It's been almost two months since the last fringe reset. I'm not surprised we're getting another one.
Jabba, you have made these claims over and over again, and you do nothing except make these claims. Your attempts to prove them are what we're interested in, and it's abundantly clear you can't prove any of them. Kindly give your critics their due; they have prevailed and all you can do is repeat the claims, insult your critics, and plan a fantasy blog based on favorably rewriting your experiences here.
I have numerous claims and sub-claims...
And they were comprehensively rebutted. You acknowledged the existence of the rebuttal but still have not addressed it. Now you're simply making all the claims over again as if your critics do not exist. And we are not the only audience you've had who have noted that this is your typical behavior. Hence I have to ask why any reasonable person should engage you? If you're simply going to talk to hear yourself talk, what credence is there in your erstwhile claim that you're here to be shown whether there are any errors in your proof?
There is a reasonable possibility that the human self is not physical...
And you have not proved this claim. Your entire proof for it consists of expressions of a fervent desire to be immortal. That is not a
reasonable possibility.
Reasonable possibilities, lines of reasoning, and conclusions have to be accompanied by reasoned argument. "I really want this and would be emotionally devastated to learn it isn't true," is by no means a reasonable possibility.
...not, at least, in our current understanding of physical.
As an excuse for your admitted inability to provide scientifically valid evidence of what you claim, you have claimed science is deficient to the point of being unable to gather evidence for the properties you wish to universally attribute. Special pleading.
The likelihood of an event occurring -- given a particular hypothesis -- has mathematical implications (albeit indefinite) regarding the posterior probability of the hypothesis.
Yes, but not by any correct model you've put forward. One of the fatal flaws I identified in your argument was your unfamiliarity with Bayesian and other statistical processes. You conceded that unfamiliarity. You couldn't even copy the formula correctly.
And "albeit indefinite" seems to be your excuse for simply making up all the numbers you put into the formula. There is one magnitude of uncertainty that arises from uncertainty in the input data. But the uncertainty in your model arises from its having too many unconstrained degrees of freedom, which makes your results uselessly uncertain. You don't understand degrees of freedom and weren't interested in learning about them when the subject was presented. Hence you do not possess the required knowledge to discuss the subject sufficiently.
Your latest formulation was simply gibberish written in largely meaningless mathematical notation.
The likelihood of the current existence of my "self" -- given OOFLam -- is no more than 10-100.
Your attempt to reckon P(E|H) is rife with errors. They have all been repeatedly shown to you, but you ignore them. Your claim has been soundly refuted, whether you choose to acknowledge the refutation or not.
For that to be an appropriate element in judging the probability of OOFLam, my current existence needs to be set apart from most other selves in a way that is relevant to OOFLam.
My self is thusly set apart.
You claim you are a suitable "target" based on nothing more than having been "chosen" to be alive. This retrospective selection commits the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. You clearly don't understand what that is and why it's a fallacy. Your argument in support of this claim simply asks that it not be considered a fallacy.
If I am correct so far, the posterior probability of OOFLam is extremely small.
Obviously no part of your argument as presently stated is correct. Two months or so ago you were given a comprehensive refutation of your argument, featuring a concisely enumerated list of its individually fatal flaws. You know this refutation exists, but you took no notice of it except to speculate how you could use it in your own self-interest. Therefore we have to consider that you are deliberately ignoring what you know to be errors in your argument.
For the likelihood of my current existence to be an appropriate element in the relevant formula, my particular existence does not need to be pre-specified as appropriate.
This is your claim, but it blatantly commits the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. You tried to argue otherwise, but were refuted.
There are other characteristics of an event that can identify its likelihood as an appropriate element, as a legitimate target, in judging the posterior probability of the hypothesis.
This was discussed at length and you were refuted. What you proposed in your examples as characteristics that would post-identify the target were shown instead to be pre-specified information. Inference from a suitable set of pre-specified information is not fallacious. Inference solely on the basis of knowledge of the selection, which is what your argument does,
is a fallacy.
Do not pretend this was not discussed and your claim refuted.
“Targetness” is complex, and exists in degrees.
"Targetness" is a word you made up to hide your ongoing desire to have the Texas sharpshooter fallacy set aside. There is nothing complex about it; it is ordinary inference. The product of an inference varies in strength. Your argument infers things about the data from nothing more than its having been selected. It is therefore an untenable inference. If you had acquiesced to your critics and described the Texas sharpshooter fallacy in your own words, perhaps you would have seen this.
That’s just the beginning.
No, it's more like the end. All these topics were discussed thoroughly and all your claims were refuted. You chose to ignore those refutations, and now -- as usual -- you just want to start over because you want to prolong the debate rather than concede.
I will try to outline all my different premises. I will then ask you to point out all your disagreements.
...which you will then promptly ignore, just as you have admitted to deliberately ignoring them previously throughout the nearly five years this thread has persisted. A comprehensive set of disagreements has already been
presented to you. Prove you're serious about this debate by addressing each and every one of them, to some extent, in your next post. Otherwise we'll have to assume you plan simply to carry on as before, obfuscating and evading, mining quotes for your fantasy-world blog and caring not one whit for any actual test of your claims.
I hope to then introduce our debate to a (new) jury of our peers and present our further cases.
As you did before, you can't win a fair debate so you have to stage your own starring cherry-picked quotes from your critics that make you look good. We're familiar with your venue shopping and the results you got. You can't gaslight your critics here into thinking they must somehow be biased and that this is why your argument has stalled.
Sad, Jabba.
