Proof of Immortality, VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
JayUtah said:
Borrowing tongue-in-cheek from Creationist arguments, fringe claimants using this strategy are looking for Irreducible Absurdity. That is, they want to shove the debate so far down in irrelevant and irresolvable detail that it will never quit. This is why we spend page after page after page quibbling over what will happen if we could magically reproduce an organism. It's a hypothetical situation that can be debated for any length of time without approaching a solution. If it looks like some sub-issue is headed toward a clear resolution, then bang! there's yet another sub-sub-issue that Effective DebateTM demands we investigate while tabling the present discussion.
Click to expand...

The solution to that might've been for everyone here to press Jabba to address a single question that unravels his entire theory and disallow him to do anything else. A favourite of mine is asking him to justify his claim that there's a pool of selves to be picked from. If he can't, the entire argument crumbles.

Instead, there's always some here (myself included) who fall into the trap of answering what jabba actually writes and thus allow him to avoid the tough question.
 
Last edited:
RoboTimbo said:
Isn't it amazing what a self can be capable of when they put their mind to it. They can even answer their own questions.
Click to expand...

John Jones said:
Well duh! What was your first clue?
Click to expand...

I think what we're seeing is some particularly blatant trolling. Jabba can't handle the meta discussion we're having about his pervasive dishonesty so he's saying something demonstrably foolish to try and sidetrack his ongoing humiliation.
 
Argumemnon said:
The solution to that might've been for everyone here to press Jabba to address a single question that unravels his entire theory and disallow him to do anything else. A favourite of mine is asking him to justify his claim that there's a pool of selves to be picked from. If he can't, the entire argument crumbles.

Instead, there's always some here (myself included) who flal into the trap of answering what jabba actually writes and thus allow him to avoid the tough question.
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
- Not sure to what you're referring. The numbers I've inserted in the formula?
Click to expand...

Jabba,

Can you justify your claim that there's a pool of "selves" to draw from?

If not, will you recant that claim and rework your theory, whatever it is, to work without it?
 
Jabba said:
- Not sure to what you're referring. The numbers I've inserted in the formula?
Click to expand...

No, the ingredients to your Dukkah recipe.

....

Of course it is the numbers :rolleyes:. As you admit yourself, you have invented them. Jabba, if you put invented numbers in to a formula, what do you get out?

Let me help you here: An invented output. :wwt

Hans
 
halleyscomet said:
I think what we're seeing is some particularly blatant trolling. Jabba can't handle the meta discussion we're having about his pervasive dishonesty so he's saying something demonstrably foolish to try and sidetrack his ongoing humiliation.
Click to expand...

Well this whole thread does reek of a "passion project" so like many before him Jabba is playing several roles.

He's Jabba the Master of Debate (the lead character), Jabba the Master of the Debate (The Narrator or Greek Chorus), and Jabba the Beffudled Old Man

Basically I'm saying Jabba is the Midea of internet discussions.
 
MRC_Hans said:
No, the ingredients to your Dukkah recipe.

....

Of course it is the numbers :rolleyes:. As you admit yourself, you have invented them. Jabba, if you put invented numbers in to a formula, what do you get out?

Let me help you here: An invented output. :wwt

Hans
Click to expand...
- OK.
- I'll start with P(NR)=.99, so P(R)=.01. So far, I assume that most physicists would accept that the prior probability of R is at least .01.
- But then, as long as it's more than .6*10-100*.99, given my current existence (and, my other numbers are correct) , the posterior probability of R is greater than the posterior probability of NR.
 
halleyscomet said:
I think what we're seeing is some particularly blatant trolling. Jabba can't handle the meta discussion we're having about his pervasive dishonesty so he's saying something demonstrably foolish to try and sidetrack his ongoing humiliation.
Click to expand...

Yes as I predicted, Senem Confuso (a.k.a. Befuddled Old Man) has taken the stage. "Is this what you mean? I'm not sure what you mean. I think this is what you mean; is that right? I just want to make sure we're talking about the same thing." Just another way to look like he's participating in the debate without having to shoulder the burden of a litigant.

As for the meta discussion, I would gladly discuss Jabba's proof of immortality if he would but oblige me. I've stated and restated my objections several times, only to be roundly ignored along with the rest of you fine folk. Jabba can certainly forestall being talked to, but he cannot forestall being talked about.
 
Jabba said:
- OK.
- I'll start with P(NR)=.99, so P(R)=.01. So far, I assume that most physicists would accept that the prior probability of R is at least .01.
- But then, as long as it's more than .6*10-100*.99, given my current existence (and, my other numbers are correct) , the posterior probability of R is greater than the posterior probability of NR.
Click to expand...

You invented them.

Hans
 
Jabba said:
- OK.
- I'll start with P(NR)=.99, so P(R)=.01. So far, I assume that most physicists would accept that the prior probability of R is at least .01.
Click to expand...

Speaking as a physicist, no, I don't agree that most of my colleagues would accept that. Firstly, you've chosen a probability of 0.01, not a probability of at least 0.01; secondly, most people, I would suspect, believe either that P(R)=1 or P(R)=0; thirdly, P(R) is not within the scope of physics.


Jabba said:
- But then, as long as it's more than .6*10-100*.99, given my current existence (and, my other numbers are correct) , the posterior probability of R is greater than the posterior probability of NR.
Click to expand...

No. You can't assess the posterior probability of R without realistic numbers for your existence given R and NR; at present you have a blind guess for the latter, and not even the suggestion of a guess for the former.

And, most absurdly, you're responding to an accusation that your entire theory is based on made up numbers by making up a different set of numbers. Do you not see how idiotic it is to respond to a criticism by exemplifying it?

Dave
 
Jabba said:
- OK.
- I'll start with P(NR)=.99, so P(R)=.01. So far, I assume that most physicists would accept that the prior probability of R is at least .01. - But then, as long as it's more than .6*10-100*.99, given my current existence (and, my other numbers are correct) , the posterior probability of R is greater than the posterior probability of NR.
Click to expand...


Careful there. Physicists are scientists, and you long ago dismissed all scientists as incompetent liars. Besides, there are physicists among the participants on this very thread.

Now, from which orifice did you extract those most recent numbers?
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
I'll start with P(NR)=.99, so P(R)=.01.
Click to expand...

These are made-up numbers.

So far, I assume that most physicists would accept that the prior probability of R is at least .01.
Click to expand...

Which physicists? According to what tenets of physics? Do not simply assume agreement on the crucial bits of your proof. That begs the question.

Further, your R and NR are ill-formed toward either materialism or immortality, as I've already explained.

But then, as long as it's more than .6*10-100*.99, given my current existence (and, my other numbers are correct) , the posterior probability of R is greater than the posterior probability of NR.
Click to expand...

Your other numbers are made up too. All the numbers in your model are made up. You provide no valid rationale for any of them, which underscores my accusation that you don't have the faintest idea how to properly formulate a statistical inference. If the posteriors are to have any bearing on the real world, at least one of (1) the priors, or (2) the likelihood ratio has to be a measured value, not some guessed-at value. When you make up all the numbers in your model, it has too many degrees of freedom to be useful at predicting anything. It becomes essentially a pseudo-random number generator.

You made it plain before that you already assumed P(H|E), where H is materialism, was a very small number and that you're simply casting about for a plausible rationale to support that. When you are blatantly backfilling a predetermined conclusion, you don't get to assume that "most physicists" would even give you the time of day, much less agree with your approach.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Did he really?
Click to expand...

Yes, he certainly did. He suggested that the reason he couldn't provide any empirical evidence for his soul was that scientists were either too benighted to look in the right place, or that they knew such evidence existed but were ideologically averse to presenting it.

The recent meta discussion of Jabba's ongoing dishonesty is based on fact although, given the seven-chapter nature of this thread, to document them would require prodigious search fu.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom