Proof of Immortality, VII

[JayUtah]

Empty gainsaying is not a response.

*Is too! Nu-unh! Is too! nu-unh! Is not! Is too! Is not! Is too! Is not! nu-unh.

Exactly. His approach doesn't rise any higher than gaslighting. "All the things you skeptics keep pointing out as errors aren't really errors. Here, let me repeat myself because you clearly don't understand how they're not errors." He doesn't want his critics to trust their judgment that his argument fails. He has no argument that goes beyond insisting he must be right and that his critics are just too benighted to know otherwise.

 

[RoboTimbo]

1. New information may affect the probability of an existing hypothesis (H).

[citation required]

 

[RoboTimbo]

jond,
- Re #1.
- I have addressed this objection, but, I'll try again.
- The "self" is something we all experience. It's the thing/process

No. In the materialist model, which is what you're trying to refute, it is a process, not a thing. You continue to lie about what it is that you're trying to refute. This fallacy is called a 'strawman'.

that reincarnationists think returns and that solipsism claims is all that we know for sure exists.

This fallacy is called a 'circular argument'. "The soul exists and it's what 'reincarnationists' think exists." Can you explain how that isn't a circular argument?

In our debate formula, the materialist model is, in fact, represented by "OOFLam," "H," P(H)" and "P(E|H)." No problem (that I can see).

This is a lie. OOFLam is an acronym for something you made up. If you mean the materialist model, just say the materialist model and then you won't be tempted to tack on a soul to it. It's also a lie because you've been shown dozens, if not hundreds, of times how it's a strawman.

- Re #2.
- I don't accept that the brain generates the process. I suggest that the brain receives the process.

That is your claim. It isn't representative of the materialist model, which is what you're trying to refute.

Nobody cares what you accept or don't accept when you're trying to refute the materialist model.

 

[Jabba]

- From Chapter V, #3198. Jay is in red.
Fatal flaw 2: You err in your understanding of the probative nature of a statistical inference.
Quote: The strength of the evidence depends in part upon how unlikely the event is -- given the hypothesis.No, the strength of the hypothesis depends on how well it explains evidence.
You simply make up the alleged relationship between the event and the hypothesis. You frankly stated up front this is what you're doing...

- Replace "make up" with "estimate," and I agree.

- Also, keep in mind that this objection refers to wording I've since revised.
- Following is the new wording:
1. New information may affect the probability of an existing hypothesis (H).
2. An old event may be new info if it hasn’t already been considered in the current probability of H.
3. If an event is unlikely – given a particular hypothesis (H) – but the event occurs, the occurrence will tend to have a negative effect upon the probability of H — but, it need not.

 

[JayUtah]

- From Chapter V, #3198. Jay is in red.
Fatal flaw 2: You err in your understanding of the probative nature of a statistical inference.
Quote: The strength of the evidence depends in part upon how unlikely the event is -- given the hypothesis.No, the strength of the hypothesis depends on how well it explains evidence.
You simply make up the alleged relationship between the event and the hypothesis. You frankly stated up front this is what you're doing...

- Replace "make up" with "estimate," and I agree.

- Also, keep in mind that this objection refers to wording I've since revised.
- Following is the new wording:
1. New information may affect the probability of an existing hypothesis (H).
2. An old event may be new info if it hasn’t already been considered in the current probability of H.
3. If an event is unlikely – given a particular hypothesis (H) – but the event occurs, the occurrence will tend to have a negative effect upon the probability of H — but, it need not.

You did not follow my instructions.

 

[jond]

jond,
- Re #1.
- I have addressed this objection, but, I'll try again.
- The "self" is something we all experience. It's the thing/process that reincarnationists think returns and that solipsism claims is all that we know for sure exists. In our debate formula, the materialist model is, in fact, represented by "OOFLam," "H," P(H)" and "P(E|H)." No problem (that I can see).

- Re #2.
- I don't accept that the brain generates the process. I suggest that the brain receives the process.

As this post represents the entirety of your efforts to answer this problem, we can, with certainty, declare your position severely defeated.

 

[Mojo]

jond,
- Re #1.
- I have addressed this objection, but, I'll try again.
- The "self" is something we all experience. It's the thing/process that reincarnationists think returns and that solipsism claims is all that we know for sure exists.

And which doesn't exist under materialism in the way your argument requires. You therefore can't shoehorn it into an expression for the likelihood of your existence under materialism.

In our debate formula, the materialist model is, in fact, represented by "OOFLam," "H," P(H)" and "P(E|H)." No problem (that I can see).

That's because you have your eyes tightly shut.

- Re #2.
- I don't accept that the brain generates the process. I suggest that the brain receives the process.

Tough. Under materialism, consciousness is a process generated by the brain. If the model you are trying to disprove includes consciousness as something other than this, then your argument cannot disprove materialism.

Fail.

 

[Mojo]

jond,
- Re #1.
- I have addressed this objection, but, I'll try again.
- The "self" is something we all experience. It's the thing/process that reincarnationists think returns and that solipsism claims is all that we know for sure exists.

Incidentally, while souls can't be included in any calculation of the likelihood of your existence under materialism, they must be taken into account in the calculation of the likelihood of your existence under any hypothesis in which you have a body and an independently existing soul.

I say, Jabba, what do you think your formula would look like if H was the hypothesis that you have an immortal soul that can exist independently of your body?

 

[Belz...]

- The "self" is something we all experience. It's the thing/process that reincarnationists think returns and that solipsism claims is all that we know for sure exists.

Why do you keep bringing up reincarnation as if it's requried to define "self".

The self is NOT what we experience. It IS experience.

In our debate formula, the materialist model is, in fact, represented by "OOFLam," "H," P(H)" and "P(E|H)." No problem (that I can see).

No. It's represented by H and H only.

- I don't accept that the brain generates the process. I suggest that the brain receives the process.

[/QUOTE]

And you have no way of knowing that.

Has it occured to you that your hypothesis requires extra entities we don't know exist? Why not stick to what we know?

 

[JayUtah]

[citation required]

He's correct enough, abstractly, on that point. If a prior probability exists for a hypothesis, then new data relevant to that hypothesis allows computation of a posterior probability for the same hypothesis, given the new data. This is not exactly the same as proving or disproving the hypothesis. Jabba's problem is not that he has so badly misstated the technique of a statistical inference. It is that he is trying to shoehorn into it his exercise that bears no resemblance to a proper inference. That's tantamount to not understanding how to do it.

Any yutz, for example, can recite the Fourth Amendment to the constitution. That's just rote repetition, which is what Jabba has done in regurgitating the textbook description of Bayesian model. Reciting the Fourth Amendment doesn't mean he is competent to argue a privacy or search/seizure case in court. That requires additional demonstration of knowledge and experience.

 

[godless dave]

- Re #2.
- I don't accept that the brain generates the process. I suggest that the brain receives the process.

Do you accept that the materialist model is that the brain generates the process?

 

[RoboTimbo]

He's correct enough, abstractly, on that point. If a prior probability exists for a hypothesis, then new data relevant to that hypothesis allows computation of a posterior probability for the same hypothesis, given the new data. This is not exactly the same as proving or disproving the hypothesis. Jabba's problem is not that he has so badly misstated the technique of a statistical inference. It is that he is trying to shoehorn into it his exercise that bears no resemblance to a proper inference. That's tantamount to not understanding how to do it.

Any yutz, for example, can recite the Fourth Amendment to the constitution. That's just rote repetition, which is what Jabba has done in regurgitating the textbook description of Bayesian model. Reciting the Fourth Amendment doesn't mean he is competent to argue a privacy or search/seizure case in court. That requires additional demonstration of knowledge and experience.

I knew that one thing was correct and I knew he would post one that hadn't been in contention. I wanted him to find a citation for it so I could point out where it didn't help his argument.

He posted that one so he could snag a sound bite about it being correct-ish.

 

[JoeMorgue]

- Replace "make up" with "estimate," and I agree.

Jabba,

Get this through your thick skull... you don't get to replace your opponents arguments with easier to argue against versions you made up.

We're not saying your "estimate" is wrong. We are saying that your entire premise is made up nonsense.

We are NOT saying that you are "Not exactly correct and you just need to adjust the exact language." We are saying you are 100% across the board totally wrong.

 

[JayUtah]

I knew that one thing was correct and I knew he would post one that hadn't been in contention. I wanted him to find a citation for it so I could point out where it didn't help his argument.

He posted that one so he could snag a sound bite about it being correct-ish.

I'm on board with that. It could seem as you f you were disputing a true principle, and therefore it seems worth mentioning that stating one correct principle and following it with nonsense does not make a correct argument.

 

[JayUtah]

Jabba,

Get this through your thick skull... you don't get to replace your opponents arguments with easier to argue against versions you made up.

We're not saying your "estimate" is wrong. We are saying that your entire premise is made up nonsense.

We are NOT saying that you are "Not exactly correct and you just need to adjust the exact language." We are saying you are 100% across the board totally wrong.

Indeed there is a difference between guessing and estimating. An estimation still requires data and a rationale, which Jabba does not have. Therefore I do not agree that "estimate" is the proper word. The proper word is "guess."

 

[Jabba]

jond,
- Re #1.
- I have addressed this objection, but, I'll try again.
- The "self" is something we all experience. It's the thing/process that reincarnationists think returns and that solipsism claims is all that we know for sure exists. In our debate formula, the materialist model is, in fact, represented by "OOFLam," "H," P(H)" and "P(E|H)." No problem (that I can see).

- Re #2.
- I don't accept that the brain generates the process. I suggest that the brain receives the process.

Do you accept that the materialist model is that the brain generates the process?

- Yes.

 

[Jabba]

Incidentally, while souls can't be included in any calculation of the likelihood of your existence under materialism, they must be taken into account in the calculation of the likelihood of your existence under any hypothesis in which you have a body and an independently existing soul.

I say, Jabba, what do you think your formula would look like if H was the hypothesis that you have an immortal soul that can exist independently of your body?

- Mojo,
- Basically the same -- just 'backwards.' Make H the hypothesis that I do not have an immortal soul that can exist independently of my body, and the results would be about the same.

 

[jond]

- Yes.

Then you need to accept that the materialistic model is that the process of self awareness stops when the brain stops functioning. The only way for immortality to happen is if the self is a separate entity, and not a process. And, as you are well aware, this is far less likely then the existence of your brain/body alone. You have lost. Badly. It’s long last time to admit it.

 

[jond]

- Mojo,
- Basically the same -- just 'backwards.' Make H the hypothesis that I do not have an immortal soul that can exist independently of my body, and the results would be about the same.

No. And you know why.

The likelihood that your body exists is B.
The likelihood that your soul exists as a separate entity is S.
The likelihood that your soul exists and interacts with your body is P.

Whatever numbers you want to make up to assign to B, S and P, it is IMPOSSIBLE for B x S X P to be more likely than B alone.

 

[Mojo]

Indeed there is a difference between guessing and estimating. An estimation still requires data and a rationale, which Jabba does not have. Therefore I do not agree that "estimate" is the proper word. The proper word is "guess."

Not really. He's making up the numbers to fit his desired conclusion, not guessing them.

For example, I think that at some point he justified having five alternative hypotheses each with an estimated likelihood of 0.002 by saying that they needed to add up to a likelihood of 0.01 which was the figure he had made up for the likelihood of ~H. I can't find the post, but it was a response to a post by Agatha. Here's Agatha referring back to it: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11206093#post11206093