Proof of Immortality, VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
Agatha,
- More specifically, what number would you estimate for P(E|H)? You need to show me why my numbers are unreasonable.
 
Jabba said:
Agatha,
- What numbers would you choose?
Click to expand...
1. Firstly, I wouldn't be using Bayesian statistics if I were trying to "essentially prove" immortality (or essentially prove that stars are made from glitter and whipped cream), so I wouldn't be using any numbers. Bayes is not the right tool for what you are trying to do.

2. Secondly, if I were assigning probabilities in the way you have done, I would base those probabilities on repeatable and testable evidence, not on "what feels right", "common sense" "what I think 80% of Americans believe". You have proffered all three of the latter reasons to justify your invented numbers.
 
Jabba said:
Agatha,
- More specifically, what number would you estimate for P(E|H)? You need to show me why my numbers are unreasonable.
Click to expand...
I need do nothing, actually; all this idea of immortality is your assertion and therefore your burden of proof. You need to show that your numbers are reasonable and based on evidence.
 
Jabba said:
Robo,
- I've already done that numerous times.
Click to expand...

I'll need for you to point me to where you've defined it consistently. You've said out of one side of your mouth that you agree that the self is a process in the materialist hypothesis, which is what you're trying to falsify. Out of the other side of your mouth, you say that that process is immortal.

What definition of "selves" are you using going forward?
 
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:
Agatha,
- More specifically, what number would you estimate for P(E|H)? You need to show me why my numbers are unreasonable.
Click to expand...

Your entire equation is ignorant gibberish.

Jabba said:
Robo,
- I've already done that numerous times.
Click to expand...

 
jond said:
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.
Click to expand...
jond,
-Search for Caveman1917 and "conjunction" in chapter VI.
 
Jabba said:
Agatha,
- More specifically, what number would you estimate for P(E|H)? You need to show me why my numbers are unreasonable.
Click to expand...
No, Jabba. You have the burden to show that the numbers you've chosen are rational and appropriate. Your numbers are unreasonable not so much because of their numerical magnitude but because of the method you've used to arrive at them. I.e., you just pulled them out of your orifice. That's not "estimation."

You're using a common ploy. Faced with how broken your argument is at a fundamental level, you propose to skip over all that and limit the discussion to only a few minor ways your argument might be adjusted. You're begging the question that your approach is at all sound.
 
Jabba said:
jond,
-Search for Caveman1917 and "conjunction" in chapter VI.
Click to expand...

Or you could post a link to the post you think is compelling, you know, defend your position as if you actually believed it.

Are you sure it's wise to try and get people to hunt of one of the nonsensical "maps" the moderators have already warned you to stop vomiting onto the forum? Your back-door attempt at ANOTHER misdirection is not going to work. I found the post. It's just a longer version of "begging the question." In it you bleat and plead for your nonsense to get special treatment. Frankly, if I'd written anything that mewling I'd do my best to forget it, and not try to draw attention to it a couple of months after excreting it.
 
Last edited:
RoboTimbo said:
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".
Click to expand...

Jabba, you'll need to respond to this in a robust manner.
 
Jabba said:
Robo,
- I've already done that numerous times.
Click to expand...
Not consistently or correctly. The best we can get out of you lately is the deferral, "whatever reincanationists believe comes back." Except you seem to be too wilfully ignorant to realize that most reincanationists are not animists, and animism is what you need.
 
Jabba said:
jond,
-Search for Caveman1917 and "conjunction" in chapter VI.
Click to expand...
It's cute that you think his nannying has anything to do with your claims. Remember the part where you deployed the laughable argument, "I don't understand what he's saying, but he must be correct." Desperate cargo-cult handwaving does not compensate for your demonstrable inability to understand your own argument and why it fails.
 
Jabba said:
jond,
-Search for Caveman1917 and "conjunction" in chapter VI.
Click to expand...

No. I don't care what Caveman has to say. YOU need to answer this rather obvious flaw in your reasoning. You need to explain how a process can continue when the components that give rise to it (in this case the brain) cease functioning. And because we know it can't, that means that immortality requires something else in addition to your brain. And it requires that something else to work with your brain, because we know absolutely that we can very significantly alter your sense of self by blasting a tamping rod through your brain. And it is not possible for your scenario to be more likely than your brain alone.
 
Better mathematics than we get from Jabba:

nlHGZ2i.jpg
 
halleyscomet said:
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.



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?
Click to expand...

Maybe to "enlighten" us with his "knowledge"? Also, didn't Jabba say a few months back that he didn't believe in immortality anymore (I remember visiting this topic a few months back)?
 
tinribmancer said:
Maybe to "enlighten" us with his "knowledge"? Also, didn't Jabba say a few months back that he didn't believe in immortality anymore (I remember visiting this topic a few months back)?
Click to expand...
He admitted he couldn't prove immortality. Therefore he proposed that he would only have to prove "immateriality." This, he argued, would be "supportive" of immortality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom