Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
Waterman,
- I guess that logic could be termed "speculation," but my claim is that my current logic/speculation (that given that I am, in fact, a legitimate "target," my current existence is significant evidence that I am immortal) is correct, and not wishful thinking.
Click to expand...

Equivocation again.
 
Jabba said:
Waterman,
- I guess that logic could be termed "speculation," but my claim is that my current logic/speculation (that given that I am, in fact, a legitimate "target," my current existence is significant evidence that I am immortal) is correct, and not wishful thinking.
Click to expand...


You really ought to avoid presenting your desired conclusion as your evidence for it.
 
I am coming on regular basis in this thread, and on regular basis I marvel that I could take a page at random, and it is the same (bad) argument presetned by Jabba and (correctly) demolished by the rest.

For example, well spoken :

Take the proposition "People are immortal." The converse of that is that "People are not immortal," of which one possible condition is that "People have at most one finite life." Jabba formulates immortality as ~H (i.e., "not" some other condition), and that other condition as H, meaning "one finite life." That formulation requires that the union H∪~H is the universe -- all possible conditions. In probability, it means that P(H) + P(~H) = 1. If you can know either P(H) or P(~H), you can compute the other.

Arbitrarily say that P(H) is very small. That's what Jabba does. From that it follows inevitably that P(~H) must be very large, to take us up to 1. The equivocation central to the false dilemma is what ~H exactly is. If ~H is Jabba's singular propostion, then H must be every other proposition. But in determining P(H), Jabba only considered one proposition -- materialism. It's as if he drew only one card from the middle of the deck and proposed that it should represent all the rest of the deck except the top card.

If, on the other hand, H is materialism, then ~H must be the set of all conditions -- hypotheses -- that aren't materialism. And not all of those will lead to immortality. P(~H) may indeed be very large, but Jabba's desired probability really comes from some unknown subset of ~H.

So his argument constantly equivocates between whether H or ~H is the singular, elemental hypothesis, just as the card-deck example flip-flops between whether we're drawing the top card or some other card as the singular card we're going to discuss. You'll notice him variously redefining H and ~H throughout the debate as his critics corner him.
Click to expand...

IIRC this was spoken of years ago when we listed different possiblities that Jabba did not take into acount, as a fun game, e.g. "being reincarnated an infinite time" "living twice only (or any arbitrary finite number)" "living once then live as a bacteria forever" "live once then be a ghost unable to communicate/be in the black forever" etc...etc...

And yet we are back to the same.
 
Aepervius said:
IIRC this was spoken of years ago when we listed different possiblities that Jabba did not take into acount, as a fun game, e.g. "being reincarnated an infinite time" "living twice only (or any arbitrary finite number)" "living once then live as a bacteria forever" "live once then be a ghost unable to communicate/be in the black forever" etc...etc...
Click to expand...


And because Jabba insists on including the existence of immaterial souls in his calculation of the likelihood if his existence under H, ~H includes the scenario that we have no immaterial soul and one finite lifetime.
 
sackett said:
#3189, order up!

122. The Bayesian formula, I suggest, goes
One ‘n a two ‘n a three:

21.1. Finagle’s Constant =
7,000,000,000 x ∞)*=*
‘N thass a fΔx.

8. My theory: Here I am…
10. I shouldn’t be here right now …
11. “Jabba” is a problematic concept in that it’s difficult to see how he has some – any! -- concept in mind…
(I string those dots around because I’m the best punctuator in the room.)

Let’s make that “OOFLam.” Stands for “Oh, ‘onestly, foolish little alliterate man.”
Click to expand...
Sackett,
- I'm happy to insert your responses, but seems to me that they only show that you're not taking the challenge seriously.
- Your first number doesn't seem to fit anywhere, but the most likely place for the text is probably #21.3.1...
- I had started inserting Dave's comments, so I left them in and added yours.
- For the moment, your side is hilited -- I need to figure out a better way to organize the debate...

- Below is what the map looks like so far. It isn't directly available to the public yet.



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 potential evidence against the hypothesis.
1.1. Untrue.

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.
5.1. So, how do you set apart your existence from any of the 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.
8.1. My theory: Here I am…
9. If it were true, I shouldn’t be here right now. But, here I am…
9.1. Nothing about the scientific explanation for consciousness says you shouldn't be here.
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…
10.1. How does the number of potential selves have anything to do with the odds of you or anyone else existing?10.2. I shouldn't be here right now...
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…
11.1 “Jabba” is a problematic concept in that it’s difficult to see how he has some – any! -- concept in mind… (I string those dots around because I’m the best punctuator in the room.) Let’s make that “OOFLam.” Stands for “Oh, ‘onestly, foolish little alliterate man.”

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…
13.1 In that case, the kind of "self" you're talking about is not something that science thinks exists. I certainly don't. 14. Neither of those seems to be a fool proof way of making sure we’re on the same page...
14.1. #13 insures that we are not 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.”
19.1. Let’s make that “OOFLam.” Stands for “Oh, ‘onestly, foolish little alliterate man.”
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) =
21.1.1. Finagle’s Constant = 7,000,000,000 x ∞)*=* ‘N thass a fΔx. 21.2. (7,000,000,000/ ∞)*.99/.01 =
21.3. Δx→023.
21.3.1. The Bayesian formula, I suggest, goes One ‘n a two ‘n a three:
 
Last edited:
You've learned nothing in 5 years. You keep repeating your ignorant arguments and fallacious logic which have been debunked again and again.

/thread.

You may add the above to your dishonest blog.
 
godless dave said:
And 8.1 shouldn't be hilited.

You can edit your post.
Click to expand...


He already had, a minute before he posted that 1.1 should be highlighted, so he knows. I can't imagine why he couldn't just have edited it again.

Actually, I can: Befuddled Old Man has taken over again.
 
Jabba said:
I'm happy to insert your responses, but seems to me that they only show that you're not taking the challenge seriously.
Click to expand...

What was your first clue? Sackett's approach to you has been sarcastic from the beginning, and this was immediately obvious to everyone except you.

On the contrary, it is you who are not taking the challenge seriously. Soon after you posted the manifesto that restated your claims for the umpteenth time, I and a few others gave you a serious, point-by-point response. You have given no rejoinder. Your initial interest in the responses you received was revealed to be only an interest insofar as they aided your self-serving purposes elsewhere, and to the extent that their authors would agree to your rules. You show absolutely no interest in the actual content of the serious responses you received -- only interest in whether someone will submit to your foisted rules.

You have announced that you deliberately ignore posts for various reasons. Among those reasons, you say that a post must be "friendly" in order to obligate you to respond to it. While you don't say exactly what you mean by "friendly" (yet see below), I find it incongruous that you ignored several dispassionate responses that addressed the content of your claims, and instead are now addressing nonsensical posts that are obviously and openly mocking you and providing no useful answers. You don't seem to consistently apply the rules you say govern your selection of posts to answer.

Further, you justify the "friendly" requirement by suggesting that your style of posting should be the standard of friendliness. However, just a few days ago you announced your intention to co-opt others' posts here, against their express wishes, to use as you see fit, unless their authors consented to be bound by your foisted ground rules. Extortion is hardly friendly. In fact, your behavior here -- while once only rude -- has now fully crossed the line into open hostility.

There remains no rational justification for your choice of posts to respond to. The rational reader must conclude that you are deliberately avoiding substantive responses and focusing only on the low-hanging fruit of one person's deliberate mockery. Do not therefore accuse others of not taking your debate seriously. You are the problem.

Moving on, by continuously editing your manifesto to incorporate others' comments, you have clearly indicated your intention to continue debating in this thread. Since the other posters are perfectly capable of writing their own material under their own names, without your meddling editorialism, I suggest you return to the dynamic that this forum intends. Let others speak for themselves, and you respond to the substance of the rebuttals in your own words, not by copying others.

For the moment, your side is hilited -- I need to figure out a better way to organize the debate...
Click to expand...

The debate is already here, already organized in as complete and correct a form as it will ever be. Unless you simply repeat verbatim what happens here, any attempt by you to summarize, redact, or abridge the debate risks misrepresenting it. You have a well-established history of doing just that. Once again, I and others have asked you repeatedly how you believe your proposed blog will improve over simply directing interested parties to this forum. And once again your inability to provide an answer adds evidence to the suspicion that you plan to lie.
 
Last edited:
Filippo Lippi said:
There isn't even a red stain on the carpet, there is only Jabba's burning need for there to have been a "murder.."
Click to expand...

This is not just hyperbole. Jabba revealed in a post some months ago his strong emotional attachment to his belief in an immortal soul. He suggested that if he couldn't succeed in proving mathematically that his belief was true, it would constitute a devastating emotional defeat for him. We don't need any elaboration on these words to understand the real reason Jabba continues to believe he's still right despite having conceded that his critics' rebuttals are sound. (I bet that concession won't show up on the "murder board.")

If we're going to continue the analogy to a murder investigation, the revelation I describe in the above paragraph is tantamount to the "murder board" consisting simply of one photograph of a person, with lots of red arrows pointing to it (from nowhere in particular), and scrawled underneath in red crayon -- "Frame this guy!"
 
JayUtah said:
What was your first clue? Sackett's approach to you has been sarcastic from the beginning, and this was immediately obvious to everyone except you.
Click to expand...


Jabba said:
- Wouldn't it also be good to avoid sarcasm?
- I would argue that for effective debate, it is useful to try to first put the statements by one's opponent in the best possible light (rather than the worst), and find out if that's what they meant...
Click to expand...


:rolleyes:

ETA:
Jabba said:
Argumemnon,
- You're getting too harsh. If you really want me to read your stuff and respond, you need to pretend some respect ... and, it won't work if it looks too much like sarcasm...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Aepervius said:
[O]n regular basis I marvel that I could take a page at random, and it is the same (bad) argument presetned by Jabba and (correctly) demolished by the rest.
Click to expand...

Jabba simply denies that his argument has been refuted. On the one hand he suggests that the only reason someone would reject his argument is that they don't understand it. And he insists either that his critics aren't understanding, or that some imaginary externality or inherent ambiguity in the problem precludes understanding. Indeed his critics demonstrate adroitly that they do understand his argument -- in some cases perhaps better than he.

On the other hand he claims we have provided only reasons why we think he's wrong. This suggests there is something objectively wrong with the rebuttals he's received. But he declines to show what those objective errors are. He simply continues to insinuate that they must be wrong, without any supporting argument.

IIRC this was spoken of years ago when we listed different possiblities that Jabba did not take into acount, as a fun game...

And yet we are back to the same.
Click to expand...

Because he still hasn't addressed the problem. The false dilemma he's posing is between immortality and materialism. The problem he actually formulates is either between materialism and everything else, or between immortality and everything else. How H and ~H map to those concepts depends on whichever way the wind is blowing that day.

He wants to prove only "immateriality" because he thinks that's "supportive of" immortality. ("Supportive of" is a phrase he invented to equivocate between the concepts of necessity and sufficiency in a proof.) But we can have immaterial souls that, say, live only a few minutes after the death of the organism they inhabited, never to live again.

Jabba's argument is riddled with fatal flaws. They aren't just nuances or niggling details that can be fixed quickly. They aren't nebulous, esoteric concepts that can be sidestepped -- in the words of The Dude, "Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." Instead they're simple ways we've known for centuries arguments can be wrong. They don't go away just because Jabba really, really wants to believe in them and has profound emotional distress at the thought they might not be true. The Dude probably doesn't abide, and that's just how the math works out.
 
Jabba said:
Sackett,
- I'm happy to insert your responses, but seems to me that they only show that you're not taking the challenge seriously.
- Your first number doesn't seem to fit anywhere, but the most likely place for the text is probably #21.3.1...
- I had started inserting Dave's comments, so I left them in and added yours.
- For the moment, your side is hilited -- I need to figure out a better way to organize the debate...

- Below is what the map looks like so far. It isn't directly available to the public yet.



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 potential evidence against the hypothesis.
1.1. Untrue.

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.
5.1. So, how do you set apart your existence from any of the 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.
8.1. My theory: Here I am…
9. If it were true, I shouldn’t be here right now. But, here I am…
9.1. Nothing about the scientific explanation for consciousness says you shouldn't be here.
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…
10.1. How does the number of potential selves have anything to do with the odds of you or anyone else existing?10.2. I shouldn't be here right now...
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…
11.1 “Jabba” is a problematic concept in that it’s difficult to see how he has some – any! -- concept in mind… (I string those dots around because I’m the best punctuator in the room.) Let’s make that “OOFLam.” Stands for “Oh, ‘onestly, foolish little alliterate man.”

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…
13.1 In that case, the kind of "self" you're talking about is not something that science thinks exists. I certainly don't. 14. Neither of those seems to be a fool proof way of making sure we’re on the same page...
14.1. #13 insures that we are not 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.”
19.1. Let’s make that “OOFLam.” Stands for “Oh, ‘onestly, foolish little alliterate man.”
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) =
21.1.1. Finagle’s Constant = 7,000,000,000 x ∞)*=* ‘N thass a fΔx. 21.2. (7,000,000,000/ ∞)*.99/.01 =
21.3. Δx→023.
21.3.1. The Bayesian formula, I suggest, goes One ‘n a two ‘n a three:
Click to expand...

Well, that amply shows why nobody wants to play the game with you.

Hans
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom