Proof of Immortality, VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
- Even so, the non-religious model accepts that your particular awareness never existed before, will never exist again and never had to exist in the first place. Given that model, the likelihood of the current existence of your particular awareness is unimaginably small.
Click to expand...

How does adding a soul change the likelihood of your body existing? The same conditions under which your body came to exist had to happen whether or you have a soul.
 
Dave Rogers said:
The fact that you continue to mis-state the claim is pretty convincing proof that you don't understand what it is that you're responding to. Try turning off the arrogance and actually reading the posts. I suggest you GOTO #2405 and try to understand what somebodyelse is sayiong, rather than listening to your own echo chamber. And every time you mis-state the claim I've made to try and ridicule it, I'll re-direct you, if that helps; you seem to think that's a good approach.

There is a set of all possible souls and a set of all possible bodies in Jabba's mythology; his existence requires a specific one of each, and he's made it quite clear that it's the specific combination of his current soul and his current body that is the condition he believes to be set apart. In his mythology, therefore, E represents independent choices of two different entities.

And incidentally, even if E is supposed to represent the same set throughout the expression, it probably doesn't when Jabba formulates it.

Dave
Click to expand...

We've been over this again and again in earlier iterations of this thread.

1. The claim I was refuting was "~H can not be more likely than H because muh conjunction fallacy." You're now substituting an entirely different claim. If I weren't such a fan of Hanlon's razor I'd say you're doing a bait and switch, allowing you to pretend that my refutation of the original claim wasn't accurate.

2. But even your new claim has been done to death already in earlier iterations. Here's the short version: E is the data, that which is observed. Does the observation (ie Jabba existing) distinguish between, say, "Jabba + soul 1" and "Jabba + soul 2"? The answer is of course no. As such E isn't, say, "Jabba without soul" ∪ "Jabba + soul 1", but E = "Jabba without soul" ∪ "Jabba + soul 1" ∪ "Jabba + soul 2" ∪ ... ∪ "Jabba + soul N". E is every possibility that entails the observed data. And your argument sinks to the bottom.

Of course if anyone here actually bothered properly defining the probability space like I asked, then the above would become immediately apparent in the precise definition of E. But of course no one ever bothers. Hmmm, I wonder why...

Lastly, as to your "turning off the arrogance and actually reading the posts" - I can read the posts just fine, fine enough to spot the litany of errors. And I don't care if you call it "arrogance" or whatever, your arguments show an appalling level of understanding of probability theory. Your errors are at the "immediate" level, meaning that it should take you less time to find the error in the argument/claim than to type out said argument/claim - as such you should've never gotten to the point where you press "Submit Post" and have it actually appear on here. It is what it is, and whining about "arrogance" doesn't change that.
 
Last edited:
jond said:
How does adding a soul change the likelihood of your body existing? The same conditions under which your body came to exist had to happen whether or you have a soul.
Click to expand...

As far as I know, in five years he has yet to answer that question.
 
Belz... said:
Maybe we'd be done if you had answered SOdhner's post.

GOTO 2639.
Click to expand...

We're done right now. Any post that doesn't start with a proper and precise definition of the probability space, and doesn't continue with a proper mathematical argument in that space so as to reach the desired conclusion, is just going to be ignored by me from now on. I have better things to waste my time on - probability theory textbooks are available as pdf for free for anyone online if you look for it.
 
caveman1917 said:
We're done right now. Any post that doesn't start with a proper and precise definition of the probability space, and doesn't continue with a proper mathematical argument in that space so as to reach the desired conclusion, is just going to be ignored by me from now on. I have better things to waste my time on - probability theory textbooks are available as pdf for free for anyone online if you look for it.
Click to expand...

I find it amusing you're engaging in a debate regarding the details of actual probability calculation in a thread about a person claming that having a soul makes their existence more likely than if they didn't have one.

It's like a debate about the average width in atoms of the heads of different types of pins going on in a thread about how many angels can sit on the head of a pin. There's this teacup of actual science in the middle of a tempest of mythological clap-trap. The pathos of such futility is palpable.
 
caveman1917 said:
We're done right now. Any post that doesn't start with a proper and precise definition of the probability space, and doesn't continue with a proper mathematical argument in that space so as to reach the desired conclusion, is just going to be ignored by me from now on. I have better things to waste my time on - probability theory textbooks are available as pdf for free for anyone online if you look for it.
Click to expand...

Translation: you are running away from SOdhner's question because you know exactly how devastating it is to your argument.
 
halleyscomet said:
I find it amusing you're engaging in a debate regarding the details of actual probability calculation in a thread about a person claming that having a soul makes their existence more likely than if they didn't have one.
Click to expand...

Honestly I'd rather not bother, but they (the "skeptics" side) seem to be adamant about making all sorts of mathematical claims in response to Jabba's antics, and these claims are just too appalling to let be.
 
caveman1917 said:
Honestly I'd rather not bother, but they (the "skeptics" side) seem to be adamant about making all sorts of mathematical claims in response to Jabba's antics, and these claims are just too appalling to let be.
Click to expand...

What do you think of the math in Jabba's initial claims and his methodology for making up his numbers?

What do you think of his overall equation?
 
Belz... said:
Translation: you are running away from SOdhner's question because you know exactly how devastating it is to your argument.
Click to expand...

That's all I can think of. It's not like it's a difficult or complicated question. It seems he must be avoiding it because he knows it makes his objections look absolutely silly.
 
halleyscomet said:
What do you think of the math in Jabba's initial claims and his methodology for making up his numbers?

What do you think of his overall equation?
Click to expand...

I think I generally summed it up with "It's the victory of the one saying 1 + 1 = 3 over the one who can't even write down a sum in the first place." Don't get me wrong, Jabba is even worse than the rest by a huge margin, but then on the other hand there is no real expectation for his stuff to be correct - which there should be for the skeptics side.
 
caveman1917 said:
I think I generally summed it up with "It's the victory of the one saying 1 + 1 = 3 over the one who can't even write down a sum in the first place." Don't get me wrong, Jabba is even worse than the rest by a huge margin, but then on the other hand there is no real expectation for his stuff to be correct - which there should be for the skeptics side.
Click to expand...
You have several people who are willing to engage you on this topic, Lord knows why. But it's noticeable that you've not reciprocated which leads one to conclude that you cannot. If you are serious in your wanting to correct what you see as elementary mistakes, I'd think you'd be more amenable to answering questions asked of you. I suspect there are other issues more pressing for you, however.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- Whether physical or not, the sense of self involves the emergent property of awareness. It is a particular awareness that I've been referring to as "my existence." The non-religious model accepts the existence of awareness in you and me, but does not attribute awareness to Mount Rainier, grains of sand, or snowflakes.
Click to expand...


What if, when you copy a person, you also copy the emergent property of a particular awareness "existence"? Then you would have two of them!

Two Mount Rainiers, two grains of sand, two snowflakes, and two Jabbas.
 
godless dave said:
Correct. I'm disagreeing that the size of my likelihood is in any way significant, because given the size and age of the universe, any particular event is unlikely when calculated from the beginning of the universe.
Click to expand...
Dave,
- I do think that the significance of my unlikelihood is the weakest link in my argument, but I do still think that it's totally significant. Also,
the most statistically savvy member of our thread (Caveman) says that the sharpshooter fallacy doesn't apply.
- Whatever, if you don't mind, I'd like to postpone further discussion of the sharpshooter issue until I know with what specifically else you're finding fault. I think that by studying the formula I'm using and judging the numbers I've inserted, we should be able to nail down our specific disagreements.
- For one thing, do you accept that Bayesian statistics does apply to re-evaluating OOFLam?
 
Monza said:
What if, when you copy a person, you also copy the emergent property of a particular awareness "existence"? Then you would have two of them!

Two Mount Rainiers, two grains of sand, two snowflakes, and two Jabbas.
Click to expand...
Monza,
- If I understand your question, I should be looking out two sets of eyes.
 
SOdhner said:
That's all I can think of. It's not like it's a difficult or complicated question. It seems he must be avoiding it because he knows it makes his objections look absolutely silly.
Click to expand...
SOdhner,
- What, again, was your question?
 
Jabba said:
- For one thing, do you accept that Bayesian statistics does apply to re-evaluating OOFLam?
Click to expand...

No.

As Jay and I, and others, have pointed out, OOFLam isn't a hypothesis. It's the outcome of several different hypotheses.

Since OOFLam isn't a clearly defined hypothesis, then its complement isn't clearly defined either.

You also don't have any new information to use to re-evaluate the hypothesis. Your existence isn't new information, because you already existed before you decided to re-evaluate the the hypotheses.


You also have no way of getting meaningful estimates for the likelihood of a given event under any of the hypotheses.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom