Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

[JayUtah]

My claim is that to be legitimate, a target does not need to be pre-specified.

Yes it does. As usual, your rejoinder is nothing more cogent than pleading for the Texas sharpshooter fallacy not to be a fallacy.

Here you are simply wrong.

I'm claiming that what makes a target legitimate is a reasonably possible alternative hypothesis to the hypothesis being evaluated --

No. The Texas sharpshooter fallacy is one of several fatal flaws in your argument. Your false dilemma is a totally different one. One doesn't conflate with the other to somehow fix everything.

...and, the Bayesian formula accounts for that requirement with its prior probabilities.

No. You really don't understand statistical inference at all. I'm not going to explain again everything that's wrong with your ~H formulation. You have already ignored it several times and will just continue to ignore it. The Bayesian formulation lets you make a guess for P(~H). And you've begged the question that P(~H) is a big enough number to make it "reasonable," but you've utterly failed to provide any actual proof that it is. You just waffle around in the backwaters of pseudoscience you don't understand.

But having guessed at P(~H), you may not -- under the rules of inference -- also just guess at P(E|~H). That piece, if your prior is arbitrary, must be actual fact. One of them must be fact. In your formulation you don't even bother to compute P(E|~H) or even talk about it. You simply rely on the prior P(~H) to leak over into that concept. As I said, one of your fatal flaws is not knowing how the various parts of a statistical inference worked. And remember all those statisticians you consulted who told you the same thing?

You have admitted you don't understand Bayes or statistical inference. This is evident from your posts. However, from that position of ignorance you don't get to argue that Bayes just "somehow" fixes everything in your argument. Bayes may be a closed book to you, but it is not to your critics. Trying to bluff your way past them doesn't work.

I think that's the answer because I can't find anything in the Bayesian instructions that refer to this issue.

That's right -- you can't find the answer, because the thing you need is knowledge. You can Google for facts, but you cannot Google for knowledge. You don't get to assume your idea is right just because you can't Google up a single sentence that says specifically it's wrong. Cargo-cult scholarship doesn't prove anything.

If you, or anyone else, can refer me to such a statement, I'll happily concede this claim.

No you won't. Stop pretending too late to seem reasonable. Forcing your critics to look for "such a statement" implies that the written body of knowledge on any subject has a specific rote response for any specific question that might come up in the course of practice. That's daft. There are no "instructions" for Bayesian inference. It's not a weed-whacker you just bought. There is a body of knowledge and understanding that is acquired by careful and diligent study of statistical inference. From that position of understanding one can determine whether a particular formulation is correct or not. There is no laundry list of "Thou shalt nots."

It has been explained to you from a position of knowledge and understanding just how and why your argument is invalid. You don't get to pretend that expertise must somehow work differently in order to refute you. Either address the reasons given or concede, as promised. But you don't get to say to your knowledgeable critics, "No, the way you're refuting my argument is unacceptable; I demand this particular refutation and nothing else."

The Bayesian instructions seem to imply that the formula accounts for the Sharpshooter explanation.

No. Not at all.

 

[SOdhner]

Hey Jabba!

So you're comparing X to X*Y.

Were you going to reply to post 3329?

It seems like you're avoiding my post. Let me just make sure you understand how vital this is.

Any time you add a variable, the likelihood of a specific outcome goes down. So if we take the probability of a specific physical form and add the probability of a specific immortal self you by definition make it less likely than the materialistic explanation that just includes a body.

So the likelihood of you specifically existing is greater in a materialistic universe, which goes against how you've presented it.

 

[JoeMorgue]

- My claim is that to be legitimate, a target does not need to be pre-specified.

So you seriously don't get why they don't let you pick your lottery numbers after the drawing?

 

[Mojo]

Hey Jabba!




It seems like you're avoiding my post. Let me just make sure you understand how vital this is.

Any time you add a variable, the likelihood of a specific outcome goes down. So if we take the probability of a specific physical form and add the probability of a specific immortal self you by definition make it less likely than the materialistic explanation that just includes a body.

So the likelihood of you specifically existing is greater in a materialistic universe, which goes against how you've presented it.

Yes, but Jabba's formula is designed to be used only for hypotheses he doesn't like. It isn't supposed to apply to anything he agrees with.

 

[Jabba]

- Can anyone provide a source that discusses the Sharp Shooter fallacy as it relates to any of the Bayesian formulas? Does the Sharp Shooter fallacy need to be considered when determining P(E|H)?

 

[JoeMorgue]

- Can anyone provide a source that discusses the Sharp Shooter fallacy as it relates to any of the Bayesian formulas? Does the Sharp Shooter fallacy need to be considered when determining P(E|H)?

What?

No. We're not going to prove to you that determining the results after the fact is a bad thing.

You can't just invoke "Bayesian formulas" (which multiple people have pointed out to you multiple times you are not using correctly anyway) and get out of your arguments making sense.

 

[jond]

Hey Jabba!




It seems like you're avoiding my post. Let me just make sure you understand how vital this is.

Any time you add a variable, the likelihood of a specific outcome goes down. So if we take the probability of a specific physical form and add the probability of a specific immortal self you by definition make it less likely than the materialistic explanation that just includes a body.

So the likelihood of you specifically existing is greater in a materialistic universe, which goes against how you've presented it.

Jabba, this was very nicely worded. Perhaps you could address this, please.

 

[JayUtah]

- Can anyone provide a source that discusses the Sharp Shooter fallacy as it relates to any of the Bayesian formulas?

Yes, large sections of this thread deal with it. In a larger sense, logical fallacies and pitfalls are things to be considered whenever one is attempting to reason. There is no canonical cross-product in any body of literature describing and warning against all the ways errors may combine.

As I wrote above, you're trying to narrow the field of refutations you will accept from your critics. You're trying to limit them to explicit statements in external sources that treat your error specifically and directly, suspecting that there probably won't be any and thereby suggesting that your critics do not have a case against you unless they can cite that specific outside authority.

Instead you have been given a proper and valid refutation from a position of knowledge, from several disparate sources. You have no basis for rejecting it.

Does the Sharp Shooter fallacy need to be considered when determining P(E|H)?

Yes. If your attempt to guess a value P(E|H) is based on a computation, that computation and its underlying formulation must avoid all invalid forms of reasoning. All fallacies need to be considered when formulating a problem. That's just basic reasoning. Don't try to make it seem like some obscure error you may or may not be committing.

 

[RoboTimbo]

- Can anyone provide a source that discusses the Sharp Shooter fallacy as it relates to any of the Bayesian formulas? Does the Sharp Shooter fallacy need to be considered when determining P(E|H)?

Can you provide a link showing that drawing a circle around a hole after you've fired a shot is not the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Are you now claiming that you can prove the materialist hypothesis wrong if you are allowed to assume that it is wrong?

No, he is not claiming that now. He has claimed that all the time.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Dave,
- In this case, all he had to do was hit the barn.

Jabba, he was inside the barn.

Hans

 

[Loss Leader]

- I'm claiming that what makes a target legitimate is a reasonably possible alternative hypothesis to the hypothesis being evaluated

Even if that were true, you haven't shown that immortality is at all possible, let alone immateriality. According to your own words, you're required to prove that it is possible for a person to live on after death.

How are you coming with that?

-- and, the Bayesian formula accounts for that requirement with its prior probabilities...

"And the numbers I've admitted to making up are proof of the concept I'm making up."

 

[Jabba]

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:



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.

Hey Jabba!




It seems like you're avoiding my post. Let me just make sure you understand how vital this is.

Any time you add a variable, the likelihood of a specific outcome goes down. So if we take the probability of a specific physical form and add the probability of a specific immortal self you by definition make it less likely than the materialistic explanation that just includes a body.

So the likelihood of you specifically existing is greater in a materialistic universe, which goes against how you've presented it.

Sodhner,
- I'm not deliberately avoiding your post, it's just hard to keep up.
- And while I still feel sure that there is a flaw in your logic, describing the flaw isn't easy. I did try to describe it a ways back, but finding those posts isn't easy, and no one seemed impressed by them anyway.
- The "H" (the hypothesis/theory) being evaluated is "OOFLam." In your analog, "X" is an event -- not a theory. "Y" is another event. And basically, you're claiming that the likelihood of my current existence under OOFLam is even smaller than what I'm claiming (in the sense that 7 billion over infinity times a positive number, or even times infinity, is smaller than 7 billion over infinity.)
- But, I think there is more to your claim -- and again, it seems very hard to understand and describe effectively. I'll be back.

 

[Jabba]

Dave,
- My claim is that to be legitimate, a target does not need to be pre-specified. A legitimate target doesn't need red and white rings around it. Also, there are degrees of "targetness."
- I'm claiming that what makes a target legitimate is a reasonably possible alternative hypothesis to the hypothesis being evaluated -- and, the Bayesian formula accounts for that requirement with its prior probabilities...
- I'm saying that as soon as a result has a reasonably possible alternative explanation, we have a legitimate target.
- I think that's the answer because I can't find anything in the Bayesian instructions that refer to this issue. If you, or anyone else, can refer me to such a statement, I'll happily concede this claim.
- The Bayesian instructions seem to imply that the formula accounts for the Sharpshooter explanation.

Even if that were true, you haven't shown that immortality is at all possible, let alone immateriality. According to your own words, you're required to prove that it is possible for a person to live on after death.

How are you coming with that?





"And the numbers I've admitted to making up are proof of the concept I'm making up."

LL,
- I'm not claiming that I can prove anything. I'm saying that the prior probability of something more than OOFLam is at least .01. What I believe is that the mean prior probability accepted by a mixed audience reading our discussion would be much more than .01.

 

[The Sparrow]

... (in the sense that 7 billion over infinity times a positive number, or even times infinity, is smaller than 7 billion over infinity.)
...

Jabba, did you perhaps miss the card deck example I explained.
That was were we turned over a card one at a time until we did the whole deck.
The odds of that particular sequence occurring is 1 in about 80,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (67 zeros)

Wouldn't you agree, those odds are so small to be 'virtually' zero?

 

[JayUtah]

I'm not deliberately avoiding your post, it's just hard to keep up.

Stop working on your "map" then, and pay attention to the discussion here. When you deliberately try to involve us involuntarily in your extra-curricular activities, you don't get to beg forgiveness for not having enough time to address all your critics.

And while I still feel sure that there is a flaw in your logic, describing the flaw isn't easy.

There isn't a flaw in his logic. It's one of the simplest and most foolproof laws in all of conditional probability. It is, in fact a foundational concept in statistics. You're desperately trying to sidestep this concept by insisting on a Bayesian formulation that gives you nooks and crannies in which to conceal your various back-door assumptions. You don't consider that the statistical relationships you're trying to express in fact have a simpler and more straightforward expression. Bayes is not the only statistical principle that applies to what you're trying to do.

And frankly your feelings are irrelevant. You have used this same non-answer to evade practically every rebuttal that's been put toward you. Your critics everywhere -- not just in this forum -- provide you with complete, well-reasoned, well-written rebuttals. You simply "feel" that they must all be wrong and that you must still be right. This is profoundly insulting, especially when you go on to insinuate that you have some higher form of thinking that magically trumps them all.

I did try to describe it a ways back, but finding those posts isn't easy...

You seem to have no problem finding other people's posts when it suits you. You routinely compile anthologies that incorporate sometimes a dozen or more posts selected from the thread that make the point you want to address. You had no problem trying to come up with a pile of posts that allegedly demonstrated my unfriendliness to you. So in your rush to demonstrate what friendly posting looks like, you can do that in this case too.

...and no one seemed impressed by them anyway.

That is correct; they were refuted. That's why this question remains vital. The ball is in your court to provide a different answer, if you can. Your vague "It's complicated" response doesn't work. It isn't complicated, and you have no answer for this simple fact that -- among many fatal flaws -- dooms your claim.

And basically, you're claiming that the likelihood of my current existence under OOFLam is even smaller than what I'm claiming...

No, that's not what he's claiming.

But, I think there is more to your claim --

There isn't. Again, you insist on a Bayesian formulation because you hope your critics aren't familiar with it and won't recognize it when you encode your assumptions as putative fact. If the simpler formulation applies -- and it does -- you don't get to escape its effects by wishfully believing your claims can be refuted only with complicated analysis. Your claims really are that self-evidently wrong.

...and again, it seems very hard to understand and describe effectively. I'll be back.

We all understand it. If you don't understand it, that's your problem, and that problem doesn't excuse you from the consequences of your poor reasoning.

Trotting out Befuddled Old Man is such old hat.

SOdhner, this is one of Jabba's well-worn evasion techniques. When he can't answer your question, he pretends it's a complicated subject that no one can discuss, describe, or debate effectively. This, in his method, excuses him from having to answer it further. It's too "complicated" to analyze, therefore it's somehow harmless to his case. We call the alter-ego who recites this non-rebuttal "Befuddled Old Man."

 

[Jabba]

Jabba, did you perhaps miss the card deck example I explained.
That was were we turned over a card one at a time until we did the whole deck.
The odds of that particular sequence occurring is 1 in about 80,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (67 zeros)

Wouldn't you agree, those odds are so small to be 'virtually' zero?

- Yeah.

 

[Loss Leader]

LL,
- I'm not claiming that I can prove anything. I'm saying that the prior probability of something more than OOFLam is at least .01. What I believe is that the mean prior probability accepted by a mixed audience reading our discussion would be much more than .01.

First of all, you're making up your own prior probability without first showing that anything different from materialism is ever possible, let alone reasonable.

Second, you resort to the fallacy of popularity. The fact that some or even most people believe something is not evidence of its truth. The world isn't flat and it's not the center of the universe.

Last, by assigning any prior probability to immateriality, you are claiming something. You're claiming that materialism might be incorrect. But you're doing it without any evidence. You can't just make up numbers and then use them to justify your made up numbers.

 

[JayUtah]

I'm not claiming that I can prove anything.

Yes you are. You're claiming you can prove immortality by claiming that it's too improbable for you to exist in your present form unless you have an immortal soul. You've chosen Bayesian inference as your statistical model for reckoning those probabilities. The rebuttals you are receiving are exactly on point to undermine your proof.

I'm saying that the prior probability of something more than OOFLam is at least .01.

You provide no evidence for this number. You have simply guessed it. A Bayesian inference allows you to invent a prior so long as you don't also invent your likelihood ratio. But you invent your likelihood ratio too -- you flagrantly told us you believed ahead of time that it must be a very small number, and this whole "potential souls" nonsense is just the latest balderdash you've invented to provide a pseudo-intellectual justification for your desired Big Denominator. I'm not speculating; you told us this is what you were trying to do.

Loss Leader is entirely correct, and none of what you've offered here saves you from the circularity he identified. Your likelihood ratio is predicated upon the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. You invoke that fallacy to argue that the likelihood of materialism explaining your sense of self is very low. And then you turn those numbers around, erroneously conflate them with your priors, and say that they must "somehow" save you from the effects of the fallacy you used to generate them.

Textbook circular reasoning.

What I believe is that the mean prior probability accepted by a mixed audience reading our discussion would be much more than .01.

No.

You've provided zero evidence that any other audience would be sympathetic to your argument. And we have concrete evidence that another audience -- the statistics forum you tried to bamboozle using the same statistical smoke and mirrors -- roundly rejected you in terms even more terse and unaccommodating than ours. Funny how you won't talk about that. The time has now passed in which you can insinuate that your stubborn critics are the only reason you are not making headway. You have been unable to produce a single solitary soul who endorses your proof. Do not continue to insult your critics by blaming them for your failure.

 

[Jabba]

Stop working on your "map" then, and pay attention to the discussion here. When you deliberately try to involve us involuntarily in your extra-curricular activities, you don't get to beg forgiveness for not having enough time to address all your critics...

Jay,
- I'm developing my map for the sake of getting a mixed audience for my jury -- and consequently, getting a fair hearing...
- Currently, my jury consists of maybe 50 devoted skeptics -- and, I'm just never going to get a fair hearing here. I sincerely doubt that I'll ever convince any of you guys that I have a reasonable case...

- That's my story, and I'm stickin to it!