Proof of Immortality, VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
godless dave said:
Jabba, it seems like you are still claiming that in OOFLAM selves come out of nowhere, but earlier you said you were trying to disprove the materialist hypothesis, which is that selves are generated by brains. Which is it?
Click to expand...

Jabba: "Yes."

Again at this point we almost have to ask Jabba which Jabba we're talking to.

Jabba, if he were being honest would just go "It's a soul. I don't believe in or even understand materialism, I'm just using the word hoping you'll stop arguing with me."
Jabba the Play Director would say "Well you see this is the scene where the big mean skeptic character realizes that this his world view is incompatible and therefore finally understands that there's a God and realizes the Wise Old Mentor has just blown is mind and expanded his horizons. And... action!."
Jabba the Master of Effective Debate would go "By using your arguments I have, somehow, forced you to be be unable to counter argue because of... reasons. So I win."
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
Click on the Nominate button for the post. Select everything between (and including) the QUOTE tags, and copy it; put it in a new post in the thread you want to post in.
Click to expand...

Using that technique I can easily quote the following post from 21st November 2012, 03:29 PM:

Jabba said:
- I think that I can essentially prove immortality using Bayesian statistics.
- If this belongs in a different thread, or has already been done, please let me know. Otherwise, I'll present my case here.
--- Jabba
Click to expand...

Who would have thought five years later we'd still be waiting for some sort of evidence to be posted that wasn't math themed gibberish?

Or that this quote from 6th June 2014, 08:42 AM would still be relevant?

pakeha said:
Jabba, didn't you understand that the numbering of the posts can change, according to possible mod actions?

Do you know how to use the multi-quote function?
It takes away all need to have a separate log.
Click to expand...

It wasn't even the first time someone brought up the issue! It was part of an ongoing discussion.
 
Jabba said:
...
20. IOW, in the latter case, in a sense, each of us comes out of nowhere, we’re all “brand new.” The particular DNA seems to produce a bit of consciousness with an accompanying particular “self”, but if we were able to replicate the DNA, we wouldn’t get the same self...
Click to expand...

JayUtah said:
...Simply more question-begging. The notion that we are "brand new" and "come out of nowhere" are clearly concepts you believe in, but do not have any meaning under materialism. Therefore they cannot be used to falsify materialism. (fatal flaw 8 restated)...
Click to expand...

Jabba said:
...
21. The Bayesian formula I suggest:
21.1. P(H|E)=P(E|H)P(H)/P(~H) =
21.2. (7,000,000,000/ ∞)*.99/.01 =
21.3. Δx→0...
Click to expand...

JayUtah said:
...
This formulation is gibberish. The third line doesn't follow from the first in that a purported real number cannot equate to the extent of a limit, which is a concept and not a number. You haven't specified a limit. You haven't defined x. Division of a non-zero real number by infinity, where it is defined, is defined as zero, not "virtually zero." It is not defined for this particular circumstance. You have provided no rationale for ~H. ~H is not an hypothesis but a set of mutually exclusive hypotheses; the formulation must consider them individually.

Fatal flaw 11: Your formulation is pseudo-mathematical gibberish in a number of ways.
Click to expand...
- Keep in mind that I have revised my formula to the following:

Jabba said:
...
30. So, given
…k = all background knowledge
…P = the probability of
…NR = Non-Religious hypothesis
…| = given
…me = me (my current existence)
…R = Religious hypothesis.
31. The formula for this probability is
…P(NR|me & k) = P(me|NR)P(NR|k) / (P(me|NR)P(NR|k) + P(me|R)P(R|k)).
32. Since P(me|R) is simply indefinable (it isn’t zero or vanishingly small), we can substitute any positive value that we think is reasonable (.01 for instance), and given that value, the probability of the Non-Religious Hypothesis -- also given my current existence and all background knowledge (P(NR|me & k) becomes P(me|NR)P(NR|k) / (P(me|NR)P(NR|k) + .01P(R|k)).
33. If I then assign the subjective probabilities of .99 to P(NR|k) and .01 to P(R|k), P(NR|me&k) = (1/10100) times .99, divided by .01 times .1 = vanishingly small.
34. Since I do currently exist, the probability of me being temporary and singular ("mortal") is vanishingly small.
Click to expand...

- Thanks, Zoo.
 
- Now, realizing that I hadn't been addressing the right arguments, I'll go back and clarify my answers to FF 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 11.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Since P(me|R) is simply indefinable (it isn’t zero or vanishingly small), we can substitute any positive value that we think is reasonable (.01 for instance)
Click to expand...

No, we can't. If we don't have enough data to make an estimate, we can't make a useful estimate.

Also, "vanishingly small" isn't a number.
 
godless dave said:
No, we can't. If we don't have enough data to make an estimate, we can't make a useful estimate.

Also, "vanishingly small" isn't a number.
Click to expand...
Dave,
- I think that we do have enough data -- and, I've already done my best to explain my reasoning...
- OK. I'll go back to 10-100.
 
Jabba said:
- Keep in mind that I have revised my formula to the following
Click to expand...

Your claim is to prove immortality by using Bayesian inference conditioned on your own existence. Your required formulation is hence:

I = "people are immortal"
E = "I exist"

and the probabilities P(I), P(~I), P(E|I), P(E|~I), P(I|E) and P(~I|E). You will refer to all such probabilities by these symbols. You do not get to deviate from that formulation.
 
Last edited:
caveman1917 said:
Your claim is to prove immortality by using Bayesian inference conditioned on your own existence. Your required formulation is hence:

I = "people are immortal"
E = "I exist" and the probabilities P(I), P(~I), P(E|I), P(E|~I), P(I|E) and P(~I|E). You will refer to all such probabilities by these symbols. You do not get to deviate from that formulation.
Click to expand...

The highlighted part needs a bit of clarity. Jabba has been loose and inconsistent with its meaning.

ETA: It would also be a good exercise for Jabba to come up with an estimate for P(E) straight up before he estimates the two conditional versions.
 
Last edited:
jond said:
Which is it, Jabba? Is the likelihood of your body existing a given (as you stated on May 4th) or is it virtually zero as you are now claiming?

And since you agree that the likelihood of a body and soul cannot be more likely than the body alone, why does it matter how unlikely the body is? Adding a soul changes nothing about how your body came to be. All it does is add another unlikely thing into the equation.

You have lost, Jabba. Give it up.
Click to expand...

Jabba, you must have missed this. Fortunately, any neutral jury will recognize that you have lost.
 
jsfisher said:
The highlighted part needs a bit of clarity. Jabba has been loose and inconsistent with its meaning.

ETA: It would also be a good exercise for Jabba to come up with an estimate for P(E) straight up before he estimates the two conditional versions.
Click to expand...

There's no need for P(E), the result doesn't depend on it. P(I|E) / P(~I|E) = (P(I) / P(~I)) * (P(E|I) / P(E|~I)) and since P(I|E) + P(~I|E) = 1 that gives us the values of both P(I|E) and P(~I|E). The list of probabilities and events I gave is minimal and exhaustive. The "no deviation" goes for everyone ;)
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
I think that we do have enough data -- and, I've already done my best to explain my reasoning...
Click to expand...

No. Your whole justification for just making up numbers is that there is no data by which to define it properly. Your reasoning, such as it is, is to demand that you get to have your cake and eat it too.
 
Jabba said:
- Now, realizing that I hadn't been addressing the right arguments, I'll go back and clarify my answers to FF 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 11.
Click to expand...

Thanks. You must also answer 5 and 8 through 10 as I haven't excused you from them. Also, remember this is a breadth exercise. You don't have to answer the argument entirely. You merely have to write a sentence or two describing the approach you're going to take to fix the flaw. For example, for no. 11 it is sufficient to say, "I have revised the formula." Also, please consider putting them in a single post so that they can be easily found and referenced in subsequent discussion.
 
jsfisher said:
If Jabba's estimates were realistic, I'd agree. Asking him to estimate P(E) may help him put things in perspective.
Click to expand...

Heck, it's not even like he needs estimates as such in the first place. See my "electrical wire" example above, no estimates whatsoever except using the maximum entropy distribution for the priors (which isn't so much an estimate in the first place).
 
Last edited:
caveman1917 said:
There's no need for P(E), the result doesn't depend on it. P(I|E) / P(~I|E) = (P(I) / P(~I)) * (P(E|I) / P(E|~I)) and since P(I|E) + P(~I|E) = 1 that gives us the values of both P(I|E) and P(~I|E). The list of probabilities and events I gave is minimal and exhaustive. The "no deviation" goes for everyone ;)
Click to expand...

Not quite.

Also, P(E), P(I), P(I|E), and P(E|I) is sufficient for Jabba's purpose. His expanded denominator serves to obfuscate, not inform.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom