Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

[JayUtah]

But, as I suggest above, the fact that I can't find anyone even talking about this issue...

Lie. I talked about it at length. There is no part of Bayes that saves you from the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. That fallacy is basic; the assignment of significance to data (E) after the data are selected. Priors -- by definition -- cannot discuss data, only hypotheses. But since you've conflated parts of your hypothesis ~H with E, you think you've figured it out.

...suggests that the issue is accounted for by the Bayesian formula.

You attempt to handle the issue in Bayes by mixing up what the parts of the model are so that you can try to sneak concepts into it where they don't belong. You err first by committing the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. You err further by conflating concepts in the Bayesian model. Those two errors do not magically cancel each other out. They're both individually fatal errors.

When you ignore vast swaths of the argument, you don't get to assume what your critics implicitly "accept" based on what posts you choose to read. By your own admission of selective reading, you cannot be an authority on what has and has not been covered in this debate. Very rude and dishonest, Jabba.

 

[JayUtah]

But, as I suggest above...

Look at that! You managed to review the thread and quote fifteen previous posts that lay out what you deem to be the line of reasoning so far. Yet somehow when your critics remind you that a point you've raised has been amply answered previously, you lack the time, ability, or desire to go back and find it. Can you explain why your ability to review the thread seems to come and go so selectively?

 

[Jabba]

- I know what you guys say -- but so far, I don't think you've provided any outside sources... If you have, please remind me.

 

[sackett]

Jabba! Flash! The answer just came to me! And I didn't have to be 14 years old!

Souls need brains to latch onto, right? You accept that, thus all of us accept it too, correct?

So there must be an infinite pool of potential BRAINS! Think of 'em, stewing in the universe somewhere, all quantum & stuff, waiting to be born into somebody's skull! Then: ploink! a soul fires up somehow in that goo, and awaaay we go forever alive!

I accept this, and you do too -- don't deny it. I said, don't deny it, goddammit!

My critics are SO unfair.

 

[JayUtah]

I know what you guys say...

But apparently you don't think it's worth your attention, or has any sort of self-evident value. This is the problem in this debate. You are determined not to take your critics seriously, and to make it seem like their fault that you don't. You're just preaching from your pulpit and decrying your critics for not accepting all your foisted assertions.

but so far, I don't think you've provided any outside sources...

Neither have you. You're very proud of this being your own work, which you insist we must take seriously despite its many self-evident flaws. But for some reason you can't afford your critics the same respect. You don't seem to care that your critics can manifest far more experience and knowledge than you. It's a double standard, and it's rude and arrogant of you to insist on it. If outside sources are the sine qua non of authority in your world, then pony up an outside source for, say, your "potential self" nonsense.

If you have, please remind me.

We have cited many times the statistics forum in which you presented your case and were refuted there too. You obviously considered them authorities on the subject, so we'll hear no arguments about how they somehow "don't count." But since they rejected you -- with good reasons that they stated -- you don't seem willing to discuss it at all. There, that's my citation of an outside source you approve of. Respond.

 

[Belz...]

- I know what you guys say -- but so far, I don't think you've provided any outside sources... If you have, please remind me.

Why do you assume that there is an infinity of potential souls?

 

[Mojo]

So there must be an infinite pool of potential BRAINS!

Does that imply an infinite pool of potential zombies to eat them?

 

[sackett]

We have a movie theme!

Does that imply an infinite pool of potential zombies to eat them?

I love it, MoJo baby! They're unstoppable! They're insatiable! They're

ZOMBIES FROM BEYOND INFINITY!

Come sequel time & we can work the invasion of the brains stunt!

ATTACK OF THE BRAIN HORDE! They multiply! They keep coming! They never stop!

And they NEVER give up. Right, Jabba? Right.

 

[jond]

- I know what you guys say -- but so far, I don't think you've provided any outside sources... If you have, please remind me.

Should we assume that you refuse to respond to anything that doesn't accept the existence of "potential selves" as actual, countable entities?

 

[The Sparrow]

....
So there must be an infinite pool of potential BRAINS! Think of 'em, stewing in the universe somewhere, all quantum & stuff, waiting to be born into somebody's skull! Then: ploink! a soul fires up somehow in that goo, and awaaay we go forever alive!....

Absolute GOLD man!

 

[John Jones]

- I can't. But, as I suggest above ^{[no citation]}, the fact [no such fact has been established] that I can't find anyone even talking about this issue suggests that[...]

Would you please stop lying?

 

[Hokulele]

- I know what you guys say -- but so far, I don't think you've provided any outside sources... If you have, please remind me.

Neither have you. Why the double standard?

 

[John Jones]

- I know what you guys say -- but so far, I don't think you've provided any outside sources... If you have, please remind me.

*Like the Stats Board that spanked your axx red and raw? Remember that?

*Like every mathematician you asked? They also rebuked you on every GOD DAMNED *********** point.

You have no point.

 

[Jabba]

- I'm still not sure, but more specifically, this is why I think we don't have to worry about any Texas Sharp Shooter.
- There are 4 variables involved in the Bayesian approach: 2 prior probabilities, and 2 likelihoods.
- In the lottery situation, if the winner can't be set apart from the crowd, we accept that the prior probability of a rigged game is essentially zero, and the fact that the specific winner had just 1 chance in, say, 10 million, doesn't carry any weight.
- In my situation, I'm not limiting my claim to myself; I'm suggesting that we are all in the same boat. Consequently, I don't want to set myself apart from the rest of you guys, and the conclusion rests entirely upon the prior probabilities.
- Gotta go to church. But, I'll be back.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Be sure to ask them what their stance is on lying

 

[Mojo]

- I'm still not sure, but more specifically, this is why I think we don't have to worry about any Texas Sharp Shooter.
- There are 4 variables involved in the Bayesian approach: 2 prior probabilities, and 2 likelihoods.
- In the lottery situation, if the winner can't be set apart from the crowd, we accept that the prior probability of a rigged game is essentially zero, and the fact that the specific winner had just 1 chance in, say, 10 million, doesn't carry any weight.
- In my situation, I'm not limiting my claim to myself; I'm suggesting that we are all in the same boat. Consequently, I don't want to set myself apart from the rest of you guys, and the conclusion rests entirely upon the prior probabilities.
- Gotta go to church. But, I'll be back.

Jabba, if someone else existed instead of you, would your argument for immortality be valid if they presented it?

 

[RoboTimbo]

- I'm still not sure, but more specifically, this is why I think we don't have to worry about any Texas Sharp Shooter.

But you keep giving examples of it where you are drawing a circle around the hole after the shot has been fired and then marveling at the accuracy. Can you describe the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy for me? I may be misunderstanding it.

 

[JoeMorgue]

But you keep giving examples of it where you are drawing a circle around the hole after the shot has been fired and then marveling at the accuracy. Can you describe the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy for me? I may be misunderstanding it.

10 bucks says that, at best (and that's even if he graces you with a response) the answer will be functionally reducible to:

1. I'm obviously right.
2. If I'm committing the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy my reasoning and argument is flawed.
3. 1 Disproves 2.
4. Ergo I am not committing the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.

 

[JayUtah]

- I'm still not sure, but more specifically, this is why I think we don't have to worry about any Texas Sharp Shooter.

You assess the significance of the data after you choose it, on the basis of its having been chosen. Trying to disguise it in math you don't understand doesn't fix that.

In my situation, I'm not limiting my claim to myself...

I've covered this several times. The Texas sharpshooter fallacy is not about the number of bullets you fire versus the number you have in the magazine. It's about circling bullet holes you already made -- however many of them there are -- and declaring them to have been your targets. You still don't grasp what makes the Texas sharpshooter fallacy a fallacy.

I'm suggesting that we are all in the same boat.

Number doesn't matter. Post-identification of significance matters. Committing the same error seven billion times doesn't dilute your error.

Consequently, I don't want to set myself apart from the rest of you guys, and the conclusion rests entirely upon the prior probabilities.

That doesn't fix the problem. You don't know what the problem even is, but you're declaring that Bayesian formulation magically "fixes" it. This is how most fringe arguments misuse Bayes. How many statisticians have to tell you this before it sinks in that people who dispute your claim are not incurably biased?

 

[jt512]

Consequently, I don't want to set myself apart from the rest of you guys, and the conclusion rests entirely upon the prior probabilities.

As a consequence of your committing the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy (or something akin to it), the highlighted statement, above, is exactly correct. As I have explained repeatedly, the fallacy you are committing results in both of your likelihoods being 1; thus your "evidence" doesn't count at all, and the posterior probabilities of both your hypotheses are exactly equal to their prior probabilities.

You observing that you exist has no effect on the probabilities of either of your hypothesis. Your entire exercise is a waste of time.