ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


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.
Reply
Old 13th March 2018, 08:59 AM   #601
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,675
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Jabba's got the whole Bridey Murphy routine waiting in the wings.
*Sidenote* I had that entire post typed up and was ready to hit submit when I realized I had (for some reason known only to my caffeine addled, sleep deprived brain) put (Sic) "Audey Murphy" instead "Bridey Murphy" which... would not have made a lot of sense.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2018, 09:00 AM   #602
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 76,326
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
Are you serious? It was obviously a typo.
See, Jt. Not that easy to pry yourself away from this trainwreck, is it?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2018, 09:01 AM   #603
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,348
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
(Sic) "Audey Murphy" instead "Bridey Murphy" which... would not have made a lot of sense.
'Tis the season for typos, though.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2018, 09:02 AM   #604
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 76,326
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
'Tis the season for typos, though.
I imagine Jabba would've chosen that part of Joe's post to respond to, asking, all befuddled, why he was talking about a different person altogether. Just, you know, to show that he's paying lip service to the idea of engaging his critics.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2018, 09:04 AM   #605
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,151
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Mojo,
- What do you think is the likelihood of the current existence of your body --given OOFLam?
How would you determine that?
Personally, I wouldn't. OOFLAM is something you made up out of whole cloth and attempted to substitute for materialism. As such, it demands no response at all, particularly given that it moves as required by your argument du jour.

Materialism simply claims one life and that is it. Finito. Ooflam is simply your attempt to insert a soul into materialism.

Compare the two. Materialism claims one finite life. That is it. No more and no less. Your OOFLAM simply invites ambiguoity, and that can be nothing more than dishonest. What on earth is 0.75 of a life? I have asked this before and as usual received no response at all. And do you know why? It's because Jabba has no idea what that is.

So, Jabba, materialism is precisely 1.0000000000000 lives. You are born, you live once, you die. Explain please exactly why your imaginary OOFLAM is not materialism and why it is that you want to impose your OOFLAM upon materialism?

We all know why, but I want your explanation for it.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2018, 09:18 AM   #606
Monza
Alta Viro
 
Monza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,051
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
*Sidenote* I had that entire post typed up and was ready to hit submit when I realized I had (for some reason known only to my caffeine addled, sleep deprived brain) put (Sic) "Audey Murphy" instead "Bridey Murphy" which... would not have made a lot of sense.

That's OK. I originally read it as "Britney Murphy" and was wondering what the actress from Clueless had to do with all of this. Then I thought maybe 'clueless' was some sort of comment for this entire thread.
Monza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2018, 09:34 AM   #607
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,348
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I imagine Jabba would've chosen that part of Joe's post to respond to, asking, all befuddled, why he was talking about a different person altogether. Just, you know, to show that he's paying lip service to the idea of engaging his critics.
I agree; we've seen Jabba latch onto practically anything else in order to avoid the questions he can't answer. In general I'm forgiving of typos because I make a ton of them myself. But a typo in a formula could just be fumbly fingers, or it could be a genuine error of understanding. Jabba's arguments display so little actual understanding of the underlying principles that I really can't give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he meant P(B|A) when he typed P(A|B). We've had some discussion on the very question of whether he knows the difference in meaning between those two expressions.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2018, 09:41 AM   #608
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 30,608
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- No. We're accepting, in ~H, that the brain currently exists -- and consequently, we don't need to multiply the prior probability of there being something spiritual here by the likelihood of there being a brain here.

In other words, you're just fiddling the figures to produce your desired result.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2018, 09:47 AM   #609
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 30,608
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
And you're not accepting it in H why?
Originally Posted by jond View Post
Then why is the brain so unlikely given H? The brain exists in both H and ~H. In ~H, you then add another entity (soul) which does not exist in H. The brain, under H, and the self are one and the same. There is no other entity.

Because Jabba's argument requires the likelihood of his existence under H to be vanishingly small, and for it to not be vanishingly small under ~H, so he's making numbers up to fiddle the figures.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2018, 11:25 AM   #610
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,245
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Because Jabba's argument requires the likelihood of his existence under H to be vanishingly small, and for it to not be vanishingly small under ~H, so he's making numbers up to fiddle the figures.
I suspect that even Jabba knows this, but cannot bring himself to admit it.
jond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2018, 12:03 PM   #611
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,151
Originally Posted by jond View Post
I suspect that even Jabba knows this, but cannot bring himself to admit it.
Jabba knows that, but jabba don't care. Odd that.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2018, 12:20 PM   #612
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
js,
- Bayes (basic?) Theorem does not involve any hypotheses. It involves only events. Your formula hilited above should be P(A|B) = P(A|B)(P(B) / P(A).


P(H|E) = P(E|H)(P(H) / (P(E|H)P(H) + P(E|~H)P(~H)) is the theorem as it applies to complementary hypotheses.
Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
...
No, that's not the theorem. That can, however, be derived from the theorem via a trivial bit of algebra, but the theorem is as I stated it...
-OK.
__________________
"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 probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2018, 12:21 PM   #613
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 76,326
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
-OK.
How did you calculate 10-100, Jabba?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2018, 12:25 PM   #614
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,348
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
How did you calculate 10-100, Jabba?
This is turning out to be 2018's "How many 'going 60 mph' are there?"
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2018, 12:29 PM   #615
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,348
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
-OK.
"OK" what? You keep asking how your proof has been shown to be mathematically inconsistent, even when it's been explained to you half a dozen times. Then you quote a post where the demonstration occurs, snip out the demonstration, and give a one-word insubstantial answer to the side issue that remains. You may like to think you're not the rude one here, Jabba, but you really are.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2018, 12:37 PM   #616
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 29,362
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
-OK.
I think you're agreeing that your argument has been shredded and left in tatters.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2018, 02:13 PM   #617
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
...
Be that as it may, since you have conceded that P(E) = 1, it is then a mathematical certainty that P(E|H) must also = 1. You don't get to say, "Well, yes, P(E) = 1, but I'm using different math for P(E|H)."

P(E) = 1 means E is a certainty always, under any and all hypotheses, including H, and so P(E|H) = 1.
- That just isn't true. E is a given, but the probability that E would exist -- if H were true -- is very small.
- Back off and assume that we don't know that E exists, and we simply ask how likely is it that E would exist if H is true.
__________________
"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 probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2018, 02:21 PM   #618
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,348
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Back off and assume that we don't know that E exists, and we simply ask how likely is it that E would exist if H is true.
No, that's not how inference works. Back off and remember that Bayes' theorem is how you apply the effects of an event (evidence) to the probability another event (the truth of a hypothesis). When reckoning P(E|H), E is known to be true. You can't "back off" and assume that P(E|H) must be very small because you think P(E) is very small. This is like the third time I've had to tell you this. Dunno how many other people have also tried.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2018, 02:24 PM   #619
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,245
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- That just isn't true. E is a given, but the probability that E would exist -- if H were true -- is very small.
- Back off and assume that we don't know that E exists, and we simply ask how likely is it that E would exist if H is true.
But the thing that you insist is so unlikely under H (your existence, which in H is merely your body) is equally unlikely under ~H. And you also have an additional unlikely thing in your ~H that has to work with your body to explain your current existence which renders ~H much less likely than H.
jond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2018, 02:28 PM   #620
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 30,608
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- That just isn't true. E is a given, but the probability that E would exist -- if H were true -- is very small.
- Back off and assume that we don't know that E exists, and we simply ask how likely is it that E would exist if H is true.

You say that the existence of your brain is a given under both H and ~H, and also that the likelihood if its existence is 10-100 under both H and ~H. How do you justify including a multiplier of 10-100 in your calculation of the likelihood that your existence is observed under H but not under ~H?

And did you calculate the figure of 10-100?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2018, 02:56 PM   #621
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,323
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- That just isn't true. E is a given, but the probability that E would exist -- if H were true -- is very small.
- Back off and assume that we don't know that E exists, and we simply ask how likely is it that E would exist if H is true.
Classic special pleading "imagine the rules don't apply"
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2018, 04:22 PM   #622
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,188
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- That just isn't true. E is a given, but the probability that E would exist -- if H were true -- is very small.
Nope, it is true. "E is given" and therefore P(E) = 1. Condition it with H, condition it with ~H, condition it with anything you like, and the (conditional or unconditional) probability continues to be 1.

Quote:
- Back off and assume that we don't know that E exists, and we simply ask how likely is it that E would exist if H is true.
No need. "E is given" and so considering any case where E isn't given does not help in our inference.
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group.

"He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost

Last edited by jsfisher; 13th March 2018 at 04:24 PM.
jsfisher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2018, 05:04 PM   #623
jt512
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,739
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- That just isn't true. E is a given, but the probability that E would exist -- if H were true -- is very small.
Jabba,

It is true.

P(E) is the denominator in Bayes' Theorem. Since you like the word "likelihood" so much, you'll be happy to know that P(E) is called the marginal likelihood. It is the weighted average of P(E|H) and P(E|~H), where the weights are P(H) and P(~H), respectively. Thus the denominator in Bayes' Theorem is

P(E) = P(E|H)P(H) + P(E|~H)P(~H).

You have stated that P(E) = 1 and that P(H) and P(~H) are both non-zero. If you deny that that implies that P(E|H) = P(E|~H) = 1, then, in the equation below, plug in your favorite values for P(H) and P(~H) and find any values other than 1 for P(E|H) and P(E|~H) for which the equation (below) is true. We will be looking forward to your response.

1 = P(E|H)P(H) + P(E|~H)P(~H).

Last edited by jt512; 13th March 2018 at 05:08 PM.
jt512 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2018, 05:08 PM   #624
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,675
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
Classic special pleading "imagine the rules don't apply"
And yet another variation on "If you already agree I am right, I am right."
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2018, 06:01 PM   #625
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 76,326
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- That just isn't true. E is a given, but the probability that E would exist -- if H were true -- is very small.
It's still wrong no matter how many times you say it. The only way out of this is to show how you calculated 10-100. But we all know how you did, don't we?

Quote:
- Back off and assume that we don't know that E exists, and we simply ask how likely is it that E would exist if H is true.
You cannot make the observation unless E is true.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2018, 06:28 AM   #626
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,675
I've made the passing joke in this thread several times that it seems like Jabba isn't trying to prove immortality, he's trying to create.

I actually want to revisit that in a slightly more serious manner.

There seems to be this vague idea, an almost religious faith to be honest, floating around a lot of fringe idea that... arguments and rhetoric have an almost reality warping power.

I've long been a critic of the overly rhetoric obsessed among us, those for whom following some vague and arbitrary set of rules as to how word a "proper" argument but I also am starting to wonder if, for some, it goes even deeper than that.

I do wonder at times if Jabba (the person or the character he plays) really does think on some level that he really can make something literally true, actually conjure a fact from the void as it where, if he can just find the "correct" way to phrase it.

I've long dismissed a great deal a street level "Coffee Shop" philosophy as mere silly word games, intentionally creating what are nothing more than meaningless surface level contradictions that exist only on a purely linguistic level and trying to Frankenstein some sort grand meaning out of it.

But more and more as time goes on I am honestly wondering if some people really don't think that the tail wags the dog here. If the "Formalized Debate" mentality of "You can win any side of any argument if you are just that good of a debate" has morphed into something more sinister, the metaphorical subtext of that leaking into people textual conception of actual reality.

I'd (no snark) dearly love to get an honest, truthful answer from Jabba (or other similar fringe proponent) as to whether or not that really do think that. Do you really think you can make 1+2=5 by phrasing the argument a specific way? Do you really think you can polish the edges of a square so much it becomes a circle?

Too Long, Didn't Read. I wonder if Jabba really does, in some way, on some level think that immortality becomes true if he... wins an argument about 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

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2018, 07:06 AM   #627
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
If the likelihood of your body existing is the same in H and ~H, and in both models your current existence depends on your body existing, how can P(E|~H) be greater than P(E|H)?
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Two points:
- The current existence of my self (even if my spiritual existence depends upon the existence of a physical body to "produce," or receive it) is much more likely in ~H than in H. In ~H, the existence of my spiritual self does not depend upon a particular body...
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
It doesn't? Why not?...
Dave,
- If reincarnation is true, my self will inhabit many different bodies. And again, maybe brains receive, rather than produce their selves.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- In ~H, my spiritual existence may not require any body.
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
But E isn't your spiritual existence.
- In ~H, it must be that E includes a spiritual existence.
__________________
"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 probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2018, 07:09 AM   #628
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,245
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- If reincarnation is true, my self will inhabit many different bodies. And again, maybe brains receive, rather than produce their selves.



- In ~H, it must be that E includes a spiritual existence.
Your current existence includes your body. In H or ~H. However in H, there Is no spiritual existence, there is only your body.
jond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2018, 07:09 AM   #629
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,266
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- If reincarnation is true, my self will inhabit many different bodies. And again, maybe brains receive, rather than produce their selves.
Yes, that's the hypothesis you're trying to prove.


Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- In ~H, it must be that E includes a spiritual existence.
Includes it, yes. But it also includes your current existence, which involves your body.
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm
godless dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2018, 07:12 AM   #630
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 76,326
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- If reincarnation is true, my self will inhabit many different bodies. And again, maybe brains receive, rather than produce their selves.
What part of "this is irrelevant to the question of your CURRENT existence" don't you understand?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2018, 07:18 AM   #631
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
jt,
- Why do you refer to P(E|H) as "both"?
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
Are you serious? It was obviously a typo.
jt,
- Yes. I figured it was a typo, but wanted to make sure what you had meant to say.
__________________
"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 probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2018, 07:25 AM   #632
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 29,362
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- If reincarnation is true, my self will inhabit many different bodies. And again, maybe brains [u]receive[/u], rather than [u]produce[/u] their selves.
If pigs had wings, bacon would taste different.

Quote:
- In ~H, it must be that E includes a spiritual existence.
Have your spiritual self post here without your brain so we can see the difference.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2018, 07:40 AM   #633
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- That just isn't true. E is a given, but the probability that E would exist -- if H were true -- is very small...
Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
Nope, it is true. "E is given" and therefore P(E) = 1. Condition it with H, condition it with ~H, condition it with anything you like, and the (conditional or unconditional) probability continues to be 1...
- From https://www.psychologicalscience.org...and-likelihood
The distinction between probability and likelihood is fundamentally important: Probability attaches to possible results; likelihood attaches to hypotheses. Explaining this distinction is the purpose of this first column.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Back off and assume that we don't know that E exists, and we simply ask how likely is it that E would exist if H is true.
Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
No need. "E is given" and so considering any case where E isn't given does not help in our inference.
js,
- Please read that article (or some of it) and show me how it disagrees with my claims.
__________________
"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 probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2018, 07:41 AM   #634
Monza
Alta Viro
 
Monza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,051
Jabba,

What characteristic does an immortal person have that a mortal person doesn't?

How can you differentiate between mortal and immortal?
Monza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2018, 07:46 AM   #635
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 29,362
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- From https://www.psychologicalscience.org...and-likelihood
The distinction between probability and likelihood is fundamentally important: Probability attaches to possible results; likelihood attaches to hypotheses. Explaining this distinction is the purpose of this first column.



js,
- Please read that article (or some of it) and show me how it disagrees with my claims.
You have a history of not reading the articles that you cite and then being spanked with them later.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2018, 07:46 AM   #636
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 28,115
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
The distinction between probability and likelihood is fundamentally important: Probability attaches to possible results; likelihood attaches to hypotheses.
Since your current existence is a result rather than a hypothesis, why do you keep referring to its "likelihood"?

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
Dave Rogers is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2018, 07:52 AM   #637
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 76,326
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
jt,
- Yes. I figured it was a typo, but wanted to make sure what you had meant to say.
And it didn't dawn on you to perhaps discuss the actual matter rather than focus on just that?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2018, 07:53 AM   #638
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 76,326
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Please read that article (or some of it) and show me how it disagrees with my claims.
It is incredibly rude to ask your critics to read your own sources to debunk your own theories.

No. YOU tell us why you think it supports you.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2018, 08:33 AM   #639
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,348
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Amazing how this beginner's tutorial seems to be the only source you can quote for information regarding Bayesian inference. Bayesian methods are widely used and there are many sources of information. You yourself claim to have taken a class -- albeit abbreviated, by your admission -- on the subject. Why does your expertise on the subject rise no higher than that of a layman frantically Googling for whatever sources seem to support his preconception?

Quote:
The distinction between probability and likelihood is fundamentally important: Probability attaches to possible results; likelihood attaches to hypotheses. Explaining this distinction is the purpose of this first column.
The first sentence is correct. You do not understand the distinction between probability and likelihood, but paradoxically you keep pretending that your critics suffer from precisely that deficiency. Whenever a glaring error is found in your reasoning, you mention the word "likelihood" and then, under those colors, go on to suggest algebraic manipulations that are simply not valid in probability theory (which, naturally, includes likelihoods). You are not presumed to be competent in this debate, Jabba, and you must demonstrate the necessary competence by means that transcend your typical bluffing.

And the second sentence is wrong, or at best highly simplified. You keep harping on the one statement as if it somehow corrects all your errors, but you demonstrate in spades that you really don't understand any of those terms as they are used in statistics. You have previously considered jt512 to be an expert and you have previously consulted him. He weighed in on this particular passage and disputed it. Why are you now suddenly disregarding his expertise and once again citing this one solitary source?

Quote:
Please read that article (or some of it) and show me how it disagrees with my claims.
That article does not fix the errors in your proof, or even address them much. Your ploy is pretty obvious: you're trying to set onerous and time-consuming tasks for your critics that you insinuate are critical to the debate, but which really do not address either your problems or their rebuttals.

Please demonstrate a proficiency in statistical inference that goes beyond mindlessly quoting disputed sources. Simply throwing out a quote, insinuating that it somehow defends your brazenly broken reasoning, and shifting the burden of proof onto your critics is not effective debate. Please explain, using quotes from your source as appropriate, how that source specifically validates your method in the face of your critics' objections.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2018, 09:00 AM   #640
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- That just isn't true. E is a given, but the probability that E would exist -- if H were true -- is very small.
- Back off and assume that we don't know that E exists, and we simply ask how likely is it that E would exist if H is true.
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
Jabba,

It is true.

P(E) is the denominator in Bayes' Theorem. Since you like the word "likelihood" so much, you'll be happy to know that P(E) is called the marginal likelihood. It is the weighted average of P(E|H) and P(E|~H), where the weights are P(H) and P(~H), respectively. Thus the denominator in Bayes' Theorem is

P(E) = P(E|H)P(H) + P(E|~H)P(~H).

You have stated that P(E) = 1 and that P(H) and P(~H) are both non-zero. If you deny that that implies that P(E|H) = P(E|~H) = 1, then, in the equation below, plug in your favorite values for P(H) and P(~H) and find any values other than 1 for P(E|H) and P(E|~H) for which the equation (below) is true. We will be looking forward to your response.

1 = P(E|H)P(H) + P(E|~H)P(~H).
- I just took about 30 minutes halfway answering your request, and accidentally erased it.
- I'll try again.
- First, I assume that the symbol hilited above is a typo, and should have been "+."

- P(H|E) = P(E|H)*P(H)/(P(E|H)*P(H) + P(E|~H)P(~H))
- P(H|E) = 10-100 *.99/(10-100 *.99 + .62 * .01)
- P(H|E) = 10-100 /(10-100 + .0062)
- P(H|E) = 10-100 /.0062
- P(H|E) = 10-100
- P(H|E) = 0
- And,
- P(~H|E) = .0062/(.0062 + 10-100*.99)
- P(~H|E) = 1.

- I accept that 10-100 isn't 0, but I do think that it's good enough for government work (I'm retired from government work, but you know what they say about old dogs).
__________________
"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 probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:59 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.