Cont: Proof of Immortality VIII

Jabba said:
Zoo,
- Sure. Jay has probably given hundreds of specifics just in Chapter VIII. But he refuses to be specific about the specific he's referring back to.
Click to expand...

He's tired of spoon-feeding you. If you had bothered to read the specifics he gave before and address them, say, to the exclusion of anyone else, you wouldn't have lost the benefit of the doubt. I mean, how often do you expect everyone to do your job for you?

Here's a piece of advice: next time you feel like rummaging through the thread looking back for stuff to post a gotcha around, don't. Instead, find the one post we all want you to address, the one with the fatal flaws, and do what Jay has been asking you to do for months. Literally any other action is a waste of time.
 
Jabba said:
CT,
- I've emailed 2 different SUNY Professors. It's probably been a week since the last email and two since the first. I probably said too much about what I wanted to do...
Click to expand...

What makes you think telling them all this in person would change?

- I still believe that Bayesian inference virtually proves that OOFLam is wrong.
Click to expand...

Only when you plug in made-up numbers that you can't justify into it.
 
Belz... said:
He's tired of spoon-feeding you.
Click to expand...

Spoon feed him hell. He wants us to regurgitate it down his throat baby bird style.

I've been in a lot of Woo arguments where literally every argument made gets misrepresented but this is the first time I've ever been in an argument where the other side keeps trying to outsource misrepresenting my own arguments back to me because they are just too lazy to do it themselves.
 
jond said:
For your current existence under ~H, you must now multiply .01 (or .001) x P(B) because you still have to account for the fact that your brain exists, whether or not you have a soul. You have again now agreed that P(H) = P(B).
Click to expand...
jond,
- No. Yours is still the Conjunction Fallacy-Fallacy. IOW, I'm not making a Conjunction Fallacy. In my formula, the brain is a given, and it's Probability is 1. So, if I multiplied the brain's probability [P(B)] times the prior probability of .01, I still get .01.
 
Jabba said:
In my formula, the brain is a given, and it's Probability is 1.
Click to expand...

Ah, another one of your "estimates." How do you calculate that the existence of your specific brain, among all the possible brains that could have existed, is a certainty under your ill-defined hypothesis, when you've equally arbitrarily decided it has a probability of 10-100 in the hypothesis you want to pretend yours is the complement to?

Dave
 
Jabba said:
I probably said too much about what I wanted to do...
Click to expand...
A pity you aren't at the "lying to them" stage then.

- I still believe that Bayesian inference virtually proves that OOFLam is wrong.
Click to expand...
Beliefs aren't evidence of anything. It's been shown objectively that you are incorrect and your arguments are riddled with fatal flaws.

Belief doesn't overcome that.
 
Jabba said:
Mojo,
- I'll need to re-think that. As a quick rethink, I halfway believe in reincarnation and if there is such a thing, I suspect that we do learn, and carry our learnings with us, as we progress through lifetimes...
- Though, I don't put a whole lot of stock in any particular explanation for the unlikelihood of my current existence -- I just think that -- scientifically speaking -- my current existence is like a total miracle.
Click to expand...

Mojo said:
- But you have no evidence for this...
Click to expand...
Mojo,
- I have a little evidence.
- What percentage would you give the prior probability of reincarnation?

-If you give it any probability at all, the posterior probability of ~OOFLam -- given my current existence and the prior probability of reincarnation -- is still greater than the posterior probability of OOFLam --
given my current existence and the prior probability of OOFLam.
 
Jabba said:
-If you give it any probability at all, the posterior probability of ~OOFLam -- given my current existence and the prior probability of reincarnation -- is still greater than the posterior probability of OOFLam --
given my current existence and the prior probability of OOFLam.
Click to expand...

This is yet another mathematical impossibility. Your claim rests on the existence of a number so small that, even when multiplied by any other number, it remains smaller than any other possible number. You've chosen to call that number "virtually zero," a nonexistent mathematical concept because its required properties are mathematically impossible.

Let me give you an example.

Suppose you calculate that a specific event A, known to have happened, has a 1/10100 probability of happening in conjunction with event B, and a probability of 1 of happening without B. Your argument is therefore that A is so improbable in conjunction with B that B must be impossible. However, this is mathematical nonsense; if the a priori odds of event B not happening are 1/10100000000, you may be very confident that event B has in fact occurred.

In effect, you're saying that, if you got the winning lottery ticket, it's so unlikely that there can't have been a lottery. But if there hadn't been a lottery, you couldn't have bought the ticket.

Dave
 
Jabba said:
Mojo,
- I have a little evidence.
Click to expand...

Zero is not "little". It's nothing.

-If you give it any probability at all, the posterior probability of ~OOFLam -- given my current existence and the prior probability of reincarnation -- is still greater than the posterior probability of OOFLam --
given my current existence and the prior probability of OOFLam.
Click to expand...

No. You're entirely wrong.
 
Jabba said:
I have a little evidence.
Click to expand...

No, you have a bunch of dishonestly pursued pseudoscience. You presented your so-called evidence. I examined it in depth. For each item in the bibliography of the organization you sent us to, I identified the fatal scientific flaw their studies had made. I further illustrated their arrogant rebuffs of the rest of the relevant scientific community who found the same flaws.

Not surprisingly, you went on your merry way pretending none of that happened. Given your disinterest in rehabilitating your case, I'd say that at this point you have no evidence.

What percentage would you give the prior probability of reincarnation?
Click to expand...

Not your critics' job. If you're going to pursue this form of argument, you need to give us P(reincarnation) as a finite number, and explain to us where that number came from. Since your description of how reincarnation is supposed to work varies several times a day, it's probably fair to say that your hypothesis is entirely speculation. What is the prior probability of any proposition that is purely speculative and changes shape daily? What is the probability such a chimeric proposition could actually be real?

If you give it any probability at all, the posterior probability of ~OOFLam -- given my current existence and the prior probability of reincarnation -- is still greater than the posterior probability of OOFLam...
Click to expand...

Only because your math is wrong.
 
Jabba said:
CT,
- I've emailed 2 different SUNY Professors. It's probably been a week since the last email and two since the first. I probably said too much about what I wanted to do...
Click to expand...
OK, I have had occasion to mail many tenured professors, indeed, one of my closest friends is an actual tenured professor. Always, a polite inquiry generates a polite response. WTF did you send?

Jabba said:
- I tried to go back to one of the stat forums I had been on, but couldn't get my connection restored...
Click to expand...
Baloney. Every site has a recover password procedure. The only way that could happen is if you were banned. Give me the site and user name and I will make an account there to appeal your banning. I don't want your password.

Jabba said:
- I'll try them again, and go to a different forum if that doesn't work.
Click to expand...
No, you won't.

Jabba said:
- I still believe that Bayesian inference virtually proves that OOFLam is wrong.
Click to expand...
Whatever. Sure your imaginary OOFLAM is wrong, everyone agrees that it is wrong. But it is not materialism. It is just your strawman version of materialism.

If H is your "OOFLAM" then de facto your ~H includes materialism and your argument falls to pieces.
 
Jabba said:
So, if I multiplied the brain's probability [P(B)] times the prior probability of .01, I still get .01.
Click to expand...

Your priors are not independent. Your priors are conjoined on the matter of the brain. They form a conjunction. Now it's been shown to you that the weight of evidence is indiscriminate in your argument. When that happens, the posterior probabilities are merely the priors. If the priors have a conjunctive relationship in that case, the posteriors must. Several statisticians have tried to point this out to you.
 
Jabba said:
jond,
- No. Yours is still the Conjunction Fallacy-Fallacy. IOW, I'm not making a Conjunction Fallacy. In my formula, the brain is a given, and it's Probability is 1. So, if I multiplied the brain's probability [P(B)] times the prior probability of .01, I still get .01.
Click to expand...

If the brain is a given, then the likelihood of your current existence under H is 1. The brain generates your sense of self, therefore the only sense of self it could be is the one created by the brain.
 
Jabba said:
Mojo,
- I have a little evidence.
- What percentage would you give the prior probability of reincarnation?
Click to expand...

the prior probability is zero

You have no actual evidence, you vaguely hand waved at a loose collection of cherry picked wishful thinking.

There is zero evidence for reincarnation until you present some that can be discussed.

" I posted some earlier" is not evidence in any way.
"Somebody has a vague loose association that doepsn't rule out confounding factors" is not evidence
 
Dancing David said:
There is zero evidence for reincarnation until you present some that can be discussed.
Click to expand...

He did present it. It was discussed and thoroughly refuted. Jabba simply ignored all of that, probably under the standard excuse of it being more than he could keep up with. Nor was it the first time his evidence was presented, discussed, and refuted. Nor even the third time. It's the cyclical nature of this argument, owing largely to Jabba's never giving more than lip service to what anyone except he says. This is what the previous statistics forum concluded, but they were smarter than us in not letting him go in circles so many times before concluding he wasn't worth anyone's attention.
 
jond said:
If the brain is a given, then the likelihood of your current existence under H is 1. The brain generates your sense of self, therefore the only sense of self it could be is the one created by the brain.
Click to expand...
The likelihood of my current existence is in regard to a hypothesis, not to actuality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom