Cont: Proof of Immortality VIII

JoeMorgue said:
Dollars to donuts "Too much" is he let it slip that he was trying to prove an absurdity. He probably meant to try and slide the question in under their radar by not directly referencing the Woo he is peddling but let some slip through and they are (rightfully) ignoring him because these are professionals who don't have time for that sort of nonsense.
Click to expand...


Bingo! Probably decided trimming their fingernails or washing the car was more important.
 
JayUtah said:
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.
Click to expand...

yes, there was a vague hand wave, and I seem to remember that distant time
 
Jabba said:
Mojo,
- I have a little evidence.
- What percentage would you give the prior probability of reincarnation?
Click to expand...


What evidence do you have for it? Is it the same load of rubbish you had before?
 
Last edited:
He has no evidence. We all know that. Hell I think he knows that.

He has wild made up fantasies he hides behind calling them "claims" or "hypothesis" and a never ending list of excuses and copouts.
 
Jabba said:
The likelihood of my current existence is in regard to a hypothesis, not to actuality.
Click to expand...

Hypotheses are pointless if they don't translate into reality.

Anyway you've already admitted that under OOFLAM/H/Whatever the odds of your existence are 1, so there is nothing more to discuss.
 
Jabba said:
Mojo,...
- 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:
...
...therefore you're immortal, huh?
Click to expand...
- Yeah. If OOFLam is correct, the likelihood of my current existence is only 10-100.
 
Jabba said:
- Yeah. If OOFLam is correct, the likelihood of my current existence is only 10-100.
Click to expand...

And if you call a tail a leg a dog has five legs.

OOFLAM isn't correct. It's total made up nonsense. It's meaningless gibberish.
 
Jabba said:
- Yeah. If OOFLam is correct, the likelihood of my current existence is only 10-100.
Click to expand...

No, you admitted that it is 1, right here:

Jabba said:
godless dave said:
Do you accept that the materialist model is that the brain generates the process?
Click to expand...

- Yes.
Click to expand...

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...

So the brain generates the self under materialism, and the brain has a probability of 1. Thereofre your self has a probability of 1 under materialism. Ergo OOFLAM has a likelihood of 1, ergo your entire theory collapses. Thanks for playing.
 
Jabba said:
Mojo,
- I have a little evidence.
- What percentage would you give the prior probability of reincarnation?...
Click to expand...

Mojo said:
What evidence do you have for it? Is it the same load of rubbish you had before?
Click to expand...
- Yeah.
- It is the weak evidence I had before. Though, there is a lot more weak evidence out there -- you just got to look for it.
- But again, would you give the reincarnation hypothesis any prior probability at all?
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
It is the weak evidence I had before.
Click to expand...

Then going over it again is pointless. Your proposed evidence has been properly rejected, and the refutations ignored by you. Merely referring to it again does not magically rehabilitate it.

Though, there is a lot more weak evidence out there -- you just got to look for it.
Click to expand...

Volume is not rigor. You are the one arguing in favor of reincarnation. It is your responsibility to present evidence in favor of your argument. Do not shift responsibility.

But again, would you give the reincarnation hypothesis any prior probability at all?
Click to expand...

There is no "the" reincarnation hypothesis in your argument. You change your story every day -- sometimes more often -- about how you think it might work. Explain how, under those circumstances, there could be a rational basis for giving a prior probability. In any case, it is not your critics' responsibility to validate your method or to guess at numbers to populate it with. You are the one claiming that reincarnation has a non-negligible prior probability. Satisfy that claim or withdraw it.
 
Jabba said:
The likelihood of my current existence is in regard to a hypothesis, not to actuality.
Click to expand...

In the materialist hypothesis, your brain and your self are one and the same. There is no other thing involved. If your brain is a given, so then is your self.
 
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...
- I tried to go back to one of the stat forums I had been on, but couldn't get my connection restored...
- I'll try them again, and go to a different forum if that doesn't work.
- I still believe that Bayesian inference virtually proves that OOFLam is wrong.
Click to expand...


There is a Bayesian statistiian on the factulry of University of California, Irvine who has done substantial work on supernatural topics. I won't mention her by name, but it's easy enough to figure out who she is. Maybe you should email her.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom