Proof of Immortality, VI

[Imhotep]

That's the claim of a lot of people, and I understand exactly why. My whole experience is dependant on my "self", my consciousness. I can't even imagine not having it, since absence of self is beyond my experiences, even theoretically. And as I get older I dread my finality; I wouldn't say it keeps me awake at night, but you get the idea. So I totally understand the mind's resistence to the idea of death, and it keeps looking for reasons why there'll be something beyond, in the absence of the ability to deny death itself (we see plenty of it, so that's beyond question.)

But here's where maturity comes in: plenty of things are true that we'd rather see false, and the point of becoming an adult is accepting that the world is the way it is. Inability to imagine a thing, such as oblivion, is irrelevant: it happens. We have to deal with that. Make the best of your life; you won't get a second chance.

 

[Jabba]

...
- My answer to your question: H doesn't directly address/include that claim, but it would seem to imply that that claim is wrong -- i.e., your self and your brain are equally trackable.,

Then P(E|H) would not be some number over infinity. It would be determined in a manner similar to determining the likelihood of Mount Rainier existing.

- Interesting.
- I'm pretty sure that I understand what you're getting at -- but, it's a mistake in logic.
- In claiming that OOFLam is wrong, I'm claiming that one of its premises is wrong. In my formula, I show what I think the correct premise should be -- in the past, I've tried to explain my reasoning for that conclusion.
- Here, my claim is that my formula doesn't need to represent OOFLam's premises -- I just need to support/explain my deletion/replacement.

 

[Belz...]

in the past, I've tried to explain my reasoning for that conclusion.

And have failed, because you don't even analyse H under its own premises. You substitute other premises for H's and then claim that it doesn't work.

It's a mistake in logic.

 

[godless dave]

So you're claiming that OOFLam is wrong so that you can determine a likelihood to use in a Bayesian formula to show that OOFLam is less probable than ~OOFLam?

 

[jond]

- Interesting.
- I'm pretty sure that I understand what you're getting at -- but, it's a mistake in logic.
- In claiming that OOFLam is wrong, I'm claiming that one of its premises is wrong. In my formula, I show what I think the correct premise should be -- in the past, I've tried to explain my reasoning for that conclusion.
- Here, my claim is that my formula doesn't need to represent OOFLam's premises -- I just need to support/explain my deletion/replacement.

You really need to read the numerous responses you've had showing how and why you are wrong. Ignoring JayUtah's (for example) myriad posts in no way makes them go away.

 

[JoeMorgue]

In claiming that OOFLam is wrong, I'm claiming that one of its premises is wrong.

STOP CLAIMING AND START SUPPORTING.

Jabba do you understand that "making a claim" isn't where an argument ends?

Oh wait I forgot what you are doing. Here have a free out of context quote to use in your dishonest roadmap. "Jabba has totally convinced me of immortality!"

 

[JayUtah]

I'm pretty sure that I understand what you're getting at -- but, it's a mistake in logic.

No.

In claiming that OOFLam is wrong, I'm claiming that one of its premises is wrong. In my formula, I show what I think the correct premise should be...

You don't get to do that. When formulating a Bayesian or any other similar statistical inference, you must reckon P(E|H) as if H were true. You do not get to change its premises.

...in the past, I've tried to explain my reasoning for that conclusion.

Your reasoning is wrong for reasons that have to do with basic principles of statistical inference. You simply ignore those reasons.

Here, my claim is that my formula doesn't need to represent OOFLam's premises...

Wrong. P(E|H) must respect H's premises, by definition.

I just need to support/explain my deletion/replacement.

There is no such explanation that results in a valid inference.

Again, you really don't know what you're talking about when it comes to mathematics, and these errors have been pointed out to you repeatedly, not just by us but by other online statisticians that you have consulted, as well as individual academic consultants that you found yourself. Simply arguing that your errors should not be considered errors is pure hubris.

 

[Jabba]

So you're claiming that OOFLam is wrong so that you can determine a likelihood to use in a Bayesian formula to show that OOFLam is less probable than ~OOFLam?

- Yeah, I think...
- I'm claiming that one of OOFLam's premises is wrong, making OOFLam wrong.
- So, one of my current tasks is to effectively argue my claim that self and brain are not equally trackable.

 

[godless dave]

Then you really have two claims.

First, that mind-body dualism is real; there is an aspect of the human self that is nonphysical.

Second, that that nonphysical self is immortal.

 

[abaddon]

Then you really have two claims.

First, that mind-body dualism is real; there is an aspect of the human self that is nonphysical.

Second, that that nonphysical self is immortal.

Third claim: Materialism must include a soul of some sort, even though it doesn't by definition.

Fourth claim: Given OOFLAM, fractions of lives must exist. One could have 1.2 lives.

 

[jond]

Then you really have two claims.

First, that mind-body dualism is real; there is an aspect of the human self that is nonphysical.

Second, that that nonphysical self is immortal.

And the first one has nothing to do with statistics, it requires evidence of the non physical aspect of the self.

 

[HighRiser]

- Interesting.
- I'm pretty sure that I understand what you're getting at -- but, it's a mistake in logic.
- In claiming that OOFLam is wrong, I'm claiming that one of its premises is wrong. In my formula, I show what I think the correct premise should be -- in the past, I've tried to explain my reasoning for that conclusion.
- Here, my claim is that my formula doesn't need to represent OOFLam's premises -- I just need to support/explain my deletion/replacement.

All this time you're supposed to have been computing the probabilities of scientifically defined materialism, which you denoted as H in your formula, and something other than H, which you denoted as ~H.

You've just now stated that your definition of H isn't consistent with with materialism's ideology, and therefore your H is actually a ~H.

Just rewrite the formula as P(E|~H) =\= P(E|~H) and plug in whatever values you fancy. There. Now all the mathematical obstacles to acceptance of the true nature of your premise have fallen away before you.

 

[JayUtah]

Yeah, I think...

Then that would be circular reasoning.

I'm claiming that one of OOFLam's premises is wrong, making OOFLam wrong.

You have to prove the premise wrong, not just claim it. If the premise in question is a mind-body dualism, then yes, if you could prove that then you would refute materialism. But you can't prove it, and you've previously admitted that you can't prove it -- at least with evidence. You've been trying to prove for almost five years that your speculated dualism is a fact, and you've failed. Yes, after all these years we can confidently say you've failed, because you keep deploying the same debunked nonsense over and over, without paying the slightest attention to any responses or analysis. So don't simply announce that, for your second half-decade pursuing this white whale, you're going to set yourself that task again. It's very rude. Give your critics their due.

So, one of my current tasks is to effectively argue my claim that self and brain are not equally trackable.

But under materialism there is no difference between the "self" and the brain. They are one and the same entity. To claim they are not "equally trackable" (once again, don't just make words up) requires that they be different things, which they are not under materialism. Therefore when evaluating P(E|H), which is what you're doing here, you don't get to use any of your dualist speculations. In materialism there is only the brain. You don't get to change that premise just to make it easier for you to refute.

Your "current task" boils down to trying to get your critics to accept your straw-man formulation of materialism. Naturally they're under no obligation to do that. When reckoning P(E|H) you must use H as it is formulated, whether you think its premises are wrong or not.

 

[Loss Leader]

- Yeah, I think...
- I'm claiming that one of OOFLam's premises is wrong, making OOFLam wrong.
- So, one of my current tasks is to effectively argue my claim that self and brain are not equally trackable.

Just so we're perfectly clear: That is not Bayesian reasoning. It's just a couple of straight syllogisms.

In any case, you can't "claim" a premise is wrong. You actually have to show competent evidence that is inconsistent with it.

 

[Belz...]

- Yeah, I think...
- I'm claiming that one of OOFLam's premises is wrong, making OOFLam wrong.
- So, one of my current tasks is to effectively argue my claim that self and brain are not equally trackable.

Stop telling us what you claim and move on to the argument, then.

 

[abaddon]

Stop telling us what you claim and move on to the argument, then.

Well that is a plain flat out unrealistic expectation. 5 years of telling all and sundry what it is that will be done at some amorphous future time. When? Nobody knows, not even Jabba, because we asked him directly. The response is always "I will demonstrate claim du jour by means of repeating claim du jour."

What is one to do with that?

The fact of the matter is that Jabba claimed to be able to prove immortality by means of Bayes theorem.

In reality, all we have is a just so, because I say so, my myth is a more impressive load of unevidenced baloney than anything.

In five years (going on six) no evidence has been presented, just monotonous claims of what might be claimed in the future.

The correct answer is that nobody cares what imaginary claims might be made in the future, can any support be presented for the claims made right now this minute. What does Jabba say about that? No. Almost as though he realises that he cannot support his very own claims.

So now what?

 

[Mojo]

- In claiming that OOFLam is wrong, I'm claiming that one of its premises is wrong. In my formula, I show what I think the correct premise should be --

Yes, but then you try to use Bayesian statistics to prove that "OOFLam", if it includes your "corrected" premise, is false. This approach can only disprove your strawman of materialism, not materialism itself.

 

[Mojo]

Yes, but then you try to use Bayesian statistics to prove that "OOFLam", if it includes your "corrected" premise, is false. This approach can only disprove your strawman of materialism, not materialism itself.

Jabba, if you're disproving anything here, it's the hypothesis that you have an immaterial "self" in addition to your body. Not just an immaterial "self" with a finite lifetime, any immaterial "self", including immortal ones.

 

[Jabba]

- My claim is that your brain and your self are not equally "trackable." My claim is that, theoretically, we can reproduce your brain; but that, we can't, even theoretically, reproduce your self.

Then you really have two claims.

First, that mind-body dualism is real; there is an aspect of the human self that is nonphysical.

Second, that that nonphysical self is immortal.

Dave,
- I have numerous claims and sub-claims, but those are central.
- At the top(?) of my syllogism, I claim that
1. There is a reasonable possibility that the human self is not physical -- not, at least, in our current understanding of physical.
2. The likelihood of an event occurring -- given a particular hypothesis -- has mathematical implications (albeit indefinite) regarding the posterior probability of the hypothesis.
3. The likelihood of the current existence of my "self" -- given OOFLam -- is no more than 10^-100.
4. For that to be an appropriate element in judging the probability of OOFLam, my current existence needs to be set apart from most other selves in a way that is relevant to OOFLam.
5. My self is thusly set apart.
6. If I am correct so far, the posterior probability of OOFLam is extremely small.

- Underlying the "top" are numerous other claims/premises. For instance,
1. For the likelihood of my current existence to be an appropriate element in the relevant formula, my particular existence does not need to be pre-specified as appropriate. My particular current existence does not need to be specified as a legitimate “target” prior to my existence.
2. There are other characteristics of an event that can identify its likelihood as an appropriate element, as a legitimate target, in judging the posterior probability of the hypothesis.
3. “Targetness” is complex, and exists in degrees.

- That’s just the beginning.
- I will try to outline all my different premises. I will then ask you to point out all your disagreements.
- I hope to then introduce our debate to a (new) jury of our peers and present our further cases.

 

[The Sparrow]

Dave,
- I have numerous claims and sub-claims, but those are central.
- At the top(?) of my syllogism, I claim that
1. There is a reasonable possibility that the human self is not physical -- not, at least, in our current understanding of physical.

There is?
Do tell.