Proof of Immortality, VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
Skimming this thread for the first time in quite a while, came across this post:

Dave Rogers said:
In fact, we could then draw a Bayesian inference.

(1) The probability of any event in a deterministic universe is 1, so P(E|D)=1.
(2) The probability of any event in a non-deterministic universe is unimaginably small; I estimate it at 10-1000 at best, so P(E|~D)<10-1000.
(3) We cannot tell whether the universe we live in is deterministic or non-deterministic, therefore we can assign an initial estimate of 0.5 for the probability that the universe is deterministic. P(D)=P(~D)=0.5.
(4) According to Bayes' Theorem, P(D|E)=P(E|D)P(D)/P(E)
(5) We can estimate the probability of any event as the average of its probability in a deterministic and a non-deterministic universe, which gives the result that the probability of any event is (0.5+5x10-1001), insignificantly different from 0.5.
(6) Substituting into Bayes' Theorem, we find that P(D|E), the probability that we live in a deterministic universe given that any event has actually taken place, is (1x0.5/0.5) = 1.
(7) Therefore, the fact that any event has taken place demonstrates that we live in a deterministic universe.

And please don't criticise me for posting that. As you can see, I didn't have any choice.

Dave
Click to expand...


This part...

(2) The probability of any event in a non-deterministic universe is unimaginably small; I estimate it at 10-1000 at best, so P(E|~D)<10-1000.
Click to expand...


... was meant as a joke, right?
 
caveman1917 said:
What the hell you arguing with me for then?
Click to expand...

Because you're doing with Jabba's claims exactly what Jabba's doing with materialism: misrepresenting them as something that fits with the claim you want to defend. In Jabba's case it's that materialism includes a soul; in yours it's that Jabba hasn't made an error that you initially failed to spot and have now staked your reputation on the absence of.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
You think only that part was meant as a joke????

Dave
Click to expand...

I wasn't sure if you meant any of it or not. You kept writing "i," so I thought you meant "you." I had no idea your post was a parody (I mean, serioulsy, in the context of thread, how can one distinguish the parordies). I picked on that one statement, because it was refutable in, like, one equation.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Dave,
- From before:



- IOW, OOFLam is referring to a particular awareness, and not to the body (though the body might be totally responsible for the awareness).
Click to expand...

Wrong. The awareness IS (part of) the body. It is inseparable from the body.

So, if 'OOFLam' is referring to the materialistic model, it is referring primarily to the body.

Hans
 
jt512 said:
I wasn't sure if you meant any of it or not. You kept writing "i," so I thought you meant "you." I had no idea your post was a parody (I mean, serioulsy, in the context of thread, how can one distinguish the parordies). I picked on that one statement, because it was refutable in, like, one equation.
Click to expand...

Seriously?

Buy a new detector.
 
JayUtah said:
Each of us is self-aware in exactly the same way as another. This is illustrated by the property of a car on the freeway, that it "is going 60 mph." This is true of all cars going that speed, and there is not an individualized difference between the "going 60 mph" of one car and the "going 60 mph" of another car. The cars are obviously individuals, but the property is not. It is not discretizable.
Click to expand...

Your example of 60 MPH has raised a question for me, an answer to which might shed some light on the discussion of why Jabba is so wrong.

Going 60 MPH is a property of Volkswagens traveling at 60 MPH. What about Volkswagens going 55 MPH or 80 MPH or Bugattis going 200 MPH down the same road at the same time?

Is this variations on a broad common property of "going" perhaps an analogy for the differences or individualization of self awareness that we experience or believe we experience that can be included under the materialist hypothesis?

Or is this just taking an analogy too far?
 
Pooneil said:
Or is this just taking an analogy too far?
Click to expand...

I don't think it breaks the analogy at all, but it takes it to an overly-complicated place that we should probably avoid since Jabba can't even get the simple version figured out.

The main thing is: "going 60mph" isn't a physical thing, and doesn't exist when it's not a property of (for example) the VW.

Jabba will never agree of course, because even when trying to discuss the materialistic world he just can't accept that there are no souls.
 
SOdhner said:
I don't think it breaks the analogy at all, but it takes it to an overly-complicated place that we should probably avoid since Jabba can't even get the simple version figured out.
Click to expand...

There is no particular level of simplification or complication that can be expected to persuade Jabba.

That situation need not prevent a more thorough understanding of the materialist view as a way to further highlight his errors.
 
Pooneil said:
Or is this just taking an analogy too far?
Click to expand...

We've spent the better part of almost 6 years know trying to explain...

1. Death exists.
2. 1 and 2 aren't the same number
3. Two variables increase complexity, not reduce it.
4. Reality is not caused by pronouns

... to a grown man. At this point we're explaining string theory to a fern using color blocks and felt paper we're so far away from the actual argument.
 
Pooneil said:
There is no particular level of simplification or complication that can be expected to persuade Jabba.
Click to expand...
JoeMorgue said:
We've spent the better part of almost 6 years know trying to explain...

1. Death exists.
2. 1 and 2 aren't the same number
3. Two variables increase complexity, not reduce it.
4. Reality is not caused by pronouns

... to a grown man. At this point we're explaining string theory to a fern using color blocks and felt paper we're so far away from the actual argument.
Click to expand...

Okay yeah, fair enough.
 
godless dave said:
The materialist hypothesis is that the body is totally responsible for the awareness because it's the brain that's aware. When we talk about only living once in the materialist hypothesis, we're talking about the body living once, because the body makes up the whole organism. The body is what's alive.
Click to expand...
Dave,
- I would vote on this sub-issue as our most important failure to communicate...

- Materialists accept the existence of particular awareness. That is the thing/process/whatever that OOFLam is addressing, and claims to be singular and short.
- I accept that my body never had to exist, will cease to exist and never exist again. I just think that there is more to my particular awareness than that. Materialists don't.
- And, that's what this attempt to re-evaluate OOFLam is about. Is a particular awareness singular and short -- or, is it more than that?
- Where, in my formula, do you think that the materialist hypothesis is misrepresented?
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- Materialists accept the existence of particular awareness. That is the thing/process/whatever that OOFLam is addressing, and claims to be singular and short.
Click to expand...

We all know you mean a soul with the weasel phrase "particular awareness." The soul does not exist within a materialist paradigm.

You'd better hope there IS no such thing as a soul, as someone who spends five years in deliberate and methodical deception in trying to get people to admit to something they flat out do not believe is a whole lot of lying to burden your soul.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- I would vote on this sub-issue as our most important failure to communicate...

- Materialists accept the existence of particular awareness. That is the thing/process/whatever that OOFLam is addressing, and claims to be singular and short.
- I accept that my body never had to exist, will cease to exist and never exist again. I just think that there is more to my particular awareness than that. Materialists don't.
- And, that's what this attempt to re-evaluate OOFLam is about. Is a particular awareness singular and short -- or, is it more than that?
- Where, in my formula, do you think that the materialist hypothesis is misrepresented?
Click to expand...

Thing/Process/Whatever are not the same. A point you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge let alone address.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom