Proof of Immortality III

[JayUtah]

This link deals directly with our issue (both sides of it) but includes mostly philosophers and parapsychologists...

It's garbage, Jabba. You told us scientists disputed the physical-only model. You were wrong. You tell us science is "confused" on the issue, but you provide only statements from woo-peddlers accusing science of closed-mindedness and fervently begging the standards be lowered so that their warm-fuzzy feelings count as evidence.

 

[John Jones]

Dave,
- As you know, I disagree with your assessments, but that site expresses what the issue is pretty well, and does give both sides of the story. At this point in our discussion, I'm not arguing that consciousness is non-physical, I'm just arguing that while most scientists believe that consciousness is physical, a lot of recognized scientists (and philosophers) suspect that it is not; and, that's a significant issue in modern science.
- I'll try to come back with some quotes from recognized scientists.

You should have looked them up before you dropped that steaming pile on this board.

 

[JayUtah]

[T]hat site expresses what the issue is pretty well, and does give both sides of the story.

We know what the issue is. We know your side of the story. We know our side of the story. Do you think Effective Debate consists of merely repeating the claims over and over again?

I'll try to come back with some quotes from recognized scientists.

Sound bites are not science, Jabba. I suspect you will do just as your woo authors have done: cherry-pick quotes from noted scientists and build a lot of rhetoric around it that the original scientists cannot know about and certainly never intended. You want to say that science disputes dualism. Quotes don't cut it. Science is the plodding, methodical, incremental work based on tested methods of empiricism. It isn't the offhand opinion of some guy. If you can show that science performed according to the proper methods disproves dualism, more power to you. Otherwise don't bother.

 

[JayUtah]

I've tried to explain my reasoning several times, but can't seem to communicate it--

And this would almost reach the appropriate level of pathos if so much of your argumentation weren't based on fairly ham-fisted word games. As soon as someone pins down your phraseology du jour, you change horses and gallop around again in the same circle.

or, just convince you (or most people) of its rationality.

That's because it isn't rational. And that's not a knee-jerk denialist, "Yeah, that's what skeptics would say" judgment. Your critics have told you in painstaking detail exactly in what way it is irrational. You have almost entirely ignored that explanation. That ignorance is made all the more egregious by your periodic meltdowns in which you claim you're just so much better at the proper mode of thinking than any of your critics and that if we just had your remarkable insight, we would see the truth of your beliefs.

You seem to believe your inability to convince people is due solely to your paucity of expression. You haven't considered at all the possibility that you may simply be wrong, that other people can see clearly how you're wrong, and that their criticism is most often phrased as a correction to help you think logically. Maybe instead of frantically Googling in retrospect for cosmobabble nonsense, you should spend some time introspecting your own hubris, as it seems to be the real impediment to progress on this topic.

Basically, I'm saying that there is no reasonable possibility that science is significantly wrong in its explanation of Mt. Rainier -- whereas, there is a reasonable possibility that science is significantly wrong about OOFLam.

You have shown no reason to believe that science is significantly wrong about immortal souls. Which is to say, you have made a sound-and-fury argument in favor of that belief, but it has been shown to be illogical. Now if you could explain why the logical analysis that refutes it is wrong, you would have a basis to continue. But you cannot, so you simply repeat the claim over and over again.

We've already been several times through your equivocation on the Mt. Ranier analogy. You flip-flop between starting the natural processes at different points so that it appears you and Mt. Ranier differ materially in the application of physical law, or you simply beg the question of the soul and call that the operative difference.

We are not stuck with luck as the only explanation for an extremely unlikely event if there is reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of the hypothesis our conclusion depends upon.

False dilemma. You style the issue as a one-to-one battle between "luck" and your immortal soul, the existence of which you know you cannot prove. So you cobble up a meaningless pseudo-statistical straw man -- which all the experts have told you is wrong and which none of your critics actually embraces -- and insist that this is the only thing besides an immortal soul that could explain your special snowflakiness, and that it implies an impossible level of luck to get there.

You know that argument will not work here. Why do you keep attempting it?

 

[Jabba]

jt, Jim, Caveman, Toontown,

- Where do you find fault with my numbers? You can substitute ∞ with 1X10^-80 if you prefer.

7. P(H|E) = P(E|H)*P(H)/( P(E|H)*P(H)+P(E|~H)*P(~H)).
8. Including my estimated numbers, I get:
P(H|E) = 7,000,000,000/∞*.99/(7,000,000,000/∞*.99+ .00052*.01), or
9. P(H|E) = 0.
10. IOW, the posterior probability that we each have but one finite life is virtually zero.
11. All I need do now is support my estimates…

- The formula above is used in Bayesian statistics to determine the effect upon the probability of an hypothesis given new, relevant info. Let me know if you don't recognize my particular symbols/terminology.

 

[JayUtah]

Where do you find fault with my numbers?

1. The fact that you pulled them out of your hindquarters.
2. The fact that more than one expert has told you that you can't prove your point using this statistical model, making the numbers moot.
3. The fact that your formulation is essentially hardwire to reject any hypothesis that's fed to it, regardless of evidence.

The formula above is used in Bayesian statistics to determine the effect upon the probability of an hypothesis given new, relevant info.

You have no actual info. You are using Bayes incorrectly. Do not simply fringe-reset this multiply-debunked line of reasoning.

 

[Jabba]

You're correct, you can't explain how that's a rational approach, because it isn't. You haven't even given a reason to think there is a reasonable possibility that science is significantly wrong about OOFLam.

Dave,
- I have. I have given what I think is reason for suspecting that OOFLam is wrong -- you just don't accept it.
- Would you accept that there is at least a .0001 prior probability that OOFLam is wrong?

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- I have. I have given what I think is reason for suspecting that OOFLam is wrong -- you just don't accept it.

Your reasoning for suspecting that OOFLam is wrong depends on souls existing that science can't account for. I don't accept it because it's circular reasoning.

- Would you accept that there is at least a .0001 prior probability that OOFLam is wrong?

No.

 

[JayUtah]

I have given what I think is reason for suspecting that OOFLam is wrong -- you just don't accept it.

He and others don't accept it for the reasons they give, which you ignore. The reasons are good and sound, and are not answered by your mindless repetition of your original claim. Until you can address the actual reasons for not accepting your claims, it does no good for you to whine about it.

Would you accept that there is at least a .0001 prior probability that OOFLam is wrong?

You are using an inappropriate method. Asking people to fiddle with knobs on an inappropriate method sidesteps the real problem with your argument.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Dave,
- I've tried to explain my reasoning several times, but can't seem to communicate it -- or, just convince you (or most people) of its rationality.
- Basically, I'm saying that there is no reasonable possibility that science is significantly wrong in its explanation of Mt. Rainier -- whereas, there is a reasonable possibility that science is significantly wrong about OOFLam. We are not stuck with luck as the only explanation for an extremely unlikely event if there is reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of the hypothesis our conclusion depends upon.

Jabba, the only reason you find "OOFLam" less probable that Mt. Rainier is because you want it to be. There is no rational reason to assume it.

Hans

 

[Toontown]

jt, Jim, Caveman, Toontown,

- Where do you find fault with my numbers? You can substitute ∞ with 1X10^-80 if you prefer.

7. P(H|E) = P(E|H)*P(H)/( P(E|H)*P(H)+P(E|~H)*P(~H)).
8. Including my estimated numbers, I get:
P(H|E) = 7,000,000,000/∞*.99/(7,000,000,000/∞*.99+ .00052*.01), or
9. P(H|E) = 0.
10. IOW, the posterior probability that we each have but one finite life is virtually zero.
11. All I need do now is support my estimates…

- The formula above is used in Bayesian statistics to determine the effect upon the probability of an hypothesis given new, relevant info. Let me know if you don't recognize my particular symbols/terminology.

Your problem is that there is a (1) at the 78th decimal place in the number that substitutes for infinity. Your opponents believe that is enough to convict you of committing the Texas Chainsaw Massacre...er, the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.

It's an argument from authority. Your hard core opponents take the fallacy absolutely literally and apply it dogmatically to every case. They're dug in deep, and nothing you or anyone else says is going to bring them out of their bunkers.

I'm in a different camp. I think there is a practical limit to the application of the fallacy in such an extreme case as a 1 at the 78th decimal place, particularly when the occurrence of the event in question entirely determines whether anything at all can possibly have any significance from my perspective.

Put another way: from my subjective perspective, no event B can have any significance unless event A (my sentience) has occurred. So, I ask, how can event A be insignificant?

Put another way: A --> B --> significance

Put another way: The road to significance goes through A. Or starts at A.

The answer, I think, is that event A can be plenty insignificant to everyone else, simply because their roads to significance don't go through my A (thankfully). But not to me. And the converse also applies. Your existence is not significant to me in this particular context.

So. Drag a skeptic materialist out of his bunker and convince him of that. That, I gotta see.

 

[jt512]

jt, Jim, Caveman, Toontown,

- Where do you find fault with my numbers? You can substitute ∞ with 1X10^-80 if you prefer.

7. P(H|E) = P(E|H)*P(H)/( P(E|H)*P(H)+P(E|~H)*P(~H)).
8. Including my estimated numbers, I get:
P(H|E) = 7,000,000,000/∞*.99/(7,000,000,000/∞*.99+ .00052*.01), or
9. P(H|E) = 0.
10. IOW, the posterior probability that we each have but one finite life is virtually zero.
11. All I need do now is support my estimates…

- The formula above is used in Bayesian statistics to determine the effect upon the probability of an hypothesis given new, relevant info. Let me know if you don't recognize my particular symbols/terminology.

1. P(E|H) = 7000000000/∞ = 0, which implies that P(H|E) = 0, regardless of the evidence or the prior probability. Thus you're not doing Bayesian inference; you're just stating a predetermined conclusion. Furthermore, it isn't clear what this probability should be; as others have offered, it might even be 1.

Since you're using 0 for P(E|H), the rest of the terms in Bayes' Theorem don't affect the posterior; but for completeness, I'll comment on them anyway:

2. P(~H) is overstated by many orders of magnitude. I would put it at something like 1-in-1-trillion, since it implies that all of physics is wrong, which is extraordinarily unlikely.

3. Consistent with #2, P(H) is understated by many orders of magnitude.

4. P(E|~H): I don't know, and don't want to know, how you came up with .00052. ~H is so incoherent that you cannot reasonably derive a reliable value of P(E|~H) from it.

 

[Mojo]

Specifically, the science that produces OOFLam.

Please define "the science that produces OOFLam", citing specific scientific theories.

 

[JimOfAllTrades]

I think that using the standard model to calculate the odds of your existence gives a very different outcome, and that using those odds means there isn't anything suspicious about you beating them and coming into existence.

Jim,
- I don't understand what you mean in the [above] portion.

JayUtah already said it, but here it is again. I don’t think there is anything in the standard model that says your existence is a 1 in gajillion shot. My understanding is that the standard model says that a consciousness was going to be produced just like a mountain was going to be produced. “Whoever” the consciousness turned out to be could say “how incredible that I’m me”. And whatever the mountain looked like in the end it was going to be there in all its uniqueness for plants to grow on and people to marvel at. The consciousness turned out to be you, and the mountain turned out to be Mt. Rainier.

Just because we can’t predict exactly which “person” would appear or exactly what the mountain would look like doesn’t mean that either the person or the mountain is the payoff to a universal lottery, and therefore extremely unlikely.

Therefore, using the standard model to calculate the odds of your existence says to me there is nothing surprising or unexplained about your existence that requires tossing out some or all of that model and adding in “souls” or immortality.

 

[jt512]

BTW, Jabba, the form of Bayes' Theorem that you are using requires H and ~H to be complementary hypotheses, that is, they must be mutually exclusive and exhaustive. If ~H is a specific hypothesis, and there is more than one alternative to ~H, then H must comprise all the alternatives. The problem with that is how do you come up with a single P(E|H), if H represents a collection of alternative models, each implying a different value of P(E|H)?

Alternatively, if H and ~H are both specific hypotheses, then they must be the only possible hypotheses in the universe. If, on the other hand, there are more than two possible hypotheses, then you cannot use the form of Bayes' Theorem that you've been using; you must use the odds form of Bayes Theorem instead.

 

[JayUtah]

BTW, Jabba, the form of Bayes' Theorem that you are using requires H and ~H to be complementary hypotheses...

As it did all the other times when he tried to apply Bayes. He knows this.

If ~H is a specific hypothesis, and there is more than one alternative to ~H, then H must comprise all the alternatives.

Hence his manufactured dilemma. He manufactures the same dilemma every time he misuses Bayes to try to prove one of his crackpot theories. He identifies his desired conclusion as H, and lumps everything together as ~H -- regardless of how disjoint or contradictory such a set would be. Then he circularly formulates the probability of ~H by begging H or some other question.

 

[JayUtah]

The consciousness turned out to be you, and the mountain turned out to be Mt. Rainier.

This is where he foists the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. He concedes that both his unique self and Mt. Ranier are, in the scientific model, produced as unpredictable outcomes of a complex process. Think of them as two holes anywhere on the barn wall. The difference is that he disregards any special significance for the Mt. Ranier hole in either location or predictability. But he draws the circle only around his hole. He suggests science must hit that circle in order to produce him, and that it's impossible. He proposes the analogy is not apt simply because he declines to draw the circle around Mt. Ranier and claim that science also must hit that circle to produce Mt. Ranier.

 

[Jabba]

BTW, Jabba, the form of Bayes' Theorem that you are using requires H and ~H to be complementary hypotheses, that is, they must be mutually exclusive and exhaustive. If ~H is a specific hypothesis, and there is more than one alternative to ~H, then H must comprise all the alternatives. The problem with that is how do you come up with a single P(E|H), if H represents a collection of alternative models, each implying a different value of P(E|H)?

Alternatively, if H and ~H are both specific hypotheses, then they must be the only possible hypotheses in the universe. If, on the other hand, there are more than two possible hypotheses, then you cannot use the form of Bayes' Theorem that you've been using; you must use the odds form of Bayes Theorem instead.

jt,
- The following is how I calculated the likelihood of E given ~H:

11.3. Re P(E|~H):
11.3.1. The probability (“likelihood”) of E given ~H, involves several specific hypothetical possibilities.
11.3.1.1. That only some of us have but one finite life.
11.3.1.2. That we each have numerous finite lives.
11.3.1.3. That only some of us have numerous finite lives.
11.3.1.4. That we each have an infinity of finite lives.
11.3.1.5. That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives.
11.3.1.6. That we each have an infinite life.
11.3.1.7. That only some of us have an infinite life.
11.3.1.8. That time isn’t what we think it is (to be explained).
11.3.1.9. Some other explanation.

11.3.2. Now I must estimate (roughly) the prior probability (rounded off to three decimal places) of each more specific possibility (hypothesis), given ~H.
11.3.2.1. That only some of us have but one finite life: .000
11.3.2.2. That we each have numerous finite lives: .002.
11.3.2.3. That only some of us have numerous finite lives: .000.
11.3.2.4. That we each have an infinity of finite lives; .002
11.3.2.5. That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives: 000.
11.3.2.6. That we each have an infinite life: .002
11.3.2.7. That only some of us have an infinite life: .000
11.3.2.8. That time isn’t what we think it is (to be explained): .002
11.3.2.9. Some other explanation: .002

11.3.3. And now, I must estimate the likelihood of my own current existence given the different specific hypotheses under ~Hs.
11.3.3.1. That only some of us have but one finite life: .10.
11.3.3.2. That we each have numerous finite lives: .10.
11.3.3.3. That only some of us have numerous finite lives: .25.
11.3.3.4. That we each have an infinity of finite lives; 1.00
11.3.3.5. That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives: .50.
11.3.3.6. That we each have an infinite life: 1.00
11.3.3.7. That only some of us have an infinite life: .50
11.3.3.8. That time isn’t what we think it is (to be explained): .50
11.3.3.9. Some other explanation: .50
11.3.4. And now, I must multiply each of the probabilities of ~H above by the likelihoods of my current existence, given each specific hypothesis, and add up their products. And, the total likelihood of my current existence given ~H:
11.3.4.1. P(E|~H) = (0*.5) + (.002*.10) + (0*.25) + (.002*1.0) + (0*.5) + (1*..002) + (0*.5) + (.002*.5) + (.002*.5), or
11.3.4.2. P(E|~H) = 0 + .0002 + 0 +.002 + 0 + .002 + 0 + .001 + .001, or
11.3.4.3. P(E|~H) = .0052. And,
11.3.5. P(H|E) = 0*.99/(0*.99 + .0052*.01) = (0/.000052) = 0.
11.3.6. P(H|E) = 0.
11.3.7. IOW, given my current existence, the posterior probability that I will have one, finite life is zero…

 

[Jabba]

Your problem is that there is a (1) at the 78th decimal place in the number that substitutes for infinity. Your opponents believe that is enough to convict you of committing the Texas Chainsaw Massacre...er, the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.

It's an argument from authority. Your hard core opponents take the fallacy absolutely literally and apply it dogmatically to every case. They're dug in deep, and nothing you or anyone else says is going to bring them out of their bunkers.

I'm in a different camp. I think there is a practical limit to the application of the fallacy in such an extreme case as a 1 at the 78th decimal place, particularly when the occurrence of the event in question entirely determines whether anything at all can possibly have any significance from my perspective.

Put another way: from my subjective perspective, no event B can have any significance unless event A (my sentience) has occurred. So, I ask, how can event A be insignificant?

Put another way: A --> B --> significance

Put another way: The road to significance goes through A. Or starts at A.

The answer, I think, is that event A can be plenty insignificant to everyone else, simply because their roads to significance don't go through my A (thankfully). But not to me. And the converse also applies. Your existence is not significant to me in this particular context.

So. Drag a skeptic materialist out of his bunker and convince him of that. That, I gotta see.

Toon,

- Me too.

 

[JayUtah]

The following is how I calculated the likelihood of E given ~H:

[bunch of fanciful kiester-mining deleted]

Did you actually read and think about his post? Did you actually grasp what he was saying? He wasn't asking you to repeat your pseudo-mathematical question-begging. He was telling you that you're wrong and giving you the reason. What part of that sounded like a request to repeat your claims all over again for the umpteenth time?