I would vote on this sub-issue as our most important failure to communicate...
There is no "failure to communicate." You simply lying about the position your critics take, and your critics are rightly not letting you get away with it.
Your argument works only if you can foist a straw man in place of materialism. Do not pretend that you can cajole your critics into letting you foist it by wrongly implying that they are somehow at fault here for pointing out your dishonesty. You are being
refuted. If you consider being refuted a "failure to communicate" then you have no business in a well-reasoned debate. That instead signals that your idea of a "debate" is where you present your case and everyone pats you on the back for being so clever. That's not going to happen here.
Materialists accept the existence of particular awareness.
They expressly do not, as you've been told several times. You can't seem to find any argument other that lying about this.
I just think that there is more to my particular awareness than that. Materialists don't.
That is an accurate statement of the impasse. However, your feelings are utterly irrelevant to what materialism actually is, and that's how the impasse is resolved. You don't get to extend materialism to account for your feelings or misgivings about it, or your disbelief in it. This is why we tell you that you are letting your prior estimates of P(H) cloud your evaluation of P(E|H), where H is materialism and E is your present existence.
You are evaluating P(E|H). You must do so assuming that H is true. You must do so according to the mechanism that H proposes for how events such as E would happen. You expressly
cannot do so from your point of view that there "must be more" to you than what materialism provides, or that there "must be more" to materialism than what there is to it.
So far you have been unable to do this. You are unable to formulate E as an observation containing no speculative or interpretive detail. You are unable to formulate P(E|H) such that it properly represents H. I have been telling you this for months, and included such inabilities as fatal flaws that you know exist and that you admit you cannot answer. Every single person you have approached with the belief that they are experts in statistics and statistical reasoning has told you that you are wrong -- not just a little wrong but "profoundly ignorant," in one person's words. What you're trying to pull in this post is just another example of such profound ignorance.
Where, in my formula, do you think that the materialist hypothesis is misrepresented?
In the P(E|H) term, specifically because the H you're using is a theory of your own contrivance, a straw man, not the actual theory under whose auspices you are trying to compute the probability of an observation occurring.
You've been told several times by several people over the last 72 hours in exactly what way you are misrepresenting the materialist hypothesis. You have been told again, today, in this post, by me. When you ignore reams of recent correction and demand every day that you be told anew where your errors are, you are wasting people's time and are rightly considered rude for doing so. Shape up, please. You owe your critics better attention than this to the arguments they are giving you.
