- I currently have about 50 unanswered or insufficiently answered specific questions and objections to answer.
I'm somewhat amazed that you can't see that the above constitutes an acknowledgement that the longer this thread continues, the closer you're getting to completely unexplaining your original claim.
Things were clearer before you started.
You're going backwards, Jabba.
Fortunately, I've been able to dump them into 3 "general" buckets: 1) definitions and clarifications, 2) effective debate and 3) the evidence and logic of my claim... I might need to rename, or further divide the buckets, but maybe this division will help.
When I wrote the following I was mainly trying to be humourous, but I knew in the back of my mind that you'd eventually end up doing it:
Never mind. Just keep posting more lists.
In fact, I'd say we're long overdue for a list of all the lists that you've made.
- The bucket most needing my attention is surely #3 -- the evidence and logic of my claim.
Why not split that into two sub-buckets - one for the evidence and one for the logic. Then set about presenting everything that's in the first sub-bucket (I'd recommend a sub-sub-bucket approach here).
Once all the evidence is on the table I'm fairly sure the discussion of the logic explaining it will proceed much more smoothly.
And while we're on the subject of sub-buckets - you really need to split your #1 bucket into two sub-buckets since it's quite apparent that "Definitions" and "Clarifications in the Jabbaverse are as unalike as matter and antimatter. The last thing we need is a core breach.
Further, you might just as well discard bucket #2 (effective debate). It's completely empty.
- So at this point my claim is 1) that the opinion that my "soul" (or "self," or "personal consciousness") has but one, finite, life to live is wrong,
Yes, we know. It's morphed a little since the OP but it's still essentially just as silly.
2) that I can essentially prove that it's wrong (by using Bayesian statistics) and 3) that by essentially proving it to be wrong, I will essentially prove that I am immortal.
Since you've already spent almost 14 months and over 300 posts in your effort to do this with the only signs of any progress so far indicating movement backwards, I'd say you essentially have a snowball's chance in hell of ever succeeding.
<jabberish>
1) I'm really claiming to essentially prove that, somehow, X is incorrect.
No matter how many times you tell us what your claim is it remains, essentially, bollocks.
2) I believe that essentially proving X to be incorrect is tantamount to essentially proving that my existence is either periodic, or continuous, or a combination of both (being a combination would just mean that there is more than one form of consciousness).
3) I assume that if I am immortal -- and if you guys are, in fact, conscious
-- you guys are immortal as well.
Your assumption is conditional on your readership being conscious?
Words fail me.
- Now, I need to insert the appropriate numbers, and then show that they make sense.
This'll end well.
- P(X|me) = (1/∞*.99)/(1/∞*.99+.5*.01)
Oh look! He's fallen at the first hurdle.
1) I've begun trying to support my use of "1/∞" for the likelihood of my current existence, given X; I'll keep working on that.
Then you obviously need to keep doing the same thing over and over, hoping for a different result.
Luckily I have my standard responses to your endlessly reiterated statements of intent sorted out into various buckets. It saves me a great deal of time.
2) I don't think that I actually need to use "∞" in the formula -- an unimaginably large number would be sufficient. I'll also work on explaining and supporting that.
You can work on it until the cows come home but "unimaginably large number = ∞" will never be true.
3) I don't think that our background knowledge should translate to anywhere near a prior probability of 99% for X, but if the rest of my logic holds, I can be generous about this number.
Neither do I. Especially for certain values of "our".
4) The likelihood of me existing given non-X is especially difficult to nail down -- but, if the rest of my logic holds
, this number hardly matters.
Bummer.
5) The prior probability of non-X is just the complement of the prior probability of X.
That actually makes sense!
- I'll start with providing my evidence and logic for #1 unless someone wants me to start elsewhere.
I think you need to get your buckets in a row first.
