Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba,

I'm curious why you did not propose to murder board the folks at the stats forum? Their responses were more concise and easier to fit on the board.

CT
 
Jabba,

I'm curious why you did not propose to murder board the folks at the stats forum? Their responses were more concise and easier to fit on the board.

CT

But Jabba hadn't previously vowed to go show up those God-forsaken statisticians, only the God-forsaken skeptics. It would be unfair to pin a vendetta on Jabba that he hasn't previously announced.
 
Jabba,

I'm curious why you did not propose to murder board the folks at the stats forum? Their responses were more concise and easier to fit on the board.

CT

I'm likewise curious. They murdered your arguments as was done here, but much faster.

Why are you not bullying them into contributing to your disgraceful murder blog like you are trying here?
 
Last edited:
As the World's Leading Expert observed, "Howevah!"

Dave,
- That was how Sackett responded to my post...

What we’re trying to do here is accomplish a hierarchy of matrices, crescendoing always into greater and greater realms of dichotomy: either or, neither nor, futurity, or what you will. And that’s about the point we’ve reached up to until now, although. Are you or anybody still reading this hollow buffoonery? Hit Like and Share if you’re not.
 
This thread should stay active as long as possible. We could not design a better monument to poor and dishonest argumentatives.
 
Hey Jabba! This is my very first post to this topic and I'll admit I haven't read the whole thing since it's very long. I expect this means I'll be repeating something that someone has already said, but it sounds like this conversation has been looping around itself anyway so I feel like I'm not doing any harm.

I just wanted to clarify something I don't really get about your position:

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…

Okay, so if I understand this (and some related parts) correctly we have a problem. The scientific understanding on consciousness is that it's an emergent property of our brains. I would agree that any specific consciousness could in a certain sense be looked at as being really unlikely if you were predicting it ahead of time.

So we can call that X for now (don't worry if this conflicts with letters used elsewhere, I'm just using two variables in this post anyway). X includes all the materialistic things that have to happen in order to end up with any one particular consciousness.

Probability of a specific X happening in the future = very very small.

Okay and then we have the other theory, that there's some non-materialistic self (this would typically be called a soul, but I understand you may be trying to avoid cultural baggage.

So we'll call that Y. Because there's more than one soul (or whatever you want to call it), right? And clearly it would exist separate from the materialistic stuff of X since a soul is by definition non-material.

So now we need to think about if this makes it more or less likely. Well, a person will still have all the materialistic stuff, right? So we still need to calculate X. That's their DNA, and all the variables in the developmental process, etc.

And then we need to figure out the probability of Y. I would guess at a minimum there's one soul for every person alive, right? (Hopefully more so we don't run out, but who knows!) So if it's like 7.5 billion that's... well it's really small.

Probability of a getting a specific Y = very small.

And like I said, we're talking about a material person WITH a soul, so we would need to multiply the two probabilities together. X*Y would give us, by definition, much smaller odds than either alone.

So you're comparing X to X*Y.

And we already know which one is more likely because it's fairly basic math.
 
This thread should stay active as long as possible. We could not design a better monument to poor and dishonest argumentatives.

Jabba argues that if no skeptic will participate in his blog, he should have the right to act in loco opponentis to fill in the other side as best he can. However, none of his critics having played a role in the genesis of such a blog, his authority to compel participation is wishful at best. On the contrary, he has originated a thread here. By his argument, if he chooses not to participate here, the in loco opponentis rule he proposes would more tightly apply here, and his critics could fill in Jabba's silence as best they can. Jabba would have a hard time arguing that that sauce is only for the goose and not also the gander.
 
So you're comparing X to X*Y.

And we already know which one is more likely because it's fairly basic math.

You are correct. And this very simple property of probability has been presented several times to Jabba. He sidesteps it by saying he doesn't understand it. And apparently anything he says he doesn't understand does not exist to him as an operative rebuttal. Good luck. You may succeed in reaching him where so many others of us fail.
 
Jabba would have a hard time arguing that that sauce is only for the goose and not also the gander.

Except for all the times he's argued and (attempted to) demonstrate exactly that.

The one thing Jabba does argue well is double standards.
 
You are correct. And this very simple property of probability has been presented several times to Jabba.

Thanks for confirming, and yeah - I figured someone must have pointed this out to him by now but couldn't resist chiming in.

I mean, forget all the Bayesian stuff, this is the most fundamental and obvious thing you can look at.

He sidesteps it by saying he doesn't understand it. And apparently anything he says he doesn't understand does not exist to him as an operative rebuttal.

Huh. Well, hopefully I get a better answer than that for him but I'll certainly prepare for the worst.

Good luck. You may succeed in reaching him where so many others of us fail.

I know how long this conversation has been going, so I'm not hopeful of that at all. But like I said in my other post, if it's going to repeat itself anyway I don't feel like I can do any harm.
 
Thanks for confirming, and yeah - I figured someone must have pointed this out to him by now but couldn't resist chiming in.

I mean, forget all the Bayesian stuff, this is the most fundamental and obvious thing you can look at.



Huh. Well, hopefully I get a better answer than that for him but I'll certainly prepare for the worst.



I know how long this conversation has been going, so I'm not hopeful of that at all. But like I said in my other post, if it's going to repeat itself anyway I don't feel like I can do any harm.

Welcome to the Jabbaverse, SOdhner! Yeah, it's so obvious and fundamental he dismissed by claiming "there's more to it than that" but never took a moment to discuss what that "more" might be. My guess is he'll prentend you haven't even presented an argument.
 
If facts mattered to Jabba then this would have been over in 2010*.

No, Jabba is trying to bring about a "a worldly consensus" that Jesus is the messiah. All this is "lies for Jesus."

Read it all at Messiah: hot or not?**



*he was at it before he pitched up here
** I am all about the cheap laughs
 
I am. But then again, I also enjoy Vogon poetry.

If facts mattered to Jabba then this would have been over in 2010*.

No, Jabba is trying to bring about a "a worldly consensus" that Jesus is the messiah. All this is "lies for Jesus."

Read it all at Messiah: hot or not?**



*he was at it before he pitched up here
** I am all about the cheap laughs
LOL

A few, tiny, minuscule, mote-like, infinitesimal quotes from the page linked above.

In Jabba's own words he says this about effective debate and what not to do:

"In addition, we need to hear each side from the side itself – not both sides as represented by just one of the sides…"​

Which, of course, is exactly what he's saying he'll do with his so-called murder board — he "sadly" is "forced" to write our side down for us.

Also, he says,

"In regard to human nature,
Our basic problem here is that once into debate, our reflexive behavior takes over, and we unconsciously slip into a fight/flight mode.
In that mode, we
*Become oblivious to any good intentions we might have previously had towards seeking the truth,
*Seek only to win instead (or, at least seek only to avoid losing instead),
*Do whatever winning requires (if possible),
*Place a premium upon quick (often foolish) answers, and
*Are essentially oblivious to what we are now doing…
This is a totally natural human reflexive syndrome once we become even partially committed to one side of a story. That’s how we humans are. We just haven't appreciated the supreme potency of this syndrome… It takes over. We zone out. Seriously! This is the heart of the matter.
The reason this happens is that our natural reflexes evolved in a much earlier time -- and, it’s our old reflexes that take over under stress…
In seeking only to win, we
*Insult our opponents (We have numerous ways of doing this).
*Refuse to yield the floor.
*Refuse to answer our opponent’s questions.
* Pretend to answer their questions while ‘dancing around them’ instead.
*State opinion as fact.
*Raise our voices.
*Grasp at straws (while pretending they’re trees).
*Exaggerate. And,
*Flat out lie."​

How many of these precise things has Jabba himself done in these very threads over the years? Most of them, and they all have been pointed out to him ad nauseum.

Of course, he's not following his own written rules while arrogantly pontificating on all those wonderful rules for everyone else to follow.
 
I mean, forget all the Bayesian stuff, this is the most fundamental and obvious thing you can look at.

Welcome to the Jabbaverse, SOdhner! Yeah, it's so obvious and fundamental he dismissed by claiming "there's more to it than that" but never took a moment to discuss what that "more" might be.

When you invest years in an idea, you resist the possibility that it can be flawed so simply. Think of Jabba's statement, "There's more to it than that," as a wishful "There has to be more to it than that." Well, no, the statistician forum rather took care of that. The invocation of Bayes is partly an attempt to pretend the "proper" analysis of the formulation must involve higher forms of math.
 
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…
8.2. This doesn't seem to be a serious response, so I'll let you have the last word.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom