Cont: Proof of Immortality VIII

Jabba said:
- OK. Again, I'm not very good with the terminology.
Click to expand...
BTW, this is quite the excuse you have. Any time you make a claim about maths and probability that is provably false or betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of the subject, you can just dismiss it by claiming that you're actually correct, you just lack the jargon and technical qualifications to express it correctly.

I've only been following this discussion on and off for a while, but I can see what the others mean by your 'befuddled old man' routine you use to handwave away any claim you put forth that turns out to be provably false.

And on top of this you're churned out an excuse about how some maths course at college 40 years ago was cancelled which is why you don't have the necessary maths background. That's an epically pathetic excuse, given that you first came up with this idea some 60 years ago and have had literally decades to undertake the necessary studies to fill in the gaps in your knowledge.

Doubly so, when you have, in the past, insisted upon describing yourself as a "certified statistician". You're a certified statistician, which is why you understand the maths and why you're correct about all the maths, but you're also just a poor befuddled non-expert who just lacks the qualifications to express the maths using the correct terminology, which is why you appear to be wrong all the time...

The more I read of this discussion, the more I understand the lack of sympathy your opponents have for you, their disdain for your intellectually dishonest tactics, and the harshness of their criticism.
 
Jabba said:
- If I'm immortal, I always exist. And if my soul/self is reincarnated over and over, I'm much more likely to currently exist than if I exist for only one finite time, at most, over all of time.
Click to expand...


There is no point in discussing this until you give succinct definitions for the two highlighted words. You never have and we know you never will.
 
Jabba said:
- Maybe so.
- That would make a lot of sense. But so far, the more I think about it, the less I see room for error.
Click to expand...
Which should tell you how much in error your thinking is. Is that why you can't face the numerous fatal flaws in your arguments?
 
jt512 said:
Actually, what I was referring to was the following form of Bayes' Theorem, which is especially convernient for comparing hypotheses:

P(A|B) / P(A'|B) = P(B|A) / P(B|A') × P(A)/P(A') ,

or in words,

(posterior odds) = (likelihood ratio) × (prior odds) ,

where A and A' are two hypotheses. The first term on the rhs is what is normally referred to as the likelilood ratio (after all it is a ratio of likelihoods), the term I said was sometimes called the weight of the evidence. Notice that it does not involve the priors, unlike P(B|A)/P(B), since B usually must be calculated from the Law of Total Probability, which requires knowing the priors for each hypothesis.
Click to expand...
jt,
- Do you accept that the formula I'm using is appropriate for evaluating complementary hypotheses? That's
- P(H|E) = P(E|H) x P(H)/(P(E|H) x P(H) + P(E|~H) x P(~H)).
 
Jabba said:
jt,
- Do you accept that the formula I'm using is appropriate for evaluating complementary hypotheses? That's
- P(H|E) = P(E|H) x P(H)/(P(E|H) x P(H) + P(E|~H) x P(~H)).
Click to expand...

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.

We accept no formula because your numbers are made up nonsense.
 
Jabba said:
- If I'm immortal, I always exist. And if my soul/self is reincarnated over and over, I'm much more likely to currently exist than if I exist for only one finite time, at most, over all of time.
Click to expand...

jsfisher said:
Not in any sense for which you claim to have evidence. Your whole claim of existence is based on a sense of self, remember? And that sense of self is a collection of memories and physical stimuli. None of that corresponds to the always-existing soul you claim you must be.
Click to expand...
js,
- I think you're just saying that reincarnation is impossible?
 
Jabba said:
Monza
- For some reason, you've made contradictory statements above. If immortality is real -- and I think it is -- I did exist in 1888, and will exist in 2119 (if time gets that far).
Click to expand...

Monza said:
Thank you, Belz and MRC_Hans. Yes, the contradiction was from Jabba as he answered the questions one way and then flipped to the other. I quoted his latest response, but he may have changed his mind since then.

Jabba, what is the difference between an immortal person and a mortal one? How can we tell the difference?
Click to expand...
Monza,
- Please point me to where I made these contradictory statements.
 
Jabba said:
js,
- I think you're just saying that reincarnation is impossible?
Click to expand...

What should be obvious, and which you have been told multiple times by multiple members is: if what is reincarnated is your "sense of self" but the reincarnation doesn't share your sense of self, how does it make any sense to consider it the same self?
 
Jabba said:
js,
- I think you're just saying that reincarnation is impossible?
Click to expand...

Stop being intentionally dense and asking the same thing over and over.

Stop being intentionally dense and asking the same thing over and over.

Stop being intentionally dense and asking the same thing over and over.

Stop being intentionally dense and asking the same thing over and over.

Stop being intentionally dense and asking the same thing over and over.

Stop being intentionally dense and asking the same thing over and over.

Stop being intentionally dense and asking the same thing over and over.
 
JayUtah said:
And maybe you don't see room for error because of the same ineptitude that prevents you from seeing the error itself. You're still just begging the question that you're proficient enough not only to do the work but to validate your own efforts. You haven't shown any evidence that you are even remotely competent at statistical reasoning. Pray tell us what special brand of "thinking about it" magically endows you with a skill you clearly don't have.



You've been told at length what's wrong with your argument. Stop flitting from poster to poster, searching for the path of least resistance. Stop asking people to repeat themselves incessantly for your benefit. Stop ignoring everyone.
Click to expand...
Jay,
- Give me your specifics -- either numbered, or one at a time. And, don't tell me to go look for myself for your specifics -- you've written about as much as everyone else combined, and each post is full of name-calling. That's why I can't keep up...
- Anyway, do you accept that the formula I'm using is appropriate for evaluating complementary hypotheses? That's
- P(H|E) = P(E|H) x P(H)/(P(E|H) x P(H) + P(E|~H) x P(~H)).
 
Jabba said:
- Give me your specifics -- either numbered, or one at a time. And, don't tell me to go look for myself for your specifics -- you've written about as much as everyone else combined, and each post is full of name-calling. That's why I can't keep up...
Click to expand...

Nobody believes you can't keep up.

Nobody believes you can't keep up.

Nobody believes you can't keep up.

Nobody believes you can't keep up.

Nobody believes you can't keep up.
 
jond said:
What should be obvious, and which you have been told multiple times by multiple members is: if what is reincarnated is your "sense of self" but the reincarnation doesn't share your sense of self, how does it make any sense to consider it the same self?
Click to expand...
jond,
- I'm claiming -- like the reincarnationists -- that your self is more than your memories. It's this "more" that I think might continue to exist, and recur in different brains.
 
Jabba said:
jond,
- I'm claiming -- like the reincarnationists -- that your self is more than your memories. It's this "more" that I think might continue to exist, and recur in different brains.
Click to expand...

Fine! You are free to think that. Does it make your current brain more likely to exist?

Hans
 
jond said:
What should be obvious, and which you have been told multiple times by multiple members is: if what is reincarnated is your "sense of self" but the reincarnation doesn't share your sense of self, how does it make any sense to consider it the same self?
Click to expand...
jond,
- The claim is that the new brain does share my sense of self -- it just (in most cases) does not share any (conscious) memories.
- I used to hypnotize people. Twice I age-regressed them back to "previous lifetimes," and they came up with something. I sort of suspect that they just made up their stories, but then, it could be that hypnosis allowed them to access unconscious memories...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom