Proof of Immortality, VII

[Loss Leader]

I'd just like to say that Christmas is my favorite time of year for this thread. Sometimes (but not always) Jabba takes a few days off to celebrate the holidays with his family. Every year I hope he'll say to himself, "This is what life is about. I don't need the scorn of some random strangers on the internet. I can devote my time right here to the people I love."

If I had grandchildren, that's what I'd do.

 

[Jabba]

- Good. I'll go back to your objections in #827. Hopefully, I'll eventually come up with a final closing statement that I can refer back to the stat professors, and ask for their objections in writing -- and then, go from there.
- Back to #827....

No, that was not the assignment. Just because you have purposely ignored this list for six months does not make it moot...

Jay,
-That post refers to my original syllogism. Since then, I've made numerous changes, and my latest attempt was in #625 of the current chapter -- your response to that was #827.
- Over time, I have responded to each of your #827 objections.
- Unless you suggest otherwise, I'll try to go back to your objections in #3198 of the previous chapter, and discuss them in "'breadth."

 

[RoboTimbo]

Jay,
-That post refers to my original syllogism. Since then, I've made numerous changes, and my latest attempt was in #625 of the current chapter -- your response to that was #827.
- Over time, I have responded to each of your #827 objections.
- Unless you suggest otherwise, I'll try to go back to your objections in #3198 of the previous chapter, and discuss them in "'breadth."

Saying that 1 and 4 are 7 doesn't make it any more correct than your original 1+4=7. Toontown illustrated for you that you have to change the fundamental argument to make it correct.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Over time, I have responded to each of your #827 objections.

What's it like to be that separated from reality?

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT "RESTATING" YOUR CLAIMS IS NOT RESPONDING TO OBJECTIONS.

How does your brain work Jabba? How is it that you don't get that a discussion isn't just two sides repeating claims at each other over and over?

When you say that 1+5 equals 9 and we explain to you that it doesn't, you just repeating your original mistake at us... THAT ISN'T A RESPONSE.

 

[The Norseman]

- Over time, I have responded to each of your #827 objections.

Where? It certainly was not here on ISKEP. JayUtah (and others) have spent months pointing out to you that you've ignored those points in their entirety since it was first posted.

It's no longer shocking that you'd lie so transparently here, however.

 

[John Jones]

Jay,
-That post refers to my original syllogism. Since then, I've made numerous changes, and my latest attempt was in #625 of the current chapter -- your response to that was #827.
- Over time, I have responded to each of your #827 objections.- Unless you suggest otherwise, I'll try to go back to your objections in #3198 of the previous chapter, and discuss them in "'breadth."

There's scant evidence you've even read them.

Seasons greetings

 

[Jabba]

- From #3198 of previous chapter, by Jay:

You gave your opening statement nearly five years ago. But for your stubbornness, we would be far along by now.

Okay, I'm going to go through it and identify the fatal flaws and blatantly dishonest tactics. All these have already been discussed at length in this thread, which you simply choose to ignore. I'm not telling you anything you don't already know. I'm not telling you anything that you haven't already heard from dozens of critics. But should you choose to climb down from the exalted status of claiming you can pick and choose which arguments you'll address, and actually participate in the discussion, it would be advantageous of you to respond individually to each of the identified fatal flaws and dishonest tactics.

For each fatal flaw -- understanding that any one of them dooms your argument if left unrejoined -- you will need to show either how the flaw is not operative in your argument or how you plan to fix your argument by not committing it.

For each dishonest tactice -- you will need to defend your use of it.

Since you've posted your fringe reset "opening statement" here, will you consent to respond -- here -- to a systematic and thorough response to it?

Jay,
- I know that i'm not going to convince anyone on this forum that my flaws are not fatal nor that my tactics are not dishonest, but I'll try to review each claim and evaluate my responses for myself (for "breadth," I'll try to address them all in one sitting) to see if I can feel comfortable submitting my latest syllogism to whatever Bayesian statisticians I can find. I'll try to revise whatever premises seem to need it. So far, I still think that Bayesian statistics virtually proves that we're immortal.

 

[Mojo]

- From #3198 of previous chapter, by Jay:

You gave your opening statement nearly five years ago. But for your stubbornness, we would be far along by now.

Okay, I'm going to go through it and identify the fatal flaws and blatantly dishonest tactics. All these have already been discussed at length in this thread, which you simply choose to ignore. I'm not telling you anything you don't already know. I'm not telling you anything that you haven't already heard from dozens of critics. But should you choose to climb down from the exalted status of claiming you can pick and choose which arguments you'll address, and actually participate in the discussion, it would be advantageous of you to respond individually to each of the identified fatal flaws and dishonest tactics.

For each fatal flaw -- understanding that any one of them dooms your argument if left unrejoined -- you will need to show either how the flaw is not operative in your argument or how you plan to fix your argument by not committing it.

For each dishonest tactice -- you will need to defend your use of it.

Since you've posted your fringe reset "opening statement" here, will you consent to respond -- here -- to a systematic and thorough response to it?

Jay,
- I know that i'm not going to convince anyone on this forum that my flaws are not fatal nor that my tactics are not dishonest, but I'll try to review each claim and evaluate my responses for myself (for "breadth," I'll try to address them all in one sitting) to see if I can feel comfortable submitting my latest syllogism to whatever Bayesian statisticians I can find. I'll try to revise whatever premises seem to need it. So far, I still think that Bayesian statistics virtually proves that we're immortal.

...and yet again Jabba says what he's going to do (but never gets around to) rather than actually doing it, and then restates his initial claim.

 

[John Jones]

-
Jay,
- I know that i'm not going to convince anyone on this forum that my flaws are not fatal nor that my tactics are not dishonest, but I'll try to review each claim [...]

Stop right there!


You won't try to do anything of the sort, and you don't have any Bayesian statisticians sympathetic to your lost cause.

We know you, Jabba! We've been watching this show for more than 5 years.

 

[halleyscomet]

The search for immortality: tomb treasures of Han China

In the first exhibition of its kind, the Fitzwilliam Museum will relate the story of the quest for immortality and struggle for imperial legitimacy in ancient China’s Han Dynasty.

The spectacular objects in this exhibition bring to Cambridge the finest treasures from the tombs of the Han royal family.
Dr Timothy Potts

The search for immortality is an old one, and despite thousands of years of recorded quests for it, has yet to bear fruit, unless of course you take the Epic of Gilgamesh literally.

As this thread has show, that quest is easily muddied by wishful babbling, the kindest term that can be applied to Jabba's claims, whatever they are. Not all efforts have been as unstructured and vague as Jabba's however. Instead of trying to redefine the soul into something capable of representation in a materialist system, Chinese Alchemists took a more direct approach:

Ancient Chinese Alchemists and their Search for Immortality

People have always been interested in what happens when you burn something, boil something, freeze something or melt something. They have always been curious as to what would happen if you added this to that. These types of common, everyday experiments, performed out of curiosity, are the early points from which modern science developed. These early experimenters with mixtures, chemicals and materials are known as alchemists. And in every society, a select few were drawn to the art of alchemy. Chinese alchemical experiments began more than a thousand years before the Europeans developed their alchemical tradition. As early as 200 B.C.E., Han dynasty philosophers began to combine different chemicals and compounds, hoping to transform the normal materials into more valuable ones. Each alchemist had his own goal that he worked towards. In Europe most alchemists hoped to turn lead into gold. In China, the goals were often different.

It is ironic that, as outlined in the link above, the search for immortality is what lead to the development of gunpowder, a material with a long history of causing the opposite effect as the "Elixir of Life."

 

[halleyscomet]

Since Jabba's ideas have proven not just a dead end, but a cyclical purgatory of nonsense, I propose we get back to basics.

What is Immortality?

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

Immortality is eternal life, being exempt from death, unending existence.[2] Some modern species may possess biological immortality.

Certain scientists, futurists, and philosophers have theorized about the immortality of the human body, with some suggesting that human immortality may be achievable in the first few decades of the 21st century. Other advocates believe that life extension is a more achievable goal in the short term, with immortality awaiting further research breakthroughs. The absence of aging would provide humans with biological immortality, but not invulnerability to death by disease or physical trauma; although mind uploading could solve that issue if it proved possible. Whether the process of internal endoimmortality is delivered within the upcoming years depends chiefly on research (and in neuron research in the case of endoimmortality through an immortalized cell line) in the former view and perhaps is an awaited goal in the latter case.

I think the Wikipedia article quoted above is as good a starting point as any. I see no value in discussing notions that involve a "soul" in this context as there is no evidence for it, as Jabba has repeatedly demonstrated over the last half decade through a particularly pathetic mangling of Bayesian Statistics.

I would like to focus on two possible concepts of "immortality." "Uploading" a human consciousness into a computer, and transferring it to another physical meat-bag, as described in the "Dollhouse" TV series and "Immortality, Inc." by Robert Sheckley.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I know that i'm not going to convince anyone on this forum that my flaws are not fatal nor that my tactics are not dishonest

Well here's a radical idea but you could TRY not being dishonest. Radical idea.

but I'll try to review each claim and evaluate my responses for myself (for "breadth," I'll try to address them all in one sitting) to see if I can feel comfortable submitting my latest syllogism to whatever Bayesian statisticians I can find. I'll try to revise whatever premises seem to need it. So far, I still think that Bayesian statistics virtually proves that we're immortal.

Bullcrap. You'll do nothing of the sort. You'll just keep claiming you will address our problems in some mystical point in the future all of us including you will never come. You can't address our problems so you'll just keep making up excuses and delaying tactics so that point at which you actually engage in honest debate will always been in the future.

 

[Pixel42]

I would like to focus on two possible concepts of "immortality." "Uploading" a human consciousness into a computer, and transferring it to another physical meat-bag, as described in the "Dollhouse" TV series and "Immortality, Inc." by Robert Sheckley.

Today's Christmas episode of Doctor Who had an interesting take on this.

 

[Jabba]

- I've, again, changed my mind. For "breadth," I'll just say that I still think that none of your "fatal flaws" or "dishonest tactics" is what you claim they are. I'll cover each instance as quickly as I can.
- I'll show my alleged, and infamous, flaws and tactics in red -- and, my responses to your objections in blue.
- Keep in mind that you're objecting to premises that may have already been reworded.

From #3198, chapter VI

Quote:
I think that, using Bayesian statistics, I can virtually disprove the consensus scientific hypothesis that we each have only one, finite, life to live…
You already admitted you can't, but that you "still believe [you're] right." You don't understand how Bayesian inference works. You habitually misstate the scientific consensus.
- Where did I admit that I couldn’t?


- Fatal flaw 1: You err in formulating a Bayesian inference.
- Quote:
- If something occurs that is unlikely to occur -- given a particular hypothesis -- the event is evidence against the hypothesis.
- No. This is expressly what statistical inference is not. One applies a statistical inference to predict an as-yet unknown outcome so as to rationally inform decisions that must be made prior to knowing the outcome. The outcome, once known, is a fact. That it was previously deemed unlikely casts no doubt on the causality that produced it.
- No, This is exactly what Bayesian inference is about – it uses a new fact to estimate the "posterior” probability of an old hypothesis.

 

[JoeMorgue]

- Where did I admit that I couldn’t?

Oh unbelievable. You've been pointed to it and ignored it a dozen times already.

How dare you. It takes a special kind of person to demand others go back and point them to a reuftation of their argument yet again when we all know full well all you are going to do is:

A) Completely ignore it.
B) Promise to finally get around to it at some point in the future we all know is never going to come.
C) Just restate your argument again.
D) Befuddled old man fringe reset.
E) Spend a half page setting up a new "roadmap" so you "know where everyone is at" for the umpteenth time instead of just actually responding to anybody.

- No, This is exactly what Bayesian inference is about – it uses a new fact to estimate the "posterior” probability of an old hypothesis.

No. There is no valid, legit way of looking at reality that allows you to make up after the fact the outcome you want in order to prove there must be some magical force at work that made it happen.

You are wrong. Factually incorrect. You are stating falsehoods. Your words are not accurate. You are not right. You are in error.

 

[JayUtah]

Jay,
-That post refers to my original syllogism. Since then, I've made numerous changes, and my latest attempt was in #625 of the current chapter -- your response to that was #827.
- Over time, I have responded to each of your #827 objections.
- Unless you suggest otherwise, I'll try to go back to your objections in #3198 of the previous chapter, and discuss them in "'breadth."

Answering it "over time" was not the assignment. Nor is it even remotely true that you have done any such thing. One post, all questions answered at a high level in that post. No dialectics. No "maps." No expostulation ad nauseum. I have been doing nothing but suggesting this is what I want you to do and why. You've been doing nothing but stalling for six months. Correct your rude behavior now and I won't demand an apology.

 

[JayUtah]

- I've, again, changed my mind. For "breadth," I'll just say that I still think that none of your "fatal flaws" or "dishonest tactics" is what you claim they are. I'll cover each instance as quickly as I can.
- I'll show my alleged, and infamous, flaws and tactics in red -- and, my responses to your objections in blue.
- Keep in mind that you're objecting to premises that may have already been reworded.

From #3198, chapter VI

Quote:
I think that, using Bayesian statistics, I can virtually disprove the consensus scientific hypothesis that we each have only one, finite, life to live…
You already admitted you can't, but that you "still believe [you're] right." You don't understand how Bayesian inference works. You habitually misstate the scientific consensus.
-Where did I admit that I couldn’t?


-Fatal flaw 1: You err in formulating a Bayesian inference.
-Quote:
-If something occurs that is unlikely to occur -- given a particular hypothesis -- the event is evidence against the hypothesis.
-No. This is expressly what statistical inference is not. One applies a statistical inference to predict an as-yet unknown outcome so as to rationally inform decisions that must be made prior to knowing the outcome. The outcome, once known, is a fact. That it was previously deemed unlikely casts no doubt on the causality that produced it.
-No, This is exactly what Bayesian inference is about – it uses a new fact to estimate the "posterior” probability of an old hypothesis.

This answer is incomplete. It's further unacceptable in that you are simply denying making any errors. No "maps." None of your patented dialectics. Please do what I asked and not simply what you want to do. We are no longer playing this game by your foisted rules.

 

[Pixel42]

- No, This is exactly what Bayesian inference is about – it uses a new fact to estimate the "posterior” probability of an old hypothesis.

In order to formulate any hypothesis you need to exist. So your existence is never a 'new fact' for any old hypothesis. It's an intrinsic part of every hypothesis you ever created and ever will create. When you fail to take this into account and try to consider your own existence as a new fact for your old hypothesis you immediately commit the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

 

[Jabba]

In order to formulate any hypothesis you need to exist. So your existence is never a 'new fact' for any old hypothesis. It's an intrinsic part of every hypothesis you ever created and ever will create. When you fail to take this into account and try to consider your own existence as a new fact for your old hypothesis you immediately commit the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

Pixel,
- I claim that if relevant info is not used in estimating the prior probability of a hypothesis, it can be used as new info in estimating a posterior probability of the hypothesis. Do you disagree with that claim?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Pixel,
- I claim that if relevant info is not used in estimating the prior probability of a hypothesis, it can be used as new info in estimating a posterior probability of the hypothesis. Do you disagree with that claim?

Oh for the love of...