Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

[Belz...]

- Gotta go to church. But, I'll be back.

Pray to god for an answer to this: Why do you assume that there is an infinity of potential souls?

 

[Jabba]

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.

jt,
- I reviewed all your posts mentioning texas sharpshooter in this latest 'chapter,' but couldn't figure out why both likelihoods should be 1.
- Could you try again?

 

[John Jones]

jt,
- I reviewed all your posts mentioning texas sharpshooter in this latest 'chapter,' but couldn't figure out why both likelihoods should be 1.
- Could you try again?

Is there any chance you will pay attention if he does?

 

[Pixel42]

jt,
- I reviewed all your posts mentioning texas sharpshooter in this latest 'chapter,' but couldn't figure out why both likelihoods should be 1.
- Could you try again?

Jabba, this has already been explained to you in the simplest possible terms many times. If you didn't understand it any of the previous times what on earth is the point of anyone spending their valuable time explaining it to you again?

 

[jt512]

jt,
- I reviewed all your posts mentioning texas sharpshooter in this latest 'chapter,' but couldn't figure out why both likelihoods should be 1.
- Could you try again?

Jabba, I appreciate your making the effort to look. I haven't been using the term "Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy" much in posts discussing why your likelihoods are 1. Instead, look for posts of mine in which I use the term "likelihood" or "sample space."

 

[Jabba]

Jabba, I appreciate your making the effort to look. I haven't been using the term "Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy" much in posts discussing why your likelihoods are 1. Instead, look for posts of mine in which I use the term "likelihood" or "sample space."

jt,
-Thanks. Wilco.

 

[Belz...]

Jabba, why do you assume that there is an infinity of potential souls?

This question is absolutely fundamental. Your entire argument rests on this. Don't tell me that you do, tell me WHY you do.

 

[jsfisher]

Not an infinite number, but a whole lot of potential souls.

See, it works like this. The vagina, the uterus, and the ovaries are really the holy trinity of lady bits. (And anyone who has seen a human anatomy book knows there is that Jesus crucifixion thing going on there, too.) The triad is actually a gateway to the astral plane. Well, gateway from actually. You see, God is this virile guy, but he's basically lonely, all stuck up there in heaven doing God-work and stuff. Like any virile, lonely guy, he often cranks one out for a bit of relief. This creates a heavenly sea of fertility, a cosmic spouge as it were.

Human conception requires three things to unite. The ovum provided by the female and the sperm by the male of course, but we also need a dose of the Godly goo to bind body and soul. Luckily, the lady triad being a gateway and all, Godly goo is easy to come by (no pun intended).

Whenever the process is incomplete, conception does not occur. It is as easy as that. Well, there are exceptions, but they are rare. Jesus is one where the male part was skipped; Hitler is one where the God part was skipped.

This ends today's lesson.

 

[JayUtah]

Jabba, I appreciate your making the effort to look. I haven't been using the term "Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy" much in posts discussing why your likelihoods are 1. Instead, look for posts of mine in which I use the term "likelihood" or "sample space."

I recall you also used the acronym HARK, meaning "hypothesizing after results are known." Those would be good search terms too.

 

[Jabba]

jt,
- I reviewed all your posts mentioning texas sharpshooter in this latest 'chapter,' but couldn't figure out why both likelihoods should be 1.
- Could you try again?

Jabba, I appreciate your making the effort to look. I haven't been using the term "Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy" much in posts discussing why your likelihoods are 1. Instead, look for posts of mine in which I use the term "likelihood" or "sample space."

The fact that you are asking these questions indicates that you have utterly failed to understand my point, and I've explained it about as well as I can, but I'll try again: There is some prior probability that a penny found laying on the sidewalk was dropped by a pedestrian, and some prior probability that it was transported there from the planet Xenu using a transporter beam. Now I stumble across a penny. How does that observation alter my probabilities about where pennies on the sidewalk come from? It doesn't. Neither of my hypotheses predicted that I would find a penny in that spot. Indeed, the hypotheses that I would find a penny in that spot did not exist until I found a penny in that spot. Therefore, my finding a penny in that spot does nothing to alter my probabilities about where pennies on the sidewalk come from.

Likewise, Jabba finds himself existing. Neither of his hypotheses predicted a priori that he, specifically, would exist. In fact, no hypothesis predicting that Jabba would exist existed until Jabba existed. Therefore, Jabba observing he exists does nothing to alter the probabilities about how people come to exist.

In neither case does the observation discriminate between the hypotheses, because neither hypothesis predicted the specific observation. Instead, in both cases, the whole problem is sitting in a universe where the evidence must have occurred.

jt,
- I still don't follow. If we were comparing OOFLam to we-each-have-an-infinity-of-finite-lives, wouldn't my current existence favor the latter hypothesis in terms of likelihood?

 

[JayUtah]

If we were comparing OOFLam to we-each-have-an-infinity-of-finite-lives...

You don't do that. Sometimes you compare "people are immortal" to everything that isn't that. Other times you compare materialism to everything that isn't materialism. At no point have you compared one hypothesis against another, from among all the possible hypotheses. You just equivocate so as to create a false dilemma.

...wouldn't my current existence favor the latter hypothesis in terms of likelihood?

No. Why would it?

 

[Jabba]

Jabba, why do you assume that there is an infinity of potential souls?

This question is absolutely fundamental. Your entire argument rests on this. Don't tell me that you do, tell me WHY you do.

Argumemnon,
- What I really think/suspect is that consciousness exists and is infinitely divisible.
- I think that for all the reasons I've already given. One of those reasons is that there are many more selves now than there used to be. In other words, Napoleon might currently exist in more than one person.

 

[JayUtah]

- What I really think/suspect is that consciousness exists and is infinitely divisible.

Yes, we all know you think things like this. This is akin to what you say you can prove. What Argumemnon is getting at is that part of your proof for these concepts assumes the truth of the concept as a premise. He's asking you why you think you can use your beliefs as a premise for a proof for your beliefs. He's asking how you think you escape circular reasoning.

I think that for all the reasons I've already given. One of those reasons is that there are many more selves now than there used to be. In other words, Napoleon might currently exist in more than one person.

Interesting speculation, but not something you can use as a premise to an argument. Do you understand that you can't use speculation as the premise to a proof?

 

[jond]

Argumemnon,
- What I really think/suspect is that consciousness exists and is infinitely divisible.
- I think that for all the reasons I've already given. One of those reasons is that there are many more selves now than there used to be. In other words, Napoleon might currently exist in more than one person.

In other words: "I refuse to even consider consciousness to be a process in the brain, it must be an entity that exists separately from the brain."

 

[Hokulele]

- I think that for all the reasons I've already given. One of those reasons is that there are many more selves now than there used to be. In other words, Napoleon might currently exist in more than one person.

Doesn't that pretty much destroy your earlier argument that each self is unique and distinctive, and can't be cloned? What happened to the idea of a VIN for the self?

 

[JayUtah]

Doesn't that pretty much destroy your earlier argument that each self is unique and distinctive, and can't be cloned? What happened to the idea of a VIN for the self?

It does, but it doesn't matter so much. The "potential selves" thing is meant to apply to H (materialism). The concept is put forward only to suggest that there is an infinite pool of potential selves to draw from, under H, such that any number of actual selves has to be divided by infinity to derive the probability that they exist under H.

H has no such concept.

So Jabba can waffle about all he wants on what he believes to be true and what hypothesis might lead to immortality. But when dealing with H he doesn't get to talk about things that H doesn't provide. H doesn't provide or allow for "potential selves," individual or divisible.

 

[Hokulele]

It does, but it doesn't matter so much. The "potential selves" thing is meant to apply to H (materialism). The concept is put forward only to suggest that there is an infinite pool of potential selves to draw from, under H, such that any number of actual selves has to be divided by infinity to derive the probability that they exist under H.

H has no such concept.

So Jabba can waffle about all he wants on what he believes to be true and what hypothesis might lead to immortality. But when dealing with H he doesn't get to talk about things that H doesn't provide. H doesn't provide or allow for "potential selves," individual or divisible.

Oh, I agree. I was simply pointing out to Jabba one of the hazards of making stuff up as you go, as it is almost inevitable that you will end up disproving your own claims at some point.

Now, if his claims had been based on actual, observable data and had a solid foundation in real statistics, it might be a different story.

 

[JayUtah]

Oh, I agree. I was simply pointing out to Jabba one of the hazards of making stuff up as you go, as it is almost inevitable that you will end up disproving your own claims at some point.

As he has done here, and as you note. As with most of Jabba's arguments, there are several ways in which he is wrong. He has gone from an argument of discrete entities to an argument of an infinitely divisible single entity. That just throws more doubt on his argument of countability. That said, what he's proposing is basically the model of reincarnation proposed in Tibetan Buddhism. If he wants to prove Buddhism via Bayes, so be it.

But the way I see it, the inappropriate attachment to H of concepts that simply don't belong to it is a primary error. Jabba's waffling about immortality models affects his hypothesis. His insistence that such concepts must apply also to H is immediately and thoroughly fatal to his proposed method. P(E|H) must not incorporate concepts that are not part of E or H.

Now, if his claims had been based on actual, observable data and had a solid foundation in real statistics, it might be a different story.

Don't worry; he'll be back.

 

[John Jones]

jt,
- I still don't follow. If we were comparing OOFLam to we-each-have-an-infinity-of-finite-lives, wouldn't my current existence favor the latter hypothesis in terms of likelihood?

Jabba, you are abusing the utility co-op in your region at this point. Electrons are giving their lives so that you can ignore every explanation offered to you the last 60 months.

You still don't follow, after every patient explanation over 5 year's time? I call BS.

 

[John Jones]

Argumemnon,
- What I really think/suspect is that consciousness exists and is infinitely divisible.
- I think that for all the reasons I've already given. One of those reasons is that there are many more selves now than there used to be. In other words, Napoleon might currently exist in more than one person.

The time for you to present evidence supporting such would have been about the time you made the claim -- not 5 years (or more) later.