Belz...
Fiend God
If you bothered to read the responses to your question you'd know by now.
Proof of Immortality, VII
- Thread starter abaddon
- Start date
- Status
If you bothered to read the responses to your question you'd know by now.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
We've already been calling it the "sense of self" for quite some time, so there's no reason to change that. The problem is not that we haven't found a name for it. The problem is that you keep trying to push this naming exercise as a way to sneak your quod erat demonstrandum past your critics without support. You want to rename it in a way that includes your preferred cause as part of the data that must be explained.
That's Fatal Flaw #3 on the list of errors in your argument. The one you're assiduously avoiding.
Belz...
Fiend God
Does anyone know how many times Phil had to go through the time loop in Groundhog day? 'Cause I'm similarily knowledgeable about everything in this thread, due to repetition, and I'm ready to go home now.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
"What can I call this particular kind of 1 and 4 so we can be sure we're both talking about the same kind of 1 and 4 that add up to 7?"
Dave
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
Soul
Soul
Soul Soul
Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul Soul
Soul
Belz...
Fiend God
"Ok, perhaps I'm not using the right words..."
Mojo
Mostly harmless
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
"What's the word you use for when you stop beating your wife?"
calebprime
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2006
- Messages
- 13,001
with the power
of soul
anything is possiboul
with the power
of you
anything you wanna dou
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ3EWmdEki8
Belz...
Fiend God
By the power of Greyskull... I have the POWER!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Dave,
- Re #1. I'm happy to use 1/10100.
- Re #2. We can use that model if you wish (that I am totally the result of my DNA, or ovum and sperm cell) -- though, I suspect that we should really use the model that consciousness naturally brings with it a brand new self-awareness, not out of any limited pool of potential self-awarenesseses, and is totally unlimited as to what particular self-awareness it will be.
- Re #3. Whatever, my claim is that going back to the beginning of time is appropriate.
- Re #4. This refers to the Sharpshooter fallacy. My claim here is that I am, in fact, set apart from other possible targets. I think that Caveman agrees.
- Re #5. Again, my claim is that I am set apart, whereas Mt. Rainier is not.
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
Just a few posts ago you said you were trying to disprove the materialist model and you assured us that it was always your intention to use the materialist model as H in P(E|H). But the highlighted part is most assuredly not the materialist model. It's not a model anyone but you is familiar with. It's certainly not a model you can use the phrase "scientifically speaking" about.
We know that's your claim. You've made it several times. You still haven't supported it.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Then I suggest you shuffle two packs of cards together, one with red and the other with blue backs so that every card is distinguishable. You will obtain a result 34 orders of magnitude below your "nearly zero" threshold; in other words, according to your understanding it will have been impossible for you to do what you have just done. Yet you will have just done it. This should demonstrate to you that your understanding is wrong.
Again, again, again, again and again, your claim of being "set apart" is a very precise statement of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy; you are selecting the a posteriori observation as an a priori requirement, which it is not. And repeating your claim for another five years will not make it any less fallacious.
Dave
I'm not saying this to be mean: You're not special. You're not "set apart". This is just the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.
But sure, let's play by your rules. You know who else is special and set apart? Franklin Gazorpazorp. Franklin is a special case that we need to consider. Also Franklin doesn't exist. So let's do your formula and... oh my! I predict he wouldn't exist under a materialistic model and HE DOESN'T! This proves materialism correct. Great work everyone.
Belz...
Fiend God
That's a number you pulled out of nowhere.
Why do you think we "should" do this? So far you have never explained why you think it's rational to pick one course of action rather than the other. And as I noted earlier, many times, your self-awareness changes and is recreated every moment, creating a new "you". The previous "you"s are not brought back to life: they are destroyed.
You don't know that. You don't know how many different "selves" are possible, nor do you know if that has anything to do with the odds of you existing. For all you know, several other people, in history and currently, have identical selves to yours.
Stop repeating your claims. Justify them.
STOP IT.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
As long as you're making it up, it doesn't really matter, does it?
No, if YOU wish. YOU wanted to disprove the materialist model. You have to disprove it as it stands.
I suspect you are way out of your comfort zone, scientifically speaking.
Like a Volkswagen brings with it a brand new going 60 mph. I suspect that you and I agree about how idiotic your words are now.
Explain how those words apply to what you've called a process.
Nothing you've claimed really makes sense.
Explain again for the first time your understanding of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. You apparently have some unique understanding of it that nobody else subscribes to.
I suspect that you and I agree that you aren't set apart because you know that you're just illustrating the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, which you apparently can't comprehend.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Oh, and by the way:
... I see that you've finally found one point that you've managed to fool yourself into thinking one other poster agrees with. But even that doesn't seem to me to be correct; caveman1917 has posted, not that you are in fact set apart from other possible targets, but that your claim to be set apart from other possible targets is not in his opinion an instance of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. Admittedly, in order to do so he has had to produce a mathematical formulation which he claims to be the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy and then argue that your claim does not conform to that mathematical formulation, despite the fact that your claim conforms to the actual definition of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy; but even after such logical gymnastics, even he seems unable to agree that your existence is a predetermined target of some process rather than its random result.
Dave
... I see that you've finally found one point that you've managed to fool yourself into thinking one other poster agrees with. But even that doesn't seem to me to be correct; caveman1917 has posted, not that you are in fact set apart from other possible targets, but that your claim to be set apart from other possible targets is not in his opinion an instance of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. Admittedly, in order to do so he has had to produce a mathematical formulation which he claims to be the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy and then argue that your claim does not conform to that mathematical formulation, despite the fact that your claim conforms to the actual definition of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy; but even after such logical gymnastics, even he seems unable to agree that your existence is a predetermined target of some process rather than its random result.
Dave
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
That doesn't fix the problem. Your argument for it being "virtually zero" was based on a misunderstanding of how infinity works in mathematics. It reveals that you really don't know much about math, which casts doubt on your confidence in being able to prove mathematically that you have an immortal soul. Simply replacing that bit of profound ignorance with a small finite number plucked out of thin air commits the reciprocal error because it's plucked out of thin air with no rationale or computation behind it.
If you're going to pick a finite number as the value of P(E|H) and stick with the notion that it's derived from the cardinality of the set of "potential selves," then it inevitably follows that your Big Denominator -- that aforementioned cardinality -- must be a finite number. And if the cardinality of the set of "potential selves" is finite, that means the pool of potential selves must be finite (i.e., limited) in your private definition of materialism. Or else you'll have to also abandon the whole idea of "potential selves" and come up with a new rationale for P(E|H) = 1/10100 that doesn't rely on that, and is also still acceptable under materialism.
No, we really shouldn't. As I, godless dave, and dozens of others have attempted in vain to instruct you, if you're reckoning P(E|H) then you must use H as it is actually formulated, not some other hypothesis in which your quod erat demonstrandum is taken as a foregone conclusion and made to be part of the data that H must explain. None of your attempts to beg the question this way has succeeded in five years in fooling anyone. What makes you think today's the day when it will?
If your goal is to arrive at a useful figure, I can't imagine how going back to a point where there are no data to reason from is at all appropriate. However if your goal is to deny your critics a factual basis from which to refute you, then it makes sense for you to try. And that's exactly what the evidence suggests you're trying to do. You put your critics on that footing, but then when it comes to applying the same standard of proof toward your own hypothesis, you start it at a different point in time. Godless dave is correct in pointing out that you can certainly start your reckoning wherever you want, so long as you apply the limitations equally to materialism as to anything else. Since you don't, your approach is easily seen to be ad hoc and self-serving.
The Texas sharpshooter fallacy doesn't address the simple fact of being set apart. It addresses the criteria by which something is set apart. To escape the fallacy, they cannot be post hoc criteria, otherwise the fallacy is committed. Your argument unequivocally sets you apart based on post hoc criteria, therefore it commits the fallacy and your argument fails forthwith. This is one of the fatal flaws you know dooms your argument and are thus assiduously pretending don't exist.
You have been invited many times to render the Texas sharpshooter fallacy in your own words and explain what makes it a fallacy. Today's post, combined with your stubborn refusal to confirm that you understand, is simply further evidence that you lack the intelligence to comprehend what's wrong with your proof.
And in five years you've been unable to progress the argument beyond simply restating your claim and using various childish tricks to fool people into expressing agreement for it. As we noted in your foray elsewhere, you seem to have no cognitive ability beyond simply pulpitting your beliefs.
Last edited:
- Status