Proof of Immortality, VII

[John Jones]

You know he's laughing at us right? Chuckling to himself and patiently willing to prolong this on for another 5 years while moving actually nowhere. Thinking to himself that the more passionately we argue, the more we secretly realize he is right.

Somebody once told me that you must have sense to have a sense of humor. Jabba doesn't seem to understand humor, so draw your own conclusions.

I have no doubt that some rusty gears in his head are doing their inscrutable gyrations that offer him some validation for his life, but he doesn't hearken unto them. If he did, why is he still here?

 

[aleCcowaN]

I have no doubt that some rusty gears in his head are doing their inscrutable gyrations that offer him some validation for his life, but he doesn't hearken unto them. If he did, why is he still here?

Because people replying to his stuff translates in Jabbanese as he "being on to something".

Better if he is insisting with the exact same stuff and they reply to him again, not linking to the previous replies nor using the exact same words they used before. If he had being wrong before the replies would refer to their previous replies, yet, the new barely similar replies show them flailing, which boosts Jabba's confidence in he being in the right track.

Every time you reply to Jabba's shenanigans he feels more reassured that the conclusions he wants to see are increasingly closer. Eventually, some Nobel prize laureates will show in this thread to confirm Jabba's been right from the very beginning and they'll do that by providing all the bits he couldn't get, putting everybody else in their place.

That not only will confirm the eternal life of spirit Jabba is longing about, but it'll also get for him the eternal life of fame.

That's what happen when desiderative thinking, epistemological hedonism and narcissism take control near the boundaries of ASD.

Just take a look at his signature and you'll easily conclude it's not from physicists nor philosophers he needs answers from.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Because people replying to his stuff translates in Jabbanese as he "being on to something".

Better if he is insisting with the exact same stuff and they reply to him again, not linking to the previous replies nor using the exact same words they used before. If he had being wrong before the replies would refer to their previous replies, yet, the new barely similar replies show them flailing, which boosts Jabba's confidence in he being in the right track.

I see what you mean. Ideally, if we had some kind of map of the discussion, we could then just point to a refutation posted four years ago that can serve to refute a repetition of a claim that's only changed by replacing the word "soul" with "specific self-awareness". Has anyone suggested constructing such a map?

Dave

 

[halleyscomet]

Has anyone suggested constructing such a map?

By His Noodly Appendage, who would be bored enough to spend that much time on what may be the most inarticulate, poorly conceived joke of a mythology since the Time Cube guy’s last bowl of alphabet soup was excreted?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Explaining what estimation is

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.

To clarify this a little further, Jabba, let me give an example of estimation in action.

Suppose we have a brick-built house, and I want to estimate the number of bricks in the front wall. Pacing out its width, I can see that it's about 30 feet wide. It has two storeys and the lower one is raised to accommodate a partly underground cellar; looking at the front steps I can see that there's about two feet of height up to the bottom floor. A storey height is typically 10 feet, so the total height is about 22 feet. I'm not sure how big the windows and doorway are, but they look to me to occupy about 20% of the total area. House walls are usually 2 bricks thick, and the typical size of a brick is about 2.5 x 8 inches. So to estimate the number of bricks, I take twice the area of the wall, multiply by 0.8 to allow for the windows, divide by the area of a brick, and get a result of about 7600 bricks.

That's probably not the exact number but I can be pretty sure that there are more than 5000 and less than 10000 bricks in the wall. There's a lot of data there. Much of it isn't necessarily all that accurate, but all of it is near enough to get somewhere near the actual answer.

Now compare that to the process you describe as "estimating". You've decided that the odds against you being you are at least 10¹⁰⁰:1, based on a guess backed up by no data at all. You've decided that the odds of the religious hypothesis being true are at least 1%, based on an unsupported belief that most physicists would agree with you - though, of course, you haven't checked that with any actual physicists - and again backed up by no data at all. And you've guessed that the probability of God having chosen to create you personally are at least 1%, when you've had the honesty to suggest a number at all; and your rationale for that is to say that there is no way of knowing the actual number so you can pick any one you want, so you're admitting that not only is this guess based on no data at all, but that it fundamentally cannot be based on data.

Can you see the difference between estimating and guessing yet? This is junior school science; I would expect an 11 year old of average ability to have no difficulty whatsoever in understanding this. How do you compare?

Dave

 

[Belz...]

Here's a map:

Claim:
I think that I can essentially prove immortality using Bayesian statistics.

Rebuttal:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11871278&postcount=3198

Also: There's no pool of potential selves, which Jabba has already agreed to. Ergo he can't make a statistical calculation based on that idea.

The end.

 

[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...

- Responding to #1, above, Bayesian statistics doesn't apply.

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...

- I'll try to use the above as my closing statement in regard to #1 complaint. I'll give you guys the last word. Assuming that you guys still think that Bayesian statistics doesn't apply, tell me why, and I'll include your responses on my map that I hope to eventually provide to a neutral "jury."

 

[Belz...]

- Responding to #1, above, Bayesian statistics doesn't apply.

- I'll try to use the above as my closing statement in regard to #1 complaint. I'll give you guys the last word. Assuming that you guys still think that Bayesian statistics doesn't apply, tell me why, and I'll include your responses on my map that I hope to eventually provide to a neutral "jury."

We've told you why hundreds of times. There are no pools of potential selves, as you've admitted in 2014, so no reason to assume that you could ever calculate odds, since this is the basis of your reasoning. Any number you've used so far is simply made up. Hence, statistics don't apply.

 

[RoboTimbo]

- Responding to #1, above, Bayesian statistics doesn't apply.

- I'll try to use the above as my closing statement in regard to #1 complaint. I'll give you guys the last word. Assuming that you guys still think that Bayesian statistics doesn't apply, tell me why, and I'll include your responses on my map that I hope to eventually provide to a neutral "jury."

What do you think of the hundreds of replies that have already demolished that argument?

 

[Pixel42]

- Responding to #1, above, Bayesian statistics doesn't apply.

- I'll try to use the above as my closing statement in regard to #1 complaint. I'll give you guys the last word. Assuming that you guys still think that Bayesian statistics doesn't apply, tell me why, and I'll include your responses on my map that I hope to eventually provide to a neutral "jury."

This has been explained to you dozens of times in the last five years, Jabba. Whether you haven't bothered to read it, or simply don't understand it, there is no point in anyone posting the explanation yet again.

 

[Peregrinus]

Excellent general advice on the 'Net is "Don't feed the trolls." Especially when those trolls happen to be excessively verbose, stubborn & dense.

 

[Jabba]

- I'll include the 4 responses above on my map.
- Godless Dave, would you like to add something.
- LL, Jay?

 

[RoboTimbo]

- I'll include the 4 responses above on my map.

But not actually address them?

 

[aleCcowaN]

- Responding to #1, above, Bayesian statistics doesn't apply.

- I'll try to use the above as my closing statement in regard to #1 complaint. I'll give you guys the last word. Assuming that you guys still think that Bayesian statistics doesn't apply, tell me why, and I'll include your responses on my map that I hope to eventually provide to a neutral "jury."

Look, buddy, why don't you just take all of your stuff to that "jury" right away? Feel free to transcribe here later what did you present, who were the jury members and what did they replie.

Simply stop trying to drag everyone backwards into the level you are.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I'll give you guys the last word.

How does that work, exactly? You're making up a map of the thread, in which you decide which bits go in and which don't. You've asked a select group of people for their responses, which makes it clear that you're not actually interested in summarising everyone's contributions. In effect, you're saying you'll give a certain group of people the last word, but you'll choose which of their words that is.

This is one of your habits that people find insulting.

Assuming that you guys still think that Bayesian statistics doesn't apply, tell me why, and I'll include your responses on my map that I hope to eventually provide to a neutral "jury."

And this is another - the repeated implied accusations of bias against anyone who disagrees with you. Your neutral jury is right here. It has already seen the totality of your arguments and ruled them specious. You won't find a more neutral one; but then, that's not what you're looking for, is it?

Dave

 

[Jabba]

But not actually address them?

- I'm giving you the last word.

 

[Belz...]

- I'm giving you the last word.

With you as the editor? I don't trust you one bit.

 

[godless dave]

- I'll include the 4 responses above on my map.
- Godless Dave, would you like to add something.
- LL, Jay?

My objections have not changed in five years.

I believe Jay has a list of objections somewhere. Maybe start with that.

 

[John Jones]

- I'm giving you the last word.

I don't believe you.

 

[Agatha]

But not actually address them?

- I'm giving you the last word.

What difference does that make to the price of fish?

This thread is here, and you should be addressing the points made here.