[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Agatha]

Jabba, I must have missed where you clarified what you personally mean by free will (or rather "free will").

I must have also missed your evidence for the existence of a soul. As those are the questions Slowvehicle asked you, and you claim to have answered them, I'd be most grateful if you could give the links to the posts in which these answers of yours appear. Thank you in advance.

I still suggest that defining A and explaining how you calculate the probability of A will be a more manageable task than trying to define ~A, which by definition is everything which is not included in A.

 

[Jabba]

I was thinking it might be worth asking:

1. How one might objectively differentiate between one life infinitely repeating with no memory of the previous one, and a different life lived once.

1a. How the concept of one life infinitely repeating squares with the historical record of continuous growth and change.

1b. If Jabba thinks he's the same person as he was at 14 when he started believing in this "soul" thing.

1c. Why my previous post about the concept of consciousness as a process was ignored only to have Jabba announce that his position on this has evolved over the thread.

But I suspect that this too will be ignored. It is, after all, snowing.

Jond,
- Again, I only have so much time to devote to our discourse; this morning, my baby sitting duties are about to call me away; I have numerous "opponents" asking numerous questions (and making numerous objections); and finally, my focus has been the issue of false dichotomy, and I didn't think that any of your questions were central to that issue.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle,
- I think that I have now actually answered both of your questions...

Good Morning, Mr, Savage!

At the risk of being accused of being "unfriendly", or "contentious", I must say that it seems to me that in your 20-hour silence after my last post yesterday morning you did not, in fact, "answer", much less "address", either of my questions.

What do you mean by "free will", as opposed to, say, free will?

Why not simply support your original claim, that the "soul" exists, and is immortal, rather than continuing to try to misstate, misdefine, mischaraterize, and misemploy ~A?

 

[jond]

Jond,
- Again, I only have so much time to devote to our discourse; this morning, my baby sitting duties are about to call me away; I have numerous "opponents" asking numerous questions (and making numerous objections); and finally, my focus has been the issue of false dichotomy, and I didn't think that any of your questions were central to that issue.

They are central to your whole concept of a "soul" that is "immortal" and "repeats without remembering". The false dichotomy is a sideshow.

 

[carlitos]

Yet you know it has been misapplied. How interesting.

Touché. I just checked, and I apparently read a summary of this work from a questionable source. I still probably won't read it, only because "historical Jesus" isn't a hobby of mine, but I apologize for the prior post.

 

[pakeha]

Pakeha,
- Both are considered "magical."
- In that section of my website, I try to explain why we should believe in Magic. Doing so, would support a belief in immortality as much as it would support a belief in Jesus.

How does a belief in magic equate believing in a false prophet?
I really don't see the connection, Jabba.

 

[Humots]

Slowvehicle,
- As I often complain, I only have so much time to commit to the discussion here, so I have to keep a very narrow focus. I realized that my question about "free will" would open up a whole new can of worms, so I turned to focus on something more central to our dichotomy issue.
time.

Then why did you ask about free will in the first place? How does that totally irrelevant question serve any purpose?

Jabba: my questions are rhetorical. Do not add them to the list of things you will eventually (that is, hopefully before the heat death of the universe) address.

 

[Humots]

- Specifically, I think that I've answered everyone's claim about my proposed dichotomy being false. Consequently, I think I'll move on.

You have not answered anyone's claim about your proposed dichotomy being false. Moving on is just a fringe reset.

- This will be my second "move-on" -- unless, someone still thinks that my dichotomy is false, and tells me why.

We all think that your dichotomy is false. And we have told you why many, many times. You just haven't listened.

 

[Steve]

Then why did you ask about free will in the first place? How does that totally irrelevant question serve any purpose?

Jabba: my questions are rhetorical. Do not add them to the list of things you will eventually (that is, hopefully before the heat death of the universe) address.

Sorry, too late! Your questions are now on his list, and his list is as immortal as himself.

 

[jsfisher]

- In a sense, my overall objective is to effectively present my significant evidence and logic supporting the validity of the numbers I've inserted into the Bayesian formula.

- Specifically, I think that I've answered everyone's claim about my proposed dichotomy being false. Consequently, I think I'll move on.

Last I checked, your proposition A was essentially that all existences were mortal and you claimed ~A was, again essentially, that all existences were immortal.

Those most certainly are not complementary.

You then invented a term, conditional complement, and claimed things were ok, but that was rejected since it required a change to A, a change you never made.

So, where does that leave things? Did you reformulate A and/or ~A and I missed it?

- This will be my second "move-on" -- unless, someone still thinks that my dichotomy is false, and tells me why.

Done and done. Will you be continuing your ignoring of it?

- My first move-on was after I apparently effectively answered the objection that my dichotomy did not include the possibility of a deterministic universe.

- I think that the next objection to be answered should be regarding my evidence and logic supportive of the prior probability of ~A. Let me know if you'd prefer that I address a different objection.

Well, for example, your A/fake-~A doesn't include any case where some existences are mortal and some are immortal. Do I really need to repeat this?

 

[Mojo]

Everyone else thinks otherwise.

What do you see as the ramifications of this in terms of your theory of Truly Effective Debate™?

Perhaps his theory of Truly Effective Debate^TM is a variant of "OS 0 1 2".

 

[Giordano]

You have not answered anyone's claim about your proposed dichotomy being false. Moving on is just a fringe reset.



We all think that your dichotomy is false. And we have told you why many, many times. You just haven't listened.

Agreed^^^^

Does any of the lurkers, the presumed "unprejudiced" masses to which Jabba has alluded, agree with Jabba that these questions about his definitions, crucial to his math, have been settled and that he can move on?

 

[Ladewig]

- In a sense, my overall objective is to effectively present my significant evidence and logic supporting the validity of the numbers I've inserted into the Bayesian formula.

Quick questions.

How will you know when you have effectively presented your argument?

How will we know when you have effectively presented your argument?

How will an objective observer know when you have effectively presented your argument?

 

[Giordano]

Exactly^^^.

And if want to do math to prove anything, you have to use it correctly. Or else you can prove 1 is essentially 2. As others have told you here, you are starting off wrong and cannot "move on."

 

[Aepervius]

Agreed^^^^

Does any of the lurkers, the presumed "unprejudiced" masses to which Jabba has alluded, agree with Jabba that these questions about his definitions, crucial to his math, have been settled and that he can move on?

Nope. I think he simply brushed it off without really understanding the objection. See for example the part where I tried to explain all the various alternative and he never really picked up the problem with his own statement, despite an initial reply IMHO.

 

[Jabba]

Good Morning, Mr, Savage!

At the risk of being accused of being "unfriendly", or "contentious", I must say that it seems to me that in your 20-hour silence after my last post yesterday morning you did not, in fact, "answer", much less "address", either of my questions.

1) What do you mean by "free will", as opposed to, say, free will?

2) Why not simply support your original claim, that the "soul" exists, and is immortal, rather than continuing to try to misstate, misdefine, mischaraterize, and misemploy ~A?

Slowvehicle,
- Re #1: I answered by saying that really trying to deal with that issue would take us way far afield of the false dichotomy issue.
- I accepted that I shouldn't have asked the question in the first place. The question was relevant -- just not worth the likely length of discussion it would generate.
- Re #2: I don't really understand your objection here -- I think that's exactly what I'm planning to do next.

 

[Jabba]

They are central to your whole concept of a "soul" that is "immortal" and "repeats without remembering". The false dichotomy is a sideshow.

jond,
- But false dichotomy is the issue I was most asked to address.

 

[Jabba]

You have not answered anyone's claim about your proposed dichotomy being false. Moving on is just a fringe reset.



We all think that your dichotomy is false. And we have told you why many, many times. You just haven't listened.

Humots,
- I think that I've answered all of everybody's claims re my alleged false dichotomy. Please give me an example of the claims you think that I've ignored.

 

[abaddon]

Please give me an example of the claims you think that I've ignored.

All of them.

 

[Agatha]

Chiefly, you've ignored the fact that your ~A is not the complete complement of your A. If anything which is not A is not included in ~A, then you have a false dichotomy.

Nowhere in your expression of ~A