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 1st March 2018, 06:52 AM   #41
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 22,331
BTW, would I just be confusing the issue if I said that the probability of a 2-headed coin coming up heads is <1? There is, after all, the remote possibility it will land on its edge.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim 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 1st March 2018, 07:40 AM   #42
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,388
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
BTW, would I just be confusing the issue if I said that the probability of a 2-headed coin coming up heads is <1? There is, after all, the remote possibility it will land on its edge.
And for that same reason we can't, with full rigor, say that if a fair coin did not come up heads it must therefore have come up tails. There are in fact more than two possible outcomes to the flip of a fair coin, even though we ignore the improbable third outcome for most purposes, especially for teaching examples. But since Jabba doesn't understand what a false dilemma is, he makes the same predictable error in reasoning when the outcomes aren't as knowably skewed. In his thread on circumstantial evidence he actually got backed into a corner having had his logic boiled down to claiming equivalence (among things with four legs) between "dog" and "not a cat."
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 1st March 2018, 07:42 AM   #43
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: 28,156
Originally Posted by JesseCuster View Post
Either you are being blatantly dishonest about what it is you're actually claiming here, or your thoughts on the matter are just utterly hopelessly muddled and incoherent.
I'm going with (2). Which, of course, doesn't exactly support the image Jabba wants to project of the Wise Old Man teching the neophytes the true mysteries of Bays' Theorem as they relate to immortality, where any doubts of his wisdom can only arise from our inability to grasp what he's telling us; in reality, he doesn't come remotely close to grasping them himself.

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 1st March 2018, 07:49 AM   #44
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 14,856
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
BTW, would I just be confusing the issue if I said that the probability of a 2-headed coin coming up heads is <1? There is, after all, the remote possibility it will land on its edge.
And that's technically correct (the best kind of correct) but Jabba's using that in a dishonest way.

Basically here's (one of) Jabba's issue and it ties into his deliberate misunderstanding of probability vs likelihood.

We flip a coin. Let's say there is a 49.25% chance of heads, a 49.25% chance of tails, and a 0.5% chance of an "other" (lands on its side, shatters, quantum tunnels through the table, whatever...)

Jabba thinks he can alter the 95.5% probability of a coin landing on its head or tail side less by making up more and more technically possible but amazingly unlikely one-off scenarios to put in the .5 percent category.

Again it's the "Bayesian Overloader" concept from that SMBC comic. Since every possibility has some probability attached to it, an infinite number of amazingly unlikely alternative scenarios somehow makes the statistically likely scenario unlikely (even unlikely to the point of practical impossibility) because of... bad math and dishonest argumentatives.

That's Jabba's whole routine. "There are so many possibilities, each of which have some probability attached to them, other then my exists my exists in sufficiently improbable as to be impossible, ergo I have a soul and am immortal."
__________________
"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 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 1st March 2018, 07:57 AM   #45
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by jond View Post
Ive linked to it several times. The point, which should be obvious, is that if the self is a process generated by the brain, then the probability of the self existing is exactly the same as the body existing and functioning.
jond,
- I never accepted that the self is a process generated by the brain. I've suggested that it's a process/thing received by the brain.
- Sorry, but this is a sub-issue I'll have to abandon for now. I have another sub-issue that I need to focus upon -- and I have discussed this general sub-issue several times over the last few years.
__________________
"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 1st March 2018, 08:01 AM   #46
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,572
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
jond,
- I never accepted that the self is a process generated by the brain. I've suggested that it's a process/thing received by the brain.
- Sorry, but this is a sub-issue I'll have to abandon for now. I have another sub-issue that I need to focus upon -- and I have discussed this general sub-issue several times over the last few years.
No, it is not a sub-issue, it is not an issue at all. We are discussing the materialist hypothesis, not what you think, believe, feel, or accept.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans 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 1st March 2018, 08:07 AM   #47
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 29,370
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
jond,
- I never accepted that the self is a process generated by the brain. I've suggested that it's a process/thing received by the brain.
No, you accepted that under materialism, the brain generates the process. You don't have to believe it, you just have to accept that it's part of the materialist model you're trying to disprove.

I've already given you permission to disprove some other model that you invent but you won't be accomplishing anything by doing so.

Quote:
- Sorry, but this is a sub-issue I'll have to abandon for now.
Sorry, but this isn't a sub-issue. It's a central issue which you've never been able to get beyond so your proof fails immediately.

Quote:
I have another sub-issue that I need to focus upon -- and I have discussed this general sub-issue several times over the last few years.
And we've discussed it more than you have, showing you exactly how and why you are wrong to attribute a soul to the materialist model.

It's been beyond your ability to understand so far.

But by all means, continue to fiddle with the deck chairs on your sinking Titanic argument.

Last edited by RoboTimbo; 1st March 2018 at 08:08 AM.
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 1st March 2018, 08:07 AM   #48
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 76,572
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
jond,
- I never accepted that the self is a process generated by the brain. I've suggested that it's a process/thing received by the brain.
Jond linked to you doing just that. You can't wiggle out of this one.

Quote:
- Sorry, but this is a sub-issue I'll have to abandon for now. I have another sub-issue that I need to focus upon
Every time a "sub issue" doesn't go your way, you abandon it for another, only to return to the former later when you "forget" about the results. Ad infinitum.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... 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 1st March 2018, 08:08 AM   #49
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: 28,156
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Sorry, but this is a sub-issue I'll have to abandon for now. I have another sub-issue that I need to focus upon -- and I have discussed this general sub-issue several times over the last few years.
We're all aware that every time you realise you can't defend one part of your argument you respond by running away to where you can fail to defend a different part of it, in the hope that by the time you get drawn back to the first sub-issue we'll all have forgotten that you ran away. Problem is, you've done this multiple times with every single sub-issue. Don't you think that, after failing to defend any part of your argument on any of the times you've reverted to minutiae to deflect attention from the fact that the overall argument makes no sense either, it would be a little more dignified to admit that the whole thing doesn't work?

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 1st March 2018, 08:08 AM   #50
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,388
Originally Posted by JesseCuster View Post
Either you are being blatantly dishonest about what it is you're actually claiming here, or your thoughts on the matter are just utterly hopelessly muddled and incoherent.
The latter. Here's Bayes:
P(A|B) = P(B|A)/PB P(A)
A and B are events. The blue part is usually called the likelihood ratio. The blue part is what Jabba thought he was asking for -- in his wording, "the Bayesian likelihood." In jt512's post, he calls it the "weight of evidence," which makes sense when you consider that when Bayes' theorem is used to drawn an inference, event B is usually data, or evidence, gleaned from the outside world. A is the event that a certain hypothesis is true. P(A) is the probability that your hypothesis is true, irrespective of what new evidence might tell you. The role of the blue part is to either attenuate or amplify the probability of your hypothesis based on how much worse or better it explains B, the evidence, over chance.

Jabba didn't know what to call the blue part because statistics is not something he really knows much about. So he made up a word for it, "the Bayesian likelihood," and sprang it on people expecting them to just read his mind and know what he meant. (People who actually know a field and work in it use the standard language to avoid just such confusion.) Naturally you and I and everyone else thought he was asking for P(A|B), which can't be computed in his example without knowing P(A). If P(A|B) is the likelihood that a coin is two-headed given that it came up heads, we have to know P(A) -- the probability of a two-headed coin reckoned by a means other than the toss. For example, if you had a jar with 10 coins in it and were told that one of them is two-heaaded, you can draw a coin and use a series of tosses to home in on whether it's the two-headed one. But it would starte= with P(A)=0.1 for this particular case. P(A) might be different for a different reported (or estimated) population for two-headedness.

Jabba is trying to impress beyond his abilities. His present ability doesn't include the standard vocabulary of statistics, or the grasp of what those terms in the equation mean. There is a conceptual difference between a likelihood and a ratio of likelihoods. The latter is important in Bayes. We think of the blue term as a scaling factor that clusters around 1. If it works out to 1, then that tells us the evidence B is unrelated to the hypothesis A. Greater than 1 means the evidence favors the hypothesis. Less than 1 means it disfavors the hypothesis -- that the data B is actually evidence that the hypothesis A is not true. In order to get the likelihood P(B|A) to be in the neighborhood of 1, we normalize it using P(B), the probability that the data arose irrespective of any attempt to explain it.

Making up your own words for things that experts already have names for is a sign of bluffing. Additionally you may have noticed Jabba adopting words he sees in his critics' posts and using them in ways that suggest he doesn't really know what they mean. This is another symptom of the bluff. And lately, for example, you see him plastering the word "Bayesian" in front of everything, even when it makes no sense to qualify a concept that way. More bluff. He's arguing as if he really doesn't think any of his critics knows enough to rebut him confidently, and if he just throws around impressive-sounding terminology he can pretend he's been a genius.
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 1st March 2018, 08:09 AM   #51
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
jt,
- Apparently, I was asking about the likelihood ratio -- I'm just not that familiar with the appropriate terminology...
- In doing that, I was trying to emphasize the difference between probability (both prior and posterior) and the likelihood ratio.
- The likelihood, in the Bayesian sense, of getting heads when flipping a 2 headed coin is 1.
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
There is no "Bayesian sense" of likelihood. Likelihood means the same thing whether you're doing Bayesian or non-Bayesian inference.
- OK. Again, I'm not very good with the terminology. I just know that P(E|H) is not the same as P(H) or P(E) or P(H|E), and that's what I've been trying to communicate -- while the others are mixing them up.
__________________
"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 1st March 2018, 08:12 AM   #52
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: 28,156
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- OK. Again, I'm not very good with the terminology. I just know that P(E|H) is not the same as P(H) or P(E) or P(H|E), and that's what I've been trying to communicate -- while the others are mixing them up.
That's an outright lie. Not just an ordinary lie, that's a Donald Trump level lie. Everyone else has been trying to tell you that P(E|H) is not the same as P(E), P(H) or P(H|E), and you've been mixing them up.

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 1st March 2018, 08:13 AM   #53
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 29,370
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
that's what I've been trying to communicate -- while the others are mixing them up.
LOL. You are so out of your depth.

How long until you run away from this "sub-issue"?
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 1st March 2018, 08:14 AM   #54
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,388
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I never accepted that the self is a process generated by the brain.
False. You finally agreed that this is what happens in the materialist model. You've been trying to make the materialist model look like something else that's easier to refute. Having finally eked out of you the admission that you're misrepresenting it, we are not simply going to let that go.

Quote:
I've suggested that it's a process/thing received by the brain.
That is a misrepresentation of the materialist hypothesis.

Quote:
Sorry, but this is a sub-issue I'll have to abandon for now. I have another sub-issue that I need to focus upon...
You're cornered and you need to escape by changing the subject. This dodge is your standard evasion.

Quote:
and I have discussed this general sub-issue several times over the last few years.
No, you haven't discussed it. You've simply tried to foist the same straw man unsuccessfully for years. Your critics are rightly calling you on that, and your response -- as always -- is to ignore them and run away. We've already seen you admit that you can't participate in the debate unless you have the unfettered ability to control its direction and steer it away from topics you know you can't address.
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 1st March 2018, 08:15 AM   #55
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,388
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- OK. Again, I'm not very good with the terminology. I just know that P(E|H) is not the same as P(H) or P(E) or P(H|E), and that's what I've been trying to communicate -- while the others are mixing them up.
Hogwash. You cannot demonstrate understanding of either the concepts or the terminology. You are are using the wrong words to express your ideas, and this is naturally confusing to your critics. Quit blaming them for the effects of your ignorance. It's consummately rude.
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 1st March 2018, 08:16 AM   #56
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 76,572
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- OK. Again, I'm not very good with the terminology.
No, you're deliberately dishonest with the terminology. You're not a befuddled old man.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... 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 1st March 2018, 08:19 AM   #57
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 76,572
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
It's consummately rude.
And we have it on good authority that rude posters should be ignored...
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... 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 1st March 2018, 08:25 AM   #58
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,252
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
jond,
- I never accepted that the self is a process generated by the brain. I've suggested that it's a process/thing received by the brain.
- Sorry, but this is a sub-issue I'll have to abandon for now. I have another sub-issue that I need to focus upon -- and I have discussed this general sub-issue several times over the last few years.
I linked to it again yesterday. The problem, Jabba, is that you agreed with Godless Dave on Dec 27 that in he materialist model, it is a process generated by the brain, not something received by the brain. On December 30, you agreed with me that the only way for you to get to immortality was to add another entity in addition to your brain. Now you are back to insisting that this additional element exists when in the materialist model which you are trying to disprove it does not.
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 1st March 2018, 08:51 AM   #59
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
The latter. Here's Bayes:
P(A|B) = P(B|A)/PB P(A)
A and B are events. The blue part is usually called the likelihood ratio. The blue part is what Jabba thought he was asking for -- in his wording, "the Bayesian likelihood." In jt512's post, he calls it the "weight of evidence," which makes sense when you consider that when Bayes' theorem is used to drawn an inference, event B is usually data, or evidence, gleaned from the outside world. A is the event that a certain hypothesis is true. P(A) is the probability that your hypothesis is true, irrespective of what new evidence might tell you. The role of the blue part is to either attenuate or amplify the probability of your hypothesis based on how much worse or better it explains B, the evidence, over chance.

Jabba didn't know what to call the blue part because statistics is not something he really knows much about. So he made up a word for it, "the Bayesian likelihood," and sprang it on people expecting them to just read his mind and know what he meant. (People who actually know a field and work in it use the standard language to avoid just such confusion.) Naturally you and I and everyone else thought he was asking for P(A|B), which can't be computed in his example without knowing P(A). If P(A|B) is the likelihood that a coin is two-headed given that it came up heads, we have to know P(A) -- the probability of a two-headed coin reckoned by a means other than the toss. For example, if you had a jar with 10 coins in it and were told that one of them is two-heaaded, you can draw a coin and use a series of tosses to home in on whether it's the two-headed one. But it would starte= with P(A)=0.1 for this particular case. P(A) might be different for a different reported (or estimated) population for two-headedness.

Jabba is trying to impress beyond his abilities. His present ability doesn't include the standard vocabulary of statistics, or the grasp of what those terms in the equation mean. There is a conceptual difference between a likelihood and a ratio of likelihoods. The latter is important in Bayes. We think of the blue term as a scaling factor that clusters around 1. If it works out to 1, then that tells us the evidence B is unrelated to the hypothesis A. Greater than 1 means the evidence favors the hypothesis. Less than 1 means it disfavors the hypothesis -- that the data B is actually evidence that the hypothesis A is not true. In order to get the likelihood P(B|A) to be in the neighborhood of 1, we normalize it using P(B), the probability that the data arose irrespective of any attempt to explain it.

Making up your own words for things that experts already have names for is a sign of bluffing. Additionally you may have noticed Jabba adopting words he sees in his critics' posts and using them in ways that suggest he doesn't really know what they mean. This is another symptom of the bluff. And lately, for example, you see him plastering the word "Bayesian" in front of everything, even when it makes no sense to qualify a concept that way. More bluff. He's arguing as if he really doesn't think any of his critics knows enough to rebut him confidently, and if he just throws around impressive-sounding terminology he can pretend he's been a genius.
- I'm not talking about two events, and I'm not using that formula. I'm talking about the "likelihood" of a particular event -- given a particular hypothesis. The symbols I use for that ingredient are P(E|H). The formula I use to determine the posterior probability of H is P(H|E)=P(E|H)P(H)/(P(E|H)P(H)+P(E|~H)P(~H)). My estimate for P(E|H) is 10-100.

- Also, I have a lot of excuses for my poor terminology, but mostly, while I must have taken about 10 courses in Statistics, I only took one in Bayesian Statistics, and that was cut short by the Kent State shooting almost 40 years ago as I was finishing up my course work.
__________________
"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 1st March 2018, 08:59 AM   #60
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- OK. Again, I'm not very good with the terminology. I just know that P(E|H) is not the same as P(H) or P(E) or P(H|E), and that's what I've been trying to communicate -- while the others are mixing them up.
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Hogwash. You cannot demonstrate understanding of either the concepts or the terminology. You are are using the wrong words to express your ideas, and this is naturally confusing to your critics. Quit blaming them for the effects of your ignorance. It's consummately rude.
- Where, specifically, am I wrong in the above? Where is the hogwash?
__________________
"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 1st March 2018, 09:00 AM   #61
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: 28,156
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I'm not talking about two events,
Yes, you are; you just don't know you are, because you don't understand the terminology in use.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
and I'm not using that formula.
Yes, you are; you just don't know you are, because you don't understand elementary mathematics well enough to rearrange the terms.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
My estimate for P(E|H) is 10-100.
That's not an estimate, it's a number you've made up without reference to any other information because you think it'll give the answer you want.

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 1st March 2018, 09:01 AM   #62
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: 28,156
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Where, specifically, am I wrong in the above?
In that you haven't been trying to say what you claim, and you clearly don't understand the distinction between P(E|H) and P(H|E).

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 1st March 2018, 09:03 AM   #63
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,266
So you took one course in Bayesian statistics, but you think you can use it to prove immortality?

That's like taking a few physics courses and thinking you can disprove special relativity.
__________________
"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 1st March 2018, 09:05 AM   #64
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 76,572
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
My estimate for P(E|H) is 10-100.
Based on what?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... 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 1st March 2018, 09:06 AM   #65
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,388
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Where is the hogwash?
The part where you shift blame for your ignorance onto others, claiming it is they who are "mixing [things] up." You're rudely asking other people to indulge your ignorance while you blame them for your having misled them with it.

Last edited by JayUtah; 1st March 2018 at 09:12 AM.
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 1st March 2018, 09:10 AM   #66
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,388
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I'm not talking about two events...
Yes you are. Bayes' theorem is about events. What we mean by "event" differs from application to application.

Quote:
Also, I have a lot of excuses for my poor terminology...
And I'm not interested in any of them.

The problem is that you are smugly trying to "teach" people a subject you clearly don't understand -- while they clearly do. It's not just "terminology," although you making up words for things that already have names doesn't help. Your problem is that you don't understand -- at a very basic, fundamental level -- how statistical inference works. This is partly what I was trying to show you by having you address the flaws in your argument broadly, rather than flitting from topic to topic.

It's just unconscionably rude for you to persist in a display of abject ignorance, all the while claiming your critics are too benighted to grasp your genius. Who do you think you're fooling, Jabba?
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 1st March 2018, 09:13 AM   #67
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,252
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I'm not talking about two events, and I'm not using that formula. I'm talking about the "likelihood" of a particular event -- given a particular hypothesis. The symbols I use for that ingredient are P(E|H). The formula I use to determine the posterior probability of H is P(H|E)=P(E|H)P(H)/(P(E|H)P(H)+P(E|~H)P(~H)). My estimate for P(E|H) is 10-100
Jabba, does your Current Existence consider your self to be a separate entity from your brain?
- if yes, then you are not discussing the materialist model, and this is all moot.
- if no, then no matter what absurd made up number you put in there, you still have to multiply that number by P(S) to get to immortality. (Because the only way to get to immortality is to add a soul to your body.) It will not be a larger number than P(E|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 1st March 2018, 09:16 AM   #68
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I'm not talking about two events, and I'm not using that formula. I'm talking about the "likelihood" of a particular event -- given a particular hypothesis. The symbols I use for that ingredient are P(E|H). The formula I use to determine the posterior probability of H is P(H|E)=P(E|H)P(H)/(P(E|H)P(H)+P(E|~H)P(~H)). My estimate for P(E|H) is 10-100.

- Also, I have a lot of excuses for my poor terminology, but mostly, while I must have taken about 10 courses in Statistics, I only took one in Bayesian Statistics, and that was cut short by the Kent State shooting almost 40 years ago as I was finishing up my course work.
- Sorry. My dating was wrong -- I took the Bayesian course a long time ago, it was near the end of my course work in the late 70s, and it was cut short in response to the Kent State shooting, but the shooting actually occurred in 1970...
__________________
"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 1st March 2018, 09:20 AM   #69
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 76,572
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Sorry. My dating was wrong -- I took the Bayesian course a long time ago, it was near the end of my course work in the late 70s, and it was cut short in response to the Kent State shooting, but the shooting actually occurred in 1970...
Stop making excuses and correct your mistakes.




ETA: Especially excuses that require time travel.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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



Last edited by Belz...; 1st March 2018 at 09:23 AM.
Belz... 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 1st March 2018, 09:21 AM   #70
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,388
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Sorry
It doesn't matter why you're ignorant, Jabba. It only matters that you're doing a very poor job of owning the effect of that ignorance on your proof. Are we going to spend the rest of the day sidetracked on exactly how many decades ago you took your one-and-only relevant course, instead of debating your proof?
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 1st March 2018, 09:22 AM   #71
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 29,370
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Sorry. My dating was wrong -- I took the Bayesian course a long time ago, it was near the end of my course work in the late 70s, and it was cut short in response to the Kent State shooting, but the shooting actually occurred in 1970...
Your course in the late 70's was cut short in response to the Kent State shootings more than 5 years before in May 1970?
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 1st March 2018, 09:26 AM   #72
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: 28,156
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Your course in the late 70's was cut short in response to the Kent State shootings more than 5 years before in May 1970?
I think Jabba's calculated that the Bayesian probability of the course being cut short given that the Kent State shootings occurred was greater than the Bayesian probability of the course being cut short had the Kent State shootings not occurred, and therefore inferred a causal relationship.

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 1st March 2018, 09:41 AM   #73
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
So you took one course in Bayesian statistics, but you think you can use it to prove immortality?

That's like taking a few physics courses and thinking you can disprove special relativity.
- I've become more informed over the last few years -- after I recognized what seemed to me mathematical support for my "epiphany" of 1956.
- And, it isn't that I know very much about Bayesian Statistics, it just seems like no one else that I've found (except maybe Toontown) has recognized this particular implication.
- Given OOFLam, the likelihood of my current existence is virtually zero (Since virtually zero doesn't work in math, I've given it a number -- 10-100).
__________________
"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

Last edited by Jabba; 1st March 2018 at 09:43 AM.
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 1st March 2018, 09:43 AM   #74
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,435
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Also, I have a lot of excuses for my poor terminology, but mostly, while I must have taken about 10 courses in Statistics, I only took one in Bayesian Statistics, and that was cut short by the Kent State shooting almost 40 years ago as I was finishing up my course work.
Was that before or after you started wearing an onion on your belt, as was the custom in those days?
theprestige 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 1st March 2018, 09:44 AM   #75
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: 28,156
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Given OOFLam, the likelihood of my current existence is virtually zero (Since virtually zero doesn't work in math, I've given it a number -- 10-100.
Which you've extracted from your nether regions. However, we know that, in the hypothesis you're trying to prove, an additional choice - that of what soul is incarnated in your body - is also needed to result in you being you; the likelihood of your current existence must therefore be less than your "estimate" of "virtually zero." So your "proof" cannot possibly be valid.

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 1st March 2018, 09:45 AM   #76
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,252
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I've become more informed over the last few years -- after I recognized what seemed to me mathematical support for my "epiphany" of 1956.
- And, it isn't that I know very much about Bayesian Statistics, it just seems like no one else that I've found (except maybe Toontown) has recognized this particular implication.
- Given OOFLam, the likelihood of my current existence is virtually zero (Since virtually zero doesn't work in math, I've given it a number -- 10-100).
How does adding a soul make your current existence more likely?
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 1st March 2018, 09:51 AM   #77
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Your course in the late 70's was cut short in response to the Kent State shootings more than 5 years before in May 1970?
- Yeah...
- That is certainly my memory of it...
- I'll see if I can get any confirmation from SUNY...
__________________
"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 1st March 2018, 09:52 AM   #78
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,388
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I've become more informed over the last few years...
Claims of improvement are unconvincing. You still can't demonstrate that you know what you're talking about on even basic concepts, and your competence in mathematics is a premise to your proof. You claim your proof only appears to fail because your critics are too stupid or too dishonest to appreciate it. You don't consider that your proof appears to fail because it is in fact wrong, and that the error leading to its failure is a predictable result of lacking the relevant proficiency.

Quote:
And, it isn't that I know very much about Bayesian Statistics, it just seems like no one else that I've found (except maybe Toontown) has recognized this particular implication.
You're both wrong. You haven't considered the possibility that the "implication" you're chasing is not actually true, and is instead an error due to your lack of competence in the relevant field. In fact you both commit the same error of trying to elevate subjective feelings to the status of objective facts.

Quote:
Given OOFLam, the likelihood of my current existence is virtually zero (Since virtually zero doesn't work in math, I've given it a number -- 10-100.
No. Remember you told us the story. You decided on purely emotional grounds that you were immortal, and you've convinced yourself (apparently out of ego) that you have the knowledge and skill to prove it mathematically. However, the facts show that after several attempts it is the universal conclusion among all who've offered to help you that you have neither the skill to accomplish your proof nor the knowledge and willingness to understand why you cannot. You're literally just making up arbitrary numbers and pretending that applying Bayes' theorem to them somehow conveys a specific meaning that others are bound to respect.

Rather than face the reality of your situation in an mature, introspective way, you have decided to create a fantasy play -- an alternate universe -- in which your proof succeeded. You're recruiting us and others to act in this play, and then becoming rude and abusive when they don't follow your script.
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 1st March 2018, 09:53 AM   #79
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,388
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I'll see if I can get any confirmation from SUNY...
No one is asking for that. They are instead asking you to defend the concepts you insist upon in your proof, given reasonable and well-supported objections to them. Do not constantly sidetrack the discussion in order to avoid responsibility.
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 1st March 2018, 09:54 AM   #80
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,266
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I've become more informed over the last few years -- after I recognized what seemed to me mathematical support for my "epiphany" of 1956.
- And, it isn't that I know very much about Bayesian Statistics, it just seems like no one else that I've found (except maybe Toontown) has recognized this particular implication.
Maybe they know enough about Bayesian statistics to realize that the implication you see isn't real.
__________________
"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
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 10:04 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.