abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Will you please stop with this trivial tactic of trying to insert your words into the mouths of others.
Proof of Immortality III
- Thread starter Humots
- Start date
- Status
Will you please stop with this trivial tactic of trying to insert your words into the mouths of others.
jt512
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2011
- Messages
- 5,115
Jabba, your questions are not permanent to the fallacy I discussed.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Mojo
Mostly harmless
It isn't.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
- It seems to me that there are only 5 issues here.
1. Does the formula I provide actually apply to the situation I'm trying to apply it to?
2., 3., 4., & 5. Are my estimates for the 4 variables reasonable/appropriate?
- So far, the only issue that I find worrisome is #2 -- Is my estimate for P(E|H) appropriate?
- The claim that worries me is actually two-fold:
2.1. In order for the estimate I provide to be appropriate, I need to be a special case, and
2.2. I'm not a special case.
- My claim so far is that I don't need to be a special case, but I am.
- So far, I'm claiming that once we have a reasonably possible alternative hypothesis that favors my current existence (an hypothesis that would provide a better likelihood of my current existence), the likelihood of my current existence is an appropriate entry for P(E|H) -- as is the current existence of each of us who do currently exist...
- The idea is that each of us who currently exist are more likely to currently exist if P(E|~H) is true, than if P(E|H) is true. And as ToonTown concludes, it's a matter of perspective.
1. Does the formula I provide actually apply to the situation I'm trying to apply it to?
2., 3., 4., & 5. Are my estimates for the 4 variables reasonable/appropriate?
- So far, the only issue that I find worrisome is #2 -- Is my estimate for P(E|H) appropriate?
- The claim that worries me is actually two-fold:
2.1. In order for the estimate I provide to be appropriate, I need to be a special case, and
2.2. I'm not a special case.
- My claim so far is that I don't need to be a special case, but I am.
- So far, I'm claiming that once we have a reasonably possible alternative hypothesis that favors my current existence (an hypothesis that would provide a better likelihood of my current existence), the likelihood of my current existence is an appropriate entry for P(E|H) -- as is the current existence of each of us who do currently exist...
- The idea is that each of us who currently exist are more likely to currently exist if P(E|~H) is true, than if P(E|H) is true. And as ToonTown concludes, it's a matter of perspective.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Jabba, your existence cannot be more likely under a hypothesis under which it requires A plus B than it is under a hypothesis under which it only requires one of them.
jond
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 3,440
Which is precisely why Jabba will ignore this obvious point.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Do not insert yet again, your crap into your interlocuters statements.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
ORLY?
No.
No.
No.
Wow. You admit that you are making all of it up.
But you cannot demonstrate that.
unevidenced claim.
Which claim proves that you do not exist at all.
Oh good. From my perspective, you do not exist. Therefore what?
Oh for the love of...
FINE! You're special Jabba! You're an amazingly unique individual snowflake. Here's a blue ribbon and a cookie.
THAT DOESN'T PROVE YOU'RE IMMORTAL!
I Am The Scum
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 5,809
My mom says I'm cool!
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
Note the phrase that you yourself used. "Reasonably possible." In order for us to conclude that something is reasonably possible, there has to be evidence for it. You have presented no evidence. Please do so.
(This is not to excuse every other mistake you're making, but let's start here.)
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
Jabba,
You are keeping in mind that your ~H is not simply an alternate hypothesis, right? It is infinitely many. You don't get to pick which one you like for your probability calculation and ignore all the others.
jond
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 3,440
But don't forget, whichever ~H hypothesis he chooses, he still has to account for his body existing PLUS whatever else he wants to put in there. Under H, it's just his body.
Peregrinus
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2015
- Messages
- 1,213
When a thread gets to "........last page," it's time to go elsewhere.
jt512
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2011
- Messages
- 5,115
No, Jabba. What matters is, as I said, that since you exist, you can observe only that you exist. Your sample space is restricted to the event that you exist. In this restricted sample space, the probability of you observing that you exist under any hypothesis is 1. Therefore, the posterior probability of your hypotheses equal their priors. You observing that you exist is a foregone conclusion. Such an observation cannot distinguish between hypotheses.
Everyone can see exactly what game you're playing. You can't confront the real arguments against your reasoning, so you invent a list of straw man issues that you think you have a chance of overcoming, given enough years of "thinking."
Your failure to confront head on the underlying fallacy in your thinking that I explained reveals that you are (1) dishonest, (2) incompetent at probability, and (3) disingenuous.
No one who has read and understood my critique of your argument will take you seriously until you face my criticism head on. I have rigorously shown that your argument cannot even in principle increase the odds of your immortality hypothesis. Grow up and confront this fact directly. If you can't bring yourself to do it, then it is time for you to shut up.
Last edited:
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Mojo,
- I don't understand your objection.
- I'm at a family reunion, and 'slower' than ever...
- What are A and B?
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
This one is easy.
Pick the statement most likely to be true.
a. Jane is a successful Dermatologist and her office is on Park Avenue.
b. Jane's office is on Park Avenue.
B is more likely to be true, because it only requires one thing to occur (that she have an office on Park Avenue). A is the more restricted set of (successful dermatologist) AND (office on Park Avenue). Since A is a smaller set than B, B is more likely.
You have presented two competing theories:
a. You exist in physical form
b. You exist in physical form AND metaphysical form or spirit/animus/soul/whatever.
B is less likely. It is a smaller set within A (if it exists at all).
You've set yourself up to prove two things - that you exist as a body AND that you exist as a soul. The chance of B being correct is smaller than A.
That makes A more likely to be true, no matter what numbers you put in.
The only way A is less likely is if A (you having a body) is necessarily a subset of B (you have a soul). Since you can't show you have a soul through evidence, though, I don't think that gets you anywhere. Plus, you've already agreed that there are lots of corporeal things that don't have souls. Mt. Rainier is one of them.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
abaddon,
- It seems to me that the first thing we should try to do in a debate (if we're actually seeking the truth, and not just trying to win) is to make sure that we understand what the other side is saying. When I ask if such and such is what you guys are saying, you say that I'm putting words in your mouth. If it isn't what you're saying, just say "no," and try again to explain yourself (if you think it's worth your while to continue the discussion).
- Status