Proof of Immortality, VI

[JayUtah]

If it's all an illusion to you, you wouldn't be posting here.

And more importantly, if the whole rest of the universe is just an illusion around Jabba, then there's no point quibbling over how many "potential self-awarenesses" factor into the model. The answer would be none. Jabba's argument revolves around not only himself being real, but everything else being real -- and yea verily, that some things that don't even exist yet must also be real in a countable sense. Solipsism is completely antithetical to the core concept of his model: that he can divide the number of things that exist by the number of things that potentially exist and come up with a small number. Nothing else potentially exists in a solipsistic universe. Or everything else does. You know the drill.

 

[Belz...]

If you can't explain why you won, then you have no business claiming you did. I can, however, explain why you lost. Your first point is simply what you've been suggesting all along: the Texas sharpshooter fallacy shouldn't be a fallacy in your case. That's special pleading.

I love how the first order of business before addressing your list was to completely ignore it and proceed to commit the exact same mistakes that are on the list.

 

[Jabba]

-The following was taken from Jay's list of fatal flaws, and I don't currently have time to find the specific post.
Since you've posted your fringe reset "opening statement" here, will you consent to respond -- here -- to a systematic and thorough response to it?

Quote:
I think that, using Bayesian statistics, I can virtually disprove the consensus scientific hypothesis that we each have only one, finite, life to live…
You already admitted you can't, but that you "still believe [you're] right."
- I never said that I could prove anything, but I never accepted that I couldn’t virtually prove that OOFLam was wrong. I still assume that OOFlam is a consensus scientific hypothesis.

You don't understand how Bayesian inference works.
- I'm not an expert, but I still think that I understand it well enough to apply it here.
You habitually misstate the scientific consensus.
- I still assume that OOFlam is a consensus scientific hypothesis.

Fatal flaw 1: You err in formulating a Bayesian inference.

Quote:
If something occurs that is unlikely to occur -- given a particular hypothesis -- the event is evidence against the hypothesis.
No.
- I admitted I was wrong about that.

This is expressly what statistical inference is not. One applies a statistical inference to predict an as-yet unknown outcome so as to rationally inform decisions that must be made prior to knowing the outcome. The outcome, once known, is a fact.
- If I understand what you're saying -- in at least Bayesian statistics, "likelihood" is used to refer to an event's probability of occurring given a particular hypothesis, and is at least often used to evaluate the implications, re the hypothesis, of the event's actual occurrence.


That it was previously deemed unlikely casts no doubt on the causality that produced it.
- Certainly it does. Ask Caveman, JT or Humots.

- It's going to take me a couple of weeks to address all of your objections, so I'll do a little at a time...

 

[Belz...]

The following was taken from Jay's list of fatal flaws, and I don't currently have time to find the specific post.

We posted it DOZENS of times in the last week. You could find it in a matter of seconds.

I never said that I could prove anything

Oh, really? What's this?

- I think that I can essentially prove immortality using Bayesian statistics.
- If this belongs in a different thread, or has already been done, please let me know. Otherwise, I'll present my case here.
--- Jabba

Well, that's the very first post of this thread's first incarnation. Another lie, Jabba.

I'm not an expert, but I still think that I understand it well enough to apply it here.

No, you've shown that you don't even know how it works.

It's going to take me a couple of weeks to address all of your objections

It should take an hour at most, Jabba.

 

[JayUtah]

It's going to take me a couple of weeks to address all of your objections, so I'll do a little at a time...

No, those were not the instructions. This is not just another "map" through which you get to lead everyone on a merry chase. I specifically asked for a brief overview -- a few sentences -- for each fatal flaw specifically to preclude your habit of dragging each individual point into the mud until the discussion bogs down and we never get to the rest of your argument. You have claimed that but for a minor disagreement here or there you have proven your case. That is abundantly false, as I have shown.

Now please try again and follow the instructions.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Jabba nobody believes that after 5 years of stalling and excuses you're gonna give us anything but more stalling and excuses in a few months.

You don't have any answers.

You're not immortal. Your "Patented Debate Style" doesn't work. And this epic story of you beating the skeptics you think you are starring in is not going to have the ending you want.

 

[godless dave]

For the millionth time, OOFLam is not a scientific hypothesis. OFL (One Finite Life, no more, no less) is the expected outcome of the hypothesis that human life is entirely material and that human consciousness is a product of human brains. It's not as if some scientist somewhere proposed "We each have one finite life" as a hypothesis.

 

[Humots]

Since you've posted your fringe reset "opening statement" here, will you consent to respond -- here -- to a systematic and thorough response to it?

Quote:
I think that, using Bayesian statistics, I can virtually disprove the consensus scientific hypothesis that we each have only one, finite, life to live…
You already admitted you can't, but that you "still believe [you're] right."
- I never said that I could prove anything, but I never accepted that I couldn’t virtually prove that OOFLam was wrong. I still assume that OOFlam is a consensus scientific hypothesis.

Your assumption is wrong. OOFlam is in no way a consensus scientific hypothesis.

As Jay pointed out, this is a conclusion from the materialist hypothesis.

You don't understand how Bayesian inference works.
- I'm not an expert, but I still think that I understand it well enough to apply it here.

According to people the other forum you were posting to, you do not understand it at all.

You habitually misstate the scientific consensus.
- I still assume that OOFlam is a consensus scientific hypothesis.

And you're still wrong.

Fatal flaw 1: You err in formulating a Bayesian inference.

Quote:
If something occurs that is unlikely to occur -- given a particular hypothesis -- the event is evidence against the hypothesis.
No.
- I admitted I was wrong about that.

This is expressly what statistical inference is not. One applies a statistical inference to predict an as-yet unknown outcome so as to rationally inform decisions that must be made prior to knowing the outcome. The outcome, once known, is a fact.
- If I understand what you're saying -- in at least Bayesian statistics, "likelihood" is used to refer to an event's probability of occurring given a particular hypothesis, and is at least often used to evaluate the implications, re the hypothesis, of the event's actual occurrence.


That it was previously deemed unlikely casts no doubt on the causality that produced it.
- Certainly it does. Ask Caveman, JT or Humots.

Just when did I say anything to support this? Link, or you're just putting words in my mouth.

- It's going to take me a couple of weeks to address all of your objections, so I'll do a little at a time...

And round we go again.

 

[tinribmancer]

Jabba nobody believes that after 5 years of stalling and excuses you're gonna give us anything but more stalling and excuses in a few months.

You don't have any answers.

You're not immortal. You're "Patented Debate Style" doesn't work. And this epic story of you beating the skeptics you think you are starring in is not going to have the ending you want.

Good god, really? This immortal nonsense has been going on for 5 years?

Just...why? Atleast try to be a bit innovative, Jabba. Like Alex Chiu, for example, with his rings and bracelets.

 

[JayUtah]

And round we go again.

Probably, but the main goal of the exercise was to compel Jabba to face the totality of his error all at once. He has proven instead that all he's capable of doing is transforming every attempt at making him accountable into yet another excuse to draw the discussion out ad nauseam and avoid that accountability. I set him a task that could be accomplished in a single post and take no more than about half an hour (assuming a three-minute period of writing per item).

 

[Hokulele]

18. My current existence is extremely unlikely -- and though every other human can make the same claim, I am set apart in a way that relates to OOFLam (as is most likely true in every other human (and others)) and makes my current existence a legitimate E in the Bayesian formula.

No.

"When everyone's super, no one is!" - Syndrome (The Incredibles)

 

[JoeMorgue]

Good god, really? This immortal nonsense has been going on for 5 years?

Essentially. The first official "Immortality" thread was started on 21st Nov, 2012, but Jabba had already dropped the concept in some of his earlier threads.

 

[John Jones]

[...]



I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. It's not clear whether this post is intended merely to address the Texas sharpshooter fallacy or whether it was intended to provide the required comprehensive answer. Your critics are not obliged to accept partial answers in support of your claim that only cursory disagreement persists.
[...]

I'm sure you know this, but it is allegory: He's Joshua. You're Jericho. I don't know why he didn't just offer an overt prayer to his god(s). It seems the only hope he's got after all these years. Fringe resets have gotten him nowhere.

 

[John Jones]

- Mmm... I think it does, but must admit that I can't clearly explain why I think it does... I'll keep workin on it.
[...].

How much longer will it take? You've been floundering for 5 years.

 

[John Jones]

- [...]
16. There are reasons to believe that science isn’t nearly as ADVANCED as we have thought that it was/is.
[...].

I can't let this go unnoticed.

Jabba, you tried this argument on your Shroud thread. You dismissed scientists as notoriously dishonest and incompetent. That blew up right in your face.

Are you sure you want to go for a second bout?

 

[JayUtah]

I'm sure you know this, but it is allegory: He's Joshua. You're Jericho.

Oh, sure, I got the Bible reference -- especially the part where he casts himself as the hero. What was unclear was what exactly the post at hand was meant to address. The topic was the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. Then all of a sudden he's also taking notice of the list of fatal flaws and determining to address it.

My guess is that he's stuck (as usual) on the Texas sharpshooter fallacy and looking desperately for any subject to change to. "Oh, hey, here's Jay's list that people have been pestering me to address, let's play the standard delay-of-game strategy with that instead of getting cornered by a Texas sharpshooter." And then he went and did with it precisely what he was not supposed to do with it, which was to announce it would take weeks of his time to get to all of it.

He's very clearly just looking for more ways to stall the debate.

 

[John Jones]

[...]

He's very clearly just looking for more ways to stall the debate.

More meta-discussion about whatever will run the clock down.

 

[Belz...]

Oh, sure, I got the Bible reference -- especially the part where he casts himself as the hero.

What kind of hero fails at all the tasks?

 

[Pixel42]

As the discussion is still going round in circles and Jabba is still failing to address a single one of the fatal flaws in his argument I would like to try a different tack and focus in on one particular aspect of it: his notion of a 'sense of self'.

Last week I experienced an attack of something called Transient Global Amnesia. I started a thread on it in the Community subforum if you want the full details but in brief: the part of my brain which creates new memories malfunctioned, and as a result a period of about 18 hours of my life is a complete blank. I know what I was doing during those hours, but I have absolutely no memory of doing it, and never will. I have communicated with three people I interacted with during those hours and only one had any real concern for me, though in retrospect the other two do recognise that all was not as it should be.

My question to Jabba is this: was the 'sense of self' I had during this period, of which I have no memory, the same 'sense of self' I have now as I type this? Why, or why not?

I'd be interested in everyone else's answer to this question too, but please give Jabba a day to think about and post an answer before chiming in.

 

[Dave Rogers]

- I think that I can essentially prove immortality using Bayesian statistics.

- I never said that I could prove anything,

Is this a lie, or are you admitting to weasel words in your original claim?

Dave