Proof of Immortality, VII

[Dave Rogers]

Since P(me|R) is simply indefinable (it isn’t zero or vanishingly small),

Please cite your evidence for the highlighted claim. Note that you have claimed that the probability of you existing under the non-religious hypothesis (a nonsensical entity to invoke, to be sure) is zero or vanishingly small, yet in the religious hypothesis you require your specific soul to have been chosen from a similarly large or infinite number of possible souls, and you also require a mechanism for immortality which is lacking from the non-religious hypothesis, your claim seems quite indefensible; indeed, even the suggestion that the probability of your existence is any greater under the religious hypothesis seems quite indefensible.

This is, in fact ,the argument from ignorance in a new, turbocharged form; your claim reduces to "I don't know, and nobody can possibly know, what this number is, therefore I can have it be anything I want it to be." This is not a coherent or defensible premise.

Dave

 

[aleCcowaN]

Nice fringe reset, Jabba! Now with more points, as if it had been made any progress...

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?

Wouldn't that be "immoral lies"?

Because Jabba's are short lived by one side, and pretty run-of-the-mill by the other, so I don't see anything immortal there but Jabba's appetite for an immortality that will allow him make sense ... eventually

 

[JoeMorgue]

- My current summary:

Jabba stop summarizing. Just stop.

 

[Mojo]

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…

Under materialism consciousness is a brain process, not something drawn from a population. It's just what the brain is doing.

 

[Jabba]

- My new summary. The new stuff is hi-lighted.

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 ever existing is teensy-weensy, or vanishingly small. I’m damned lucky to ever be here. 16. And as now happens to be now, I'm even luckier than that. 16. But then, is my current SSA "set apart" from all the other SSAs? 17. Here's why I think it is. 18. My SSA is the only thing or process that I know exists -- the rest could be my imagination. 19. If it didn't ever exist, it would be as if nothing ever existed -- and the likelihood of it ever existing is less than 1/10¹⁰⁰. 20. If it didn't currently exist, it would be as if nothing currently existed, and the likelihood of it currently existing is even (much) less than the likelihood of it ever existing... 21. That gives enormous significance to my current, personal SSA. 22. And, the thing is, every current SSA has the same reason to believe that OOFLam is wrong -- and that she or he is not mortal. 23. “So? However unlikely, those things are, they do happen now and then.” (Or something similar.) is the usual response. 24. 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 (setting 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.
25. 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.

26. It’s only when you have no other plausible hypothesis that you’re stuck with the null hypothesis.
27. So, the question is, do I have available another plausible hypothesis for my current existence?
28. I can think of at least four that seem plausible.
29. 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.

30. So, given
…k = all background knowledge
…P = the probability of
…NR = Non-Religious hypothesis
…| = given
…me = me (my current existence)
…R = Religious hypothesis.
31. 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)).
32. 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)).
33. 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.
34. Since I do currently exist, the probability of me being temporary and singular ("mortal") is vanishingly small.

 

[Dave Rogers]

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),

No, you can't. Your entire thesis hangs on the ratio of the values you choose for P(Jabba|R) and P(Jabba|~R), so making up numbers for both embodies your desired conclusion in your premises, as everybody has been telling you for five years.

Dave

 

[Jabba]

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?

- I have to think more about it, but for the moment, I don't think that I need to make that claim (even though I believe it). I think I was only using it to support "1/10¹⁰⁰."

 

[Dave Rogers]

- I have to think more about it, but for the moment, I don't think that I need to make that claim (even though I believe it). I think I was only using it to support "1/10¹⁰⁰."

Which is a number pulled from the same place you pulled .01 from.

Dave

 

[JayUtah]

- My new summary.

And do you care not one whit for the comments you have received thus far, correctly noting that you are simply making the same old mistakes as you have for the past five years?

Do you also not care that your obfuscatory nonsense has had a full refutation which you know about and have all but admitted you can't answer?

What gives you the right to treat your critics so rudely?

17. Here's why I think it is.

It's the same reason it always is -- emotional solipsistic twaddle that has nothing to do with mathematics or materialism, and therefore nothing to do with P(E|H).

21. That gives enormous significance to my current, personal SSA.

Asked and answered. That it what gives it sentimental value to you. It is not what affects its probability of arising, or the actual facts that contribute to its rise. You may not cite your personal sense of wonderment as the reason why you think materialism somehow preselects something to go on to inhabit your body. Why would you make an argument that was already several times refuted and which has nothing to do with the hypothesis whose probability you're trying to estimate?

22. And, the thing is, every current SSA has the same reason to believe...

As if anyone else needed a better reason to believe you simply consider "self-awareness" to be a new synonym for soul. Materialism has no such notion, so your argument remains entire irrelevant to the computation of P(E|H).

To address the argument, now you're just babbling about subjectivism as if this somehow cures the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, hiding it behind the novel absurdity that if everyone is being individually subjective, then your opinion must somehow amount to universal. It does not, and in fact the subjectivist error is exactly what makes the Texas sharpshooter fallacy a fallacy no matter how many people engage in it, how many times. You would know that if you had accepted your critics' invitation to have a discussion on the subject.

 

[RoboTimbo]

- My new summary OF MY EXACT SAME CRAP.

The new stuff is hi-lighted.

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 ever existing is teensy-weensy, or vanishingly small. I’m damned lucky to ever be here. 16. And as now happens to be now, I'm even luckier than that. 16. But then, is my current SSA "set apart" from all the other SSAs? 17. Here's why I think it is. 18. My SSA is the only thing or process that I know exists -- the rest could be my imagination. 19. If it didn't ever exist, it would be as if nothing ever existed -- and the likelihood of it ever existing is less than 1/10¹⁰⁰. 20. If it didn't currently exist, it would be as if nothing currently existed, and the likelihood of it currently existing is even (much) less than the likelihood of it ever existing... 21. That gives enormous significance to my current, personal SSA. 22. And, the thing is, every current SSA has the same reason to believe that OOFLam is wrong -- and that she or he is not mortal. 23. “So? However unlikely, those things are, they do happen now and then.” (Or something similar.) is the usual response. 24. 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 (setting 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.
25. 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.

26. It’s only when you have no other plausible hypothesis that you’re stuck with the null hypothesis.
27. So, the question is, do I have available another plausible hypothesis for my current existence?
28. I can think of at least four that seem plausible.
29. 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.

30. So, given
…k = all background knowledge
…P = the probability of
…NR = Non-Religious hypothesis
…| = given
…me = me (my current existence)
…R = Religious hypothesis.
31. 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)).
32. 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)).
33. 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.
34. Since I do currently exist, the probability of me being temporary and singular ("mortal") is vanishingly small.

So, anyway. FTFY

Address the thousands of rebuttals you've already gotten and haven't answered. Until you do, flooding the forum with mindless repeats of your claims is further evidence of your innate dishonesty.

 

[JayUtah]

I have to think more about it...

What's there to think about? It follows inexorably from the answer you gave godless dave. He's notifying you about the inconsistency you've just committed, not inviting you to muse upon some way to equivocate around it.

...but for the moment, I don't think that I need to make that claim (even though I believe it).

And we've heard this tap-dance before. You fein withdrawals of refuted claims, stating that you still believe in them, and then resurrect them weeks or months hence again with "My claim is still..." Your claim was refuted. If you wish to concede it, do so without guile. Your continued belief in contravention of the facts then becomes irrelevant and you would be properly barred from raising it again in debate. You need to stop arguing dishonestly.

I think I was only using it to support "1/10¹⁰⁰."

No, because to date you have offered no rational for your new estimate P(E|H) < 1/10¹⁰⁰, quantitative or otherwise. As Dave Rogers properly notes, it's just the latest number you've pulled out of your nether regions and have lied about, saying that it is a generally agreed-to number. Do you really think so little of your critics as to gaslight them this way?

 

[Jabba]

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?

From past experience I know that if I agree with this point, you will then go on to claim that this low likelihood is somehow significant, even though it's not significant for all the other highly unlikely things that happen all the time. When pressed on why, you won't have a good answer. We'll ask why this isn't an example of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, and you won't have a good answer. Then you will go back to saying some number (probably 7 billion, for some unfathomable reason) over infinity as the likelihood. Then we will repeat the discussion of what the materialist model actually is. Then we'll end up right back here. So we might as well nail down the materialist model for self awareness now and save some time.

In my latest presentation, the materialistic model is represented by "NR." The experience to which we're all referring is represented by "E." How am I improperly representing NR?

 

[halleyscomet]

- My new summary. The new stuff is hi-lighted.

Flushed the poo-poo.

Does Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. know you're plagiarizing his best known work without attribution? Why not just write it up as an academic paper and submit it to the ICR, citing Morris as a source? Do a half-assed or better job of it and you could be doing book tours starting at the 700 Club studios within a year.

The Mathematical Impossibility Of Evolution
by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.

 

[godless dave]

In my latest presentation, the materialistic model is represented by "NR." The experience to which we're all referring is represented by "E." How am I improperly representing NR?

I bolded the parts that misrepresent the materialist hypothesis:

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.

 

[halleyscomet]

In my latest presentation, the materialistic model is represented by "NR." The experience to which we're all referring is represented by "E." How am I improperly representing NR?

You're trying to use a materialistic model to "prove" a vague supernatural concept you're too cowardly and deceptive to define clearly. Asking where the misrepresentation is in your arguments is like asking where the flour is in a baked cake. There's no one spot to point to because it makes up the core matrix, the fundamental structure, of the thing.

 

[RoboTimbo]

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.

Here, you're referring to the material in the materialist model as "we".

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.

And here you you're referring to the sense of self as "we".

That's your dishonest bait and switch. That's your immortal lie and I will point out your lie each time you do it.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Jabba, I'm going to make this really, really easy for you.

You have claimed that the probability of your existence under materialism is less than 1/10¹⁰⁰, and that the probability of your existence under some other set of hypotheses which is the complement of materialism is 0.01. Let it be stipulated that, if we have two complementary hypotheses, H and ~H, and an event E whose conditional probabilities are P(E|H) < 1/10¹⁰⁰ and P(E|~H) = 0.01, then H is effectively disproven. Your claim is that these figures are correct.

Demonstrate, to at least a reasonable standard of proof, that P(E|H) < 1/10¹⁰⁰ and that P(E|~H) = 0.01.

Note: "I believe this to be its value" is not a reasonable standard of proof. "I desperately want this to be its value" is not a reasonable standard of proof. "My proof is only valid if it has this value" is not a reasonable standard of proof. "It cannot be calculated so I'm guessing this to be its value" is not a reasonable standard of proof.

Have you actually got anything better than the above to offer?

Dave

 

[JayUtah]

In my latest presentation, the materialistic model is represented by "NR."

You tell us NR means "non-religious," which you set against "R" meaning "religious." Having failed to win by one alphabet soup (e.g., "OOFLAM") you are simply trying a different set of poorly-fitting acronyms and abbreviations to try to conceal the false dilemma that still lies at the heart of your proof (Fatal Flaw no. 5, if memory serves).

The question of mortality vs. immortality is not exactly the question between religion or non-religion. Nor is either of those the question between materialism and the plethora of theories that aren't materialism.

You started out by telling us you could prove immortality mathematically. You quickly realized you couldn't do that. Along the way you noted that your critics had stipulated that immortality would necessitate an immaterial concept. Latching onto that, you tried to reframe the debate as needing merely to prove the possibility of "immateriality," thereby confirming that you don't understand the difference between necessity and sufficiency in a proof. Be that as it may, you took the standard woo route and decided you would disprove the opposite -- that you would disprove materialism, and therefore that immaterialism would have to hold by default. And therein lies the core of your false dilemma: that even in the brightest case where you would hypothetically have refuted materialism, there are still non-materialist theories that don't lead to immortality.

And you're far from the brightest case. You can't even manage to refute materialism because the thing you're trying to call materialism -- OOFLAM or NR or whatever cockamamie name you'll give it tomorrow -- bears no relationship to materialism. You've burdened it down with all sorts of nonsense you've made up just to make it appear improbable. That's principally how you're misrepresenting materialism.

The experience to which we're all referring is represented by "E."

Asked answered. You conflate one theory with how self-awareness arises with the fact itself of self-awareness. As we have been telling you for years, you deliberately use vague and ever-changing language to try to sneak your desired hypothesis in as part of the data that has to be explained.

How am I improperly representing NR?

You are misrepresenting materialism in the ways we've been telling you for months if not years. Simply pay attention to your critics and you'll have your answer. But also, in having tried to give your old errors a new coat of paint, you've also misrepresented by assuming materialism has anything to do with being religious or non-religious, and by assuming religion has anything to do with immortality or a proof for it.

 

[JayUtah]

Does Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. know you're plagiarizing his best known work without attribution?

That's a pretty damning question, considering Jabba's answer to an overarching concern from some months past.

It's not as if other philosophers haven't tried to prove the existence of the soul. Aristotle tried (and failed). Plato tried (and failed). These celebrated animists could not give us that which we have most earnestly desired for many centuries. What makes us think that a hobbyist from the East coast, and apparently a failed academic, could have given us this most important proofs in the history of humankind? Jabba hemmed and hawed and gave us the answer that he, and he alone, was privy to the unique statistical basis on which his argument was based. Aristotle and Plato, for all their wisdom, simply didn't have the perspective that we have today given our sophisticated quantization of uncertainty, and how it can paradoxically lead to certainty.

Well, what about it, Jabba? Do you still claim you have a unique perspective on the problem of statistical proofs for immortality, or statistical refutations of materialism?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Read up on the thread. May I suggest that Jabba is the most successful troll to ever troll this forum?

Hans