Cont: Proof of Immortality VIII

Jabba said:
- 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?
Click to expand...


Not without evidence, no.

Jabba, a prior probability isn't, as you seem to think, something you pull from your nether regions; it's an estimate based on the existing evidence.
 
I'm pretty sure we could use dark magic to resurrect Thomas Bayes himself and he would not agree to any of Jabba's nonsense.
 
Hey just checking in and saw the way the conversation is heading at the moment. Wanted to let you all know that 31% of my particular self is actually Bayes so I'm a bit of an authority. Of course another 12% was most recently a potted plant in Stockholm but one takes what one can get.

Feel free to ask me anything you need, or more simply you could refer to any of my prior posts since Jabba never really moves on or replies properly anyway. I'll swing by in another week or two maybe!
 
Jabba said:
- I should have said that the likelihood of my current self is in regard to a hypothesis, not to actuality.
Click to expand...

It makes no difference:

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:
- 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?
Click to expand...

Mojo said:
Not without evidence, no.

Jabba, a prior probability isn't, as you seem to think, something you pull from your nether regions; it's an estimate based on the existing evidence.
Click to expand...
Mojo,
- Yeah. I accept that the evidence is weak -- but strong enough to give a prior probability of at least .01.
- And even if you figure that the prior probability is only .0000000001 (but my formula is otherwise correct) the posterior probability of ~OOFLam -- given the current existence of my self --is much greater than the posterior probability of OOFLam -- given the current existence of my self.
 
Jabba said:
but strong enough to give a prior probability of at least .01.
Click to expand...

Show how you computed this.

...the posterior probability of ~OOFLam -- given the current existence of my self...
Click to expand...

...is derived from a purely made-up number. You made it up because it's a very small number, and only because it's a very small number. You did that because your attempt to invent a new number that's both zero and non-zero didn't work. You propose a very small number not because you've computed it to be so, but because you decided ahead of time that it needed to be a small number for your proof to come out the way you needed.

There's no science or math in any of that. It's just begging the question with numbers.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Mojo,
- Yeah. I accept that the evidence is weak -- but strong enough to give a prior probability of at least .01.
Click to expand...
Can you show where you did the math to arrive at that figure?

- And even if you figure that the prior probability is only .0000000001
Click to expand...
Or that figure?

(but my formula is otherwise correct)
Click to expand...
It isn't.

the posterior probability of ~OOFLam -- given the current existence of my self --is much greater than the posterior probability of OOFLam
Click to expand...
Can you link to where that was shown? On this page you've said that the likelihood of your existence under materialism is 1. Which is what everyone has been telling you.

-- given the current existence of my self.
Click to expand...
And the "self", under materialism, is generated by the brain, which is a given. Right.
 
Jabba said:
Mojo,
- Yeah. I accept that the evidence is weak -- but strong enough to give a prior probability of at least .01.
- And even if you figure that the prior probability is only .0000000001 (but my formula is otherwise correct) the posterior probability of ~OOFLam -- given the current existence of my self --is much greater than the posterior probability of OOFLam -- given the current existence of my self.
Click to expand...


Does "OOFLam" include immaterial souls, or is it a model in which your consciousness is produced by your brain?
 
Jabba said:
Mojo,
- Yeah. I accept that the evidence is weak -- but strong enough to give a prior probability of at least .01.
Click to expand...

You have ZERO evidence. How is that strong enough for anything?

- And even if you figure that the prior probability is only .0000000001 (but my formula is otherwise correct) the posterior probability of ~OOFLam -- given the current existence of my self --is much greater than the posterior probability of OOFLam -- given the current existence of my self.
Click to expand...

Yes, if you plug in made-up numbers which automatically and by definition make ~H more likely, ~H will be more likely. Meanwhile, you admitted that H has a probability of 1, so I don't know why you're still arguing about this.
 
Mojo said:
Does "OOFLam" include immaterial souls, or is it a model in which your consciousness is produced by your brain?
Click to expand...
Mojo,
- The latter.
- But, if you only have a brain -- which produces your self -- and no immaterial soul, the likelihood of you currently existing is less than 10-100, even though you currently exist. Likelihood isn't based upon actuality; it's based upon the hypothesis being evaluated. Something happens and you wonder how that affects the probability of a particular (and, relevant) hypothesis.
 
Jabba said:
But, if you only have a brain -- which produces your self -- and no immaterial soul, the likelihood of you currently existing is less than 10-100...
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. That's a number you pulled out of your bunghole. You've done nothing to validly connect it to anything.

Likelihood isn't based upon actuality; it's based upon the hypothesis being evaluated.
Click to expand...

The hypothesis being evaluated is materialism. Under materialism, having a brain guarantees having a self. You keep trying to replace materialism with a straw man of your own devising. Your critics have finally cornered you into admitting what materialism really is. Now under that admission, your whole argument evaporates -- just as it does for anyone who actually knows how to work these problems instead of vaguely remembering half-finished courses from decades ago.

Something happens and you wonder how that affects the probability of a particular (and, relevant) hypothesis.
Click to expand...

What happens is that you exist and have a brain. That's the self under materialism. If materialism is the hypothesis on which the likelihood ratio is conditioned, then the likelihood ratio is not some imaginary small number. As you admitted earlier, the weight of evidence is indiscriminate in this case.
 
Jabba said:
- In H, your self is produced by your brain -- which is exactly why the likelihood that your self would currently exist -- given H -- is so small.
Click to expand...

That is the exact opposite of the logical conclusion. It's like saying that the earth has a great gravity field and that this is exactly why we should be able to fly.

If under materialism the self is produced by the brain, which you already admitted here, and the brain under materialism has a likelihood of 1, which you already admitted here, then the self has a likelihood of 1 under materialism. That destroys your entire, 60-year quest for proving immortality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom