Cont: Proof of Immortality VIII

"If you agree to already agree that I'm correct before I start I can prove I'm only likely to exist if I already exist, therefore I'm immortal in a way that doesn't actually mean any distinct part of me is immortal. Also scientists and skeptics are big mean poopie heads who don't know how to argue effectively."
 
Jabba said:
- I'm claiming that my brain is a given in both hypotheses, and the probability of my brain is, therefore, 1 in both.
- Consequently, when I multiply the probability of my brain times the likelihood of the current existence of my self -- given the two different hypotheses -- I'm effectively left with only the likelihoods of each -- i.e., 10-100 for H, and .0062 for ~H.
Click to expand...

No. In the materialist hypothesis, the current existence of your self is an inevitable consequence of the current existence of your brain, which you've taken as a given in both hypotheses. Therefore, the existence of your self given the materialist hypothesis is 1. Your proof now relies on the probability of your existence under the complement of materialism being greater than 1, which is a bit of a high hurdle to clear.

Dave
ETA: Sorry, beaten to it by RoboTimbo.
 
Jabba said:
- No.
- I'm claiming that my brain is a given in both hypotheses, and the probability of my brain is, therefore, 1 in both.
- Consequently, when I multiply the probability of my brain times the likelihood of the current existence of my self -- given the two different hypotheses -- I'm effectively left with only the likelihoods of each -- i.e., 10-100 for H, and .0062 for ~H.
Click to expand...


Jabba, you have admitted that, if H is true, souls don't exist and your consciousness is produced by your brain, and therefore that your consciousness is determined by the state of your brain. That means that the existence of your brain and the existence of your consciousness are a single event under H; there is no additional "self". You have no business multiplying their probabilities together to come up with the likelihood of your "current existence".

On the other hand, you would get the same answer by doing so because since you have admitted that the probability of your brain existing is 1, so is the probabity of your consciousness existing, and 1 multiplied by 1 is 1.

You have conceded that the likelihood of your existence under H is 1. You lose.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
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.
Click to expand...

But under materialism it is no different than the presence of Mt. Tahoma.
Which you refuse to accept.
 
MRC_Hans said:
This is an extraordinary piece of nonsense. If you currently exist, the likelihood of your current existence is 1.

Hans
Click to expand...
- No, it isn't. The likelihood [P(E|H)] of the event depends upon the hypothesis.
 
MRC_Hans said:
No. Texas sharpshooter again. You decide to contemplate some specific self, but it could be any self.

The H hypothesis is not that YOU exist and have a self. It is that somebody exists and has a self. You then point to some specific existing self ("you") and draw the target around it.

Hans
Click to expand...
Hans,
- I've addressed this issue numerous times -- doing it any better, if possible, would take a long time. Consequently, I'm putting it off till later.
 
MRC_Hans said:
Because both hypotheses require your current brain to exist. If your current brain did not exist, neither would your self.

Hans
Click to expand...
- ~H does not require that my current brain exist. ~H includes the possibility of different states of being, of a "spiritual" (non-physical, in at least our current understanding of "physical") being.
 
Jabba said:
Hans,
- I've addressed this issue numerous times -- doing it any better, if possible, would take a long time. Consequently, I'm putting it off till later.
Click to expand...

No, you've flailed about wildly whenever confronted with the fact that you are employing the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. You've never explained it to us godless skeptics because you know you are employing it even though you haven't shown the capacity to understand it.

That is a fatal flaw in your argument which you've not been able to resolve and you know you can't. There will never be a later for you to put it off to.
 
Jabba said:
I've addressed this issue numerous times...
Click to expand...

No, you haven't. You've just repeated your bald assertions and repeated the same errors over and over, apparently under the presumption that your critics wouldn't be able to tell that it's nonsense. All you do is foist. You don't listen or think.

...doing it any better, if possible, would take a long time.
Click to expand...

It's already taken five years, and that only because you don't listen to anyone. You lost this debate years ago, and you know it. You even admitted it and flounced, but then came back for more under the banner of "I just couldn't stay away." (Which makes your stomping and whining over your allegedly shabby treatment even more comical.)

No, this is not some mind-bending conundrum that only the brightest minds at the brightest universities can work out. Your proof is a set of very simple errors being committed from a position of arrogance and poorly-recalled, decades-old, incomplete elementary coursework. You aren't the teacher. You aren't the Jedi master of statistics. You clearly don't know what you're talking about, and everyone can see this.

Consequently, I'm putting it off till later.
Click to expand...

No, you're just blatantly running away from a quite simple and correct rebuttal. You need to understand something here, Jabba. You are not an expert in statistics. You're obviously bluffing. You are not succeeding at convincing anyone -- and your critics are quite confidently able and qualified to detect your failed attempt. Further, your constant gaslighting is both ineffective and insulting.

Your proof for years has revolved around you trying to cram things into the event E that are not there, and trying to hobble materialism in ways that don't pertain to it. This week your critics have succeeded in circumscribing all those errors into a small enough set of documented concessions to which they've carefully led you, which you cannot conveniently "forget," and which illustrate the central flaw in your reasoning. That is not cured by insisting that your critics just don't understand statistical reasoning and that you're some unsung genius. It is not cured by you retreating back to the referee's role and pretending to organize the debate for everyone's benefit.
 
godless dave said:
OK so the likelilhood of my brain existing under H is very small, and not a given as you said earlier.

What's the likelihood of my brain existing under ~H?
Click to expand...
Dave,
- Your brain is a given in our problem -- and in that sense, its "probability" is 1 for both H and ~H. The likelihood of your brain existing is less than 10-100 for both H and ~H.
- Under ~H, the likelihood of your self existing is .0062, while the likelihood of your self existing under H is still 10-100.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- Your brain is a given in our problem -- and in that sense, its "probability" is 1 for both H and ~H. The likelihood of your brain existing is less than 10-100 for both H and ~H.
- Under ~H, the likelihood of your self existing is .0062, while the likelihood of your self existing under H is still 10-100.
Click to expand...


Remember, Jabba: under H, "selves" don't exist as discrete entities (as you have recently admitted). Talking about the likelihood of it existing under H is not even wrong.

If the likelihood of your brain existing is the same in H as it is in ~H then the likelihood that you are observed to exist cannot be greater under ~H than it is under H, because under H once your brain exists, you exist. It's a single event, not a conjunction of two events as you are trying to portray it.
 
Jabba said:
- Under ~H, the likelihood of your self existing is .0062, while the likelihood of your self existing under H is still 10-100.
Click to expand...

Jabba,

You've made these numbers up. You can't use made-up numbers to prove that one thing is more probable than another; all that you've proved is that you can make up two numbers and know which is larger.

(Which, by the way, was not necessarily a given, so well done there.)

Dave
 
Jabba said:
Your brain is a given in our problem [for both H and ~H] ... while the likelihood of your self existing under H is still 10-100.
Click to expand...

There is no separate "self" under H. It is functionally the same thing as the brain under materialism. It is nonsensical in materialism to try to talk about them as separate concepts. You keep trying to add a "self" as a separate event, solely so you can apply the inappropriate calculation you've contrived to make materialism "impossible."
 
Last edited:
Jabba,
Just admit the truth, you want for something to be true, but you can't demonstrate it by any means, living your life is more important that any other factor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom