Proof of Immortality, VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
John Jones said:
What's the point?
Click to expand...

Obviously the point is to call out one sub-sub-sub-issue to be the topic of discussion for the next three pages, ignoring the substance of the argument from which it was torn. Everyone else seems to understand what was meant, but out comes Befuddled Old Man, "Gee, guys, I don't get what you mean, can you please stay on the defensive and continue explaining yourselves to a wall while I sit back and laugh for another day?"

Jabba has made it fairly obvious he's not afraid of a comprehensive discussion. He's busy crafting one right now, elsewhere, so that he can shape the whole thing the way he wants it. What he's obviously terrified of is a comprehensive discussion here where he can't control what others say. He knows the list of fatal flaws exists, and he's not afraid to use it where he can pretend to overcome it by crippling his critics. Time will tell whether he has the wontons to address it where he can't edit away uncomfortable facts. My guess, as I suppose is yours, is that he will not. He's shown he doesn't have the stomach for open debate.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- P(E|H) is the likelihood of my current existence -- given the non-religious hypothesis of only one finite life, at most, for each potential specific self-awareness.

- Can you tell me why my response is wrong?
Click to expand...

because individual self awareness is not an object it is a changing process.

If we say that you consciousness just changes when you go to sleep, then there are tens of thousands of 'self-awareness' events over a life time.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
given the non-religious hypothesis of only one finite life, at most, for each potential specific self-awareness.
Click to expand...

This is another example of misrepresenting the hypothesis you are trying to disprove.
 
Last edited:
Dancing David said:
because individual self awareness is not an object it is a changing process.
Click to expand...

More importantly, my existence is not any more salient or important than yours, and neither of them is salient just because they are actual. And neither is more salient before the fact than the (non-)existence of someone who doesn't exist and will never exist. Ours are salient because they happened, and most of whatever you consider from that in retrospect is likely to be post hoc rationalization. Using you and I in the here and now to inform the evaluation of what must previously have been determined is salient is a no-no. "I am special because I am so very improbable" combined with "I am special because I exist, and therefore I was always special" are together the core of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, and the key fallacy in Jabba's argument.

The poker analogy is still the best. We agree ahead of time that certain combinations of cards have a certain arbitrary value. While probability strictly governs which combinations of cards are most likely to appear in a game, the importance of any given hand is governed by the prior agreement of arbitrary valuation. The importance of a hand is not determined by the probability that it could have arisen. That's the same for each combination of cards remaining in the deck. You cannot say, "But this (garbage) hand is so very improbable from among all the combinations that could have been dealt, therefore it must somehow be special." Nor can you say, "This (garbage) hand is important because it was actually dealt to me and I'm holding it."

Jabba knows this. He's acknowledged that the playing field is, for all intents and purposes, level. And he's therefore gone on to say that he needs some way of "meaningfully setting apart" his existence ab initio, so that when it comes up as data it can be seen as an appropriately "winning" hand. But his problem is still that one of the only two things he latches onto that sets him apart is the improbability of his existence, which just puts him right back in front of that Texas barn. I.e., he continually tries to argue that the Texas sharpshooter fallacy isn't really a fallacy. The other thing he latches onto is begging the question of his specialness by virtue of the soul -- "...wouldn't be ME," and "...wouldn't bring ME back to life." Others have already rightly pointed out that this is sentimentality, not statistics.

This individual error and all the attendant ones he committed -- just in his latest rejoinder -- are covered in this list which Jabba steadfastly maintains, for various lame reasons, he doesn't need to answer. This is the level of pedantry we have to stoop to when dealing with Jabba's manipulative machinations. He can, in one breath, demand that I type out yet another post containing the reasons why his claim fails, but simultaneously reassert his claimed prerogative to decline the (same) reasons that have been on the table for six months awaiting attention he has expressly refused to give. "I can't answer Jay's challenges, but I'm going to pretend he has to write them all out again for my benefit."
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
More importantly, my existence is not any more salient or important than yours, and neither of them is salient just because they are actual. And neither is more salient before the fact than the (non-)existence of someone who doesn't exist and will never exist. Ours are salient because they happened, and most of whatever you consider from that in retrospect is likely to be post hoc rationalization. Using you and I in the here and now to inform the evaluation of what must previously have been determined is salient is a no-no. "I am special because I am so very improbable" combined with "I am special because I exist, and therefore I was always special" are together the core of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, and the key fallacy in Jabba's argument.

The poker analogy is still the best. We agree ahead of time that certain combinations of cards have a certain arbitrary value. While probability strictly governs which combinations of cards are most likely to appear in a game, the importance of any given hand is governed by the prior agreement of arbitrary valuation. The importance of a hand is not determined by the probability that it could have arisen. That's the same for each combination of cards remaining in the deck. You cannot say, "But this (garbage) hand is so very improbable from among all the combinations that could have been dealt, therefore it must somehow be special." Nor can you say, "This (garbage) hand is important because it was actually dealt to me and I'm holding it."

Jabba knows this. He's acknowledged that the playing field is, for all intents and purposes, level. And he's therefore gone on to say that he needs some way of "meaningfully setting apart" his existence ab initio, so that when it comes up as data it can be seen as an appropriately "winning" hand. But his problem is still that one of the only two things he latches onto that sets him apart is the improbability of his existence, which just puts him right back in front of that Texas barn. I.e., he continually tries to argue that the Texas sharpshooter fallacy isn't really a fallacy. The other thing he latches onto is begging the question of his specialness by virtue of the soul -- "...wouldn't be ME," and "...wouldn't bring ME back to life." Others have already rightly pointed out that this is sentimentality, not statistics.

This individual error and all the attendant ones he committed -- just in his latest rejoinder -- are covered in this list which Jabba steadfastly maintains, for various lame reasons, he doesn't need to answer. This is the level of pedantry we have to stoop to when dealing with Jabba's manipulative machinations. He can, in one breath, demand that I type out yet another post containing the reasons why his claim fails, but simultaneously reassert his claimed prerogative to decline the (same) reasons that have been on the table for six months awaiting attention he has expressly refused to give. "I can't answer Jay's challenges, but I'm going to pretend he has to write them all out again for my benefit."
Click to expand...


Quite true, Jabba's responses are numbingly predictable
 
Dancing David said:
Quite true, Jabba's responses are numbingly predictable
Click to expand...

At least his replies here are. I unearthed his now defunct site on Archive.org. I'm frankly disgusted at the obvious games he's playing here. He's perfectly capable of understanding the issues being raised. Having read how he writes elsewhere it's clear to me that he's ignoring the large body of criticism because he wants to accuse us of harping on the same topics.
 
Jabba said:
- Good. I'll go back to your objections in #827. Hopefully, I'll eventually come up with a final closing statement that I can refer back to the stat professors, and ask for their objections in writing -- and then, go from there.
- Back to #827.
You compute P(E|H) evaluating E subjectively after the fact. Effectively your proof constructs its evaluation only in a space where E has already been chosen, hence P(E|H) = 1. It also consults E to inform the method of evaluation. Further, "may affect" implies a mechanism of effect. I can state any hypothesis and I can name any piece of data, but that alone doesn't connect the data to the hypothesis. You must have an evidenced causal model. And here's where, in your proof, you dishonestly sneak the causal mechanism from your hypothesis into materialism and pretend they have to work the same way. You expressly ignore the actual causal mechanism for H -> E.
- Unfortunately, I don't understand the hi-lighted part above. If you, or anyone else can explain it to me, I'll see if I have an answer.
Click to expand...

Dave Rogers said:
It means that your proof commits the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, as you've been repeatedly told.

Dave
Click to expand...
- From #625, why I think that the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy doesn't apply.

Jabba said:
...
5. Or, it could be that all possible events – given H – are equally unlikely (e.g. a fair lottery) -- if so, the particular event needs to be "set apart" in a way that is relevant to the hypothesis in order to impact the hypothesis.
...
16. But then, is my current SSA "set apart" from all the other SSAs?
17. Here's why I think it is.
18. My SSA is the only thing or process that I know exists -- the rest could be my imagination.
19. If it didn't ever exist, it would be as if nothing ever existed -- and the likelihood of it ever existing is less than 1/10100.
20. If it didn't currently exist, it would be as if nothing currently existed, and the likelihood of it currently existing is even (much) less than the likelihood of it ever existing...
21. That gives enormous significance to my current, personal SSA.
22. And, the thing is, every current SSA has the same reason to believe that OOFLam is wrong -- and that she or he is not mortal....
Click to expand...
 
Jabba said:
- From #625, why I think that the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy doesn't apply.
Click to expand...

Point 18 assumes solipsism, which contradicts materialism, which is the hypothesis you claim to be outlining. Your defense is rejected as self-contradictory. Now, please return to addressing the list of fatal flaws as JayUtah has requested.

Dave
 
Jabba said:
From #625, why I think that the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy doesn't apply.
Click to expand...

None of that sentimentalist navel-gazing fixes your math or logic. "I was previously set apart because I think I'm a special snowflake" is as far away from the actual mathematics as one can get, and is blatantly a commission of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. Your significance is 100% subjective in your formulation, which is exactly consulting E to inform the method of evaluation.
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
Now, please return to addressing the list of fatal flaws as JayUtah has requested.
Click to expand...

Yes, Jabba, please do. As you can see, the interest in your ability to defend your argument in breadth before defending it in depth is not confined just to me. I have shown how it is in the best interests of this debate that you answer the breadth-first questions. I have shown how that longstanding list of questions is pertinent to your most recent summary. You have not even acknowledged, much less rebutted, those justifications, so we must conclude that you consider them valid.
 
Jabba said:
- From #625, why I think that the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy doesn't apply.
Click to expand...

Ahh, so you don’t think that self awareness is a process in the brain after all. Which means you are not arguing against the materialistic hypothesis, but rather a made up version of it which has nothing to do with materialism. It would be good if you decided what it was you were trying to disprove.
 
jond said:
Ahh, so you don’t think that self awareness is a process in the brain after all.
Click to expand...

...which contradicts not only materialism (and is the subject of Fatal Flaw no. 8) but also contradicts what Jabba himself has already conceded. This is the joy of debating dishonest people. When cornered, they might make a tactical withdrawal or compelled concession just to escape today's tight spot. But such progress never lasts. As soon as the heat is off, they just snap back to their original beliefs as if they were never conceded.
 
jond said:
Ahh, so you don’t think that self awareness is a process in the brain after all. Which means you are not arguing against the materialistic hypothesis, but rather a made up version of it which has nothing to do with materialism. It would be good if you decided what it was you were trying to disprove.
Click to expand...

If he did that he wouldn't be able to quote-mine the thread as easily. It's far easier to create the illusion of disordered thinking in cherry-picked quotes if one is deliberately disordered in the argument one is trying to get the opponent to respond to.
 
- From my #625,
1. New information may affect the probability of an existing hypothesis (H)

JayUtah said:
...
You compute P(E|H) evaluating E subjectively after the fact. Effectively your proof constructs its evaluation only in a space where E has already been chosen, hence P(E|H) = 1. It also consults E to inform the method of evaluation. Further, "may affect" implies a mechanism of effect. I can state any hypothesis and I can name any piece of data, but that alone doesn't connect the data to the hypothesis. You must have an evidenced causal model. And here's where, in your proof, you dishonestly sneak the causal mechanism from your hypothesis into materialism and pretend they have to work the same way. You expressly ignore the actual causal mechanism for H -> E....
Click to expand...
- Per usual, I don't understand your objection. Bayesian statistics uses new info to re-evaluate the probability of an old hypothesis. Obviously, there is plenty of new info that has no bearing(spelling?) on a particular old hypothesis, but Bayesian statistics would not involve such new info in re-evaluating an old hypothesis.
 
Jabba said:
- From #625, why I think that the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy doesn't apply.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter why you think your logical fallacies don't apply - it's all another fallacy called the Special Pleading Logical Fallacy. You haven't got a chance of keeping up if you can't recognize that fact.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom