Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

 International Skeptics Forum Proof of Immortality, the IV league

 Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
 27th September 2016, 09:00 AM #81 jond Illuminator     Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 3,221 Originally Posted by Jabba jond, - To be sure of my answer, I need to know what you mean by "soul." If you mean something immaterial, that IS a possibility. And, because I forgot to mention it: in order for something immaterial to be a possibility, you need to show how something immaterial can interact with a material brain. We know that certain brain functions are happening which means if something else is making those functions happen, it must be a material interaction.
 27th September 2016, 09:01 AM #82 Monza Alta Viro     Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 2,045 Originally Posted by Jabba Zoo, - The probability of .000 (having been rounded off to 3 decimal points) is more precise, and possibly significantly smaller, than a probability of 0 (having been rounded off to 1 decimal point). What was the number you calculated before you rounded it off?
 27th September 2016, 09:03 AM #83 JayUtah Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 15,347 Originally Posted by Jabba If you mean something immaterial, that IS a possibility. He doesn't, and your continued efforts to water down your original claim are laughable. You may desperately wish to prove "only immateriality," but that is importantly not the same thing as immortality. Those important differences are causing problems in your argument because you cannot properly partition your hypothesis set around the equivocation. Yes, you've said you want to prove immateriality as a stepping stone to immortality. But you're not doing that. You're conflating the two arguments, using only the parts that are favorable to your claim and equivocating between them in your formulation.
 27th September 2016, 09:43 AM #84 sackett Philosopher   Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Detroit Posts: 5,178 Jabba, your position is mystical, not rational. You believe in your own immortal soul because you had an epiphany in adolescence. For a mystic, that's enough. Mystics don't need equations! Or evidence! Or reason! They fling those things down and dance on them! If you'd just be honest with yourself, and everybody else, you could loftily declare the superiority of your position, and condescend (gently; you will be gentle, won't you) to those who cannot rise into the white light of your mystical certainty. You could still keep posting here. For the rest of your mortal life. __________________ Fill the seats of justice with good men; not so absolute in goodness as to forget what human frailty is. -- Thomas Jefferson What region of the earth is not filled with our calamities? -- Virgil
 27th September 2016, 09:52 AM #85 Slowvehicle Membership Drive Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy     Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls... Posts: 17,348 Originally Posted by Jabba Zoo, - The probability of .000 (having been rounded off to 3 decimal points) is more precise, and possibly significantly smaller, than a probability of 0 (having been rounded off to 1 decimal point). My Dear Mr. Savage: This is, simply, not correct. A number "rounded" to three decimal places is expressed with more precision than a number "rounded" to the integers place; however, if the number being "rounded" is a totally-fabricated SWAG, the precision of expression is rendered moot by the number's inherent lack of relationship to reality. I remain, somewhat pedantically, Yours, &ct. __________________ "They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest "The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David "Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
 27th September 2016, 10:35 AM #86 JayUtah Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 15,347 Originally Posted by Jabba Zoo, - The probability of .000 (having been rounded off to 3 decimal points) is more precise, and possibly significantly smaller, than a probability of 0 (having been rounded off to 1 decimal point). NO. You don't understand precision at all. A number can only be "rounded off" if the underlying quantity or measure exists at a finer precision. In your case it does not because there is no underlying quantity. You have not measured or computed anything. You've made up a number, and you are grossly misusing the concept of precision to dishonestly convey to your readers the completely inappropriate impression that there is some degree of scientific rigor behind pulling numbers out of your kiester. There isn't. You can round to 0.000 only if you can fill the blank in 0.000_ with some digit that pertains to the real world. You purport to be making a statistical argument. You argue that statistical reasoning deals with numerical uncertainty. Precision also deals with numerical uncertainty, and those of us who work in the scientific and technology professions require a rigorous understanding and use of precision to achieve the proper degree of reliability in the results. You do not have that understanding. It's one of many reasons why people in the know have rejected your findings.
 27th September 2016, 12:25 PM #87 Jabba Philosopher     Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 5,592 Originally Posted by jond In addition to what others have said (it's your model, you need to tell us what you mean!!!) I will say what I believe you are getting at: You believe that there exists an entity that is separate from the brain that is responsible for our sense of self. As you are well aware, the default scientific position is that no such entity exists. It is entirely undefined and provides no information which could be tested in any way. So, if your H includes such an entity, it is entirely incosistent with science, and therefore all your numbers are meaningless in any scientific way. jond, - I do believe that our sense of self is immaterial and has an existence outside of the brain. I do believe that the brain is (in a sense) responsible for this self, just that it's the "catcher" -- it isn't the "pitcher." - I have to go now. I'll be back. __________________ "The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski "Most good ideas don't work." Jabba "Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
 27th September 2016, 12:30 PM #88 jond Illuminator     Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 3,221 Originally Posted by Jabba jond, - I do believe that our sense of self is immaterial and has an existence outside of the brain. I do believe that the brain is (in a sense) responsible for this self, just that it's the "catcher" -- it isn't the "pitcher." - I have to go now. I'll be back. Then your problem has nothing to do with statistics. You need to demonstrate the existence of this "pitcher." And you need to show how an immaterial thing can interact with a material brain in the way we know the brain works. Otherwise your statistical games are meaningless.
 27th September 2016, 12:51 PM #89 JayUtah Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 15,347 Originally Posted by Jabba I do believe that our sense of self is immaterial and has an existence outside of the brain. You have stated this several times. However, you have also claimed to be able to prove it mathematically. That cannot be accomplished by encoding your predetermined, subjective beliefs into the conditionals of a statistical argument. We are interested in the claim of mathematical proof, not a recitation of your deeply-held religious beliefs. Quote: I do believe that the brain is (in a sense) responsible for this self, just that it's the "catcher" -- it isn't the "pitcher." You have utterly failed to formulate your proof correctly to handle such dualism, and you have behaved very rudely toward the many people who are attempting to correct you. You insist on bringing some of the circumstances, constraints, and consequents of immateriality into your treatment of H for the purpose of estimating P(E|H). This means your value for P(E|H) is not correct. I suggest you not return until you are willing to discuss these errors.
 27th September 2016, 02:14 PM #90 Loss Leader Do you want to date my Avatar?Moderator     Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Florida Posts: 25,148 Originally Posted by Jabba jond, - To be sure of my answer, I need to know what you mean by "soul." If you mean something immaterial, that IS a possibility. I define "soul" as: this set of four bobblehead Stargate figures. __________________ I have the honor to be Your Obdt. St L. Leader
 27th September 2016, 02:47 PM #91 HighRiser Graduate Poster   Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: High above Indianapolis Posts: 1,835 Originally Posted by Loss Leader I define "soul" as: this set of four bobblehead Stargate figures. That's as good a definition as any. But... Whut? __________________ Congratulations, you have successfully failed to model something that you assert "isn't noticeable". -The Man Science is not hopelessly hobbled just because it knows the difference between fact and imagination. -JayUtah
 28th September 2016, 05:34 AM #92 Jabba Philosopher     Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 5,592 Originally Posted by jond Then your problem has nothing to do with statistics. You need to demonstrate the existence of this "pitcher." And you need to show how an immaterial thing can interact with a material brain in the way we know the brain works. Otherwise your statistical games are meaningless. jond, - I don't think that I do. I think that the statistics do support the belief that we don't have just one finite life. If that is true, logic requires that we must have something that transcends the physical... __________________ "The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski "Most good ideas don't work." Jabba "Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
 28th September 2016, 06:25 AM #93 zooterkin Nitpicking dilettanteDeputy Admin     Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 39,968 Originally Posted by Jabba I think that the statistics do support the belief that we don't have just one finite life. "the statistics"? If you mean your torturing of Bayes theorem, then you are sadly mistaken. If you mean something else, then I'm sure the class would be thrilled to see them. __________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 Ezekiel 23:20
 28th September 2016, 06:55 AM #95 jond Illuminator     Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 3,221 Originally Posted by Jabba jond, - I don't think that I do. I think that the statistics do support the belief that we don't have just one finite life. If that is true, logic requires that we must have something that transcends the physical... The statistics do not in anyway support that. Your H assumes the inclusion of a soul. This is the problem that you need to address. What the statistics do show is that it is much more likely that you have only a body than having both a body and a soul. However unlikely your body's existence may be, it still exists which means that the unlikeliness of a soul must be added to the unlikeliness of your body. And then you need to add the even more unlikely coupling of the soul and the body. There is no getting around the fact that your body exists. And there is no evidence of the existence of a soul.
 28th September 2016, 07:03 AM #96 HighRiser Graduate Poster   Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: High above Indianapolis Posts: 1,835 Originally Posted by Jabba jond, - I don't think that I do. I think that the statistics do support the belief that we don't have just one finite life. If that is true, logic requires that we must have something that transcends the physical... Here you go again, not supporting your premise. Just say that it's a matter of faith alone and you were mistaken about being able to mathematically demonstrate it. Because that's the situation. __________________ Congratulations, you have successfully failed to model something that you assert "isn't noticeable". -The Man Science is not hopelessly hobbled just because it knows the difference between fact and imagination. -JayUtah
 28th September 2016, 07:54 AM #97 John Jones Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Iowa USA Posts: 12,131 Originally Posted by Jabba jond, - I don't think that I do. I think that the statistics do support the belief that we don't have just one finite life. Well lets see them, ffs. We've been waiting for 4 years. __________________ "Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave
 28th September 2016, 08:35 AM #98 Jabba Philosopher     Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 5,592 - I keep getting lured away from discussing the one entry/estimate that I do worry about -- i.e., whether the likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam, is an appropriate entry for P(E|H). Maybe, the appropriate entry here is the likelihood of somebody's current existence -- i.e., 1.00! - I think this happens (I get lured away) because some questions or remarks seem at least distantly relevant to this issue -- but, trying to respond, produces more remarks and questions that are further removed... - Hopefully, this sub-issue of "being lured away" will become more clear if I return to what seems like my original post trying to fully argue the appropriateness issue above. #1898 from Chapter III: Originally Posted by Jabba 1. Toontown doesn’t agree with me, but I think I, basically, agree with him… 2. Why my existence isn’t just dumb luck: 3. Whereas, very unlikely things do happen (e.g. winning the lottery), they are unlikely given (based upon) specific hypotheses, or models. 4. And -- re the lottery -- were it not for the rules, the oversight, the results and the media (including the Internet), we wouldn’t be so sure that luck was the answer. 5. If, for instance, we discovered that the winner was secretly the 2nd cousin of the person most in charge of the lottery, we’d have 2nd thoughts… 6. Which is the point -- if we have a reasonable alternative to luck, we don’t have to assume that it's luck… 7. And here, what can be counted as “reasonable” doesn’t need to be very probable at all – in fact, it can be extremely improbable. 8. That’s because the likelihood of what it is being compared to, weighed against (my existence, given OOFLam) is virtually zero. 9. IOW, we have an alternative hypothesis which is much more probable – given my existence – than is OOFLam. 10. The posterior probability of OOFLam – given me -- is much smaller than the posterior probability of ~OOFLam. 11. But, the ultimate question is, “In which case am I more likely to be here – OOFLam, or ~OOFLam?” 12. The obvious answer is “~OOFLam”… 13. And then, 14. I’m the only “thing,” “process” or “illusion” that I know exists. 15. I don’t know what I am -- but, I know I am. 16. Everything else could be my imagination 17. We humans take our personal existence (selves) totally for granted. 18. We act as if we had to exist. 19. Though scientifically speaking, that’s the very last thing we should take for granted. 20. Again, according to modern science, the likelihood of my (and your) current existence is virtually zero. 21. Yet, I’m the only thing, process or illusion that I actually know exists. 22. And, you’re the only thing, process or illusion that you actually know exists (if you’re not a robot)). 23. The rest could be our imagination. 24. So, we don’t know what we are, but we do know we are. 25. And again, we know we are – even though the scientific likelihood of each of our current existences is hardly more than zero… 26. But further, if I didn’t exist it would be as if there were nothing – there might as well be nothing. 27. And, if I never existed, there might as well never be anything. 28. And, what if you never existed? 29. And then, if you think about it, nothing really makes sense, anyway. 30. Once there is something, reductive materialism (the basic axiom of science) just doesn’t work… 31. Now, if there were nothing, that would make sense! 32. There’s something wrong here… 33. There’s something “magical” here. 34. Science seems to be missing a serious piece of the puzzle… 35. Again, there’s something magical here… __________________ "The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski "Most good ideas don't work." Jabba "Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
 28th September 2016, 08:41 AM #99 The Sparrow Graduate Poster     Join Date: Sep 2015 Location: Central Canada Posts: 1,388 Haven't you posted that like, 30 times now. THis is the whole point of discussion, to examine and critique the premises behind your chain of beliefs. If you are not here to do that, what are you here for?
 28th September 2016, 08:44 AM #100 The Sparrow Graduate Poster     Join Date: Sep 2015 Location: Central Canada Posts: 1,388 Quote: That’s because the likelihood of what it is being compared to, weighed against (my existence, given OOFLam) is virtually zero." What was the likelihood of the child my mother miscarried before I was born, being born?
 28th September 2016, 08:54 AM #102 jond Illuminator     Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 3,221 Jabba, once your parents conceived your body, what is the likelihood that you turned out to be you? What is the likelihood that you might have turned out to be Napoleon? According to science, you could have only become you. Because "you" (as in the self you keep referring to) is not a separate entity but rather a process that is ongoing and added to from birth to death. If you have some evidence otherwise, please present it. Your statistical games aren't going to cut it.
 28th September 2016, 08:55 AM #103 jond Illuminator     Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 3,221 Originally Posted by jond The statistics do not in anyway support that. Your H assumes the inclusion of a soul. This is the problem that you need to address. What the statistics do show is that it is much more likely that you have only a body than having both a body and a soul. However unlikely your body's existence may be, it still exists which means that the unlikeliness of a soul must be added to the unlikeliness of your body. And then you need to add the even more unlikely coupling of the soul and the body. There is no getting around the fact that your body exists. And there is no evidence of the existence of a soul. Oh, and: I'm waiting...
 28th September 2016, 09:12 AM #104 JayUtah Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 15,347 Originally Posted by The Sparrow Haven't you posted that like, 30 times now. THis is the whole point of discussion, to examine and critique the premises behind your chain of beliefs. If you are not here to do that, what are you here for? This is Jabba's well-worn technique for pressing the Fringe Reset button. He blames other people for the discussion being where it is and then proposes that he is the one who must bring it back into focus -- shame on that critic rabble! -- in every case by posting unmodified some argument he's already made and which has already been discussed at length. If you look at the topic right before the reset, it's his misuse of precision. I'm sure Jabba desperately wants to distract from that faux pas by claiming he's been "lured away" into irrelevancy. And he wants to "get back on track" -- or really, he wants to change the subject so that he doesn't have to answer for the ignorance he exposed. Precision is not a red herring in this context. Just as with all other aspects of statistical reasoning, precision deals with quantitative uncertainty. Statistical reasoning is about applying objective controls based on the underlying mathematical or practical causes of uncertainty. To claim precision in a measurement that one has not achieved via an appropriate error analysis is no different than ignoring statistical methods that, say, describe a variable with a distribution. It really is that bad. Despite the chorus of correction, Jabba still wants to maintain the illusion that he is competent at statistical reasoning and logical analysis. But the gaffe with precision is another item on the pile of evidence that shows he is not. That professed but unattained competence lies at the heart of his insinuation that he is modeling his problem appropriately. This is the typical fringe claimant's gambit. While he probably knows he can never prove his case to experienced practitioners, he is hoping to fool at least one lay person into expressing agreement with him out of ignorance, giving Jabba the benefit of the doubt. If he can just get that one ally, it bolsters his belief that his failure to prove his case isn't his own shortcoming but some purported recalcitrance on the part of his despised critics.
 28th September 2016, 10:03 AM #105 JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man     Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 10,825 Indeed. It's the classic tactic of winning the race by constantly adjusting down what it means to "win" to the point where Jabba is yelling into a cave hoping to hear the echo so he can claim someone agrees with him. __________________ "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
 28th September 2016, 10:06 AM #106 JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man     Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 10,825 ETA: And it's just a particularly egregious example of the now common hallmark of the Woo Slinger were "Keep the argument going" is as good as a win. __________________ "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
 28th September 2016, 12:16 PM #107 John Jones Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Iowa USA Posts: 12,131 Originally Posted by Jabba - I keep getting lured away from discussing the one entry/estimate that I do worry about -- i.e., whether the likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam, is an appropriate entry for P(E|H). Maybe, the appropriate entry here is the likelihood of somebody's current existence -- i.e., 1.00! - I think this happens (I get lured away) because some questions or remarks seem at least distantly relevant to this issue -- but, trying to respond, produces more remarks and questions that are further removed... - Hopefully, this sub-issue of "being lured away" will become more clear if I return to what seems like my original post trying to fully argue the appropriateness issue above. #1898 from Chapter III: This is just another Jabba Fringe ResetTM. That's all this is. Don't blame it on your interlocutors. All that crap has been dealt with before. __________________ "Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave
 28th September 2016, 08:14 PM #108 Loss Leader Do you want to date my Avatar?Moderator     Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Florida Posts: 25,148 Originally Posted by Loss Leader I define "soul" as: this set of four bobblehead Stargate figures. I'm not certain if this matters, but I lost the eBay bid for my soul. I'm a little upset about it, but I am glad that at least my soul has a definition. __________________ I have the honor to be Your Obdt. St L. Leader
 28th September 2016, 08:31 PM #109 sackett Philosopher   Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Detroit Posts: 5,178 Jabba, are you maybe feeling a chill? Are you remembering Blind Willy Johnson's lyrics? "They's a time In the midnight When death come creepin' And you run. You gonna need Somebody On your bond." Is that what this is all about? Do you think maybe someone here, or anywhere out in the internet, will come with you when you go? Hope it's not that bad. Cause you got to walk that valley by yourself. __________________ Fill the seats of justice with good men; not so absolute in goodness as to forget what human frailty is. -- Thomas Jefferson What region of the earth is not filled with our calamities? -- Virgil
 29th September 2016, 01:12 AM #110 Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 19,441 I just used this random number generator to generate an integer between -1,000,000,000 and 1,000,000,000. It came up with 539,103,280. What is the probability that 539,103,280 has an immortal soul? Similarly, I have a bag of tangerines in my kitchen. Each one is unique when compared to the others and to every tangerine that has ever existed, and therefore the probability of any one of them existing is vanishingly small. Does this mean that they have immortal souls, too? I also have a roll of electrical tape sitting here on my computer desk. Due to the particular wear its accrued from being in my pocket while out on jobs, and the length of the tape that's left, as well as the microscopic imperfections that, too, is unique. It's extremely improbable that this particular roll of tape would be in this particular state. I assume that it therefore has an immortal soul and will be reincarnated once I have used it up. __________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
 29th September 2016, 01:24 AM #111 Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles     Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD Posts: 26,578 Wow, I think that post has an immortal soul. Dave __________________ Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right? Tony Szamboti: That is right
 29th September 2016, 04:26 AM #112 The Sparrow Graduate Poster     Join Date: Sep 2015 Location: Central Canada Posts: 1,388 Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim .... Similarly, I have a bag of tangerines in my kitchen. Each one is unique when compared to the others and to every tangerine that has ever existed, and therefore the probability of any one of them existing is vanishingly small. Does this mean that they have immortal souls, too?.... Hey! I already tried that with bananas. (You will be ignored too)
 29th September 2016, 04:45 AM #113 JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man     Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 10,825 Originally Posted by Dave Rogers Wow, I think that post has an immortal soul. Don't some cultures have a concept where inanimate objects develop souls after a certain long period of time? I've joked in this thread in the past that we've got it all wrong, Jabba's not trying to prove immortality with this thread, he's trying to create it. __________________ "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
 29th September 2016, 04:46 AM #114 Belz... Fiend God     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details Posts: 72,392 Originally Posted by John Jones Oh no! It's part 4! Yeah parts 1-3 were not great but just wait 'till part V: there'll be a huge reveal about who's Jabba's father and some great setup for the finale. __________________ Master of the Shining Darkness
 29th September 2016, 04:49 AM #115 Belz... Fiend God     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details Posts: 72,392 Originally Posted by Jabba 9.1.2. Now I must estimate (roughly) the prior probability (rounded off to 3 decimal places) of each more specific possibility (hypothesis), given ~H. 9.1.2.1. That only some of us have but one finite life: .000 9.1.2.2. That we each have numerous finite lives: .200. 9.1.2.3. That only some of us have numerous finite lives: .000 9.1.2.4. That we each have an infinity of finite lives; .200 9.1.2.5. That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives: .000 9.1.2.6. That we each have an infinite life: .200. 9.1.2.7. That only some of us have an infinite life: .000 9.1.2.8. That time isn’t what we think it is (to be explained): .200 9.1.2.9. Some other explanation: .200 Where the **** did you get those estimates from? I'd say 9.1.2.1 gets 1.000 and be done with it. Originally Posted by Jabba - Re #1: It seems to me essentially impossible that only some of us would have only one finite life. Why? Your personal feelings are not a source of data about reality. __________________ Master of the Shining Darkness Last edited by Belz...; 29th September 2016 at 04:51 AM.
 29th September 2016, 04:51 AM #116 Belz... Fiend God     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details Posts: 72,392 Originally Posted by JoeBentley *Sighs* It's like he's writing a Gish Gallop in COBOL. Hey! I work in COBOL every day, and at least I can understand it when I read it. __________________ Master of the Shining Darkness
 29th September 2016, 04:53 AM #117 Belz... Fiend God     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details Posts: 72,392 Originally Posted by Jabba LL, - I'm hoping that Dave and some others will agree with my claim. If not, I've got a lot of explaining to do before I can move on. Man, I really do love you. Every thread you participate in is exactly the same, and summarized in the quote above. To wit: "I made an unsupported claim and I hope someone will agree with it for some reason, and if they don't I have to prattle on about irrelevancies until I can fringe reset again." __________________ Master of the Shining Darkness
 29th September 2016, 04:59 AM #118 Belz... Fiend God     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details Posts: 72,392 Originally Posted by Jabba Dave, - Do you accept the preface? Oh, sure, break it down further. This thread isn't long enough as it is. I don't know the half-life of your nonsense but it makes U238 highly radioactive in comparison. __________________ Master of the Shining Darkness
 29th September 2016, 05:02 AM #119 Belz... Fiend God     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details Posts: 72,392 Originally Posted by Jabba Zoo, - Good question. - I assume that you'll want a more elaborate, and more specific, explanation -- but for now (just in case), I just think that any possible variation with "some" in it is very improbable. Oh, man. That's comedy gold. For a split second I thought the "good question" part might lead to some sort of crazy Jabba explanation, but then I read the first words of the second part and remembered that there is no such thing as a Jabba explanation, just a prelude to more claims and irrelevancies. I think we could call your style of debate "fractal shuffle". Quote: - Why not? Hilarious. Thanks for proving that you're making stuff up as you go. Once more. Quote: I'm just saying that the probability is less than, or equal to, .000. Negative probabilities? Quote: - Doesn't #9 make sure that it adds up to 1.00? Perhaps you should leave math to other people. __________________ Master of the Shining Darkness Last edited by Belz...; 29th September 2016 at 05:04 AM.
 29th September 2016, 06:14 AM #120 Jabba Philosopher     Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 5,592 Originally Posted by The Sparrow Haven't you posted that like, 30 times now. THis is the whole point of discussion, to examine and critique the premises behind your chain of beliefs. If you are not here to do that, what are you here for? Sparrow, - The above are the premises that lead me to the conclusion that the likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam, is appropriate for P(E|H) in the Bayes formula. - I think that this is really the Texas Sharpshooter issue, and I need to show that I qualify as a legitimate 'target.' Would you agree with my assertion that such is what I need to show? __________________ "The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski "Most good ideas don't work." Jabba "Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor

International Skeptics Forum

 Bookmarks Digg del.icio.us StumbleUpon Google Reddit