You just wave your hands wildly and say you feel special, therefore the sense of self must not be physical. Then you use this to claim P(E|H) must be very low because you insist science can't explain the magic. That is the textbook example of circular reasoning.

We would not subject one of the blades of grass to its random likelihood.

Just as we do not subject one human to its "random" likelihood in order to determine whether it can arise by chance. But you do, and by so doing you commit the Texas sharpshooter's fallacy.

My critical position in regard to our "selves" is that they are probably not physical

And that position is ~H. Under H, however, the sense of self is a property solely of the physical organism. Your "critical position" does not apply to H. When computing or estimating P(E|H) you must assume H is true. That means you must assume the formulation of the sense of self that pertains to H. You don't do this. You foist all sorts of concepts onto H solely for the purpose of inventing a pre-existing individuality that science supposedly can't explain.

Then, in regard to the current existence of my self, or your self, the hypothesis we are currently considering is OOFLam...

No, we're not considering "ooflam" or any other silly acronym you invented to obscure the debate. The hypothesis you are trying to falsify is that the sense of self is purely a property of the physical organism. That is H. You don't get to falsify H on the grounds that it doesn't discuss elements you borrowed inappropriately from ~H.

YOU and I are extremely unlikely.

Not by any valid mathematics you have shown. You invent the concept of a "potential self" that you say exists only for humans, even under H, all the while admitting it's nothing more than your soul concept, disguised to aid your dishonest assumptions. Except that you slipped up and admitted it would also have to apply to Volkswagens and had to backpedal frantically when you saw what that did to your argument. You say these "potential selves" must exist in infinite numbers, but then you botch the math when you ignore that, if that's your denominator, then the result is exactly zero. That would mean neither you or I actually existed, which we clearly do. So you simply redefine division by infinity in your problem -- and your problem alone -- to mean just "mostly zero."

There is nothing even remotely valid mathematically about your argument. You are simply alluding vaguely to mathematical and pseudo-philosophical precepts and hoping the resulting incoherent ball of mud will appeal to laymen and make you appear Very Smart.

We are much more likely under ~OOFLam.

Not by any valid computation you have shown. As you have been told by every single statistician you consulted, you can't simply assume P(E|~H) must necessarily be bigger, nor -- under Bayes -- that P(E|H) < P(E|~H) means that P(H|E) < P(~H|E). You certainly can't pluck your likelihood ratio out of thin air if you're also just plucking your priors out of thin air.

First, you haven't dealt with the fact that ~H is not a single proposition but is, in fact, a set of several propositions, not all of which are mutually compatible. Your method for arriving at P(E|~H) is therefore incorrect. You were told this many times. This false dilemma is immediately and individually fatal to your claim.

Second, you don't compute P(H|~H). You expressly avoid computing it because you are simply couching in pseudo-mathematical terms the same fallacious reasoning that every fringe theorist embraces: You say that if you show that the prevailing mainstream explanation is very, very improbable by itself, then all you need is a "reasonable alternative." That alternative must, by process of elimination, therefore be the truth. You omit the demonstration that your "alternative" is reasonable at all, and that it is in fact any more probable than the mainstream proposition you propose to reject. And that fallacy is also immediately and separately fatal to your claim.

But then, that something is extremely unlikely under the hypothesis being tested is only the beginning of our calculations.

You don't understand the calculations. You said so yourself. You are conveniently side-stepping the part where you show that your statistical model is the right one for solving the problem you want to solve. You ignore that you have been told by every statistician you've consulted that you're going about it wrong. Why do you think your critics are obliged to let you continue in such error when your own expert witnesses disagree with you?

To apply that finding in our evaluation, we need to show that you and I can be considered reasonable "targets." We aren't just holes in the side of the barn. We have implications?

You're trying to argue that the Texas sharpshooter's fallacy is not a fallacy. Under H we are just holes in the barn. You don't get to pick your particular hole and remark about how unlikely it is that the bullet hit just there. That is exactly the Texas sharpshooter's fallacy. The bullet hole doesn't have "implications" just because you like it more than all the other bullet holes.

If we can agree upon what makes for unlikely...

It's not a matter of fostering agreement. Your attempts to show H as unlikely are clearly wrong, and you have been told repeatedly by many people what is wrong with it. Groveling for your precious "agreement" and tricking people into seeming to offer it is highly dishonest. Address what is wrong with your probabilistic argument or concede that you cannot refute your critics.

 

[JayUtah]

A kind of energy? Do you even know what energy is?

In this particular rhetoric, "energy" is the term thrown around by self-proclaimed mystics as part of the argument that science cannot refute them because it lacks the ability to inspect the elements they argue are central to their claims. Jabba has attempted that line of reasoning at least twice before.

 

[Mojo]

Dave,
- Here's how I see it so far...

- "Likelihood" depends upon the hypothesis being tested. I assume that in regard to the current existence of a particular blade of grass, the hypothesis being tested would just be that the laws of modern biology are accurate -- and, were we to study a typical square foot of grass, we wouldn't find any reason to think otherwise (something like that). We would not subject one of the blades of grass to its random likelihood.
- My critical position in regard to our "selves" is that they are probably not physical -- or, if they are some kind of strange energy, or frequency or something similar, they are not physically traceable. And consequently, their probability has to be dealt with as pure chance...

- Then, in regard to the current existence of my self, or your self, the hypothesis we are currently considering is OOFLam, and given OOFLam, YOU and I are extremely unlikely. We are much more likely under ~OOFLam.

Nope. You have introduced "potential selves" to your argument in order to claim that their existence makes your current existence infinitely unlikely. Do you really not understand where this argument leads?

You are arguing that your existence is infinitely less likely under the hypothesis that you have an immaterial soul than it is under the hypothesis that you don't.

If your argument is valid, you have disproved immortality.

 

[Jabba]

But that's not the hypothesis being tested. H is the hypothesis that the "self" is entirely physical, as physical as a blade of grass...

Dave,
- OK. I didn't say it right anyway.
- Let's go with H being that the self is entirely physical.
- Therefor, ~H is that the self is not entirely physical.
- Wouldn't you agree that if H is correct, our current existences are extremely unlikely?

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- OK. I didn't say it right anyway.
- Let's go with H being that the self is entirely physical.
- Therefor, ~H is that the self is not entirely physical.
- Wouldn't you agree that if H is correct, our current existences are extremely unlikely?

Not any more unlikely than the existence of a particular blade of grass.

 

[Mojo]

Dave,
- OK. I didn't say it right anyway.
- Let's go with H being that the self is entirely physical.
- Therefor, ~H is that the self is not entirely physical.
- Wouldn't you agree that if H is correct, our current existences are extremely unlikely?

Not as unlikely as they are if ~H is correct, according to your own argument.

 

[jond]

Dave,
- OK. I didn't say it right anyway.
- Let's go with H being that the self is entirely physical.
- Therefor, ~H is that the self is not entirely physical.
- Wouldn't you agree that if H is correct, our current existences are extremely unlikely?

Yes, but your body exists. In your scenario you need to account for that indisputable fact, as well as the unlikelihood of your soul exisisting, and the unlikelihood of the two merger ing somehow. There is no question that H is more likely than Jabba's H.

You will, of course, ignore this obvious problem as you always do. But you will always be wrong.

 

[JayUtah]

Wouldn't you agree that if H is correct, our current existences are extremely unlikely?

No. Why would that follow?

 

[Belz...]

- Wouldn't you agree that if H is correct, our current existences are extremely unlikely?

No. Why would you think so? Jay's already addressed your previous attempt at explaining this.

 

[The Sparrow]

....
- Wouldn't you agree that if H is correct, our current existences are extremely unlikely?

Yet here I am, and......I have a banana with me.

 

[John Jones]

Dave,
- Here's how I see it so far...

- "Likelihood" depends upon the hypothesis being tested. [...].

Would you PLEASE stop abusing terms like "hypothesis being tested"?

All the hypothetical testing you could hope for has been done in this thread and its ancestors these last 4-5 years. You simply refuse to acknowledge that all your claims about immortality have been defenestrated, dilapidated, and discarded.

 

[Belz...]

You simply refuse to acknowledge that all your claims about immortality have been defenestrated, dilapidated, and discarded.

Not to mention dessicated, dismantled and derailed.

 

[Loss Leader]

- Wouldn't you agree that if H is correct, our current existences are extremely unlikely?

Wouldn't you agree that if H is correct, our current existences are exactly as unlikely as any given set of bananas?