Proof of Immortality, VII

[JayUtah]

And you have yet to demonstrate that the absurd fantasy of reincarnation occurs or that the grandiose mansion of the solipsists exists.

He doesn't necessarily have to prove that reincarnation actually occurs. It looks like he's just deferring to that tradition to supply his definition of self, i.e., a soul. He doesn't want to provide a specific testable definition because he knows it would never fit materialism. In addition, he wants the aspects he hopes we will unconsciously associate with reincarnation to let him back-door things he can't prove as part of E, the data.

But yes, "what reincanationists believe" cannot be the self under materialism. Therefore if he's evaluating materialism as P(E|H) he can't just defer to reincarnation. Nor, as you say, can he just defer to solipsism, because that's not materialism either.

His inability to understand how properly to assign concepts to E, H, and ~H is what I mean when I say he isn't formulating the inference correctly. All he can do in response is mumble the textbook definition of a statistical inference and insist that he's doing it right.

 

[Jabba]

I would just say that the existence of your 'self' occurs for a short moment and that there is a string of 'selves' all generated and ending in your body moment to moment.

David,
- I would say that the string of selves has a certain continuity (an 'identity' of sorts) that according to materialism would discontinue at death of the body, never to exist again.

- Given that meaning of 'self,' what numbers would you insert for P(H), P(~H), P(E|H) & P(E|~H)?

 

[halleyscomet]

David,
- I would say that the string of selves has a certain continuity (an 'identity' of sorts) that according to materialism would discontinue at death of the body, never to exist again.

- Given that meaning of 'self,' what numbers would you insert for P(H), P(~H), P(E|H) & P(E|~H)?

Why do you keep posting your asinine equation as if it conveyed something?

It's meaningless drivel. Why do you cling to it?

At least Creationists have an excuse for their incompetent mangling of probability.

 

[jond]

David,
- I would say that the string of selves has a certain continuity (an 'identity' of sorts) that according to materialism would discontinue at death of the body, never to exist again.

- Given that meaning of 'self,' what numbers would you insert for P(H), P(~H), P(E|H) & P(E|~H)?

What difference does it make what numbers you put into it? Adding an extra element which would be required for immortality guarantees that it is at best exactly as likely as your body alone, and in reality far less likely.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

1. Firstly, I wouldn't be using Bayesian statistics if I were trying to "essentially prove" immortality (or essentially prove that stars are made from glitter and whipped cream), so I wouldn't be using any numbers. Bayes is not the right tool for what you are trying to do.

Hey, Jabba, remember when that unbiased audience of statisticians told you the same thing? The honest answer would be, "why, yes, I've been foolish." The dishonest answer will be to continue flogging your dead horse.

 

[godless dave]

Under H, the likelihood of your self existing is the same as the likelihood of your body existing. As such, we do not have the data to come up with an estimate.

 

[RoboTimbo]

David,
- I would say that the string of selves has a certain continuity (an 'identity' of sorts) that according to materialism would discontinue at death of the body, never to exist again.

- Given that meaning of 'self,' what numbers would you insert for P(H), P(~H), P(E|H) & P(E|~H)?

Given that out of this side of your mouth you're saying that the "self" is a process, apply your equation to a Volkswagen going 60 mph.

 

[John Jones]

jond,
-Search for Caveman1917 and "conjunction" in chapter VI.

No. You provide a link. It's your assertion, and your burden of proof. And don't object to repeating yourself - youv'e done almost nothing but these last 5 years.

 

[Mojo]

- if we accept that the opinion that we each have but one, finite, life is possibly wrong, bayesian statistics mixed with modern science concludes that it is wrong.

If we accept that the opinion that stars are mostly made from hydrogen and helium is possibly wrong, bayesian statistics mixed with modern science concludes that it is wrong.

In the last couple of pages I have once again asked Jabba what his formula would look like if H is the hypothesis that Jabba is immortal. Once again he has evaded the question. Perhaps he realises that if we accept that the opinion that Jabba is immortal is possibly wrong, "Bayesian statistics mixed with modern science" concludes that it is wrong.

 

[JayUtah]

David,
- I would say that the string of selves has a certain continuity (an 'identity' of sorts) that according to materialism would discontinue at death of the body, never to exist again.

- Given that meaning of 'self,' what numbers would you insert for P(H), P(~H), P(E|H) & P(E|~H)?

Once again you're insisting on de minimis refutations only. Your inability to respond as instructed to the list of fatal flaws illustrates how incapable you are of seeing what's really wrong with your argument. The problem is not what values you're using. The problem is the method you are using to arrive at those numbers. You refuse to see the actual problem with your argument because you can't bear the thought that's it's that wrong.

We have a word in English to describe a continuum of states. The word is "process." Under materialism the process of consciousness exists exactly as long as the organism does. It's meaningless to conceive that a process somehow has independent existence.

 

[John Jones]

David,
- I would say that the string of selves has a certain continuity (an 'identity' of sorts) that according to materialism would discontinue at death of the body, never to exist again.

- Given that meaning of 'self,' what numbers would you insert for P(H), P(~H), P(E|H) & P(E|~H)?

The square root of -1

 

[JayUtah]

In the last couple of pages I have once again asked Jabba what his formula would look like if H is the hypothesis that Jabba is immortal. Once again he has evaded the question. Perhaps he realises that if we accept that the opinion that Jabba is immortal is possibly wrong, "Bayesian statistics mixed with modern science" concludes that it is wrong.

He has already admitted he doesn't know how the formula works. He doesn't know what the variables actually represent, or how the structure of the model produces the anticipated results. Our "certified statistician" is capable of no more than rote regurgitation of common principles, with no ability to apply it to new problems. All this is either admitted or evident, yet when he has to respond to that specific challenge he just stiff-arms his critics and insists he must somehow still be competent.

 

[Mojo]

He admitted he couldn't prove immortality. Therefore he proposed that he would only have to prove "immateriality."

But he can't do that either, because his "proof" relies on assuming that souls exist.

ETA: To chose one of a number of fatal flaws in his argument.

 

[JayUtah]

But he can't do that either, because his "proof" relies on assuming that souls exist.

ETA: To chose one of a number of fatal flaws in his argument.

...which it's obvious by now he can't answer.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Given that meaning of 'self,' what numbers would you insert for P(H), P(~H), P(E|H) & P(E|~H)?

*Very slowly, as if speaking to a child* We... wouldn't... put... any... numbers into it because we don't think that stupid, made up, nonsensical, gibberish equation of stupidity and nothing is valid.

How... in the name the everything is it that you don't get that?

Your numbers are made up. Your equation is meaningless. Your conclusion is wrong. And your "Effective Debate Style" is a transparent smoke and mirrors show of rudeness and anti-intellectualism.

 

[halleyscomet]

*Very slowly, as if speaking to a child* We... wouldn't... put... any... numbers into it because we don't think that stupid, made up, nonsensical, gibberish equation of stupidity and nothing is valid.

How... in the name the everything is it that you don't get that?

Your numbers are made up. Your equation is meaningless. Your conclusion is wrong. And your "Effective Debate Style" is a transparent smoke and mirrors show of rudeness and anti-intellectualism.

There's a Sisyphus / Rock analogy in there somewhere. Perhaps this is purgatory and Jabba is the demon charged with annoying us through flagrant and repeated violations of remedial logic. None of us were really evil, but Jabba still has to burn away our sins.

Hey, it's more likely than Jabba's BS "equation."

Jabba is irritating you with badly broken logic.

 

[Belz...]

- IOW, I'm trying to re-evaluate the hypothesis that selves are mortal (H).
- Does anyone here accept the formula I'm using in trying to re-evaluate the probability of that hypothesis -- given my current existence?
- That formula is P(H|E)=P(E|H)P(H)/((P(E|H)P(H))+P(E|~H)P(~H)).

Worthless until you justify your numbers.

 

[halleyscomet]

Worthless until you justify your numbers.

(To be read in the voice of Rod Serling)

Imagine if you will, a masochist who thrives on public humiliation, a pervert with a kink for involving others without their understanding his true motives.

Year after year, he plies the same absurd theories in venues guaranteed to rip them to shreds. He persists, using "logic" so broken, so convoluted, it could only have come from, The Twilight Zone.

 

[theprestige]

(To be read in the voice of Rod Serling)

Imagine if you will, a sadist who thrives on public humiliation

I'm trying, but I keep imagining a masochist instead.

 

[Dancing David]

David,
- I would say that the string of selves has a certain continuity (an 'identity' of sorts) that according to materialism would discontinue at death of the body, never to exist again.

You have yet to give a definition of self that can be discussed under materialism.

That continuity is mainly illusion provided by the manufacture memory, the process that peopel confound with 'self' are varying and inconstant moment to moment.

Please define you 'self' with resorting to reincarnation or solipsism.

The body itself is the seat of the illusory 'self', it however is also changing vastly moment to moment.