Proof of Immortality, VII

[JayUtah]

Dave, the foci of your first and third objections have been dropped from my argument due to my (perceived) inability to present them effectively (I think I'm right -- just unable to effectively present my case).

Quit blaming your critics, Jabba. You are obviously unable and obviously unwilling to defend your argument against reasonable objection. You want desperately to be seen as right without having first expended the effort to prove that you are. That's expressly not how the intellectual process works.

As to your middle objection, I equate the likelihood of my current existence to the likelihood of winning a lottery...

And we've done this to death. In materialism there is no analogue to the number of tickets sold, such that you can use it as a denominator for reckoning probability of any one ticket winning. You've been fairly frantic in trying to pin a denominator on materialism, essentially lying repeatedly about what the materialist hypothesis is. "Oh, look how improbable this simplistically reckoned outcome is. That must mean it's significant in a way I just now made up."

I forget what your objection to that explanation was.

No, you didn't. You just have no answer. And you know it, and have admitted it. The end.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Dave, the foci of your first and third objections have been dropped from my argument due to my (perceived) inability to present them effectively (I think I'm right -- just unable to effectively present my case).

I accept your admission that you were wrong. I'm sure you agree with me.

- As to your middle objection, I equate the likelihood of my current existence to the likelihood of winning a lottery; i.e., that likelihood is based upon the overall number of tickets, the number of those tickets that are mine and the number of tickets/winners drawn.

Have you been able to think of any way to overcome the inapplicability of your analogy to materialism?

- I forget what your objection to that explanation was.

Then use your already demonstrated ability to find previous posts and find the hundreds telling you exactly what is incorrect about it.

 

[theprestige]

- I forget what your objection to that explanation was.

Have you considered making a map of all the issues and sub-issues of the debate? You could use it to easily navigate to any argument right away.

 

[halleyscomet]

Dave, the foci of your first and third objections have been dropped from my argument due to my (perceived) inability to present them effectively (I think I'm right -- just unable to effectively present my case).
- As to your middle objection, I equate the likelihood of my current existence to the likelihood of winning a lottery; i.e., that likelihood is based upon the overall number of tickets, the number of those tickets that are mine and the number of tickets/winners drawn.
- I forget what your objection to that explanation was.

"I know I was just in a car crash, and I have a huge piece of metal sticking out of my chest, but before we try to deal with my severed aorta, I want to focus on a few scrapes I got on my cheek when the airbag deployed."

 

[Jabba]

My objection is that's not how human beings are formed. Your current existence has nothing to do with the overall number of humans who could exist over all time. It is the result of all the events that led up to your parents having sex.

- OK. Do you accept that the likelihood of your current existence involves the necessary events from the beginning of time -- such as the joining of the specific sperm from your mom's father and the specific ovum from your mom's mom that produced your mom?

 

[godless dave]

- OK. Do you accept that the likelihood of your current existence involves the necessary events from the beginning of time -- such as the joining of the specific sperm from your mom's father and the specific ovum from your mom's mom that produced your mom?

Yes.

 

[Thermal]

Thermal,
- I do think that's the weakest link in my argument, but I'd like to put off further discussion of that until I've given the other sub-issues my best shots.

Jabba:

Well...ok. I don't see how you can build on your hypothesis without resolving this first, but ok.

Looking at your post #2411 (please forgive me for being behind on the thread, but it may help other lurkers to get current, too), you seem to assign pretty precise values to somewhat abstract metaphysical probabilities. I would think only the widest of ranges could be assigned to their likelihood, if any could be assigned at all, given the lack of data to support them. You acknowledge they are rough estimates, but I would disagree. They are overly precise. Dramatically so. Feeding these values into the probability formula as posed seems far too arbitrary to give a meaningful result.

 

[jond]

- OK. Do you accept that the likelihood of your current existence involves the necessary events from the beginning of time -- such as the joining of the specific sperm from your mom's father and the specific ovum from your mom's mom that produced your mom?

Yes. And those same events also have to happen if you add a separate soul into the equation.

 

[Jabba]

Yes.

- Good.
- Where does my formula go wrong?

 

[Dave Rogers]

- Where does my formula go wrong?

GIGO.

Dave

 

[halleyscomet]

- Good.
- Where does my formula go wrong?

Everywhere.

There is no part of the formula that is worthwhile or salvageable.

You excreted a Bristol 4 into a soup tureen, stirred in some fresh corn and offered it to Gordon Ramsey at your restaurant. He promptly proclaimed it a "Bowl of *********** ****," and you are arguing with him about what spices you can add to make it dish worthy of a Michelin star.

That is the level of absurdity involved in your continued defense of your codswallop "equation."

 

[godless dave]

- Good.
- Where does my formula go wrong?

Same answer as before. You haven't justified the numbers for prior probabilities for either hypothesis or for the likelihood of your existence in either hypothesis.

 

[RoboTimbo]

- Good.
- Where does my formula go wrong?

Where do you think it goes right, in light of the thousands of posts telling you exactly where it goes wrong?

That would be the honest place for you to start.

 

[JayUtah]

Do you accept that the likelihood of your current existence involves the necessary events...

It doesn't matter how you reckon it if you then go on to commit the Texas sharpshooter fallacy over it.

 

[Jabba]

Jabba:

Well...ok. I don't see how you can build on your hypothesis without resolving this first, but ok.

Looking at your post #2411 (please forgive me for being behind on the thread, but it may help other lurkers to get current, too), you seem to assign pretty precise values to somewhat abstract metaphysical probabilities. I would think only the widest of ranges could be assigned to their likelihood, if any could be assigned at all, given the lack of data to support them. You acknowledge they are rough estimates, but I would disagree. They are overly precise. Dramatically so. Feeding these values into the probability formula as posed seems far too arbitrary to give a meaningful result.

Thermal,
- In a way, I agree. I try to avoid a problem with that issue by tilting the numbers in favor of the other side.
- For instance, in reality I think that the prior probabilities of the complementary hypotheses are much more in my favor than I've indicated. Do you think that I've tilted some of the numbers in my favor?

 

[abaddon]

Thermal,
- In a way, I agree. I try to avoid a problem with that issue by tilting the numbers in favor of the other side.
- For instance, in reality I think that the prior probabilities of the complementary hypotheses are much more in my favor than I've indicated. Do you think that I've tilted some of the numbers in my favor?

Tilted the numbers? You flat out made them up out of whole cloth.

 

[Jabba]

Same answer as before. You haven't justified the numbers for prior probabilities for either hypothesis or for the likelihood of your existence in either hypothesis.

- Cool.
- Do you think that for all intents and purposes, the priors should be 1.00 for H and .00 for ~H?

 

[Thermal]

Thermal,
- In a way, I agree. I try to avoid a problem with that issue by tilting the numbers in favor of the other side.
- For instance, in reality I think that the prior probabilities of the complementary hypotheses are much more in my favor than I've indicated. Do you think that I've tilted some of the numbers in my favor?

Jabba:

Yes, I think that in your enthusiasm (or fascination) with your hypothesis, you may be assigning values that feed a confirmation bias.

 

[godless dave]

- Cool.
- Do you think that for all intents and purposes, the priors should be 1.00 for H and .00 for ~H?

No. I do not have enough information to estimate the prior probabilities.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Do you think that I've tilted some of the numbers in my favor?

Monstrously. In particular, you've ignored the probability of your current body and metabolic processes existing under ~H, while not justifying why it should be any different to the probability of your current body and metabolic processes existing under H. This means that, whatever value you choose to make up out of whole cloth for P(E|H), the value for P(E|~H) cannot be greater than P(E|H), whereas you're "estimating" (i.e. making up values for) P(E|~H) at close to unity and P(E|H) at less than 10^-100. You are, in effect, tilting the numbers a hundred orders of magnitude in your favout.

Dave