Proof of Immortality, VII

[JayUtah]

And there is no evidence you can present that it does.

And that's the sort of thing that should be reflected in the priors. The problem is that he also wants reincarnation factors to apply to the likelihood conditioned on a single data event. His hypothesis posits a class of events from which the conditioned event is drawn. That is irrelevant to the consideration given the single data point. He has a cargo-cult model in his mind that says more chances for life must mean more centuries out of 140 million that could accommodate a Jabba. And he's struggling to make that fit a different model. "More chances for life" do not affect the single life under consideration and what he's purporting to condition upon it. Once you condition the likelihood upon some event, the resulting convolution may not vary that event. It is fixed, p = 1, for both materialism and reincarnation.

 

[theprestige]

And there is no evidence you can present that it does.

Hell, he can't even present evidence that that is what the reincarnation hypothesis actually claims!

 

[JayUtah]

Hell, he can't even present evidence that that is what the reincarnation hypothesis actually claims!

Correct. He speaks of "the reincarnationist hypothesis" as if this were some well-defined thing. He has never, once, in all of five years, presented any well-formed hypothesis for what he's trying to prove. As in most other fringe arguments, he simply tears into a straw man that represents what he thinks the opposite of his claim is, and then declares victory by default without ever having put any money on the table.

Among those who profess a belief in reincarnation, the most numerous are the adherents to the various Dharmic religions. If we use that as a model, Jabba's claims are immediately shot down. Dharmics are not animists. They do not believe in individual souls. While Jabba has at times endorsed the Dharmic model, he contradicts it in other parts of his argument where he clearly requires an individual animistic soul. And for completeness, not all animists believe in reincarnation.

Nor does he supply any parameters for his model that would be instructive in formulating P(reincarnation|Jabba). He simply speculates that they must all work out in his favor as a "reasonable" alternative. It's very much akin to the UFO claimants who say that since we can't possibly know what space aliens can do, we must assume they can do anything. No, in that case we must assume there is nothing for us to reason about. Pure speculation is unprobative.

 

[Belz...]

- But, my self exists over and over again according to the reincarnation hypothesis.

That has no bearing on your current existence, and your claim.

 

[jsfisher]

- I don't know yet. I sent to an email address on Sat. They haven't answered yet.

Contact Kevin Knuth in the Physics Department directly (yes, Physics -- kknuth at ualbany.edu). Invite him to meet you for lunch. There's a Dibella's very near by the SUNY campus. Consider that.

 

[MRC_Hans]

- But, my self exists over and over again according to the reincarnation hypothesis.

Your body exists only once. You perceive your self as Jabba. Jabba exists only once.

In "OOFlam" your body is all there is. It has exactly the same likelihood to exist whether it is occupied by some "soul" or not.

Hans

 

[RoboTimbo]

- I don't know yet. I sent to an email address on Sat. They haven't answered yet.

Be sure to tell them what science says like you've told us.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Be sure to tell them what science says like you've told us.

About to say. Surely Jabba is just going to tell them they are dishonest and narrow minded like he's claimed scientist are repeatedly here.

 

[Jabba]

Contact Kevin Knuth in the Physics Department directly (yes, Physics -- kknuth at ualbany.edu). Invite him to meet you for lunch. There's a Dibella's very near by the SUNY campus. Consider that.

js,
- Thanks. I'll do that.
- Do you know him? If so, could you "pave the way" for me?
- By "pave the way," I accept that you would tell him your opinion of my argument, but encourage him to listen anyway.

 

[Monza]

- But, my self exists over and over again according to the reincarnation hypothesis.

Serious question: How do you know a previous person from the past was you? If you don't have that person's memories, feelings, preferences, gender, etc. then what is shared so that you can determine it was your self that existed in this previous body?

 

[Belz...]

js,
- Thanks. I'll do that.
- Do you know him? If so, could you "pave the way" for me?
- By "pave the way," I accept that you would tell him your opinion of my argument, but encourage him to listen anyway.

How about you focus on the fatal flaws in your argument instead?

 

[Jabba]

If, as you say, your body is "a given" then the probability that your body exists is 1. Since under materialism all that is needed for your current existence is that your body exists, then the likelihood that your body exists if materialism is true is 1. Your the likelihood of your existence if "immortality" is true, whatever that poorly defined scenario actually is, cannot be greater than this.

Mojo,
- Say that we do have a penny -- i.e., the probability that this penny exists is 1. We flip the penny and it comes up heads. What is the Bayesian likelihood that this penny is two headed?

 

[Belz...]

Mojo,
- Say that we do have a penny -- i.e., the probability that this penny exists is 1.

Quite right. And we do have a jabba -- i.e., the probability that Jabba exists now is 1.

We flip the penny and it comes up heads. What is the Bayesian likelihood that this penny is two headed?

We already know that it has two heads, that's why we flip it.

 

[jsfisher]

js,
- Thanks. I'll do that.
- Do you know him? If so, could you "pave the way" for me?
- By "pave the way," I accept that you would tell him your opinion of my argument, but encourage him to listen anyway.

I know of him. That is all.

 

[jond]

Mojo,
- Say that we do have a penny -- i.e., the probability that this penny exists is 1. We flip the penny and it comes up heads. What is the Bayesian likelihood that this penny is two headed?

Jabba, remember when you agreed that in the materialist model, the self is a process generated by the brain? That was back in December. Are you now saying that the self is NOT a process generated by the brain in the materialist model?

 

[Dancing David]

And that's the sort of thing that should be reflected in the priors. The problem is that he also wants reincarnation factors to apply to the likelihood conditioned on a single data event. His hypothesis posits a class of events from which the conditioned event is drawn. That is irrelevant to the consideration given the single data point. He has a cargo-cult model in his mind that says more chances for life must mean more centuries out of 140 million that could accommodate a Jabba. And he's struggling to make that fit a different model. "More chances for life" do not affect the single life under consideration and what he's purporting to condition upon it. Once you condition the likelihood upon some event, the resulting convolution may not vary that event. It is fixed, p = 1, for both materialism and reincarnation.

 

[Jabba]

Serious question: How do you know a previous person from the past was you? If you don't have that person's memories, feelings, preferences, gender, etc. then what is shared so that you can determine it was your self that existed in this previous body?

Mojo,
- If there is such a thing as reincarnation, at least most of us would not know that the previous person was "us."

 

[Dancing David]

Hell, he can't even present evidence that that is what the reincarnation hypothesis actually claims!

What! I am shocked I tell you!

 

[jond]

Mojo,
- If there is such a thing as reincarnation, at least most of us would not know that the previous person was "us."

How would you determine if it was a brand new person or a reincarnated one?

 

[Belz...]

Mojo,
- If there is such a thing as reincarnation, at least most of us would not know that the previous person was "us."

That has nothing to do with your claim. Stick to the fatal flaws in your claim. You've failed at doing anything else so far.