Proof of Immortality, VII

[JoeMorgue]

Under Jabbian Logic no process can ever stop or start because Bayesian Blah Blah Blah proves that is more likely for it to continuing forever.

Jabba whole point (at this point in his act while invoking this particular persona) is that it is impossible for a process to be occurring for limited amount of time because of the probability of encountering the process at any specific point which is... absurd to the power of absurd.

So if I walk into my kitchen and see a burning pot on my stove, I must by the decree of Bayesian Statistics assume that the pot has been burning since the Big Bang and will continue to burn until the heat death of the Universe since the alternative is I just happened to walk into my kitchen at that tiny slice of time at which this pot was on fire and the odds against that are just sooooo small it's better to assume the pot's burning is immortal.

This become even more ludicrious since the process Jabba is invoking as being improbable is literally Jabba himself. He's literally arguing "What are the odds I would be around to see myself exist?" I couldn't make a strawman of that that was more absurd. Ironically he's not even arguing for immorality in that he will live for ever but a sort of omnipresence that he has and will exist forever.

I look forward to Jabba completely ignoring this or at best a token lamb bleating "It wouldn't be the SAAAAAAAAAME because of my claims."

 

[jond]

- Re a) They are if the jury agrees with them.
- Re b) If human selves are immortal they always exist, and always includes now. If human selves have only one finite life to live during all of time, what is the likelihood that your time would be right now?

The jury can see all the answers you ignore. You have lost, Jabba.

 

[Monza]

Monza,
- I'm not totally sure of your question -- so, I'll have to "play it by ear," one note at a time.
- I am claiming that P(me|NR) -- or X -- is equal to 1/10¹⁰⁰. I claim that because I think that the real likelihood of me currently existing -- given NR (or OOFLam) -- is virtually zero, but that 10^-100 is small enough to make my point.

- I suspect that doesn't answer your question...

- I don't understand how you got .9918.

I estimated it.

 

[JayUtah]

- Again...

I will not accept answers that do not follow my instructions.

 

[JayUtah]

What the hell are you doing?

Obviously trying to turn it into another fringe reset. And even more obviously, to spread them out and make sure they get lost in the flurry of other posts and cannot be referred to easily. He's deliberately obfuscating his answers. He's not even addressing the content of any of the fatal flaws. He's just pretending it's an excuse to restate his claim. "I restated this..." blah blah blah. Would you agree this proves he is unable to answer the fatal flaws?

Jay specifically said to combine all your brief rejoinders to his rebuttal of your claims into one post.

And to do so without all the dialectics and packing-material quotations. I was even so kind as to explain why my instructions were just so: In order to avoid the string-along depth-first fringe reset that has proven ineffective for five years and counting. Jabba is fast proving he has no actual interest in the debate and is mentally unable to participate in any debate that he doesn't direct. When asked to give a high-level summary to a high-level rebuttal, which followed his high-level statement of the argument, we find he cannot. He has to immediately delve into quibbling detail in order to try to lose his critics by attrition.

 

[Monza]

- Re a) They are if the jury agrees with them.
- Re b) If human selves are immortal they always exist, and always includes now. If human selves have only one finite life to live during all of time, what is the likelihood that your time would be right now?

Re: b) Jabba, did you exist in the year 1888?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Re: b) Jabba, did you exist in the year 1888?

Jesus Christ, has the thread been going that long?

Dave

 

[JayUtah]

And that's what Jay means when he says that the fact of Jabba's existence at this particular time is not a new piece of information. Jabba is discussing his supposed proof at this particular time; it may be deduced from this that he exists at this particular time. There is no additional information from which to draw any Bayesian inference.

Jabba thinks he's solved this. He asserts that "old information" may be used as incremental information in a Bayesian inference. But he obfuscates what that means. Specifically, he conflates the point at which the information becomes known with a separate point at which the information becomes operative.

He draws an analogy to a hunter (he said farmer) shooting a deer. After the fact, we can still infer that the deer was the intended target and that the shooting of the deer was intended toward that end. Jabba correctly notes that we can discover all this subsequent to the shot and infer the intended target reasonably, and reason about the probability of the hunter making the shot. That probability can then inform our opinion of how good a shot the hunter is. This, Jabba claims, gets around the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

But in his analogy the fact of the target being a deer (a game animal, an objectively reasonable target for a hunter, independent of any prior or subsequent attempt to shoot it) was operative before the shot. It didn't suddenly become a deer the moment it was shot. Commensurately the fact of the shooter being a hunter (and reasonably apt to be engaged in the pursuit of game animals) was operative before the shot. He didn't suddenly declare himself to be after venison after the deer was shot. All these facts were facts that could have been known prior to the shot, because they existed prior to the shot and were operative in the moments leading up to the shot. That some poor sap comes along later and learns of them after the deer is trussed up on the hunter's fender does not change the timing of the operation of the facts with the sampling of the shots fired. But this is not the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. Because the relevant facts provably existed and were provably operative prior to the shot, the point at which they were discovered by some observer is irrelevant.

Jabba wants to pretend his proof follows this same analogy, that his existence was somehow operative prior to it actually happening. But he can show no operative fact that identifies him as a target prior to his selection. The only fact he can show and allege to support his preselection is his selection. That is the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. If the only thing that identifies a spot as a target -- regardless of when observed -- is that it was hit, then you have committed the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

When Jabba recounts this part of the discussion, he leaves out the part where his critics correctly identify his "old" information in the hunter analogy as being separate from the sample. He wants to pretend he's devised an analogy that puts his critics in their place, and that he's overcome the Texas sharpshooter fallacy with sheer force of brilliance.

 

[Agatha]

Hans,
- My evidence is made up of premises.
1. I am a currently existing human self
2. Under the hypothesis that human selves are immortal, the likelihood of my current existence is 1.00.
3. Under the hypothesis that we are mortal (only one life per self), the likelihood of my current existence is less than 10^-100.
- Where do you disagree?

Premises are not evidence.

2 and 3 are unsupported (and ridiculous), and 3 is in direct contradiction to 1.

 

[Agatha]

Further, unless Jabba is claiming that only people who currently exist can be immortal (which means immortality began at some point around 1910 and will end* around 2120 or so), his syllogism falls down at the first attempt to apply to anyone who currently does not exist, but did so in the past or may in the future.

1. Empress Matilda existed between 1102 and 1167.
2. Under the hypothesis that human selves are immortal, the likelihood of Empress Matilda's current existence is 1.00.
- But she's dead and currently does not exist, which means she was not immortal. The hypothesis has failed and we need go no further.

*So it's not immortality anyway.

 

[zooterkin]

Further, unless Jabba is claiming that only people who currently exist can be immortal (which means immortality began at some point around 1910 and will end* around 2120 or so), his syllogism falls down at the first attempt to apply to anyone who currently does not exist, but did so in the past or may in the future.

1. Empress Matilda existed between 1102 and 1167.
2. Under the hypothesis that human selves are immortal, the likelihood of Empress Matilda's current existence is 1.00.
- But she's dead and currently does not exist, which means she was not immortal. The hypothesis has failed and we need go no further.

*So it's not immortality anyway.

You're forgetting Jabba's weasel word, 'self', though he is yet to define exactly how he thinks it outlives the body and finds a new host.

 

[jond]

You're forgetting Jabba's weasel word, 'self', though he is yet to define exactly how he thinks it outlives the body and finds a new host.

Indeed, or how this disembodied self somehow interacts with a brain in the way that we know happens in the process of consciousness and self awareness. It's almost like he's purposely trying to obfuscate...

 

[Agatha]

You're forgetting Jabba's weasel word, 'self', though he is yet to define exactly how he thinks it outlives the body and finds a new host.

He'll also have to explain in what meaningful way Empress Matilda's 'self' still exists. It seems to me that Jabba needs to have a defined idea of "immortality" before he can start making up numbers that force his desired conclusion.

 

[CriticalThanking]

Hans,
- My evidence is made up of premises.
1. I am a currently existing human self
2. Under the hypothesis that human selves are immortal, the likelihood of my current existence is 1.00.
3. Under the hypothesis that we are mortal (only one life per self), the likelihood of my current existence is less than 10^-100.
- Where do you disagree?

- Re a) They are if the jury agrees with them.
- Re b) If human selves are immortal they always exist, and always includes now. If human selves have only one finite life to live during all of time, what is the likelihood that your time would be right now?

Jabba,

Exhibit 1 could certainly be evidence. You would be tagged and stored in an evidence locker, but you are a tangible thing that could be submitted as evidence. Don't store yourself in a locker - this is for illustrative purposes only.

How would you enter exhibits 2 and 3 into evidence? Would you write the statement "the likelihood of my current existence is less than 10^-100" on a piece of paper and ask it to be entered into evidence?

Statements 2 and 3 are not evidence. They could certainly be hypotheses that explain motives, or words used to persuade (the easily led), but they most certainly could not be entered into evidence.

You might try to enter Bayes' Theorem into evidence and try to show how you calculated the numbers you gave using that theorem, but you have steadfastly refused to do so.

Counsel requests summary judgement for lack of evidence, your honor.

 

[halleyscomet]

Hans,
- My evidence is made up of premises.
1. I am a currently existing human self

Define "self" in this context.

2. Under the hypothesis that human selves are immortal, the likelihood of my current existence is 1.00.

That's not "evidence." That's a ******** guess made with no basis in reality or supporting evidence.

3. Under the hypothesis that we are mortal (only one life per self), the likelihood of my current existence is less than 10^-100.

That's not "evidence." That's a ******** guess made with no basis in reality or supporting evidence.

Jabba,

Are you drunk posting again?

 

[RoboTimbo]

- Re b) If human selves are immortal they always exist

The JIL (Jabba Immortal Lie)! I told you that you wouldn't get away with using the word "self" as your ultimate bait and switch. You do not have permission to do that.

Do as you were instructed.

 

[halleyscomet]

- Re b) If human selves are immortal they always exist

Nope. Wrong again Even mythologies such as Mormonism that claim human beings are celestial children who participated in a celestial war still have a starting point for the soul.

Many religions claim god or the gods always existed, but even religions where reincarnation is the norm have a point where a soul comes into existence either as a new creation or by splintering from something else.

http://www.hinduwebsite.com/reincarnation.asp

The Hindu theory of creation suggests that creation begins when the individual souls become separated from the undifferentiated One. It continues as the evolution of life and consciousness in matter progresses upon earth in phases. During this process some souls manage to return to God, their source, through the transformation of matter or Prakriti in which they remain hidden and bound. The remaining souls continue their existence and return to Him in the end, not through transformation but through the great destruction that happens at the end of each time cycle. Thus the great cycle of creation, stretching over millions of years, comes to its logical end.

 

[Mojo]

You're forgetting Jabba's weasel word, 'self', though he is yet to define exactly how he thinks it outlives the body and finds a new host.

He's also ignoring the problem that its existence is not observable if it doesn't occupy his body.

 

[Mojo]

He'll also have to explain in what meaningful way Empress Matilda's 'self' still exists. It seems to me that Jabba needs to have a defined idea of "immortality" before he can start making up numbers that force his desired conclusion.

He's already claimed that the "self" has no characteristics of its own, and that everything that makes his "self" distinctive originates with his body.

 

[Mojo]

- Re b) If human selves are immortal they always exist, and always includes now. If human selves have only one finite life to live during all of time, what is the likelihood that your time would be right now?

For your existence to be a piece of information to be considered, it must be observable. You can only be observed while your body exists. The likelihood that your existence is observed right now is, at most, equal to the likelihood that your body exists right now.