Proof of Immortality, VII

[Dave Rogers]

- I estimated them. Have you estimated them?

Estimate (v, t.) - 1.To calculate roughly, often from imperfect data.

That's not the same as "To make up without reference to any data whatsoever."

You didn't estimate them; you invented them.

Dave

 

[JoeMorgue]

"Potential selves" isn't a valid concept.

"Me" is a begged after the fact Texas Sharpshooter.

Therefore "Me" out of "Potential Shelves" isn't an estimate, it's a guess with theatrics.

 

[MRC_Hans]

- I estimated them. Have you estimated them?

No.

Hans

 

[Dave Rogers]

"Potential shelves" isn't a valid concept.

So I keep telling my wife, but she still wants to go to IKEA.

Dave

 

[RoboTimbo]

...I assume that most physicists would...

...laugh at you.

 

[John Jones]

Did he really? I hadn't seen that particular manifestation of the Mark of Woo, but I shouldn't be surprised at it.

Dave

He did. In about 2012. It was in the Shroud series of threads. I took great umbrage. As close as I can recall, it was regarding the ¹⁴C dating, and he said something like "We all know how incompetent and dishonest scientists are".

He complained when I called his remarks scurrilous and mean-spirited. I got the impression he wasn't then used to having people talk back to him.

None of this stops him from making false appeals to science when it suits him.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Jabba: A porcelain duck + the smell of banana bread = the traffic pattern at Swindon's "Magic Roundabout."
Everybody: That question isn't valid.
Jabba: So you tell me what a porcelain duck plus the smell of banana bread equals?
Everybody: Nothing, it's not a valid question.
Jabba: You can't answer my question, therefore I am correct.

 

[Belz...]

- OK.
- I'll start with P(NR)=.99, so P(R)=.01.

No you won't. Justify those numbers.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Jabba: A porcelain duck + the smell of banana bread = the traffic pattern at Swindon's "Magic Roundabout." I think most physicists would agree.

FTFY.

Dave

 

[JoeMorgue]

He did. In about 2012. It was in the Shroud series of threads. I took great umbrage. As close as I can recall, it was regarding the ¹⁴C dating, and he said something like "We all know how incompetent and dishonest scientists are".

He complained when I called his remarks scurrilous and mean-spirited. I got the impression he wasn't then used to having people talk back to him.

None of this stops him from making false appeals to science when it suits him.

Again this is a common trope for the "Wise Mentor" character sheet. You trick your young naive student into coming to your "amazing mystical truth" via their outmoded, close mind way of narrow thinking. That way you both show them the amazing truth and show them that their way of thinking is wrong.

 

[Belz...]

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

Notice that this is all that jabba really does: seek agreement, either by asking for it, tring to fool people into giving it, or speculating about hypothetical neutral audiences who would readily offer it.

 

[Belz...]

- I estimated them.

No. You have NO BASIS for estimating them. You want H to be unlikely and ~H to be likely, so you made up numbers which state this in the premise, but make no mistake: they are unjustified.

 

[RoboTimbo]

- I estimated them. Have you estimated them?

I estimated the chance of you existing after I noticed that you exist as 1.

 

[Belz...]

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.

I endeavoured to find a few snippets of what jabba said about scientists and consciousness/bias over the years:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11398463#post11398463

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10931371&highlight=scientists#post10931371

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9411442&highlight=scientists#post9411442

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9411349&highlight=scientists#post9411349

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9411163&highlight=scientists#post9411163

I didn't look hard enough to find any hard accusation of dishonesty by scientists, but I remember the discussion about it when it happened.

- - -

Funnily enough, back in 2014 jabba agreed that there is no pool of potential selves, meaning that his entire argument -- that you can calculate the odds of you existing -- was abandoned almost foure years ago.

 

[Belz...]

He did. In about 2012. It was in the Shroud series of threads. I took great umbrage. As close as I can recall, it was regarding the ¹⁴C dating, and he said something like "We all know how incompetent and dishonest scientists are".

He complained when I called his remarks scurrilous and mean-spirited. I got the impression he wasn't then used to having people talk back to him.

None of this stops him from making false appeals to science when it suits him.

That helps me a bit more...

Is this what you're refering to?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9092407#post9092407

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9095099#post9095099

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9095337#post9095337

 

[RoboTimbo]

Mashuna,
- Re #1, what I mean is that ego's bring emotion, and stifle objectivity. Do you disagree?
--- Jabba

LOL

 

[John Jones]

That helps me a bit more...

Is this what you're refering to?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9092407#post9092407

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9095099#post9095099

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9095337#post9095337

That's about right, I guess. I got riled up again reading that. He was criticizing the labs for all using the same ¹⁴C dating method.

Don't get me started.

The labs all used Accelerated Mass Spectrometry (AMS) because it was the state of the art, and most sensitive method. IOW, it would do the least damage to the shroud, and give the most accurate results with limited sample. Jabba insinuated that it was to ensure they all got the same number.

 

[halleyscomet]

- 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.

Your entire equation is meaningless gibberish until you justify your claim that there's a pool of "selves" to draw from.

Even then, it's still largely random numbers thrown at a wall, like cooked spaghetti being tested.

- I estimated them. Have you estimated them?

Stop lying. "Wild guess" and "estimate" are not synonyms.

 

[ferd burfle]

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.

Yes, when folks try as a group to hold Jabba's feet to the fire, e.g. as was done at least once with “how many going 60 miles per hour”, there’s always someone who can’t not rise to the bait.

Like Roger Rabbit does here:

 

[godless dave]

Yes, when folks try as a group to hold Jabba's feet to the fire, e.g. as was done at least once with “how many going 60 miles per hours”, there’s always someone who can’t not rise to the bait.

Guilty.