Cont: Proof of Immortality VIII

[JayUtah]

- Isn't that what you meant when you said "including the ones you can't think of"?

No it isn't.

Amazing how your willingness and ability to scour the thread for previous posts seems to miraculously manifest itself so selectively. So I expect you to quit whining when others expect you to do the same for them.

 

[Loss Leader]

- Re #2, only on this "earthly plain."

Plane. P L A N E.

And you haven't aduced even the slightest hint of evidence that there is anything other than the material plane.

Also, the tenets of materialism under which you have to formulate half your equation don't allow for the existence of anything other than this earthly plane.

Also, all of your other arguments, numbers and conclusions are wrong.

 

[Mojo]

- I don't follow...

The complement to anything is "everything else". It is completely defined by whatever it is a complement to.

 

[Mojo]

Hans,
- No.
- Re #2, only on this "earthly plain."

You have previously stated that the soul itself has no specific characteristics, and that all its characteristics, all the things that make it "you", are produced by the brain.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Hans,
- No.
- Re #2, only on this "earthly plain."

Well, the earthly plane is what we are discussing. You have agreed that a soul does not make an earthly being more likely to exist.
In case you forgot, here:

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

Hans

- No.

Hans

 

[Belz...]

- Isn't that what you meant when you said "including the ones you can't think of"?

Gee, I guess you can find those posts really easily, right?

 

[jond]

Hans,
- No.
- Re #2, only on this "earthly plain."

Remember all the times you’ve been called out for trying to add things into the materialist model that do not belong? Right here is exhibit A.

 

[JayUtah]

Well, the earthly plane is what we are discussing. You have agreed that a soul does not make an earthly being more likely to exist.

Specifically, the earthly plane is all we have data for. If someone agrees that the data isn't any more likely under his hypothesis than another, that statement can be expressed mathematically in terms of relative likelihood. Jabba has claimed that his earthly-plane existence is more likely by reincarnation. Then see how easy it is to get him to admit it isn't. And now he seems to realize he's been cornered yet again. Thus prepare yourself for, "But my claim is..." followed by a whole lot of faux befuddlement.

 

[JayUtah]

The complement to anything is "everything else". It is completely defined by whatever it is a complement to.

That's why he insists on formulating his model in terms of observable outcome rather than hypotheses. If your model is ill-formed like that, you can hide a false dilemma so much easier.

 

[abaddon]

Specifically, the earthly plane is all we have data for. If someone agrees that the data isn't any more likely under his hypothesis than another, that statement can be expressed mathematically in terms of relative likelihood. Jabba has claimed that his earthly-plane existence is more likely by reincarnation. Then see how easy it is to get him to admit it isn't. And now he seems to realize he's been cornered yet again. Thus prepare yourself for, "But my claim is..." followed by a whole lot of faux befuddlement.

Part true, and part not.

I think Jabba's claim revolves around attempting to assert that a soul is part and parcel of the materialist hypothesis. He is simply attempting to insert a soul into materialism.

What he seems to not understand for whatever reason, is that he is not required to accept the materialist hypothesis at all, but he is required to formulate it correctly even if he does not agree/accept it.

Jabba's contention seems to be a suppositional position, whereby all of us godless atheists really know there is a god/soul/reincarnation/cat but simply deny it on a willful basis.

I could well be wrong, but there seems no mythology he will not espouse in pursuit of that goal. Famously, the shroud of turin, a catholic emblem. But reincarnation, a catholic heresy, or a most christian heresy, or an islamic heresy.

At this point, Jabba has probably been a heretic for all established religions and plenty of fringe exemplars.

I wonder how it is possible to hold so many mutually exclusively contradictory positions and what might one gain from that?

 

[JayUtah]

Gee, I guess you can find those posts really easily, right?

Jabba's argument is nothing if not selective attention. Notice how he quotes only from the parts that seem to be in contradiction -- the quickie sound bites. But he reserves the right to skip over the lengthier posts that actually tell the whole story about how this sort of reasoning does take place.

It's even more ironic to note that while Jabba pontificates on the difference between probability and likelihood, his formulation is really only about probability. He doesn't show the ability to think in terms of likelihoods the way they're actually used -- only conditional probabilities where the complement is a strongly operative concept and all the hypotheses are mutually exclusive. It's a very simplistic, crude formulation -- the kind you'd expect from someone who only poorly recalls his partial exposure to the concepts, and that decades ago. Jsfisher was trying to get him to see that. :And I spend inordinate amounts of time in the past week trying to elaborate those concepts to Jabba. And what do we get? Jabba suddenly being able to dig up past posts and convince himself he's sprung a "gotcha!" trap.

Pointing out that a complement of a hypothesis must by definition include all other possibilities is not the same as saying that all those possibilities can be enumerated and tested for any given problem. The practical upshot of this is that real-world comparison of hypotheses other than the null doesn't rely on complementary reasoning. And in no way is the conundrum dispelled by a catch-all hypothesis. Merely acknowledging that one or more unknowable hypotheses remain in your formulation after you've done your best to enumerate them all doesn't cure the problem. Attempting to assign priors and likelihoods given data to such a catch-all predicate necessarily implies that the assignment can have no rational basis. That's why actual statisticians use a different method for reasoning of this kind. Jabba: "Do you agree that this is the right formula?" No, we don't agree. And he's been told why it's statistically wrong to agree. It relies on knowledge that can't be had.

 

[JayUtah]

I think Jabba's claim revolves around attempting to assert that a soul is part and parcel of the materialist hypothesis. He is simply attempting to insert a soul into materialism.

Yes. I see it as Jabba trying to make "something like a soul" (but not actually called that) a necessary part of the data that all hypotheses have to explain.

What he seems to not understand for whatever reason, is that he is not required to accept the materialist hypothesis at all, but he is required to formulate it correctly even if he does not agree/accept it.

He has to reckon P(E|M) as if materialism (M) is true, and he gets to reckon P(E|R) as if reincarnation is true. But he doesn't get to define E in terms of all the speculative stuff he's attached to it. E is merely the observation of an event not including suppositions of how it happened or what else "would have to be" part of the event (yet remains unobserved) if a certain hypothesis had been responsible for it. One of the fatal flaws in Jabba's argument is that he doesn't understand the parts of a statistical inference and the roles they play. That's the sort of deficiency that's expected when someone has only treated the subject academically (and perhaps not really done well in the class) and has never actually had to use those tools in practice.

Jabba's contention seems to be a suppositional position, whereby all of us godless atheists really know there is a god/soul/reincarnation/cat but simply deny it on a willful basis.

I don't think it's anything that noble. I think his supposition is that all us godless atheists really know he's a mathematical genius who has proved conclusively the existence of an immortal soul, but we deny it willfully because we just can't stomach the prospect of being beaten at our own game by a non-skeptic. A substantial part of the social-engineering aspects of his argument is the victim complex. He claims we're being unfair and uncivil to him personally, not necessarily to some idea or ideology.

I could well be wrong, but there seems no mythology he will not espouse in pursuit of that goal.

True, but I don't see where any of his arguments actually require belief on his part. He's not trying to prove something about his god. He's trying to prove something about atheists and skeptics. It doesn't matter what ends up being right as long as skeptics are shown clearly to be wrong. Rebuttals that allege hypocrisy matter only if he has professed some specific belief and only if the fact of that belief (not the fact of what is believed) bears on his argument. It's theoretically possible to prove reincarnation is a better hypothesis without needing first to express a belief in it.

 

[Jabba]

That formula does follow from the basic Bayes Theorem. However, you do not have a complementary hypothesis. The H you have is that of a materialistic reality. Immortality is not the complement of that. It is just one of the possibilities.
So, no, you cannot use that formula.

js,
- My complement included 8 different possibilities.
- In addition, my next version will assert the complement of OOFLam as it pertains only to me -- and thereby, reduce the number of possibilities in the complement...

To be a complement it has to include all of them, including the ones you can't think of. Your answer indicates you don't know what "complement" means in this case...

- Sorry.
I actually included 9 different possibilities.

- Here's the latest version of my syllogism.
THE MATH OF MORTALITY...
Re P(E|~H):
The probability (“likelihood”) of E given ~H, involves several specific hypothetical possibilities.
That only some of us have but one finite life.
That we each have numerous finite lives.
That only some of us have numerous finite lives.
That we each have an infinity of finite lives.
That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives.
That we each have an infinite life.
That only some of us have an infinite life.
That time isn’t what we think it is.
Some other explanation.

No, you included an admission that you couldn't think of all the possibilities. That means you don't have a complement. Pray tell your critics how to compute P(some other explanation) and P(evidence|some other explanation) for any class of problem, in some way that does not amount to mere guesswork or indirection. Statisticians around the globe are waiting for this profound bit of wisdom.

Jay,
- But how else could I refer to the ones I can't think of?

 

[JayUtah]

But how else could I refer to the ones I can't think of?

Read my posts, including the long ones you don't feel it necessary to read. I literally answered this question just a few minutes ago.

 

[Jabba]

Read my posts, including the long ones you don't feel it necessary to read. I literally answered this question just a few minutes ago.

- Yeah. For some reason, I didn't realize that my previous attempt had been published -- I thought that I had some how deleted it -- so I went through the details again...

 

[JayUtah]

- Yeah. For some reason, I didn't realize that my previous attempt had been published -- I thought that I had some how deleted it -- so I went through the details again...

If you have time post this sort of irrelevant running commentary, you have time to read what I've written for your benefit. Please quit stalling and address my posts.

 

[Jabba]

To be a complement it has to include all of them, including the ones you can't think of. Your answer indicates you don't know what "complement" means in this case...

- Here's the latest version of my syllogism.
THE MATH OF MORTALITY...
Re P(E|~H):
The probability (“likelihood”) of E given ~H, involves several specific hypothetical possibilities.
That only some of us have but one finite life.
That we each have numerous finite lives.
That only some of us have numerous finite lives.
That we each have an infinity of finite lives.
That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives.
That we each have an infinite life.
That only some of us have an infinite life.
That time isn’t what we think it is.
Some other explanation.

- Sorry.
I actually included 9 different possibilities.

No, you included an admission that you couldn't think of all the possibilities. That means you don't have a complement. Pray tell your critics how to compute P(some other explanation) and P(evidence|some other explanation) for any class of problem, in some way that does not amount to mere guesswork or indirection. Statisticians around the globe are waiting for this profound bit of wisdom.

- Isn't that what you meant when you said "including the ones you can't think of"?

No it isn't.
Amazing how your willingness and ability to scour the thread for previous posts seems to miraculously manifest itself so selectively. So I expect you to quit whining when others expect you to do the same for them.

- How would you refer to the possibilities you can't think of? I don't have time to read and understand your long posts. It shouldn't take you much time to specifically point out the post you're referring to.

 

[JayUtah]

How would you refer to the possibilities you can't think of?

I wouldn't. You obviously haven't read my posts. Please remedy that problem before proceeding further.

 

[Jabba]

I wouldn't. You obviously haven't read my posts. Please remedy that problem before proceeding further.

- No.
- I'll have to leave you behind and answer only those participants who are willing to be more specific. Though, I probably will respond to simple accusations or questions from you -- until you go back to telling me to look up something for myself.
- If I tried to look up whatever you tell me to, I wouldn't be able to answer anybody else.

 

[Jabba]

I don't see where you've made any new claims. As before, I disagree with your whole approach. I think you are misusing Bayes Theorem.

Dave,
- Please explain how you think that I'm misusing Bayes Theorem.