Cont: Proof of Immortality VIII

Jabba said:
js,
- P(E) is also 1.
Click to expand...


P(E) = P(E|H)P(H) + P(E|~H)P(~H). Since you claim that both P(H) and P(~H) are nonzero, then P(E) = 1 implies that P(E|H) = P(E|~H) = 1, and thus E does provide evidence for H over ~H or vice versa. So this is another way to see that your argument is false.
 
Last edited:
jt512 said:
P(E) = P(E|H)P(H) + P(E|~H)P(~H). Since you claim that both P(H) and P(~H) are nonzero, then P(E) = 1 implies that P(E|H) = P(E|~H) = 1, and thus E does not provide evidence for H over ~H or vice versa. So this is another way to see that your argument is false.
Click to expand...

Corrected by inserting "not." Hell of a typo.
 
So it's interesting to me but, and correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe Jabba has stated he's a certified statistician because he was taking a stats course at uni and had to drop out/somehow couldn't complete it because of an incident at the school, right?


Look what I found.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8788975#post8788975

The specifics of it. Jabba do you really think this makes you a certified statistician?
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the trip down memory lane. I love Agatha's post 60:

Unbelievable! Jabba posts to this thread, and yet neglects to actually post the material which he should have put in the opening post (which was made nearly 24 hours ago).
Click to expand...

Oh, how little we knew at the time!
 
godless dave said:
But your current existence does.
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
Mojo,
- You're right -- it isn't even wrong, cause it's right..
- In ~H, the existence of my self does not depend upon my brain. In H, it does. That makes the likelihood of my self's existence under ~H much greater than it is under H.
Click to expand...

Mojo said:
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.
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
Mojo,
- You're right in your first, and (I think) second paragraph -- under H there's no multiplier.
- But under ~H, the multiplier is 1 -- which is why ~H is not automatically less probable than H...
Click to expand...

Mojo said:
But your 'argument' requires your existence under H to be much less likely than it is under ~H. You are now saying that they are, at best for you, equal...
Click to expand...
Mojo,
- I'm allowing that the posterior probability of H -- given my current existence
-- depends only upon the likelihood of the current existence of my brain -- given H -- whereas, the posterior probability of ~H also depends upon the current existence of a "soul" (something "spiritual)."
- However, since the existence of my brain is a given, and in effect has a probability of 1, the posterior probability of H-- given H -- is simply (10-100), whereas the posterior probability of ~H is 1 X .0062, or .0062.
 
Jabba said:
since the existence of my brain is a given, and in effect has a probability of 1, the posterior probability of H-- given H -- is simply (10-100
Click to expand...

Wait, what? How can you have a probability of H given H that isn't 1, especially since the thing you're checking it against also has a probability of 1?

You're not making any sort of sense. There is absolutely no way that H is less probable than ~H given all you've postulated.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Mojo,
- I'm allowing that the posterior probability of H -- given my current existence
-- depends only upon the likelihood of the current existence of my brain -- given H -- whereas, the posterior probability of ~H also depends upon the current existence of a "soul" (something "spiritual)."
- However, since the existence of my brain is a given, and in effect has a probability of 1, the posterior probability of H-- given H -- is simply (10-100), whereas the posterior probability of ~H is 1 X .0062, or .0062.
Click to expand...


Jabba, where do you get the factor of 10-100? You say that the probability of your brain existing is 1, and under H this is all that is required for your existence. Where does the 10-100 come from?
 
Jabba said:
Mojo,
- I'm allowing that the posterior probability of H -- given my current existence
-- depends only upon the likelihood of the current existence of my brain -- given H -- whereas, the posterior probability of ~H also depends upon the current existence of a "soul" (something "spiritual)."
- However, since the existence of my brain is a given, and in effect has a probability of 1, the posterior probability of H-- given H -- is simply (10-100), whereas the posterior probability of ~H is 1 X .0062, or .0062.
Click to expand...
Show. Your. Work. Please.

Justify. The numbers you're using. Please.
 
Jabba said:
Mojo,
- I'm allowing that the posterior probability of H -- given my current existence
-- depends only upon the likelihood of the current existence of my brain -- given H -- whereas, the posterior probability of ~H also depends upon the current existence of a "soul" (something "spiritual)."
- However, since the existence of my brain is a given, and in effect has a probability of 1, the posterior probability of H-- given H -- is simply (10-100), whereas the posterior probability of ~H is 1 X .0062, or .0062.
Click to expand...

Where does the 10-100 come from?

Given H, what is the likelihood of your brain existing? Is it 10-100?
 
Jabba said:
Mojo,I'm allowing that the posterior probability of H -- given my current existence -- depends only upon the likelihood of the current existence of my brain -- given H -- whereas, the posterior probability of ~H also depends upon the current existence of a "soul" (something "spiritual)."
Click to expand...

No, you aren't "allowing for it." You're trying to equivocate the meaning of the data E so that it means one thing on one side and another thing on the other side. And you're trying hard to camouflage that in pseudo-mathematical terms so that the rubes you've typically had as your audience can't see how blatantly you're begging the question. And of course you know you're begging it; you essentially told us you were. But you told us you didn't want to formulate the problem in a way that made that obvious. When you admit to such deception, it's not really considered bad form to remind you of it.

In materialism "your current existence" depends only on your brain. In your reincarnation theory, "your current existence" is not the neverending existence you've postulated for your soul. Your current existence depends on your brain plus the existence of your soul plus the factors governing the actual incarnation in 1942. Your shell game is not working. It has never worked. And that problem doesn't arise because your critics are biased or benighted. You have the problem because your proof is wrong.

the posterior probability of H-- given H -- is simply (10-100)
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. You didn't compute this number in any way, shape, or form. You just made it up. And you chose it to have that value because you told us ahead of time your proof needed that to be a very small number in order for your proof to hold. That is exactly circular reasoning, and it's not anything to do with some nuanced argument that only a PhD in statistics would be able to explain. It's the comparatively simple issue that you're obviously just assuming the thing you set out to prove.

Further, the posterior probability of a thing, given that thing, is by definition 1. That's what "given the thing" means.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
It's simply the most illogical thing he's ever posted. It makes no sense from any possible interpretation.
Click to expand...
Yeap.

And that's not touching upon his ~H now suddenly depending on souls existing. Or maybe I'm mistaken; I thought that ~H was supposed to cover everything else other than H which ~H may or may not depend on souls.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
It's simply the most illogical thing he's ever posted. It makes no sense from any possible interpretation.
Click to expand...

Indeed, it seems he's deluded himself into thinking he really can establish his purported genius by posting a bunch of statisticky-sounding nonsense and then doubling-down on the notion that his critics won't be able to convincingly respond.
 
The Norseman said:
And that's not touching upon his ~H now suddenly depending on souls existing. Or maybe I'm mistaken; I thought that ~H was supposed to cover everything else other than H which ~H may or may not depend on souls.
Click to expand...

Oh, that one's been around since day 1 day whatever the **** it was that Jabba stopped posting "Coming soon on ISF!!!!" and actually posted his argument. Jabba has always tried to base his argument on the assertion that the complement of materialism is the assumption that people have immortal souls, except when he's done a complete 180 and asserted that the complement of immortal souls is materialism. Neither has a shred of validity.

Dave
 
Jabba said:
Mojo,
- You're right -- it isn't even wrong, cause it's right..
- In ~H, the existence of my self does not depend upon my brain. In H, it does. That makes the likelihood of my self's existence under ~H much greater than it is under H.
Click to expand...
godless dave said:
But your current existence does.
Click to expand...
- Yes -- but, only on this earthly plane.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom