Proof of Immortality, VII

[Jabba]

... 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.

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:

... 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.

Dave,
- Re #10, I don't understand how that misrepresents the materialist hypothesis.
- Re #13, I think you've accepted (following your materialist hypothesis) that if your particular sperm cell had not met your particular ovum, you would never be here. IOW, I think you've accepted that you didn't have to ever exist.

There is no pool. A 'pool' means a finite, predetermined number/amount of something. You are not predetermined...

Hans,
- Agreed (though, I'm not ruling determinism out). But by "population" I wasn't referring to a "pool," I was actually referring to a hypothesis about the nature of a population. And, I was referring to the materialist hypothesis about our mortality. I try to explain my meaning by #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.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Hans,
- Agreed (though, I'm not ruling determinism out). But by "population" I wasn't referring to a "pool," I was actually referring to a hypothesis about the nature of a population. And, I was referring to the materialist hypothesis about our mortality. I try to explain my meaning by #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.

Let's apply this argument, concerning the probability of an observation drawn from an infinite population, to the concept of the speed of a car. How many distinct and different speeds can a car go at? The answer is, there is an infinite number of possible speeds. The probability that it's going at the speed that it is in fact going at is therefore zero. This includes the case where the speed is zero; therefore, it is impossible for a car to be in motion and equally impossible for it to be at rest.

And this is equally true when you, Jabba, are in a car. If you are somehow set apart, then the fact that you are in a car travelling at some specific speed is also set apart. Therefore it is impossible that you are travelling at the speed at which you are in fact travelling.

When your starting assumptions result in an absurdity, your starting assumptions are flawed.

Dave

 

[jond]

Hans,
- Agreed (though, I'm not ruling determinism out). But by "population" I wasn't referring to a "pool," I was actually referring to a hypothesis about the nature of a population. And, I was referring to the materialist hypothesis about our mortality. I try to explain my meaning by #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.

But you continue to treat selves as discrete entities rather than processes which is what the materialist hypothesis states. Nothing is drawn from a population, each self is generated by each functioning brain.

 

[godless dave]

In the materialist hypothesis, senses of self aren't drawn from a population. They're not drawn at all.

 

[halleyscomet]

Hans,
- Agreed (though, I'm not ruling determinism out). But by "population" I wasn't referring to a "pool," I was actually referring to a hypothesis about the nature of a population. And, I was referring to the materialist hypothesis about our mortality. I try to explain my meaning by #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.

In other words, you have no idea what you're talking about but you keep posting increasing unhinged gibberish anyway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

The phrase "not even wrong" describes an argument or a theory that purports to be scientific but is based on sloppy logic or speculative premises that cannot be discussed in rigorous scientific sense.[1]

The phrase is generally attributed to theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli, who was known for his colorful objections to incorrect or sloppy thinking.[2][3] Rudolf Peierls documents an instance in which "a friend showed Pauli the paper of a young physicist which he suspected was not of great value but on which he wanted Pauli's views. Pauli remarked sadly, 'It is not even wrong'."[4] This is also often quoted as "That is not only not right; it is not even wrong," or "Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch!" in Pauli's native German. Peierls remarks that quite a few apocryphal stories of this kind have been circulated and mentions that he listed only the ones personally vouched for by him. He also quotes another example when Pauli replied to Lev Landau, "What you said was so confused that one could not tell whether it was nonsense or not."[4]

Creationists and Flat Earthers make more coherent arguments than you do Jabba.

 

[Jabba]

- Going through my summary and this last chapter of complaints, I'm trying to list the complaints. Here's what I get so far.
1. Bayesian statistics doesn't apply.
2. Haven't defined "self" (etc.).
3. Texas sharpshooter fallacy.
4. Conjunction fallacy.
5. Now will always be now.
6. I keep misrepresenting the materialist model.
7. Drawing particular sample from particular population
8. No such thing as potential selves.
9. I've been refuted over and over again in regard to one claim after another.
10. My numbers in the formula are invented.
11. I’m a troll.
12. I’m stupid, dishonest and terribly rude.

- Over the years, I've addressed them all, with no success.
- I'll try to address them all, one last time, and see if I can find a neutral jury.
- Please add the complaints I'm missing.

 

[JayUtah]

But by "population" I wasn't referring to a "pool," I was actually referring to a hypothesis about the nature of a population.

Pool = population.

Why does "hypothesizing" about something to be part of a model that expressly doesn't have the thing you're hypothesizing is part of it, fix your error? You're asking permission to tack onto the materialist hypothesis a thing it doesn't have, need, or allow, just so you can use that thing to falsify it.

The answer is no, you don't get to do that. Are you prepared to allow your critics to tack onto your soul theory stuff that you don't agree to, or that it doesn't have, just so they can make it look ridiculous?

And, I was referring to the materialist hypothesis about our mortality.

You can't cherry-pick just the things you want from the hypothesis whose P(H) you're trying to compute and then fill in the rest with your imagination.

I try to explain my meaning by #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.

You're trying to make the materialist hypothesis look like one of the simple probability problems you know how to compute. But since it really isn't one of those problems, or a probability problem at all, you have to make up a bunch of stuff to make it seem to fit.

In other words, a blatant straw man.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Over the years, I've addressed them all, with no success.

No, you haven't. You've simply repeated them and said that, because you personally think they aren't wrong, we should all agree with you.

I'll try to address them all, one last time, and see if I can find a neutral jury.

Last time you tried that, on the statistics forum, they gave you an even harder time than we do.

Please add the complaints I'm missing.

Your repeated accusation of bias implicit in the claim that you'll "see if I can find a neutral jury."

Dave

 

[JayUtah]

- Going through my summary and this last chapter of complaints, I'm trying to list the complaints.

I already did that for you.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11871278&postcount=3198

Over the years, I've addressed them all, with no success.

Bald-faced lie. When the regulars here pressured you to address the list linked above, you made all sorts of excuses for why you couldn't or didn't have to.

For each of the fatal flaws in the above list, please give one or two sentences for how you plan to overcome it in your argument. This should take you no more than an hour. I specifically reject any proposal to take them one at a time and pretend to argue them to exhaustion, thus allowing you to bog down the discussion in one specific detail and suggest that, but for that detail, all the rest would just fall into place. This is about breadth, not depth.

I'll try to address them all, one last time, and see if I can find a neutral jury.

Your argument isn't rejected because the audience is biased. Your argument is rejected because your critics have proven that it's wrong. Stop blaming your failure on others.

Please add the complaints I'm missing.

I've been linking that list almost daily for months now, and you've been ignoring it since. And you wonder why people call you rude.

 

[halleyscomet]

Over the years, I've addressed them all, with no success.

I see that "addressed" is yet ANOTHER word you've chosen to redefine into oblivion in your impotent efforts to make a coherent argument.

- I'll try to address them all, one last time, and see if I can find a neutral jury.

Well that's got to be the whiniest, most self-defeating attitude I've ever seen. We all know what you REALLY mean by that, you want a "jury" that will accept your bald faced lies and deception as some sort of "proof" of your vague, meandering neurological effluence.

On the bright side, you FINALLY managed a post that was not indistinguishable from pure nonsense. You got things wrong and outright lied, but at least you made sense this time.

 

[jond]

Don’t forget that you continue to conflate process and thing! By now any neutral jury will surely see that you continue to insist that they are the same, but you have been shown countless times by countless posters that you are wrong.

 

[RoboTimbo]

- Going through my summary and this last chapter of complaints, I'm trying to list the complaints. Here's what I get so far.
1. Bayesian statistics doesn't apply.

More accurately, you have no clue about how to apply it.

2. Haven't defined "self" (etc.).

More accurately, you constantly attempt to bait and switch definitions.

3. Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

More accurately, your obvious implementation of it and utter failure to address.

4. Conjunction fallacy.

More accurately, your utter inability to address it.

5. Now will always be now.

More accurately, your marveling at that fact.

6. I keep misrepresenting the materialist model.

Thank you for your admission of DMM.

7. Drawing particular sample from particular population

More accurately, samples of a process where there is no particular population.

8. No such thing as potential selves.

More accurately, this is a good example of #2 above. Thank you for your admission.

9. I've been refuted over and over again in regard to one claim after another.

More accurately, you've never been able or even tried to refute the refutations.

10. My numbers in the formula are invented.

Thank you for that admission.

11. I’m a troll.

If it makes you feel any better, I don't buy that one.

12. I’m stupid, dishonest and terribly rude.

If it makes you feel any better, I think you're simply dishonest which is a form of rudeness. I don't mind pointing out your lies as long as you don't mind making them.

- Over the years, I've addressed them all,

This is a bald faced lie. see #12 above.

with no success.
- I'll try to address them all, one last time, and see if I can find a neutral jury.

Awesome! We are your neutral jury. Now address each of them.

- Please add the complaints I'm missing.

I think "dishonesty" covers most of it.

 

[godless dave]

I see that "addressed" is yet ANOTHER word you've chosen to redefine into oblivion in your impotent efforts to make a coherent argument.

Maybe he should type it as "addressed/ignored".

 

[Monza]

Awesome! We are your neutral jury. Now address each of them.

Exactly. This forum is full of neutral observers, particularly at the start of this "debate" five years ago. Many have since come to the conclusion that Jabba is wrong. That doesn't mean they are now biased. Unless Jabba believes that a neutral jury is one where no one has come to a conclusion yet. Once a conclusion is reached, are they no longer neutral? If they agree with Jabba, are they neutral or biased?

 

[Dave Rogers]

- Please add the complaints I'm missing.

Just thought of one more...

- I'll try to address them all, one last time,

... too many broken promises.

Dave

 

[Dancing David]

Indeed, this has been from day one, the first and most obvious flaw for Jabba. Remember the time he even went so far as to contact Susan Blackmore directly? And yet he continues to base his formulation on the notion that the self exists as a separate entity that is drawn from a pool of selves and somehow attaches itself to your brain. It can only be willful ignorance at this point.

I was a lurker in this thread then, I forgot it.

 

[JayUtah]

As far as bias is concerned, the forum could be full of hard-core skeptics for all it matters. It doesn't matter that the critics hold contrary beliefs; that's not what bias is. What matters is the reasons the give for disputing Jabba's claims and how susceptible those reasons are to errors in a process of judgment that beliefs would have power to affect.

"You're misrepresenting your critics."
"You're performing the math wrong."
"You're begging the question."
"You're ignoring rebuttals."
"You're committing the Texas sharpshooter fallacy and other fallacies."

These and most of the other reasons are based in testable fact and pure observation, not the products of judgments that can be tainted by bias. When your critics are giving you the reasons for their disagreement and those reasons appeal to objective (and mostly uncontested) facts, there is no bias. Bias is not simply holding a belief contrary to the proposition. It is instead a showing of an effect upon judgment that renders the judgment irrational or contrary to fact, that effect traceable to contrary belief. The effect is bias, not the supposed cause.

Now since Jabba can't seem to manage any sort of showing that extends beyond stating "Here is what I believe," it's safe to say he expects the response simply to be agreement. His defense against the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, for example, is little more than his expressed belief that it shouldn't be a fallacy. His justification for inventing his own version of materialism is nothing more than an unwillingness to believe it as stated. As is so common among fringe claimants, he seems to think that whatever little knowledge or acumen he possess ought to be sufficient for any problem, and if people don't agree with that footing then they're just "biased."

Having drawn a conclusion does not make one biased. Jabba has had five years to present a cogent argument, and he has ventured no further than stating and restating his propositions. He has had five years to address the many reasons why his argument fails -- as a matter of fact in some cases and as a matter of logic in other cases. He has simply refused to do so, in most instances by intentionally ignoring what anyone else says. When people draw a conclusion after that exercise, it is not a biased conclusion. It is a properly reasoned conclusion based on his poor showing. A jury cannot be faulted for a guilty verdict if the defense attorney fails to offer any defense.

What's so very rude is that if we turn this standard of proof for bias around and apply it to Jabba, he has to contend with the conspicuously steaming turd of his free admission of emotional attachment. He has already told us he has a strong emotional interest in the idea of an immortal soul, and he has even gone on to tell us that he would be emotionally devastated if he were to fail to prove that belief mathematically. We don't have to go too far to find evidence of his irrational animus toward skeptics, individually and collectively.

Jabba's statement today (and often) is his judgment that his proof would be acceptable to others but for those pesky and overly analytical skeptics, and that his belief can somehow still be correct despite his inability to prove it. The reader must decide whether this judgment is more likely based on fact and sound inference, or upon Jabba's emotional connection to the desired conclusion and his further emotional investment in his own skill as a mathematician and debater.

 

[zooterkin]

We can only exist if we don't have souls, because otherwise we would have to be someone else (you'll never guess who!).

Is it Napoleon?

 

[Loss Leader]

- Going through my summary and this last chapter of complaints, I'm trying to list the complaints. Here's what I get so far.
1. Bayesian statistics doesn't apply.
2. Haven't defined "self" (etc.).
3. Texas sharpshooter fallacy.
4. Conjunction fallacy.
5. Now will always be now.
6. I keep misrepresenting the materialist model.
7. Drawing particular sample from particular population
8. No such thing as potential selves.
9. I've been refuted over and over again in regard to one claim after another.
10. My numbers in the formula are invented.
11. I’m a troll.
12. I’m stupid, dishonest and terribly rude..

Add, "Willfully ignorant of religious beliefs about reincarnation despite the information being freely and readily available."

 

[Mojo]

Let's apply this argument, concerning the probability of an observation drawn from an infinite population, to the concept of the speed of a car. How many distinct and different speeds can a car go at? The answer is, there is an infinite number of possible speeds. The probability that it's going at the speed that it is in fact going at is therefore zero. This includes the case where the speed is zero; therefore, it is impossible for a car to be in motion and equally impossible for it to be at rest.

And this is equally true when you, Jabba, are in a car. If you are somehow set apart, then the fact that you are in a car travelling at some specific speed is also set apart. Therefore it is impossible that you are travelling at the speed at which you are in fact travelling.

I think it must also be impossible for Jabba to be travelling at the same speed as his car, which must be highly inconvenient.