Proof of Immortality, VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
jond,

- 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.
Click to expand...

reincarnationists think

solipsism claims

Jabba,
Neither think, nor claim is evidence. Nor is either the basis of a definition.

You can not base Bayesian statistics upon fanatic supposition
 
Mojo said:
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?
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
- 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.
Click to expand...


No, I was asking you what it would look like if H was the hypothesis that you have an immortal soul.

But your answer is interesting in the context of your argument. You claim that you have disproved the hypothesis that you do not have an immortal soul because your existence under that hypothesis is so unlikely that your existence makes the hypothesis essentially impossible. But now you seem to be saying that your existence would be just as unlikely under the hypothesis that you do have an immortal soul.

This means that you have either disproved both hypotheses, or disproved neither.

Either way your "proof" of immortality fails.
 
Jabba said:
....
- I don't accept that the brain generates the process. I suggest that the brain receives the process.
Click to expand...

Back to the "brain is a radio" analogy which you first asserted a few thousand posts ago and still have provided ZERO evidence for.
And then a few posts later you go back to agreeing the brain generates the process. You don't even know what you are saying anymore in your desparate attempt to create quotes for your lie map.
 
Jabba said:
Jabba said:
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.
Click to expand...

godless dave said:
Do you accept that the materialist model is that the brain generates the process?
Click to expand...
- Yes.
Click to expand...

Really? Then you must also accept that we can agree to consign your made up OOFLAM nonsense to the garbage also, right?
 
- IOW, I'm trying to re-evaluate the hypothesis that selves are mortal (H).
- Does anyone here accept the formula I'm using in trying to re-evaluate the probability of that hypothesis -- given my current existence?
- That formula is P(H|E)=P(E|H)P(H)/((P(E|H)P(H))+P(E|~H)P(~H)).
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- IOW, I'm trying to re-evaluate the hypothesis that selves are mortal (H).
- Does anyone here accept the formula I'm using in trying to re-evaluate the probability of that hypothesis -- given my current existence?
- That formula is P(H|E)=P(E|H)P(H)/((P(E|H)P(H))+P(E|~H)P(~H)).
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter. No matter how unlikely it is that your body exists, it is impossible for your body + a soul + a means of the soul and body working together in the way we KNOW the self works to be more likely. And the only way for you to be immortal is to have both a body and a soul, and a way for the two to work together.
 
Jabba said:
- IOW, I'm trying to re-evaluate the hypothesis that selves are mortal (H).
- Does anyone here accept the formula I'm using in trying to re-evaluate the probability of that hypothesis -- given my current existence?
- That formula is P(H|E)=P(E|H)P(H)/((P(E|H)P(H))+P(E|~H)P(~H)).
Click to expand...
Mortality is an observation that follows from any number of hypotheses for how life occurs. It is not by itself the hypothesis. Remember how I told you that you don't know how to formulate a statistical inference? Remember how your answer to that was no more.sophisticated than "Nuh-uh!" Yeah, this post is the best evidence that you don't know what you're doing.

Now stop childishly groveling for agreement. Stop arrogantly presuming you can't possibly be wrong, Mr. "Certified Statistician." Answer the breadth-first challenge I have set for you, in the manner I instructed.
 
Jabba said:
- IOW, I'm trying to re-evaluate the hypothesis that selves are mortal (H).
Click to expand...

No you're not. You are not engaging in this debate in good faith. You are a liar who is repeatedly evading the questions asked of you.

Jabba said:
- Does anyone here accept the formula I'm using in trying to re-evaluate the probability of that hypothesis -- given my current existence?
- That formula is P(H|E)=P(E|H)P(H)/((P(E|H)P(H))+P(E|~H)P(~H)).
Click to expand...

Nobody accepts your "formula." Stop asking. Nobody is going to accept it. After five years you STILL haven't managed to justify any fragment of it. It's garbage and your continual bleating in its defense only makes you look worse, which is quite an accomplishment given how low a bar you've already set.

You have wasted five years of your life on a debate you refuse to engage in honestly on a topic that you don't understand using arguments that are, to be kind, moronic to anyone with even a remedial understanding of ANY of the underlying concepts. Why? What do you hope to achieve?
 
Jabba said:
- IOW, I'm trying to re-evaluate the hypothesis that selves are mortal (H).
Click to expand...
Define "selves"

- Does anyone here accept the formula I'm using in trying to re-evaluate the probability of that hypothesis -- given my current existence?
Click to expand...
What is the formula to re-evaluate the probability that my Volkswagen would go that particular 60 mph given that it is going that particular 60 mph?
 
RoboTimbo said:
Define "selves"
Click to expand...

And this isn't an idle question, Jabba. What is it that you're calling a "self" in the materialist model? You've already accepted that in the materialist model, which is what you're trying to falsify, that the self is a process of the organism. If the organism dies, the process stops.

So what is it in the materialist model that you're calling the self that you're trying to prove is immortal?

You won't be allowed to use the Jabba Immmortal Lie (JIL) to bait and switch the definition of "self".
 
Jabba said:
- IOW, I'm trying to re-evaluate the hypothesis that selves are mortal (H).
- Does anyone here accept the formula I'm using in trying to re-evaluate the probability of that hypothesis -- given my current existence?
- That formula is P(H|E)=P(E|H)P(H)/((P(E|H)P(H))+P(E|~H)P(~H)).
Click to expand...

No.
 
Jabba said:
- if we accept that the opinion that we each have but one, finite, life is possibly wrong, bayesian statistics mixed with modern science concludes that it is wrong.
Click to expand...

If we accept that the opinion that stars are mostly made from hydrogen and helium is possibly wrong, bayesian statistics mixed with modern science concludes that it is wrong.

Jabba said:
- IOW, I'm trying to re-evaluate the hypothesis that selves are mortal (H).
- Does anyone here accept the formula I'm using in trying to re-evaluate the probability of that hypothesis -- given my current existence?
- That formula is P(H|E)=P(E|H)P(H)/((P(E|H)P(H))+P(E|~H)P(~H)).
Click to expand...

IOW, I'm trying to re-evaluate the hypothesis that stars are mostly hydrogen and helium (H).
Does anyone here accept the formula I'm using in trying to re-evaluate the probability of that hypothesis -- given Alpha Centauri's current existence?
That formula is P(H|E)=P(E|H)P(H)/((P(E|H)P(H))+P(E|~H)P(~H)).

Jabba, please look at these two quotes of yours and my analogies of them.

Can you see that you are misusing Bayesian statistics in the way that you are using them? You are asserting that any opinion that someone thinks is possibly wrong can be demonstrated to be wrong, purely by entering some numbers* into a formula.

If I doubt that stars are hydrogen and helium, I can (by using Bayesian statistics in the way you suggest) demonstrate that stars are in fact made from whipped cream and glitter.

If I doubt that my bank account is almost empty in the post-Christmas period, I can (by using Bayesian statistics in the way you suggest) demonstrate that in fact I have £1m in that account.

Do you think that Stephen Hawking will embrace my "composition of stars" fact? Do you think that my bank manager will allow me to go out and spend a million quid in the sales tomorrow?

I hope that you'd answer no in both cases, and perhaps then you would be able to see that manipulating numbers in a formula doesn't change the real world.

Your claim that immortality is essentially proven by Bayesian statistics is no more convincing than my claim that glitter/whipped cream stars are essentially proven by Bayesian statistics.

*As long as the numbers are carefully chosen to produce the desired outcome, as yours are.
 
Agatha said:
If we accept that the opinion that stars are mostly made from hydrogen and helium is possibly wrong, bayesian statistics mixed with modern science concludes that it is wrong.



IOW, I'm trying to re-evaluate the hypothesis that stars are mostly hydrogen and helium (H).
Does anyone here accept the formula I'm using in trying to re-evaluate the probability of that hypothesis -- given Alpha Centauri's current existence?
That formula is P(H|E)=P(E|H)P(H)/((P(E|H)P(H))+P(E|~H)P(~H)).

Jabba, please look at these two quotes of yours and my analogies of them.

Can you see that you are misusing Bayesian statistics in the way that you are using them? You are asserting that any opinion that someone thinks is possibly wrong can be demonstrated to be wrong, purely by entering some numbers* into a formula.

If I doubt that stars are hydrogen and helium, I can (by using Bayesian statistics in the way you suggest) demonstrate that stars are in fact made from whipped cream and glitter.

If I doubt that my bank account is almost empty in the post-Christmas period, I can (by using Bayesian statistics in the way you suggest) demonstrate that in fact I have £1m in that account.

Do you think that Stephen Hawking will embrace my "composition of stars" fact? Do you think that my bank manager will allow me to go out and spend a million quid in the sales tomorrow?

I hope that you'd answer no in both cases, and perhaps then you would be able to see that manipulating numbers in a formula doesn't change the real world.

Your claim that immortality is essentially proven by Bayesian statistics is no more convincing than my claim that glitter/whipped cream stars are essentially proven by Bayesian statistics.

*As long as the numbers are carefully chosen to produce the desired outcome, as yours are.
Click to expand...
Agatha,
- What numbers would you choose?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom