Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mojo said:
Incidentally, Jabba, there's a question, first posted a few pages back, that you still haven't answered:

Say we have a six-sided die. We throw it, and it comes up as a 3 (event E). I form the hypothesis (H) that all six sides of the die have a 3 on them. The likelihood of the observed event under this hypothesis is 1, right?

You have an alternative hypothesis (let's call it J), that the six sides are numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. The likelihood of the observed event under this hypothesis is 1/6.

Then you pick up the die, and demonstrate that the sides are indeed numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

What is the likelihood of the the observed event if H is true?
Click to expand...

But what are the chances you do it right now?
And if you throw the die again and get another 3 is it the same 3?

Hans :duck:
 
MRC_Hans said:
But what are the chances you do it right now?
And if you throw the die again and get another 3 is it the same 3?

Hans :duck:
Click to expand...


Right now I'm in the pub, so no dice.

But if we were to throw it again there would be a 1/6 chance that it was the same 3.
 
Can someone please post something that Jabba can pretend agrees with him? The poor guy's been back at least three times since he last posted.
 
His process now includes his "map," he says. He has to divide his time between ignoring this debate and rewriting it elsewhere to make it seem like he's winning it.
 
Mojo said:
Incidentally, Jabba, there's a question, first posted a few pages back, that you still haven't answered:

Say we have a six-sided die. We throw it, and it comes up as a 3 (event E). I form the hypothesis (H) that all six sides of the die have a 3 on them. The likelihood of the observed event under this hypothesis is 1, right?

You have an alternative hypothesis (let's call it J), that the six sides are numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. The likelihood of the observed event under this hypothesis is 1/6.

Then you pick up the die, and demonstrate that the sides are indeed numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

What is the likelihood of the the observed event if H is true?
Click to expand...
Mojo,
- Couple of problems here.
- The die could be loaded.
- But I have already proven that the sides are indeed numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6...
 
Jabba said:
- Seems to me that the identity that doesn't exist under H is the ~H interpretation of the experience. H and ~H are referring to the same experience, they just interpret it differently. Here, we're trying to determine which is interpreting correctly.
Click to expand...


Argumemnon said:
What? You just said it didn't exist in the last post I quoted.

Make up your mind. Stop stalling and acting all confused. We know you can be very focused when you want to, so don't pretend.
Click to expand...
Argumemnon,
- Read that again. The experience does exist under H. The interpretation of the experience is what differs between the two hypotheses.
 
Jabba said:
Read that again. The experience does exist under H. The interpretation of the experience is what differs between the two hypotheses.
Click to expand...

But this departs from your insinuation that "experience" describes something from ~H. Please stop changing the wording of your argument once we finally nail it down what the words are meant to convey.
 
Jabba said:
Prestige says he agrees.
Click to expand...

No, he declined to fall for your latest equivocation and explained clearly in precise terms precisely what he was claiming. It's not the same thing you're claiming. And MRC_Hans is quite right: all the hostility you perceive in this thread is 100% caused by your passive-aggressive behavior. We are asking you please to stop.
 
MRC_Hans said:
OK, H recognizes that the emergent property of consciousness may have the illusion that it's identity is something special.

Right?

Hans
Click to expand...
- How about this? H and ~H are talking about the same experience of "identity" -- H thinks it's an illusion, ~H thinks it's real.
 
MRC_Hans said:
We don't really know (since you keep changing it) and we don't frankly give a damn. The emergent property of identity that follows from H can indeed be copied.

Hans
Click to expand...
- My claim is that if I'm not brought back to life, my copy isn't perfect.
 
Jabba said:
- I know. That's why I think H is wrong.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately this ongoing expression of disbelief is all you seem to be able to produce by way of proof. You claim you can prove H is wrong, but all you do is beg the question and then whine at how badly you're treated when people don't fall for it. Your proffered proof hinges on properly reckoning P(E|H) where E is the observation that you have a sense of self -- what you're now using the word "experience" to equivocate around. Five years after submitting your proof you're still wallowing in the extremely elementary error of being unwilling to assume H is true in all its particulars as a necessary step in estimating P(E|H).
 
Jabba said:
- How about this? H and ~H are talking about the same experience of "identity" -- H thinks it's an illusion, ~H thinks it's real.
Click to expand...

Please stop trying to cram arguments into your critics' mouths. Under H the sense of self and the feeling of identity are not "illusions." They're just cognitive phenomena. They do not need to be wrapped in emotionally-laden equivocations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom