The following is my opening statement so far
You gave your opening statement nearly five years ago. But for your stubbornness, we would be far along by now.
Okay, I'm going to go through it and identify the fatal flaws and blatantly dishonest tactics. All these have already been discussed at length in this thread, which you simply choose to ignore. I'm not telling you anything you don't already know. I'm not telling you anything that you haven't already heard from dozens of critics. But should you choose to climb down from the exalted status of claiming you can pick and choose which arguments you'll address, and actually participate in the discussion, it would be advantageous of you to respond individually to each of the identified fatal flaws and dishonest tactics.
For each fatal flaw -- understanding that any one of them dooms your argument if left unrejoined -- you will need to show either how the flaw is not operative in your argument or how you plan to fix your argument by not committing it.
For each dishonest tactice -- you will need to defend your use of it.
Since you've posted your
fringe reset "opening statement" here, will you consent to respond -- here -- to a systematic and thorough response to it?
I think that, using Bayesian statistics, I can virtually disprove the consensus scientific hypothesis that we each have only one, finite, life to live…
You already admitted you can't, but that you "still believe [you're] right." You don't understand how Bayesian inference works. You habitually misstate the scientific consensus.
Fatal flaw 1: You err in formulating a Bayesian inference.
If something occurs that is unlikely to occur -- given a particular hypothesis -- the event is evidence against the hypothesis.
No. This is expressly what statistical inference is
not. One applies a statistical inference to predict an as-yet unknown outcome so as to rationally inform decisions that must be made prior to knowing the outcome. The outcome, once known, is a fact. That it was previously deemed unlikely casts no doubt on the causality that produced it.
Fatal flaw 2: You err in your understanding of the probative nature of a statistical inference.
The strength of the evidence depends in part upon how unlikely the event is -- given the hypothesis.
No, the strength of the hypothesis depends on how well it explains evidence. You simply make up the alleged relationship between the event and the hypothesis. You frankly stated up front this is what you're doing.
In the proper formulation, the event is a fact. It's neither likely nor unlikely by itself. A hypothesis may be likely or unlikely compared to another hypothesis in light of that fact. That's what this iterative form of inference allows us to determine. I won't continue here, since I wrote on this at length -- and you ignored it. You don't know the difference between an hypothesis and an event.
Fatal flaw 3: You don't know what the parts of a statistical inference are, how to formulate them, or what they do in an inference.
It is evidence similar to “opportunity” in a murder trial in that it can be totally meaningless if other conditions are not met.
This is the concept of circumstantial evidence that you introduced as part of your Shroud thread. We conducted an entirely separate thread to investigate the nature of circumstantial evidence, in which your theory of it was entirely refuted. And further, as we discussed in relation to your rigged-lottery example, you don't understand the fundamental difference between possibility and evidence.
Fatal flaw 4: You don't understand what evidence is.
For one thing, the hypothesis in question does need to have a ‘reasonable’ bit of doubt as to its truth.
And as with all fringe theorists, you try to drive a speculative wedge into the inductive gap in order to shift the burden of proof. You have explicitly said that all you need is a "reasonable alternative" to hold by default after you've purported to claim the prevailing theory is so unlikely as to be all but impossible.
Fatal flaw 5: Your argument is a blatant false dilemma.
The above is one of the ‘avenues’ of Bayesian statistics.
You admitted you don't know how Bayesian methods work. Do not thereafter purport to teach others.
If something occurs that is likely to occur – given a particular hypothesis – the event is evidence for the hypothesis. That’s the other avenue.
No. This is your fundamental misunderstanding of statistical inference. You employ only a single-hypothesis formulation. You must reckon this as one hypothesis against another, or as one hypothesis against the set of all other possible hypotheses. You have not done this.
My theory: The scientific opinion that we each have only one, finite, life to live is false.
No. Your theory was that you have an immortal soul -- that particular affirmative theory. Throwing shade on one of several other possible theories doesn't support yours.
Fatal flaw 6: Your argument commits the fallacy of converting the conditional.
If it were true, I shouldn’t be here right now. But, here I am…
No, you simply beg the question that your existence is improbable.
Fatal flaw 7: You beg the question that existence is improbable without immortal souls, and use this begged question as a premise in your argument.
I shouldn’t be here right now because there must be an infinity of potential “selves,” and only 7 billion existing selves. So, the odds of me currently existing is 7 billion to infinity – or, virtually zero…
No, and it has been elaborated
ad nauseam why not.
Fatal flaw 8: Your attempt to claim that materialism is false simply invents elements that are not part of materialism.
Fatal flaw 9: The notion of existing selves as targets that must be met, and which it is improbable to meet, commits the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.
“Self” is a problematic concept in that it’s difficult to make sure that all those listening/reading have the same concept in mind…
Not at all. You simply shift the goalposts every time the concept is nailed down and insist on ambiguous language that your critics have politely asked you to eschew.
Perhaps, the most likely way to try to make sure we’re all talking about the same thing is to explain that the self is what people who believe in reincarnation believe keeps returning.
You proposed this and tried to trick godless dave into agreeing that's what he meant. It has been repudiated in no uncertain terms. You tipped your hand about the real reason for wanting to frame the self in those terms while you were gloating over the supposed agreement.
Dishonest tactic 1: You try to back-door important concepts that you know you can't prove.
Another way is to say that if cloning would produce the same self, that self would be looking out two sets of eyes…
No. Your critics have explained in suitable detail why they roundly reject this notion. (fatal flaw 8 restated)
Neither of those seems to be a fool proof way of insuring that we’re on the same page...
Dishonest tactic 2: You purport to search for a "fool proof" method of assuring equity in understanding, but you are clearly the source of the ambiguity and equivocation in this debate.
One way of understanding “potential selves”...
Materialism contains no such concept. You may not use it to falsify materialism. (fatal flaw 8 restated)
Another way of understanding “potential selves”...
Materialism contains no such concept. You may not use it to falsify materialism. (fatal flaw 8 restated)
Whatever, in either case, there should be an infinity of potential selves.
Materialism contains no such concept. In materialism, the self is an emergent property of the brain. As with all such properties, it is not countable.
Fatal flaw 10: You err in attributing mathematical countability to an abstract concept.
And, once we’re talking about potential selves, the scientific theory needs to be re-worded to, “We each have only one finite life to live (at most).” Let’s make that “OOFLam.”
Straw man. Let your critics state what they believe.
Dishonest tactic 3: Shoving words into your critics' mouths.
IOW, in the latter case, in a sense, each of us comes out of nowhere, we’re all “brand new.” The particular DNA seems to produce a bit of consciousness with an accompanying particular “self”, but if we were able to replicate the DNA, we wouldn’t get the same self.
Simply more question-begging. The notion that we are "brand new" and "come out of nowhere" are clearly concepts you believe in, but do not have any meaning under materialism. Therefore they cannot be used to falsify materialism. (fatal flaw 8 restated)
P(H|E)=P(E|H)P(H)/P(~H) =
(7,000,000,000/ ∞)*.99/.01 =
Δx→0
This formulation is gibberish. The third line doesn't follow from the first in that a purported real number cannot equate to the extent of a limit, which is a concept and not a number. You haven't specified a limit. You haven't defined
x. Division of a non-zero real number by infinity, where it is defined, is defined as zero, not "virtually zero." It is not defined for this particular circumstance. You have provided no rationale for ~H. ~H is not an hypothesis but a set of mutually exclusive hypotheses; the formulation must consider them individually.
Fatal flaw 11: Your formulation is pseudo-mathematical gibberish in a number of ways.
I don't suppose that anyone here would volunteer to represent the "defendant"?
Begging the moderator's indulgence for responding to the off-topic foisting of ground rules...
No one is obliged to assist in your misrepresentations and theatrics. You have had dozens of well-informed, polite, and engaged critics right here over the years, whom you have flagrantly and deliberately ignored. The answers to the above claims are in these threads, right before your very eyes. It is the most odious of insults to ask for more answers. Trying to move to a venue that you control is tantamount to admitting you can't do here what you set out to do. Or worse -- see below.
Maybe, someone here would suggest some one else?
- If I can't get any volunteers, I'll ask specifically.
Instead of trying to run the show your way, why don't you expend the energy responding to the years worth of posts already provided to you on the subject in this thread? You've simply provided us the predicted fringe reset, setting us on a course for another half-decade of your evasions and insults.
If no one agrees to volunteer, I'll have to provide my best guess as to the best arguments for each issue -- and, I'll probably quote someone (without providing a name).
Which was almost certainly your plan all along. It's highly likely you planned that none of your critics would accept an invitation to debate you in a forum you moderate. Several have already explicitly rejected the prospect and denied you consent to use material.
Now in the face of that almost certain rejection, it's not as if you would simply present your side on your "map" and leave it unanswered. The evident purpose of the "map" is as a fictionalized account to show how you prevailed over your critics, such as what you did to the Shroud debate. Since you're unlikely to find a palooka for your congruent Immortality drama, my guess is that you'll use that as an excuse to edit both sides of the debate yourself -- again, just as you did to the Shroud debate. Your plan for the "map" is bound to be the same as before, only this time you're shrewdly fabricating a justification to retain full creative control. You're trying to make it seem to be your critics' fault that you must "reluctantly" represent both sides of the debate, and thus wash your hands of any accusations misrepresentation.
This venue manipulation, too, is a classic fringe tactic, and it's insulting that you think your critics don't see right through it. You propose to tilt the playing field in your area and then claim that your opponents forfeit the game because they wisely don't agree to play a rigged game. So very, very dishonest, Jabba, to foist a Hobsonian dilemma that forces your critics to play by your rules or not at all.
I propose we continue the debate right here, right now, under the ground rules you agreed to when you signed up and began the thread. You've presented no reason why that shouldn't happen, no reason why your "map" improves over what we're already doing here -- and ample reason why no one should trust you as an editor and moderator.
