Proof of Immortality, VII

[RoboTimbo]

- I think so.

- I'll get to the rest later -- but for now, you and most others here don't think I have a good answer, and Caveman might not like my answer, but I think he agrees with my conclusion. Hopefully, he's listening.

That's just an outright lie. Don't you find it very dishonest to pretend we have just been giving you an opinion when, in fact, there is a list of fatal flaws to your arguments which you have dishonestly been very careful to avoid any discussion of?

It isn't that we think you have no good answers, the fact is that you don't have any answers.

Be honest for a change, Jabba.

 

[The Sparrow]

- I think so.

- I'll get to the rest later -- but for now, you and most others here don't think I have a good answer.

I love how you underlined think, as if its just emotional opinion.

Not only do the folks here know you haven't a good answer, they have demonstrated it repeatedly. If you actually read the responses you would see that.

 

[Mojo]

It probably is. Do you agree that given the materialist model, the likelihood of the current existence of your specific self awareness is exactly the same as the likelihood of the current existence of your living physical body?

- I think so.

Jabba, do you agree that given the hypothesis that you have an immortal soul in addition to your living physical body, the likelihood of your current existence is equal to or less than the likelihood of the existence of your living physical body?

 

[JayUtah]

I'll get to the rest later...

No, you won't. Godless dave did a pretty good job of summarizing the cyclical rut you insist we follow year after year. It leads nowhere, and we all know it. You haven't shown any urge to depart from the same hamster-wheel type of debate you've carried on, on any subject, since you first got here. The only question that remains to be answered is why a thinking person should pay the slightest attention to you.

...but for now, you and most others here don't think I have a good answer...

Knock off the gaslighting, Jabba. We know you don't have a good answer. It may surprise you to learn there have been people posting in this thread besides you -- people with demonstrably good brains and a demonstrably good grasp of the evidence and techniques that remain such a mystery to you. Your ploy seems to be to ignore them altogether and maintain the illusion that only you are the "holistic" thinker who has the right answer.

Moreover, we can prove you don't have a good answer. We can even make a good case -- if not outright further prove -- that you have no ambition whatsoever to pay the slightest further attention to that proof. You know it exists. You know you can't answer it. You just hope you can convince someone that it has gone away entirely.

My question above was serious. If had any desire to listen to aimless septuagenarian babble, why wouldn't I just go down to the park near the bus station where it can be had in abundance any time? The question asks what separates your presentation from theirs. So far, not much.

Caveman might not like my answer, but I think he agrees with my conclusion. Hopefully, he's listening.

What makes you think Caveman's contributions to this thread have anything to do with you or your claims?

 

[halleyscomet]

Be honest for a change, Jabba.

Based upon his posts in this thread I’d say we’re more likely to see the Star Wars Holiday Special Rebooted as an annual tradition with things like Rachel Ray reenacting the riveting “Wookiee watching English Language cooking show” scene.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Jabba,

Isn't this enough for you? You have no interest in even the most liberal definitions of a discussion. Surely by this point you've collected enough out of context quotes for you roadmap and since everyone here is wise to your game we're not going to be giving you anymore.

 

[The Sparrow]

Based upon his posts in this thread I’d say we’re more likely to see the Star Wars Holiday Special Rebooted as an annual tradition with things like Rachel Ray reenacting the riveting “Wookiee watching English Language cooking show” scene.

I had to google that. Good lord.

 

[godless dave]

- I think so.

So later on when we get to the Mount Rainier analogy again, you're not going to try to claim that the human sense of self isn't cause and effect traceable?

 

[Jabba]

- My current summary:

1. New information may affect the probability of an existing hypothesis (H).
2. An old event may be new info if it hasn’t already been considered in the current probability of H.


3. If an event is unlikely – given a particular hypothesis (H) – but the event occurs, the occurrence will tend to have a negative effect upon the probability of H — but, it need not.
4. It could be that given the complementary hypothesis – the event would be even more unlikely.
5. Or, it could be that all possible events – given H – are equally unlikely (e.g. a fair lottery) -- if so, the particular event needs to be "set apart" in a way that is relevant to the hypothesis in order to impact the hypothesis.
6. If – given H – an event is impossible, but does occur, H must be wrong.
7. Otherwise, what we call Bayesian statistics is used to evaluate the effect of a new and relevant event upon the probability of H.
8. I claim that by using my own current existence as the new info, Bayesian Statistics, virtually proves that we humans are not mortal.

9. Here’s how it works.
10. The likelihood of drawing a particular sample from a particular population has mathematical implications re the likelihood that a particular sample was, in fact, drawn from that population… You might want to read that again…
11. Or, in other words, the probability of a hypothesis being true is affected by the likelihood of samples actually drawn from the involved population — given that hypothesis.
12. The thing is, we have the mathematical right to apply this logic to our own expected mortality (the hypothesis)…
13. According to the typical, non-religious model of reality, each of us is temporary and singular — at best. If we ever live, we won’t live long, and we’ll do it only once.
14. By "we," I mean we "selves" or senses of self" or "specific self-awarenesses" (SSA) or even "souls" (if "soul' isn't defined as immortal) -- in other words, what reincarnationists think keep coming back to life.

15. If that is indeed the case, however, the probability of me existing right now is teensy-weensy, or vanishingly small. I’m damned lucky to be here, and damned lucky that now is now.
16. “So? Those things happen.” (or something similar) … is the usual response.
17. And every once in a while, someone gets a poker hand of 4 aces. You’re
right, those things happen. But, in the poker case, if you have any existing suspicions about the dealer and your opponent (that set the specific event apart from the other possibilities), those suspicions will take a decided turn for the worse if your opponent turns over 4 aces at a particularly convenient time.
18. In other words, if you have a plausible hypothesis other than the ‘null
hypothesis’ and you get results you wouldn’t expect given that the null hypothesis were correct, you can be justifiably suspicious of your null hypothesis (in our case, the non-religious hypothesis). It’s simply, which hypothesis – over all, adding the new info – is the most probable. No problem.

19. It’s only when you have no other plausible hypothesis that you’re stuck with the null hypothesis.
20. So, the question is, do I have available another plausible hypothesis for my current existence?
21. I can think of at least four that seem plausible.
22. And further, I can lump these four together (along with all other plausible hypotheses) in the complement to the null hypothesis and say something concrete and definite about the probability of the null hypothesis – the non-religious hypothesis – being true, given my current existence.

23. So, given
…k = all background knowledge
…P = the probability of
…NR = Non-Religious hypothesis
…| = given
…me = me (my current existence)
…R = Religious hypothesis.
24. The formula for this probability is
…P(NR|me & k) = P(me|NR)P(NR|k) / (P(me|NR)P(NR|k) + P(me|R)P(R|k)).
25. Since P(me|R) is simply indefinable (it isn’t zero or vanishingly small), we can substitute any positive value that we think is reasonable (.01 for instance), and given that value, the probability of the Non-Religious Hypothesis -- also given my current existence and all background knowledge (P(NR|me & k) becomes P(me|NR)P(NR|k) / (P(me|NR)P(NR|k) + .01P(R|k)).
26. If I then assign the subjective probabilities of .99 to P(NR|k) and .01 to P(R|k), P(NR|me&k) = (1/10100) times .99, divided by .01 times .1 = vanishingly small.
27. Since I do currently exist, the probability of me being temporary and singular ("mortal") is vanishingly small.
28. (I forgot to include that I do claim to be set apart in a relevant way, and why I do. I'll save that for another post.)

 

[jsfisher]

- My current summary:...

Back to conflating your physical existence with your sense of self existence, I see.

 

[John Jones]

- My current summary:

1. New information may affect the probability of an existing hypothesis (H).
2. An old event may be new info if it hasn’t already been considered in the current probability of H.


3. If an event is unlikely – given a particular hypothesis (H) – but the event occurs, the occurrence will tend to have a negative effect upon the probability of H — but, it need not.
4. It could be that given the complementary hypothesis – the event would be even more unlikely.
5. Or, it could be that all possible events – given H – are equally unlikely (e.g. a fair lottery) -- if so, the particular event needs to be "set apart" in a way that is relevant to the hypothesis in order to impact the hypothesis.
6. If – given H – an event is impossible, but does occur, H must be wrong.
7. Otherwise, what we call Bayesian statistics is used to evaluate the effect of a new and relevant event upon the probability of H.
8. I claim that by using my own current existence as the new info, Bayesian Statistics, virtually proves that we humans are not mortal.

9. Here’s how it works.
10. The likelihood of drawing a particular sample from a particular population has mathematical implications re the likelihood that a particular sample was, in fact, drawn from that population… You might want to read that again…
11. Or, in other words, the probability of a hypothesis being true is affected by the likelihood of samples actually drawn from the involved population — given that hypothesis.
12. The thing is, we have the mathematical right to apply this logic to our own expected mortality (the hypothesis)…
13. According to the typical, non-religious model of reality, each of us is temporary and singular — at best. If we ever live, we won’t live long, and we’ll do it only once.
14. By "we," I mean we "selves" or senses of self" or "specific self-awarenesses" (SSA) or even "souls" (if "soul' isn't defined as immortal) -- in other words, what reincarnationists think keep coming back to life.

15. If that is indeed the case, however, the probability of me existing right now is teensy-weensy, or vanishingly small. I’m damned lucky to be here, and damned lucky that now is now.
16. “So? Those things happen.” (or something similar) … is the usual response.
17. And every once in a while, someone gets a poker hand of 4 aces. You’re
right, those things happen. But, in the poker case, if you have any existing suspicions about the dealer and your opponent (that set the specific event apart from the other possibilities), those suspicions will take a decided turn for the worse if your opponent turns over 4 aces at a particularly convenient time.
18. In other words, if you have a plausible hypothesis other than the ‘null
hypothesis’ and you get results you wouldn’t expect given that the null hypothesis were correct, you can be justifiably suspicious of your null hypothesis (in our case, the non-religious hypothesis). It’s simply, which hypothesis – over all, adding the new info – is the most probable. No problem.

19. It’s only when you have no other plausible hypothesis that you’re stuck with the null hypothesis.
20. So, the question is, do I have available another plausible hypothesis for my current existence?
21. I can think of at least four that seem plausible.
22. And further, I can lump these four together (along with all other plausible hypotheses) in the complement to the null hypothesis and say something concrete and definite about the probability of the null hypothesis – the non-religious hypothesis – being true, given my current existence.

23. So, given
…k = all background knowledge
…P = the probability of
…NR = Non-Religious hypothesis
…| = given
…me = me (my current existence)
…R = Religious hypothesis.
24. The formula for this probability is
…P(NR|me & k) = P(me|NR)P(NR|k) / (P(me|NR)P(NR|k) + P(me|R)P(R|k)).
25. Since P(me|R) is simply indefinable (it isn’t zero or vanishingly small), we can substitute any positive value that we think is reasonable (.01 for instance), and given that value, the probability of the Non-Religious Hypothesis -- also given my current existence and all background knowledge (P(NR|me & k) becomes P(me|NR)P(NR|k) / (P(me|NR)P(NR|k) + .01P(R|k)).
26. If I then assign the subjective probabilities of .99 to P(NR|k) and .01 to P(R|k), P(NR|me&k) = (1/10100) times .99, divided by .01 times .1 = vanishingly small.
27. Since I do currently exist, the probability of me being temporary and singular ("mortal") is vanishingly small.
28. (I forgot to include that I do claim to be set apart in a relevant way, and why I do. I'll save that for another post.)

TL;DR. Was this another fringe reset?

 

[MRC_Hans]

- My current summary:

1. New information may affect the probability of an existing hypothesis (H).
2. An old event may be new info if it hasn’t already been considered in the current probability of H.


3. If an event is unlikely – given a particular hypothesis (H) – but the event occurs, the occurrence will tend to have a negative effect upon the probability of H — but, it need not.
4. It could be that given the complementary hypothesis – the event would be even more unlikely.
5. Or, it could be that all possible events – given H – are equally unlikely (e.g. a fair lottery) -- if so, the particular event needs to be "set apart" in a way that is relevant to the hypothesis in order to impact the hypothesis.
6. If – given H – an event is impossible, but does occur, H must be wrong.
7. Otherwise, what we call Bayesian statistics is used to evaluate the effect of a new and relevant event upon the probability of H.
8. I claim that by using my own current existence as the new info, Bayesian Statistics, virtually proves that we humans are not mortal.

9. Here’s how it works.
10. The likelihood of drawing a particular sample from a particular population has mathematical implications re the likelihood that a particular sample was, in fact, drawn from that population… You might want to read that again…
11. Or, in other words, the probability of a hypothesis being true is affected by the likelihood of samples actually drawn from the involved population — given that hypothesis.
12. The thing is, we have the mathematical right to apply this logic to our own expected mortality (the hypothesis)…
13. According to the typical, non-religious model of reality, each of us is temporary and singular — at best. If we ever live, we won’t live long, and we’ll do it only once.
14. By "we," I mean we "selves" or senses of self" or "specific self-awarenesses" (SSA) or even "souls" (if "soul' isn't defined as immortal) -- in other words, what reincarnationists think keep coming back to life.

15. If that is indeed the case, however, the probability of me existing right now is teensy-weensy, or vanishingly small. I’m damned lucky to be here, and damned lucky that now is now.
16. “So? Those things happen.” (or something similar) … is the usual response.
17. And every once in a while, someone gets a poker hand of 4 aces. You’re
right, those things happen. But, in the poker case, if you have any existing suspicions about the dealer and your opponent (that set the specific event apart from the other possibilities), those suspicions will take a decided turn for the worse if your opponent turns over 4 aces at a particularly convenient time.
18. In other words, if you have a plausible hypothesis other than the ‘null
hypothesis’ and you get results you wouldn’t expect given that the null hypothesis were correct, you can be justifiably suspicious of your null hypothesis (in our case, the non-religious hypothesis). It’s simply, which hypothesis – over all, adding the new info – is the most probable. No problem.

19. It’s only when you have no other plausible hypothesis that you’re stuck with the null hypothesis.
20. So, the question is, do I have available another plausible hypothesis for my current existence?
21. I can think of at least four that seem plausible.
22. And further, I can lump these four together (along with all other plausible hypotheses) in the complement to the null hypothesis and say something concrete and definite about the probability of the null hypothesis – the non-religious hypothesis – being true, given my current existence.

23. So, given
…k = all background knowledge
…P = the probability of
…NR = Non-Religious hypothesis
…| = given
…me = me (my current existence)
…R = Religious hypothesis.
24. The formula for this probability is
…P(NR|me & k) = P(me|NR)P(NR|k) / (P(me|NR)P(NR|k) + P(me|R)P(R|k)).
25. Since P(me|R) is simply indefinable (it isn’t zero or vanishingly small), we can substitute any positive value that we think is reasonable (.01 for instance), and given that value, the probability of the Non-Religious Hypothesis -- also given my current existence and all background knowledge (P(NR|me & k) becomes P(me|NR)P(NR|k) / (P(me|NR)P(NR|k) + .01P(R|k)).
26. If I then assign the subjective probabilities of .99 to P(NR|k) and .01 to P(R|k), P(NR|me&k) = (1/10100) times .99, divided by .01 times .1 = vanishingly small.
27. Since I do currently exist, the probability of me being temporary and singular ("mortal") is vanishingly small.
28. (I forgot to include that I do claim to be set apart in a relevant way, and why I do. I'll save that for another post.)

No.

Hans

 

[jond]

It doesn’t matter how unlikely you are. Immortality requires something else in addition to your body, which makes it less likely than your body alone. You lose, no matter how much you want to obfuscate.

Oh, and Jabba: Given that you claim you can only read one line in a post, why do expect anyone to read to wall of blather?

 

[jond]

As for the tired poker analogy: the rules of poker are well known before anyone is dealt four aces. That’s not the case here. Instead, you’ve been dealt a 2H, 5S, 7D, 8C, JH and decided that it’s such an unlikely hand that it must be important, therefore the game must be to get that hand.

 

[JayUtah]

- My current summary:

And the answers you can't deal with: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11871278&postcount=3198 We all know this, even you.

An old event may be new info if it hasn’t already been considered in the current probability of H.

No, not if the significance of the event is reckoned from the desired hypothesis. Texas sharpshooter fallacy. Again.

If an event is unlikely – given a particular hypothesis (H)...

Not relevant to your argument, since your H is a straw man concocted to make the event seem unlikely.

I claim that by using my own current existence as the new info, Bayesian Statistics, virtually proves that we humans are not mortal.

Your own current existence cannot be new info in a sample space where you already exist. Immediately fatal.

Here’s how it works.

It doesn't work. Piling more obfuscation onto an argument that's broken at the fundamental level can't fix it.

The likelihood of drawing a particular sample from a particular population has mathematical implications re the likelihood that a particular sample was, in fact, drawn from that population…

Not when the "likelihood" is simply a random number you pull out of your nether orifice. There is no mathematical process that turns a guess into a fact.

By "we," I mean we "selves" or senses of self" or "specific self-awarenesses" (SSA) or even "souls" (if "soul' isn't defined as immortal) -- in other words, what reincarnationists think keep coming back to life.

You don't know anything about reincarnation. You are conflating animism with reincarnation. Further, none of these attempts at obfuscation has the slightest to do with H. These are things you're trying to tack onto H in order to make it seem less likely.

...if you have any existing suspicions about the dealer and your opponent...

No. "Suspicions" have nothing to do with probability, and your argument is based on your unproven assumption that materialism is unlikely.

In other words, if you have a plausible hypothesis...

No, this is just the standard double standard used by all fringe theorists. The prevailing theory has to clear a nigh impossible bar while the desired hypothesis only has to be "plausible."

It’s only when you have no other plausible hypothesis that you’re stuck with the null hypothesis.

No. The null holds unless it is falsified by evidence. Having an idea how you might falsify it doesn't constitute a falsification. If your competing hypothesis is empirically or otherwise unsupportable, the null continues to hold.

You are not a scientist and have no relevant scientific training or experience. Do not presume to lecture your betters on how to conduct a proper investigation.

Since P(me|R) is simply indefinable (it isn’t zero or vanishingly small), we can substitute any positive value that we think is reasonable.

Bwahahahaha! You are literally making up all the numbers in your model. Literally that's what you're doing.

(I forgot to include that I do claim to be set apart in a relevant way, and why I do. I'll save that for another post.)

Don't bother. We've already heard your argument for being "set apart in a relevant way," and it amounts to you begging and pleading that the Texas sharpshooter fallacy should not be considered a fallacy. Since you're obviously incapable of discussing this fallacy in your own words, it's plausible to believe you are simply cognitively incapable of understanding why your argument fails.

 

[JayUtah]

As for the tired poker analogy: the rules of poker are well known before anyone is dealt four aces. That’s not the case here. Instead, you’ve been dealt a 2H, 5S, 7D, 8C, JH and decided that it’s such an unlikely hand that it must be important, therefore the game must be to get that hand.

Oh, but he gets to "suspect" everyone else, and somehow that fixes his math. Somehow.

 

[halleyscomet]

I had to google that. Good lord.

The RiffTrax version is the best one. Commentary from Mike Nelson and Company make most of it rather enjoyable.

https://www.rifftrax.com/the-star-wars-holiday-special

The cooking segment though. There’s no redeeming that.

 

[The Sparrow]

The RiffTrax version is the best one. Commentary from Mike Nelson and Company make most of it rather enjoyable.

https://www.rifftrax.com/the-star-wars-holiday-special

The cooking segment though. There’s no redeeming that.

Saving that link!

 

[JayUtah]

Also, recasting the debate lately into "religious" and "non-religious" hypotheses doesn't fix anything. It's a desperate ploy to deny his critics the value of the materialist hypothesis by nothing more than his typical word games. Jabba doesn't define what he means by "religious" and "non-religious" in this context. In a proof allegedly of immortality, one cannot simply assume all "religious" hypotheses infer immortality and all "non-religious" hypotheses must infer mortality. It just adds more proof to the notion that Jabba is utterly incapable of mounting an argument that isn't simply word games.

 

[RoboTimbo]

14. By "we," I mean we "selves" or senses of self" or "specific self-awarenesses" (SSA) or even "souls" (if "soul' isn't defined as immortal) -- in other words, what reincarnationists think keep coming back to life.

Is "soul" part of the materialist hypothesis? If not, why are you reckoning it as if it were? If you've already been advised that it isn't, doesn't that make this another of your immortal lies?

15. If that is indeed the case, however, the probability of me existing right now is teensy-weensy, or vanishingly small. I’m damned lucky to be here, and damned lucky that now is now.

At what other time would you have been able to marvel at your existence?

16. “So? Those things happen.” (or something similar) … is the usual response.

Lying about your critics' responses is just a habit wiith you, isn't it?

17. And every once in a while, someone gets a poker hand of 4 aces. You’re
right, those things happen. But, in the poker case, if you have any existing suspicions about the dealer and your opponent (that set the specific event apart from the other possibilities), those suspicions will take a decided turn for the worse if your opponent turns over 4 aces at a particularly convenient time.

You agree that you've given a classic example of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. You've been dealt five random cards and then declared that particular combination to be the winning hand after you turned over your cards.

18. In other words, if you have a plausible hypothesis other than the ‘null
hypothesis’ and you get results you wouldn’t expect given that the null hypothesis were correct, you can be justifiably suspicious of your null hypothesis (in our case, the non-religious hypothesis). It’s simply, which hypothesis – over all, adding the new info – is the most probable. No problem.

19. It’s only when you have no other plausible hypothesis that you’re stuck with the null hypothesis.
20. So, the question is, do I have available another plausible hypothesis for my current existence?

No, for the hundreds of reasons given which you've simply stoppered your ears to.

21. I can think of at least four that seem plausible.
22. And further, I can lump these four together (along with all other plausible hypotheses) in the complement to the null hypothesis and say something concrete and definite about the probability of the null hypothesis – the non-religious hypothesis – being true, given my current existence.

23. So, given
…k = all background knowledge
…P = the probability of
…NR = Non-Religious hypothesis
…| = given
…me = me (my current existence)
…R = Religious hypothesis.
24. The formula for this probability is
…P(NR|me & k) = P(me|NR)P(NR|k) / (P(me|NR)P(NR|k) + P(me|R)P(R|k)).
25. Since P(me|R) is simply indefinable (it isn’t zero or vanishingly small), we can substitute any positive value that we think is reasonable (.01 for instance), and given that value, the probability of the Non-Religious Hypothesis -- also given my current existence and all background knowledge (P(NR|me & k) becomes P(me|NR)P(NR|k) / (P(me|NR)P(NR|k) + .01P(R|k)).
26. If I then assign the subjective probabilities of .99 to P(NR|k) and .01 to P(R|k), P(NR|me&k) = (1/10100) times .99, divided by .01 times .1 = vanishingly small.
27. Since I do currently exist, the probability of me being temporary and singular ("mortal") is vanishingly small.
28. (I forgot to include that I do claim to be set apart in a relevant way, and why I do. I'll save that for another post.)

No need to save it for another post. You've already outlined it and it's been torn to shreds. Now you should address all those fatal flaws that you've run away from and lied about.

Won't you be honest for a change?