John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion
- Thread starter Dancing David
- Start date
- Status
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
You've had 5 years to make a case, and it fails at every turn. Your latest 'map' idea will fare no better.
I will go so far as to predict immediate lies/prevarications on your part in your new map. That's what happened before.
Prove me wrong and I will retract those words right here at ISF, and give you 3 days to draw a crowd.
Last edited:
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
The only thing newcomers need in order to catch up is to read part one of this ridiculous five part thread.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
How does that pan out if one individual censors, edits and deletes the opinions of everyone else?
What happens in such a scenario?
What is the resultant regime in that scenario?
Filippo Lippi
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2002
- Messages
- 5,363
The silent but watching throng who cheer Jabba's every pronouncement need not fear, he's still checking in regularly
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Assuming the moderator box above is meant to send discussions of Jabba's upcoming "map" to the appropriate thread, I have to assume further that the next we'll hear from Jabba will be the inevitable fringe reset.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
- The following is my opening statement so far -- I could have to revise it...
- I think that, using Bayesian statistics, I can virtually disprove the consensus scientific hypothesis that we each have only one, finite, life to live…
1. If something occurs that is unlikely to occur -- given a particular hypothesis -- the event is evidence against the hypothesis.
2. The strength of the evidence depends in part upon how unlikely the event is -- given the hypothesis.
3. It is evidence similar to “opportunity” in a murder trial in that it can be totally meaningless if other conditions are not met.
4. For one thing, the hypothesis in question does need to have a ‘reasonable’ bit of doubt as to its truth.
5. For another thing, in many situations, the specific event is only one of NUMEROUS possible results (millions?) -- and for unlikelihood to be of consequence in such a case, the specific result has to be meaningfully set apart from most other possible results.
6. The above is one of the ‘avenues’ of Bayesian statistics.
7. If something occurs that is likely to occur – given a particular hypothesis – the event is evidence for the hypothesis. That’s the other avenue.
8. My theory: The scientific opinion that we each have only one, finite, life to live is false.
9. If it were true, I shouldn’t be here right now. But, here I am…
10. I shouldn’t be here right now because there must be an infinity of potential “selves,” and only 7 billion existing selves. So, the odds of me currently existing is 7 billion to infinity – or, virtually zero…
11. “Self” is a problematic concept in that it’s difficult to make sure that all those listening/reading have the same concept in mind…
12. Perhaps, the most likely way to try to make sure we’re all talking about the same thing is to explain that the self is what people who believe in reincarnation believe keeps returning.
13. Another way is to say that if cloning would produce the same self, that self would be looking out two sets of eyes…
14. Neither of those seems to be a fool proof way of insuring that we’re on the same page...
15. One way of understanding “potential selves” is to consider every combination of actual sperm cell that has ever existed and every ovum that has ever existed that have not, in fact, combined. Each of those non-combinations would represent a potential self.
16. And then, theoretically, potential selves would have potential sperm cells and potential ova that combined would also represent potential selves (squared?).
17. Another way of understanding “potential selves” is to figure that selves are not entirely the result of DNA… That certain physical situations result in the emergent property of consciousness, which brings with it, its own, new specific self. If so, time (if not space) is a factor, and cloning would not re-create the same self.
18. Whatever, in either case, there should be an infinity of potential selves.
19. And, once we’re talking about potential selves, the scientific theory needs to be re-worded to, “We each have only one finite life to live (at most).” Let’s make that “OOFLam.”
20. IOW, in the latter case, in a sense, each of us comes out of nowhere, we’re all “brand new.” The particular DNA seems to produce a bit of consciousness with an accompanying particular “self”, but if we were able to replicate the DNA, we wouldn’t get the same self.
21. The Bayesian formula I suggest:
21.1. P(H|E)=P(E|H)P(H)/P(~H) =
21.2. (7,000,000,000/ ∞)*.99/.01 =
21.3. Δx→0
- I don't suppose that anyone here would volunteer to represent the "defendant"?
- Maybe, someone here would suggest some one else?
- If I can't get any volunteers, I'll ask specifically.
- If no one agrees to volunteer, I'll have to provide my best guess as to the best arguments for each issue -- and, I'll probably quote someone (without providing a name).
- I think that, using Bayesian statistics, I can virtually disprove the consensus scientific hypothesis that we each have only one, finite, life to live…
1. If something occurs that is unlikely to occur -- given a particular hypothesis -- the event is evidence against the hypothesis.
2. The strength of the evidence depends in part upon how unlikely the event is -- given the hypothesis.
3. It is evidence similar to “opportunity” in a murder trial in that it can be totally meaningless if other conditions are not met.
4. For one thing, the hypothesis in question does need to have a ‘reasonable’ bit of doubt as to its truth.
5. For another thing, in many situations, the specific event is only one of NUMEROUS possible results (millions?) -- and for unlikelihood to be of consequence in such a case, the specific result has to be meaningfully set apart from most other possible results.
6. The above is one of the ‘avenues’ of Bayesian statistics.
7. If something occurs that is likely to occur – given a particular hypothesis – the event is evidence for the hypothesis. That’s the other avenue.
8. My theory: The scientific opinion that we each have only one, finite, life to live is false.
9. If it were true, I shouldn’t be here right now. But, here I am…
10. I shouldn’t be here right now because there must be an infinity of potential “selves,” and only 7 billion existing selves. So, the odds of me currently existing is 7 billion to infinity – or, virtually zero…
11. “Self” is a problematic concept in that it’s difficult to make sure that all those listening/reading have the same concept in mind…
12. Perhaps, the most likely way to try to make sure we’re all talking about the same thing is to explain that the self is what people who believe in reincarnation believe keeps returning.
13. Another way is to say that if cloning would produce the same self, that self would be looking out two sets of eyes…
14. Neither of those seems to be a fool proof way of insuring that we’re on the same page...
15. One way of understanding “potential selves” is to consider every combination of actual sperm cell that has ever existed and every ovum that has ever existed that have not, in fact, combined. Each of those non-combinations would represent a potential self.
16. And then, theoretically, potential selves would have potential sperm cells and potential ova that combined would also represent potential selves (squared?).
17. Another way of understanding “potential selves” is to figure that selves are not entirely the result of DNA… That certain physical situations result in the emergent property of consciousness, which brings with it, its own, new specific self. If so, time (if not space) is a factor, and cloning would not re-create the same self.
18. Whatever, in either case, there should be an infinity of potential selves.
19. And, once we’re talking about potential selves, the scientific theory needs to be re-worded to, “We each have only one finite life to live (at most).” Let’s make that “OOFLam.”
20. IOW, in the latter case, in a sense, each of us comes out of nowhere, we’re all “brand new.” The particular DNA seems to produce a bit of consciousness with an accompanying particular “self”, but if we were able to replicate the DNA, we wouldn’t get the same self.
21. The Bayesian formula I suggest:
21.1. P(H|E)=P(E|H)P(H)/P(~H) =
21.2. (7,000,000,000/ ∞)*.99/.01 =
21.3. Δx→0
- I don't suppose that anyone here would volunteer to represent the "defendant"?
- Maybe, someone here would suggest some one else?
- If I can't get any volunteers, I'll ask specifically.
- If no one agrees to volunteer, I'll have to provide my best guess as to the best arguments for each issue -- and, I'll probably quote someone (without providing a name).
Mojo
Mostly harmless
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
already proven faulty at least 50 times. Why even bother with step 2.
Be sure on your "map" you link back here so folks can honestly see how wrong your first statement is.
Mention 'bananas'.
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
And there it is. Five years of the same vomitus over and over.
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
because I'm a masochist
Untrue.
You never managed to set apart your existence from any of the other possible results.
Nothing about the scientific explanation for consciousness says you shouldn't be here.
You never explained why the number of potential selves has anything to do with the odds of you or anyone else existing.
In that case, the kind of "self" you're talking about is not something that science thinks exists, nor do most of the posters on this forum. I certainly don't.
#13 insures that we are not on the same page.
What do you mean by "brings with it"?
No, it doesn't, because there's no reason to include potential selves in "we".
Also, as you know, "We each have only one finite life to live" is not a scientific theory. It's a consequence of the scientific idea that humans are entirely physical.
Just as if you replicated a Volkswagen you wouldn't get the same Volkswagen.
You don't need to guess. You can just read the best arguments for each issue. They've all been posted multiple times.
Untrue.
You never managed to set apart your existence from any of the other possible results.
Nothing about the scientific explanation for consciousness says you shouldn't be here.
You never explained why the number of potential selves has anything to do with the odds of you or anyone else existing.
In that case, the kind of "self" you're talking about is not something that science thinks exists, nor do most of the posters on this forum. I certainly don't.
#13 insures that we are not on the same page.
What do you mean by "brings with it"?
No, it doesn't, because there's no reason to include potential selves in "we".
Also, as you know, "We each have only one finite life to live" is not a scientific theory. It's a consequence of the scientific idea that humans are entirely physical.
Just as if you replicated a Volkswagen you wouldn't get the same Volkswagen.
You don't need to guess. You can just read the best arguments for each issue. They've all been posted multiple times.
Last edited:
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
Would you kindly list any differences in the above from your position some years ago?
Hans
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
You're wrong, as this and the preceding parts of this thread prove.
CriticalThanking
Designated Hitter
Jabba,
Do you intend to include all the arguments the folks at the stats forum listed against your math and abuse of Bayes?
Do you intend to include all the arguments the folks at the stats forum listed against your math and abuse of Bayes?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
You gave your opening statement nearly five years ago. But for your stubbornness, we would be far along by now.
Okay, I'm going to go through it and identify the fatal flaws and blatantly dishonest tactics. All these have already been discussed at length in this thread, which you simply choose to ignore. I'm not telling you anything you don't already know. I'm not telling you anything that you haven't already heard from dozens of critics. But should you choose to climb down from the exalted status of claiming you can pick and choose which arguments you'll address, and actually participate in the discussion, it would be advantageous of you to respond individually to each of the identified fatal flaws and dishonest tactics.
For each fatal flaw -- understanding that any one of them dooms your argument if left unrejoined -- you will need to show either how the flaw is not operative in your argument or how you plan to fix your argument by not committing it.
For each dishonest tactice -- you will need to defend your use of it.
Since you've posted your
You already admitted you can't, but that you "still believe [you're] right." You don't understand how Bayesian inference works. You habitually misstate the scientific consensus.
Fatal flaw 1: You err in formulating a Bayesian inference.
No. This is expressly what statistical inference is not. One applies a statistical inference to predict an as-yet unknown outcome so as to rationally inform decisions that must be made prior to knowing the outcome. The outcome, once known, is a fact. That it was previously deemed unlikely casts no doubt on the causality that produced it.
Fatal flaw 2: You err in your understanding of the probative nature of a statistical inference.
No, the strength of the hypothesis depends on how well it explains evidence. You simply make up the alleged relationship between the event and the hypothesis. You frankly stated up front this is what you're doing.
In the proper formulation, the event is a fact. It's neither likely nor unlikely by itself. A hypothesis may be likely or unlikely compared to another hypothesis in light of that fact. That's what this iterative form of inference allows us to determine. I won't continue here, since I wrote on this at length -- and you ignored it. You don't know the difference between an hypothesis and an event.
Fatal flaw 3: You don't know what the parts of a statistical inference are, how to formulate them, or what they do in an inference.
This is the concept of circumstantial evidence that you introduced as part of your Shroud thread. We conducted an entirely separate thread to investigate the nature of circumstantial evidence, in which your theory of it was entirely refuted. And further, as we discussed in relation to your rigged-lottery example, you don't understand the fundamental difference between possibility and evidence.
Fatal flaw 4: You don't understand what evidence is.
And as with all fringe theorists, you try to drive a speculative wedge into the inductive gap in order to shift the burden of proof. You have explicitly said that all you need is a "reasonable alternative" to hold by default after you've purported to claim the prevailing theory is so unlikely as to be all but impossible.
Fatal flaw 5: Your argument is a blatant false dilemma.
You admitted you don't know how Bayesian methods work. Do not thereafter purport to teach others.
No. This is your fundamental misunderstanding of statistical inference. You employ only a single-hypothesis formulation. You must reckon this as one hypothesis against another, or as one hypothesis against the set of all other possible hypotheses. You have not done this.
No. Your theory was that you have an immortal soul -- that particular affirmative theory. Throwing shade on one of several other possible theories doesn't support yours.
Fatal flaw 6: Your argument commits the fallacy of converting the conditional.
No, you simply beg the question that your existence is improbable.
Fatal flaw 7: You beg the question that existence is improbable without immortal souls, and use this begged question as a premise in your argument.
No, and it has been elaborated ad nauseam why not.
Fatal flaw 8: Your attempt to claim that materialism is false simply invents elements that are not part of materialism.
Fatal flaw 9: The notion of existing selves as targets that must be met, and which it is improbable to meet, commits the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.
Not at all. You simply shift the goalposts every time the concept is nailed down and insist on ambiguous language that your critics have politely asked you to eschew.
You proposed this and tried to trick godless dave into agreeing that's what he meant. It has been repudiated in no uncertain terms. You tipped your hand about the real reason for wanting to frame the self in those terms while you were gloating over the supposed agreement.
Dishonest tactic 1: You try to back-door important concepts that you know you can't prove.
No. Your critics have explained in suitable detail why they roundly reject this notion. (fatal flaw 8 restated)
Dishonest tactic 2: You purport to search for a "fool proof" method of assuring equity in understanding, but you are clearly the source of the ambiguity and equivocation in this debate.
Materialism contains no such concept. You may not use it to falsify materialism. (fatal flaw 8 restated)
Materialism contains no such concept. You may not use it to falsify materialism. (fatal flaw 8 restated)
Materialism contains no such concept. In materialism, the self is an emergent property of the brain. As with all such properties, it is not countable.
Fatal flaw 10: You err in attributing mathematical countability to an abstract concept.
Straw man. Let your critics state what they believe.
Dishonest tactic 3: Shoving words into your critics' mouths.
Simply more question-begging. The notion that we are "brand new" and "come out of nowhere" are clearly concepts you believe in, but do not have any meaning under materialism. Therefore they cannot be used to falsify materialism. (fatal flaw 8 restated)
This formulation is gibberish. The third line doesn't follow from the first in that a purported real number cannot equate to the extent of a limit, which is a concept and not a number. You haven't specified a limit. You haven't defined x. Division of a non-zero real number by infinity, where it is defined, is defined as zero, not "virtually zero." It is not defined for this particular circumstance. You have provided no rationale for ~H. ~H is not an hypothesis but a set of mutually exclusive hypotheses; the formulation must consider them individually.
Fatal flaw 11: Your formulation is pseudo-mathematical gibberish in a number of ways.
Begging the moderator's indulgence for responding to the off-topic foisting of ground rules...
No one is obliged to assist in your misrepresentations and theatrics. You have had dozens of well-informed, polite, and engaged critics right here over the years, whom you have flagrantly and deliberately ignored. The answers to the above claims are in these threads, right before your very eyes. It is the most odious of insults to ask for more answers. Trying to move to a venue that you control is tantamount to admitting you can't do here what you set out to do. Or worse -- see below.
Instead of trying to run the show your way, why don't you expend the energy responding to the years worth of posts already provided to you on the subject in this thread? You've simply provided us the predicted fringe reset, setting us on a course for another half-decade of your evasions and insults.
Which was almost certainly your plan all along. It's highly likely you planned that none of your critics would accept an invitation to debate you in a forum you moderate. Several have already explicitly rejected the prospect and denied you consent to use material.
Now in the face of that almost certain rejection, it's not as if you would simply present your side on your "map" and leave it unanswered. The evident purpose of the "map" is as a fictionalized account to show how you prevailed over your critics, such as what you did to the Shroud debate. Since you're unlikely to find a palooka for your congruent Immortality drama, my guess is that you'll use that as an excuse to edit both sides of the debate yourself -- again, just as you did to the Shroud debate. Your plan for the "map" is bound to be the same as before, only this time you're shrewdly fabricating a justification to retain full creative control. You're trying to make it seem to be your critics' fault that you must "reluctantly" represent both sides of the debate, and thus wash your hands of any accusations misrepresentation.
This venue manipulation, too, is a classic fringe tactic, and it's insulting that you think your critics don't see right through it. You propose to tilt the playing field in your area and then claim that your opponents forfeit the game because they wisely don't agree to play a rigged game. So very, very dishonest, Jabba, to foist a Hobsonian dilemma that forces your critics to play by your rules or not at all.
I propose we continue the debate right here, right now, under the ground rules you agreed to when you signed up and began the thread. You've presented no reason why that shouldn't happen, no reason why your "map" improves over what we're already doing here -- and ample reason why no one should trust you as an editor and moderator.
jond
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 3,440
Jabba, as Godless Dave and JayUtah have kindly responded to you point by point I will save you the trouble of ignoring another full response and simply point out the following: you continue to ignore the fatal problem that no matter how unlikely your existence is under H, your preferred hypothesis (that you have a soul in addition to the brain and that it somehow connects with your brain) is FAR less likely. You've been shown the math and yet you continue to pretend it's not been even brought up. Does this strike you as honest debating tactics?
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
- Status