Cont: Proof of Immortality VIII

Dave Rogers said:
Neither has a shred of validity.
Click to expand...

That's because he doesn't actually know anything about likelihoods and partial hypotheses sets -- you know, those things that Bayesian reasoning is actually really good at. Which is probably why he's walking back what got posted earlier today -- that link back to the snippet of Jabba crowing about how "certified" he was as a statistician. It's obvious that today he wouldn't even be considered a competent student. He's failing on very elementary concepts.
 
Jabba said:
...
- 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:
...
No, you have stated that the brain is a given under H. Understand? If the brain is a given, then so is anything that depends on it.
You are claiming that the likelihood of your existence under ~H is much greater than 1.
Click to expand...
- But in ~H, my "self" does not depend upon the brain...
 
Jabba said:
- But in ~H, my "self" does not depend upon the brain...
Click to expand...

Your current existence depends on your brain. Without it, you tell us your soul has no attributes that can be associated with the self. You're trying to equivocate E to mean different things depending on which likelihood you're evaluating. I've been telling you for eight months now that this is an error in your proof.
 
Jabba said:
- But in ~H, my "self" does not depend upon the brain...
Click to expand...

The formula isn't P(S|~H) but P(E|~H). And your existence requires your brain under H, and your brain AND a soul in the other. If you think the odds are 10-100 in one, it has to be equal or lower in the other. This is math. You can't talk your way out of this.
 
Belz... said:
This is math. You can't talk your way out of this.
Click to expand...

His "neutral jury" won't be asking him any questions about the math. If they're like the last audience he proffered as "less biased" than JREF, they'll just look at all that incomprehensible notation, believe what Jabba tells them about it, and pat him on the back for being so clever. That's really what he's trying to set up here. Jabba has no discernible skill at statistical reasoning.
 
JayUtah said:
His "neutral jury" won't be asking him any questions about the math. If they're like the last audience he proffered as "less biased" than JREF, they'll just look at all that incomprehensible notation, believe what Jabba tells them about it, and pat him on the back for being so clever.
Click to expand...

I can't believe there are people that gullible, though. I mean, when someone just throws stuff like this at them, they don't automatically raise an eyebrow and go "Huh, really?". Must be the company I keep.
 
Belz... said:
I can't believe there are people that gullible, though.
Click to expand...

Shroudies, in that case. While Jabba himself may not be very religiously minded, there are plenty of religious people who would be delighted to believe that the existence of the immortal soul has been proven by a "certified statistician." They'd be quite happy to heap all kinds of uncritical approval on it.
 
Belz... said:
Still, I'd think the average brain would work a bit harder at the problem.
Click to expand...

If you really want to believe it, you don't see a problem that needs working on. It comes full circle. Jabba really, really wants to believe he solved a vexing philosophical problem in his teenage years. He really, really wants that to be a valid statistical proof. So do you see him allowing it to be seriously challenged? He just wants the semblance of vetting. Sure, those skeptics tore it to shreds, but what do they know?
 
Jabba said:
- But in ~H, my "self" does not depend upon the brain...
Click to expand...

I think were on to something basic here.

Do you mean that while your self is perceived through your current brain, it could be perceived through any brain, and thus whichever physical appearance you might be in, you would somehow be YOU?

In that case I think we are at a more basic caveat:

Just because one hypothesis has a higher likelihood than another it needs not be the true one.

An example: I give you a nice, fresh ripe apple. I inform you that it comes from a tree in my garden.

Now, we can make two hypoteses:

H : Apples grow seasonally on the three and it carries fresh ripe apples for a period of about five weeks every year.

~H : Apples do not grow seasonally but are available any time of the year.

The likelihood of getting a ripe apple under H is about 1/10.
Under ~H it is 1.

However, apples still grow seasonally on my tree.

Hans
 
Monza said:
In the perfect copy analogy, you continually claimed that the copy wouldn't be you, even though he shares all of your memories, preferences, physical attributes, etc. But someone who lived, say in the 19th century, who doesn't have your memories, likes/dislikes, feelings, thoughts, body, or even gender, is actually you?
Click to expand...
- Monza,
- Yes, but
- Under ~H, there could be a spiritual plane, so even if I didn't exist on an earthly plane, I still might exist on a spiritual plane. And, time itself, may not be what we think it is...
 
Jabba said:
Under ~H, there could be a spiritual plane...
Click to expand...

None of that has any relevance to the data. The data E is your current existence.

I still might exist on a spiritual plane.
Click to expand...

But you're not currently, and your current existence is what you claim distinguishes one hypothesis from another. Postulating that other data you don't currently have might discriminate doesn't fix your problem.

And, time itself, may not be what we think it is...
Click to expand...

Postulating that other data you don't currently have might discriminate doesn't fix your problem.
 
Jabba said:
- Monza,
- Yes, but
- Under ~H, there could be a spiritual plane, so even if I didn't exist on an earthly plane, I still might exist on a spiritual plane. And, time itself, may not be what we think it is...
Click to expand...

To reiterate what Jay said above, you have been talking about your current existence. Your body/brain doesn't exist on the spiritual plane.

Also, how is the thing that exists on the spiritual plane considered you? You are not brought back to life. What makes it you versus me, for example?
 
Dave Rogers said:
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
Click to expand...
You're right. I can get confused from time to time as I follow the thread and read these cryptic, short, mostly self-contradictory statements from Jabba; thankfully, you and the rest of the crew are right there, clear, precise, and on top of the game so thanks everyone for that.



Jabba said:
- Monza,
- Yes, but
- Under ~H, there could be a spiritual plane, so even if I didn't exist on an earthly plane, I still might exist on a spiritual plane. And, time itself, may not be what we think it is...
Click to expand...
DUN DUN DUNNNN! (Cue the scary music)

Time itself may not be what we think it is therefore souls exist and I'm immortal? :rolleyes:
 
Jabba said:
- Under ~H, there could be a spiritual plane
Click to expand...

Or, there could not be. ~H is a group of possibilities. You have to only consider what they have in common (which is not a lot).

, so even if I didn't exist on an earthly plane, I still might exist on a spiritual plane.
Click to expand...

Without a brain and body you can't experience anything or store memories.
 
JayUtah said:
Shroudies, in that case. While Jabba himself may not be very religiously minded, there are plenty of religious people who would be delighted to believe that the existence of the immortal soul has been proven by a "certified statistician." They'd be quite happy to heap all kinds of uncritical approval on it.
Click to expand...

Nailed it. Some people would be satisfied with the confirmation bias sans raison. I am not familiar with Bayes' stats, but I can see the appalling logical errors in setting it up
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom