Proof of Immortality, VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
caveman1917 said:
You mean the subset fallacy? There's no such thing as the conjunction fallacy :)

Either way: GOTO 1892. The loop can only be exited on the condition that substituting "have only a torso" and "have torso and legs" for "have only a body" and "have a body and a soul" in your claims doesn't instantly make you look like a lunatic.
Click to expand...

No, I mean the conjunction fallacy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_fallacy

And no, a soul is not a subset of a body. In Jabba’s scenario, it exists separately from the body (which is why it would be able to continue to exist when the body stops functioning).
 
jond said:
No, I mean the conjunction fallacy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_fallacy

And no, a soul is not a subset of a body. In Jabba’s scenario, it exists separately from the body (which is why it would be able to continue to exist when the body stops functioning).
Click to expand...

From your link:

A: "Linda is a bank teller."
B: "Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement."

Because B ⊆ A therefor P(B) ≤ P(A).

H: "You have only a body."
~H: "You have a body and a soul."

Because ~H ⊆ H ther...Hey wait a second!

The role that A plays in the former is not played by H in the latter but by H ∪ ~H. Hence why it's a good idea to learn how to articulate the difference between H and H ∪ ~H. In the meantime: GOTO 1892.

And yes, you should really try thinking of it as the "subset fallacy" rather than the "conjunction fallacy" since that might stop you from thinking - for FSM knows why! - that the point here is that "and" is some sort of magic word or something. It just makes you look bananas.
 
caveman1917 said:
From your link:

A: "Linda is a bank teller."
B: "Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement."

Because B ⊆ A therefor P(B) ≤ P(A).

H: "You have only a body."
~H: "You have a body and a soul."

Because ~H ⊆ H ther...Hey wait a second!

The role that A plays in the former is not played by H in the latter but by H ∪ ~H. Hence why it's a good idea to learn how to articulate the difference between H and H ∪ ~H. In the meantime: GOTO 1892.

And yes, you should really try thinking of it as the "subset fallacy" rather than the "conjunction fallacy" since that might stop you from thinking - for FSM knows why! - that the point here is that "and" is some sort of magic word or something. It just makes you look bananas.
Click to expand...

Never mind, have to go for now.
 
caveman1917 said:
Here's your homework: prove that for every event A in a probability space there does not exist an event E such that P(A|E) < P(A) and P(~A|E) < P(~A). Don't worry, it's trivial.
Click to expand...

Here's a hint: Can the following 4 statements all be true at the same time?

- P(A) + P(~A) = 1
- P(A|E) + P(~A|E) = 1
- P(A|E) < P(A)
- P(~A|E) < P(~A)
 
abaddon said:
P(H) has a single premise, P(~H) has every other premise and many of them.
Click to expand...

Both have two premises (in the sense of conditions on the probability space).

H:
- we have a body
- we do not have a soul

~H:
- we have a body
- we have a soul

You're perhaps confusing with H ∪ ~H which has only one:
- we have a body
 
Last edited:
caveman1917 said:
Both have two premises (in the sense of conditions on the probability space).

H:
- we have a body
- we do not have a soul

~H:
- we have a body
- we have a soul

You're perhaps confusing with H ∪ ~H which has only one:
- we have a body
Click to expand...

In the jabbaverse, we have a soul in both cases regardless. You have apparently not been paying attention. It matters not whatever your unrelateted claim of belief might be. It is incredible that after all this time you have noticed that the attempt is being made to inserted a soul into p(h). It beggars belief that you have not noticed.
 
Last edited:
caveman1917 said:
Both have two premises (in the sense of conditions on the probability space).

H:
- we have a body
- we do not have a soul

~H:
- we have a body
- we have a soul

You're perhaps confusing with H ∪ ~H which has only one:
- we have a body
Click to expand...

I'll give you that; you have a good talent for spinning logic in order to avoid agreement.
 
caveman1917 said:
A: "Linda is a bank teller."
B: "Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement."

H: "You have only a body."
~H: "You have a body and a soul."
Click to expand...

We could even write all that as this:
A: "Linda is a bank teller and may or may not be active in the feminist movement."
B: "Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement."

H: "You have a body and not a soul."
~H: "You have a body and a soul."
Click to expand...

and the word "and" suddenly appears everywhere....
30wau7d.jpg
 
caveman1917 said:
Jabba failed over 5 years to support the argument, but you also failed over 5 years to find the error (ie the unsupported assertion of "P(E|I) > P(E|~I)").
Click to expand...

Trouble is, it's not that simple; the way you've stated it is one Jabba carefully avoids using, and he's very careful also to blur the distinction between ~H, the materialistic hypothesis, R, the hypothesis that people have immortal souls, and I, the condition that his specific immortal soul exists. He does this so that he can compare P(E|H) with P(E|I), where E is the condition that he exists at the time he is making the comparison. Clearly, if he has an immortal soul, he must exist at any time given that his immortal soul exists; that is to say, P(E|I)=1. He then equivocates this with P(E|R), which of course it is not, then equivocates R with ~H, which it also is not, and claims that the odds of his specific sense of self under materialism are 10-100 (or sometimes 10-1000, because his "estimate" is only correct to within 900 orders of magnitude), after which he asserts that he has proven that P(E|~H)>>P(E|H). It's important to understand that this equivocation is at the heart of his "proof," because that's why he keeps going on about potential selves and equating the self and the soul; it's all part of the smoke and mirrors by which he tries to maintain the illusion that ~H = R = I. As Spinal Tap put it, it's such a fine line between clever and stupid; if Jabba's simply trolling then this is his master work, but if he honestly believes he's got something here then he's on the other side of that fine line. But simply saying that he's asserting without proof that P(E|I) > P(E|~I) misrepresents his argument; it's much more complex, and much more confused, than that.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
But simply saying that he's asserting without proof that P(E|I) > P(E|~I) misrepresents his argument; it's much more complex, and much more confused, than that.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it isn't, as you could determine by me agreeing with all those Fatal Flaws going "you don't know how Bayesian inference works" and such. But failing to find the actual error - even though it's not difficult - bars one from claiming victory as far as I see it. At least any meaningful victory.

ETA: it's not enough to only whine about the smoke and mirrors, you also have to be able to see through them and point out the actual error which stops the argument from working even if all the smoke and mirrors were removed. And to be honest, even with the smoke and mirrors it ain't that complex.
 
Last edited:
caveman1917 said:
ETA: it's not enough to only whine about the smoke and mirrors, you also have to be able to see through them and point out the actual error which stops the argument from working even if all the smoke and mirrors were removed. And to be honest, even with the smoke and mirrors it ain't that complex.
Click to expand...

I think it's also not enough, though, to point out what's wrong with what Jabba's argument should be if it were formulated correctly; the equivocation is such a fundamental part of the actual argument that, without understanding that error, you're missing not just a major part of why the argument doesn't work, but why Jabba thinks it does.

Dave
 
caveman1917 said:
Both have two premises (in the sense of conditions on the probability space).

H:
- we have a body
- we do not have a soul

~H:
- we have a body
- we have a soul
Click to expand...

Silly me, and all this time I had considered ~ to be a complement operator. I would have, apparently quite mistakenly, thought ~H was:

- we do not have a body
OR
- we have a soul

De Morgan, you have failed me!
 
jsfisher said:
Silly me, and all this time I had considered ~ to be a complement operator. I would have, apparently quite mistakenly, thought ~H was:

- we do not have a body
OR
- we have a soul

De Morgan, you have failed me!
Click to expand...

It is the complement operator, the question is though: the complement with respect to which universe? Try again without cutting out H ∪ ~H being defined by "we have a body".

ETA: besides, you even could cut it out since it can be derived that H ∪ ~H = "we have a body" by just using the statements you quoted.
 
Last edited:
caveman1917 said:
It is the complement operator, the question is though: the complement with respect to which universe? Try again without cutting out H ∪ ~H being defined by "we have a body".
Click to expand...

Then you should have placed "we have a body" as a precondition outside of either H or ~H, not a specific criterion of H and ~H.
 
jsfisher said:
Then you should have placed "we have a body" as a precondition outside of either H or ~H, not a specific criterion of H and ~H.
Click to expand...

No. I can define it in however way I want and I don't need your distinction between "preconditions" and "specific criterions". What you quoted is a proper definition of complementary events which, by their complementarity, also define the universe.

I see you ignore the actual point about the so-called mathematical impossibility of P(~H) > P(H) because "muh magic words" though. Your obsession with style over substance never ceases to amaze.
 
caveman1917 said:
No. I can define it in however way I want and I don't need your distinction between "preconditions" and "specific criterions". What you quoted is a proper definition of complementary events which, by their complementarity, also define the universe.
Click to expand...

Carry on, then. Let's not let precision ever interfere with a discussion of fact. Mathematics and mathematical notation are flexible that way, no?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom