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.
Closed Thread
Old 2nd June 2017, 09:41 PM   #3161
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,081
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Hokulele,
- I won't be summarizing your side; the person representing your side will summarize your side. Anyone can comment.
- On the map, I'll summarize my own side.
No that is not true. We have seen right on this sight exactly how that pans out.

It is not a pretty picture. Last time you tried this right here we had buckets of people outright stating to you that you did NOT have their permission to use their words on your site.

Everyone was aghast at the level of deception. If you want links on this very site, I can provide them. Did you believe that everyone would conveniently forget how it played out before? Do you not recall the number of people who expressly stated that you had no permission to represent their posts on your website? Have you forgotten why you had that reaction?

I could ask if you are unaware that all of that scurrilous behaviour is recorded, but I am certain that you are aware that it is and are seeking to avoid it at all costs. That appears to me to be a fools errand since it is all recorded right here. And you appear to have forgotten that web archives exist.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2017, 01:08 AM   #3162
Filippo Lippi
Master Poster
 
Filippo Lippi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,888
Why are we letting Jabba drag the thread from "I prove immortality using Bayes theorem" to "I can win a beauty contest if it's on my ground under my rules?"

Why is the ISF hosting this farrago?
__________________
"You may not know anything about the issue but I bet you reckon something.
So why not tell us what you reckon? Let us enjoy the full majesty of your uninformed, ad hoc reckon..."
David Mitchell
Filippo Lippi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2017, 04:44 AM   #3163
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
I couldn't agree more.

All around me I see people whose sole criterion for believing something is whether or not they want it to be true. Compelling evidence and arguments against the belief are wilfully ignored, anything that can be adduced in its favour - even if it has to be dishonestly cherry picked and misinterpreted to do so - is eagerly seized on and embraced.

I use to think the internet posters who "debated" in this way (of whom you have long been the quintessential exemplar, Jabba) represented only a tiny percentage of an otherwise fairly rational populace. But in same few years in which you have been wasting everybody's time on this thread, this way of "debating" appears to have become the norm. You must be so pleased.
Pixel,
- We humans seem to accept that effective public debate is impossible...
- I say that because,
1. Human survival may depend upon such a possibility.
2. The Internet should allow us to see if anyone is researching the possibility.
3. And using the Internet, I haven't been able to find any such efforts.

- Hope this isn't too far off topic...
__________________
"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 č 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 Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2017, 05:06 AM   #3164
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,241
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Pixel,
- We humans seem to accept that effective public debate is impossible...
- I say that because,
1. Human survival may depend upon such a possibility.
2. The Internet should allow us to see if anyone is researching the possibility.
3. And using the Internet, I haven't been able to find any such efforts.

- Hope this isn't too far off topic...
Way to spectacularly miss the point! Do you really think ignoring posts that you cannot answer makes for "effective" debate?
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 Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2017, 05:52 AM   #3165
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Pixel,
- We humans seem to accept that effective public debate is impossible...
- I say that because,
1. Human survival may depend upon such a possibility.
2. The Internet should allow us to see if anyone is researching the possibility.
3. And using the Internet, I haven't been able to find any such efforts.

- Hope this isn't too far off topic...
Ha! This coming from someone who ignores more posts than he answers.

Of all the temerity!
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2017, 06:04 AM   #3166
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,523
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Pixel,
- We humans seem to accept that effective public debate is impossible...
- I say that because,
1. Human survival may depend upon such a possibility.
2. The Internet should allow us to see if anyone is researching the possibility.
3. And using the Internet, I haven't been able to find any such efforts.

- Hope this isn't too far off topic...
You are trying to set the groundwork that
1. you are right
2. you can't actually show you are right through debate
3. it can't be that you are wrong
4. therefore debate is an innefective tool for determining truth.

This isn't really a debate, its a discussion through a medium that allows things like fact checking during the discussion. Formal debate doesn't really facilitate that.
So this format is actually MORE effective at finding truth than formal spoken debate.
In this avenue, you continually fail to make your case. Not because we are mean, or it is unfair, but because you cannot back up your assertions with evidence and reason.

Last edited by The Sparrow; 3rd June 2017 at 06:18 AM.
The Sparrow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2017, 06:55 AM   #3167
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,266
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
I've actually taken a step back from the hard core individual fringe arguments in the last few weeks and I've been trying to look at the whole ongoing fringe movement, trying to notice underlying trends and shared traits.

One of the broad philosophical underpinnings I've started to recognize is this vague, broad, unspoken and undefined anti-intellectual idea that society in general and the skeptics/rationalists/atheist/whatever groups specifically put too much value in being factually correct. With a lot of Woo Slingers and even more often with Woo Apologist this is sort of the impression I get after talking to them a while, that they see us sacrificing some other value or quality in order to "be right" and we need to learn that "being right" isn't all that matters. It often comes from people who have a very narrow personal view of what they consider science and who, in their worldview, have some equally valid method for determining a worldview.

This is where, I think, a lot (but not all) of the tone policing, a lot of the "Oh you just want to 'win' the argument" style counter arguments, and it certainly at least shares a border if not some territory with the "Science and logic are cold and sterile and take all the color and joy out of life" crowd.

This is where we often get those weird performance art skits that act like they are trying to pass a moral onto instead of making anything resembling a valid or even coherent argument. This is one of many reasons that these arguments just so aggressively go nowhere. They aren't trying to win, they are trying to make us give up because to them that proves that being "right" isn't that important.

This motivation is one of the hardest ones to argue against because A) it's full of doublespeak because no can with a straight face actually directly argue against factual correctness as a quality and B) is often really hard to tell how far down the rabbit hole they are.

I honestly do think there is a statistically significant portion of the population that, whether they admit it to others or themselves, sorta don't value factual correctness. Maybe it's an after the fact rationalization for non-factual belief they hold and can't bring themselves to get rid of, maybe it's an actual base personality component they do indeed have, maybe a little of both but I do think it is there and does affect intellectual discourse.

I think this is a factor, one of many, in some not all of the Woo topics in which the Woo proponent becomes over-obsessed with arguments being "nice."

This thread, while an extreme example of it, is hardly the first time we've dealt with someone who falls back on trying to police the behavior of the thread as a way to distract, themselves as much as anyone IMO, from being unable to intellectually defend a position.
I think this is an astute observation.
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2017, 07:43 AM   #3168
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,576
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Pixel,
- We humans seem to accept that effective public debate is impossible...
- I say that because,
1. Human survival may depend upon such a possibility.
2. The Internet should allow us to see if anyone is researching the possibility.
3. And using the Internet, I haven't been able to find any such efforts.

- Hope this isn't too far off topic...

Do you believe that reality is determined by debate?
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2017, 08:26 AM   #3169
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Given your past behavior, can you state a reason why anyone should trust you? Can you explain in what way this "map" of yours would be any different or better than this forum as it presently stands?
Jay,
- Theoretically, the map will provide a kind of "murder board" -- as seen on TV police dramas. It will try to summarize the relevant information -- in this case, the relevant arguments. IMO, it's something that we can do to help newcomers catch up, and everybody synthesize.
__________________
"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 č 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 Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2017, 08:32 AM   #3170
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
Do you believe that reality is determined by debate?
- I believe that the more we know both sides of a complementary story (what effective debate should help us with), the more likely we are to understand reality and to make the right decisions.
__________________
"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 č 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 Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2017, 08:35 AM   #3171
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 30,399
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I believe that the more we know both sides of a complementary story (what effective debate should help us with), the more likely we are to understand reality and to make the right decisions.

Learning more about an argument that has already failed cannot make it less wrong.
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2017, 08:37 AM   #3172
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,523
Jabba you are fooling absolutely no one.
The Sparrow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2017, 08:38 AM   #3173
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
I think this is an astute observation.
- That's a shame.
__________________
"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 č 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 Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2017, 08:40 AM   #3174
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by The Sparrow View Post
Jabba you are fooling absolutely no one.
Sparrow,
- I'm certainly convincing absolutely no one.
__________________
"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 č 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 Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2017, 08:43 AM   #3175
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Learning more about an argument that has already failed cannot make it less wrong.
- Though, it might make the argument more understood, and appreciated.
__________________
"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 č 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 Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2017, 08:45 AM   #3176
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 30,399
Originally Posted by The Sparrow View Post
Jabba you are fooling absolutely no one.
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Sparrow,
- I'm certainly convincing absolutely no one.

Yes, you are probably fooling one person. But, as Feynman said, they are the easiest person to fool.
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2017, 08:47 AM   #3177
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 30,399
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Though, it might make the argument more understood, and appreciated.

Yes, the more we found out about your argument, the more we understood, and appreciated, that it is wrong.

ETA: This is why you have been desperately claiming that we don't understand it. We do, it's just that, wilfully or otherwise, you don't understand the objections to it.
__________________
"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

Last edited by Mojo; 3rd June 2017 at 08:53 AM.
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 Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2017, 09:59 AM   #3178
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,114
Mod WarningWe already have a delightful thread on the topic of Jabba's effective debate claims here. I would feel devastated if after so many electrons had been expended in the creation of that thread for it now to fall in to disuse while the topic of this thread were abandoned in pursuit of an effective debate discussion.

Nay, it shall not be.

Please return to the topic at hand -- immortality and Bayesian proofs thereof. But don't be afraid to adventure beyond the confines of this thread. In fact, I know of a delightful thread that misses the attention of any and all wanting to exchange ideas about effective debate.

Peace
Posted By:jsfisher
__________________
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
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 Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2017, 10:48 AM   #3179
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,523
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Sparrow,
- I'm certainly convincing absolutely no one.
Why do you think that is?
The Sparrow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2017, 11:15 AM   #3180
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
I think this is an astute observation.
Spiro Agnew denounced [skeptics] as effete snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals.
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2017, 11:28 AM   #3181
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Jay,
- Theoretically, the map will provide a kind of "murder board" -- as seen on TV police dramas. It will try to summarize the relevant information -- in this case, the relevant arguments. IMO, it's something that we can do to help newcomers catch up, and everybody synthesize.

As JayUtah questioned: Given your past behavior, why should anyone trust you?
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2017, 11:33 AM   #3182
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I believe that the more we know both sides of a complementary story (what effective debate should help us with), the more likely we are to understand reality and to make the right decisions.

You've had 5 years to make a case, and it fails at every turn. Your latest 'map' idea will fare no better.

I will go so far as to predict immediate lies/prevarications on your part in your new map. That's what happened before.

Prove me wrong and I will retract those words right here at ISF, and give you 3 days to draw a crowd.
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave

Last edited by John Jones; 3rd June 2017 at 11:37 AM.
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2017, 04:24 PM   #3183
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Jay,
- Theoretically, the map will provide a kind of "murder board" -- as seen on TV police dramas. It will try to summarize the relevant information -- in this case, the relevant arguments. IMO, it's something that we can do to help newcomers catch up, and everybody synthesize.
The only thing newcomers need in order to catch up is to read part one of this ridiculous five part thread.
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2017, 05:29 PM   #3184
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 18,492
oops - just saw the moderator box.

Last edited by carlitos; 3rd June 2017 at 05:30 PM.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2017, 06:07 PM   #3185
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,081
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I believe that the more we know both sides of a complementary story (what effective debate should help us with), the more likely we are to understand reality and to make the right decisions.
How does that pan out if one individual censors, edits and deletes the opinions of everyone else?

What happens in such a scenario?

What is the resultant regime in that scenario?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th June 2017, 12:12 PM   #3186
Filippo Lippi
Master Poster
 
Filippo Lippi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,888
The silent but watching throng who cheer Jabba's every pronouncement need not fear, he's still checking in regularly
__________________
"You may not know anything about the issue but I bet you reckon something.
So why not tell us what you reckon? Let us enjoy the full majesty of your uninformed, ad hoc reckon..."
David Mitchell
Filippo Lippi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th June 2017, 12:21 PM   #3187
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,076
Originally Posted by Filippo Lippi View Post
The silent but watching throng who cheer Jabba's every pronouncement need not fear, he's still checking in regularly
Assuming the moderator box above is meant to send discussions of Jabba's upcoming "map" to the appropriate thread, I have to assume further that the next we'll hear from Jabba will be the inevitable fringe reset.
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 Back to Top
Old 5th June 2017, 12:22 PM   #3188
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,081
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
oops - just saw the moderator box.
Dang. Missed that.

Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th June 2017, 07:59 AM   #3189
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
- The following is my opening statement so far -- I could have to revise it...

- I think that, using Bayesian statistics, I can virtually disprove the consensus scientific hypothesis that we each have only one, finite, life to live…
1. If something occurs that is unlikely to occur -- given a particular hypothesis -- the event is evidence against the hypothesis.
2. The strength of the evidence depends in part upon how unlikely the event is -- given the hypothesis.
3. It is evidence similar to “opportunity” in a murder trial in that it can be totally meaningless if other conditions are not met.
4. For one thing, the hypothesis in question does need to have a ‘reasonable’ bit of doubt as to its truth.
5. For another thing, in many situations, the specific event is only one of NUMEROUS possible results (millions?) -- and for unlikelihood to be of consequence in such a case, the specific result has to be meaningfully set apart from most other possible results.
6. The above is one of the ‘avenues’ of Bayesian statistics.
7. If something occurs that is likely to occur – given a particular hypothesis – the event is evidence for the hypothesis. That’s the other avenue.

8. My theory: The scientific opinion that we each have only one, finite, life to live is false.
9. If it were true, I shouldn’t be here right now. But, here I am…
10. I shouldn’t be here right now because there must be an infinity of potential “selves,” and only 7 billion existing selves. So, the odds of me currently existing is 7 billion to infinity – or, virtually zero…

11. “Self” is a problematic concept in that it’s difficult to make sure that all those listening/reading have the same concept in mind…
12. Perhaps, the most likely way to try to make sure we’re all talking about the same thing is to explain that the self is what people who believe in reincarnation believe keeps returning.
13. Another way is to say that if cloning would produce the same self, that self would be looking out two sets of eyes…
14. Neither of those seems to be a fool proof way of insuring that we’re on the same page...

15. One way of understanding “potential selves” is to consider every combination of actual sperm cell that has ever existed and every ovum that has ever existed that have not, in fact, combined. Each of those non-combinations would represent a potential self.
16. And then, theoretically, potential selves would have potential sperm cells and potential ova that combined would also represent potential selves (squared?).
17. Another way of understanding “potential selves” is to figure that selves are not entirely the result of DNA… That certain physical situations result in the emergent property of consciousness, which brings with it, its own, new specific self. If so, time (if not space) is a factor, and cloning would not re-create the same self.

18. Whatever, in either case, there should be an infinity of potential selves.
19. And, once we’re talking about potential selves, the scientific theory needs to be re-worded to, “We each have only one finite life to live (at most).” Let’s make that “OOFLam.”
20. IOW, in the latter case, in a sense, each of us comes out of nowhere, we’re all “brand new.” The particular DNA seems to produce a bit of consciousness with an accompanying particular “self”, but if we were able to replicate the DNA, we wouldn’t get the same self.

21. The Bayesian formula I suggest:
21.1. P(H|E)=P(E|H)P(H)/P(~H) =
21.2. (7,000,000,000/ ∞)*.99/.01 =
21.3. Δx→0


- I don't suppose that anyone here would volunteer to represent the "defendant"?
- Maybe, someone here would suggest some one else?
- If I can't get any volunteers, I'll ask specifically.
- If no one agrees to volunteer, I'll have to provide my best guess as to the best arguments for each issue -- and, I'll probably quote someone (without providing a name).
__________________
"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 č 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 Back to Top
Old 6th June 2017, 08:00 AM   #3190
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 30,399
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Assuming the moderator box above is meant to send discussions of Jabba's upcoming "map" to the appropriate thread, I have to assume further that the next we'll hear from Jabba will be the inevitable fringe reset.

Yup.
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 6th June 2017, 08:08 AM   #3191
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,523
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
1. If something occurs that is unlikely to occur -- given a particular hypothesis -- the event is evidence against the hypothesis.
already proven faulty at least 50 times. Why even bother with step 2.

Be sure on your "map" you link back here so folks can honestly see how wrong your first statement is.
Mention 'bananas'.
The Sparrow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th June 2017, 08:16 AM   #3192
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Assuming the moderator box above is meant to send discussions of Jabba's upcoming "map" to the appropriate thread, I have to assume further that the next we'll hear from Jabba will be the inevitable fringe reset.
And there it is. Five years of the same vomitus over and over.
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th June 2017, 08:19 AM   #3193
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,266
because I'm a masochist

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- The following is my opening statement so far -- I could have to revise it...

- I think that, using Bayesian statistics, I can virtually disprove the consensus scientific hypothesis that we each have only one, finite, life to live…
1. If something occurs that is unlikely to occur -- given a particular hypothesis -- the event is evidence against the hypothesis.
Untrue.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
-
2. The strength of the evidence depends in part upon how unlikely the event is -- given the hypothesis.
3. It is evidence similar to “opportunity” in a murder trial in that it can be totally meaningless if other conditions are not met.
4. For one thing, the hypothesis in question does need to have a ‘reasonable’ bit of doubt as to its truth.
5. For another thing, in many situations, the specific event is only one of NUMEROUS possible results (millions?) -- and for unlikelihood to be of consequence in such a case, the specific result has to be meaningfully set apart from most other possible results.
You never managed to set apart your existence from any of the other possible results.


Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
8. My theory: The scientific opinion that we each have only one, finite, life to live is false.
9. If it were true, I shouldn’t be here right now. But, here I am…
Nothing about the scientific explanation for consciousness says you shouldn't be here.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
10. I shouldn’t be here right now because there must be an infinity of potential “selves,” and only 7 billion existing selves. So, the odds of me currently existing is 7 billion to infinity – or, virtually zero…
You never explained why the number of potential selves has anything to do with the odds of you or anyone else existing.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
-
11. “Self” is a problematic concept in that it’s difficult to make sure that all those listening/reading have the same concept in mind…
12. Perhaps, the most likely way to try to make sure we’re all talking about the same thing is to explain that the self is what people who believe in reincarnation believe keeps returning.
13. Another way is to say that if cloning would produce the same self, that self would be looking out two sets of eyes…
In that case, the kind of "self" you're talking about is not something that science thinks exists, nor do most of the posters on this forum. I certainly don't.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
14. Neither of those seems to be a fool proof way of insuring that we’re on the same page...
#13 insures that we are not on the same page.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
-
15. One way of understanding “potential selves” is to consider every combination of actual sperm cell that has ever existed and every ovum that has ever existed that have not, in fact, combined. Each of those non-combinations would represent a potential self.
16. And then, theoretically, potential selves would have potential sperm cells and potential ova that combined would also represent potential selves (squared?).
17. Another way of understanding “potential selves” is to figure that selves are not entirely the result of DNA… That certain physical situations result in the emergent property of consciousness, which brings with it, its own, new specific self. If so, time (if not space) is a factor, and cloning would not re-create the same self.
What do you mean by "brings with it"?

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
-
18. Whatever, in either case, there should be an infinity of potential selves.
19. And, once we’re talking about potential selves, the scientific theory needs to be re-worded to, “We each have only one finite life to live (at most).” Let’s make that “OOFLam.”
No, it doesn't, because there's no reason to include potential selves in "we".

Also, as you know, "We each have only one finite life to live" is not a scientific theory. It's a consequence of the scientific idea that humans are entirely physical.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
-
20. IOW, in the latter case, in a sense, each of us comes out of nowhere, we’re all “brand new.” The particular DNA seems to produce a bit of consciousness with an accompanying particular “self”, but if we were able to replicate the DNA, we wouldn’t get the same self.
Just as if you replicated a Volkswagen you wouldn't get the same Volkswagen.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
-
- If no one agrees to volunteer, I'll have to provide my best guess as to the best arguments for each issue -- and, I'll probably quote someone (without providing a name).
You don't need to guess. You can just read the best arguments for each issue. They've all been posted multiple times.
__________________
"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

Last edited by godless dave; 6th June 2017 at 08:21 AM.
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 Back to Top
Old 6th June 2017, 08:32 AM   #3194
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,446
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- The following is my opening statement so far -- I could have to revise it...

- I think that, using Bayesian statistics, I can virtually disprove the consensus scientific hypothesis that we each have only one, finite, life to live…
1. If something occurs that is unlikely to occur -- given a particular hypothesis -- the event is evidence against the hypothesis.
2. The strength of the evidence depends in part upon how unlikely the event is -- given the hypothesis.
3. It is evidence similar to “opportunity” in a murder trial in that it can be totally meaningless if other conditions are not met.
4. For one thing, the hypothesis in question does need to have a ‘reasonable’ bit of doubt as to its truth.
5. For another thing, in many situations, the specific event is only one of NUMEROUS possible results (millions?) -- and for unlikelihood to be of consequence in such a case, the specific result has to be meaningfully set apart from most other possible results.
6. The above is one of the ‘avenues’ of Bayesian statistics.
7. If something occurs that is likely to occur – given a particular hypothesis – the event is evidence for the hypothesis. That’s the other avenue.

8. My theory: The scientific opinion that we each have only one, finite, life to live is false.
9. If it were true, I shouldn’t be here right now. But, here I am…
10. I shouldn’t be here right now because there must be an infinity of potential “selves,” and only 7 billion existing selves. So, the odds of me currently existing is 7 billion to infinity – or, virtually zero…

11. “Self” is a problematic concept in that it’s difficult to make sure that all those listening/reading have the same concept in mind…
12. Perhaps, the most likely way to try to make sure we’re all talking about the same thing is to explain that the self is what people who believe in reincarnation believe keeps returning.
13. Another way is to say that if cloning would produce the same self, that self would be looking out two sets of eyes…
14. Neither of those seems to be a fool proof way of insuring that we’re on the same page...

15. One way of understanding “potential selves” is to consider every combination of actual sperm cell that has ever existed and every ovum that has ever existed that have not, in fact, combined. Each of those non-combinations would represent a potential self.
16. And then, theoretically, potential selves would have potential sperm cells and potential ova that combined would also represent potential selves (squared?).
17. Another way of understanding “potential selves” is to figure that selves are not entirely the result of DNA… That certain physical situations result in the emergent property of consciousness, which brings with it, its own, new specific self. If so, time (if not space) is a factor, and cloning would not re-create the same self.

18. Whatever, in either case, there should be an infinity of potential selves.
19. And, once we’re talking about potential selves, the scientific theory needs to be re-worded to, “We each have only one finite life to live (at most).” Let’s make that “OOFLam.”
20. IOW, in the latter case, in a sense, each of us comes out of nowhere, we’re all “brand new.” The particular DNA seems to produce a bit of consciousness with an accompanying particular “self”, but if we were able to replicate the DNA, we wouldn’t get the same self.

21. The Bayesian formula I suggest:
21.1. P(H|E)=P(E|H)P(H)/P(~H) =
21.2. (7,000,000,000/ ∞)*.99/.01 =
21.3. Δx→0


- I don't suppose that anyone here would volunteer to represent the "defendant"?
- Maybe, someone here would suggest some one else?
- If I can't get any volunteers, I'll ask specifically.
- If no one agrees to volunteer, I'll have to provide my best guess as to the best arguments for each issue -- and, I'll probably quote someone (without providing a name).
Would you kindly list any differences in the above from your position some years ago?

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 Back to Top
Old 6th June 2017, 09:06 AM   #3195
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,081
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- The following is my opening statement so far -- I could have to revise it...

- I think that, using Bayesian statistics, I can virtually disprove the consensus scientific hypothesis that we each have only one, finite, life to live…
1. If something occurs that is unlikely to occur -- given a particular hypothesis -- the event is evidence against the hypothesis.
2. The strength of the evidence depends in part upon how unlikely the event is -- given the hypothesis.
3. It is evidence similar to “opportunity” in a murder trial in that it can be totally meaningless if other conditions are not met.
4. For one thing, the hypothesis in question does need to have a ‘reasonable’ bit of doubt as to its truth.
5. For another thing, in many situations, the specific event is only one of NUMEROUS possible results (millions?) -- and for unlikelihood to be of consequence in such a case, the specific result has to be meaningfully set apart from most other possible results.
6. The above is one of the ‘avenues’ of Bayesian statistics.
7. If something occurs that is likely to occur – given a particular hypothesis – the event is evidence for the hypothesis. That’s the other avenue.

8. My theory: The scientific opinion that we each have only one, finite, life to live is false.
9. If it were true, I shouldn’t be here right now. But, here I am…
10. I shouldn’t be here right now because there must be an infinity of potential “selves,” and only 7 billion existing selves. So, the odds of me currently existing is 7 billion to infinity – or, virtually zero…

11. “Self” is a problematic concept in that it’s difficult to make sure that all those listening/reading have the same concept in mind…
12. Perhaps, the most likely way to try to make sure we’re all talking about the same thing is to explain that the self is what people who believe in reincarnation believe keeps returning.
13. Another way is to say that if cloning would produce the same self, that self would be looking out two sets of eyes…
14. Neither of those seems to be a fool proof way of insuring that we’re on the same page...

15. One way of understanding “potential selves” is to consider every combination of actual sperm cell that has ever existed and every ovum that has ever existed that have not, in fact, combined. Each of those non-combinations would represent a potential self.
16. And then, theoretically, potential selves would have potential sperm cells and potential ova that combined would also represent potential selves (squared?).
17. Another way of understanding “potential selves” is to figure that selves are not entirely the result of DNA… That certain physical situations result in the emergent property of consciousness, which brings with it, its own, new specific self. If so, time (if not space) is a factor, and cloning would not re-create the same self.

18. Whatever, in either case, there should be an infinity of potential selves.
19. And, once we’re talking about potential selves, the scientific theory needs to be re-worded to, “We each have only one finite life to live (at most).” Let’s make that “OOFLam.”
20. IOW, in the latter case, in a sense, each of us comes out of nowhere, we’re all “brand new.” The particular DNA seems to produce a bit of consciousness with an accompanying particular “self”, but if we were able to replicate the DNA, we wouldn’t get the same self.

21. The Bayesian formula I suggest:
21.1. P(H|E)=P(E|H)P(H)/P(~H) =
21.2. (7,000,000,000/ ∞)*.99/.01 =
21.3. Δx→0


- I don't suppose that anyone here would volunteer to represent the "defendant"?
- Maybe, someone here would suggest some one else?
- If I can't get any volunteers, I'll ask specifically.
- If no one agrees to volunteer, I'll have to provide my best guess as to the best arguments for each issue -- and, I'll probably quote someone (without providing a name).
A question for you Jabba.

What does such dishonesty do to your soul?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th June 2017, 09:16 AM   #3196
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 41,039
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I think that, using Bayesian statistics, I can virtually disprove the consensus scientific hypothesis that we each have only one, finite, life to live…
You're wrong, as this and the preceding parts of this thread prove.
__________________
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
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th June 2017, 09:20 AM   #3197
CriticalThanking
Designated Hitter
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: On in memory
Posts: 3,164
Jabba,

Do you intend to include all the arguments the folks at the stats forum listed against your math and abuse of Bayes?
CriticalThanking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th June 2017, 09:50 AM   #3198
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,076
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
The following is my opening statement so far
You gave your opening statement nearly five years ago. But for your stubbornness, we would be far along by now.

Okay, I'm going to go through it and identify the fatal flaws and blatantly dishonest tactics. All these have already been discussed at length in this thread, which you simply choose to ignore. I'm not telling you anything you don't already know. I'm not telling you anything that you haven't already heard from dozens of critics. But should you choose to climb down from the exalted status of claiming you can pick and choose which arguments you'll address, and actually participate in the discussion, it would be advantageous of you to respond individually to each of the identified fatal flaws and dishonest tactics.

For each fatal flaw -- understanding that any one of them dooms your argument if left unrejoined -- you will need to show either how the flaw is not operative in your argument or how you plan to fix your argument by not committing it.

For each dishonest tactice -- you will need to defend your use of it.

Since you've posted your fringe reset "opening statement" here, will you consent to respond -- here -- to a systematic and thorough response to it?

Quote:
I think that, using Bayesian statistics, I can virtually disprove the consensus scientific hypothesis that we each have only one, finite, life to live…
You already admitted you can't, but that you "still believe [you're] right." You don't understand how Bayesian inference works. You habitually misstate the scientific consensus.

Fatal flaw 1: You err in formulating a Bayesian inference.

Quote:
If something occurs that is unlikely to occur -- given a particular hypothesis -- the event is evidence against the hypothesis.
No. This is expressly what statistical inference is not. One applies a statistical inference to predict an as-yet unknown outcome so as to rationally inform decisions that must be made prior to knowing the outcome. The outcome, once known, is a fact. That it was previously deemed unlikely casts no doubt on the causality that produced it.

Fatal flaw 2: You err in your understanding of the probative nature of a statistical inference.

Quote:
The strength of the evidence depends in part upon how unlikely the event is -- given the hypothesis.
No, the strength of the hypothesis depends on how well it explains evidence. You simply make up the alleged relationship between the event and the hypothesis. You frankly stated up front this is what you're doing.

In the proper formulation, the event is a fact. It's neither likely nor unlikely by itself. A hypothesis may be likely or unlikely compared to another hypothesis in light of that fact. That's what this iterative form of inference allows us to determine. I won't continue here, since I wrote on this at length -- and you ignored it. You don't know the difference between an hypothesis and an event.

Fatal flaw 3: You don't know what the parts of a statistical inference are, how to formulate them, or what they do in an inference.

Quote:
It is evidence similar to “opportunity” in a murder trial in that it can be totally meaningless if other conditions are not met.
This is the concept of circumstantial evidence that you introduced as part of your Shroud thread. We conducted an entirely separate thread to investigate the nature of circumstantial evidence, in which your theory of it was entirely refuted. And further, as we discussed in relation to your rigged-lottery example, you don't understand the fundamental difference between possibility and evidence.

Fatal flaw 4: You don't understand what evidence is.

Quote:
For one thing, the hypothesis in question does need to have a ‘reasonable’ bit of doubt as to its truth.
And as with all fringe theorists, you try to drive a speculative wedge into the inductive gap in order to shift the burden of proof. You have explicitly said that all you need is a "reasonable alternative" to hold by default after you've purported to claim the prevailing theory is so unlikely as to be all but impossible.

Fatal flaw 5: Your argument is a blatant false dilemma.

Quote:
The above is one of the ‘avenues’ of Bayesian statistics.
You admitted you don't know how Bayesian methods work. Do not thereafter purport to teach others.

Quote:
If something occurs that is likely to occur – given a particular hypothesis – the event is evidence for the hypothesis. That’s the other avenue.
No. This is your fundamental misunderstanding of statistical inference. You employ only a single-hypothesis formulation. You must reckon this as one hypothesis against another, or as one hypothesis against the set of all other possible hypotheses. You have not done this.

Quote:
My theory: The scientific opinion that we each have only one, finite, life to live is false.
No. Your theory was that you have an immortal soul -- that particular affirmative theory. Throwing shade on one of several other possible theories doesn't support yours.

Fatal flaw 6: Your argument commits the fallacy of converting the conditional.

Quote:
If it were true, I shouldn’t be here right now. But, here I am…
No, you simply beg the question that your existence is improbable.

Fatal flaw 7: You beg the question that existence is improbable without immortal souls, and use this begged question as a premise in your argument.

Quote:
I shouldn’t be here right now because there must be an infinity of potential “selves,” and only 7 billion existing selves. So, the odds of me currently existing is 7 billion to infinity – or, virtually zero…
No, and it has been elaborated ad nauseam why not.

Fatal flaw 8: Your attempt to claim that materialism is false simply invents elements that are not part of materialism.

Fatal flaw 9: The notion of existing selves as targets that must be met, and which it is improbable to meet, commits the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

Quote:
“Self” is a problematic concept in that it’s difficult to make sure that all those listening/reading have the same concept in mind…
Not at all. You simply shift the goalposts every time the concept is nailed down and insist on ambiguous language that your critics have politely asked you to eschew.

Quote:
Perhaps, the most likely way to try to make sure we’re all talking about the same thing is to explain that the self is what people who believe in reincarnation believe keeps returning.
You proposed this and tried to trick godless dave into agreeing that's what he meant. It has been repudiated in no uncertain terms. You tipped your hand about the real reason for wanting to frame the self in those terms while you were gloating over the supposed agreement.

Dishonest tactic 1: You try to back-door important concepts that you know you can't prove.

Quote:
Another way is to say that if cloning would produce the same self, that self would be looking out two sets of eyes…
No. Your critics have explained in suitable detail why they roundly reject this notion. (fatal flaw 8 restated)

Quote:
Neither of those seems to be a fool proof way of insuring that we’re on the same page...
Dishonest tactic 2: You purport to search for a "fool proof" method of assuring equity in understanding, but you are clearly the source of the ambiguity and equivocation in this debate.

Quote:
One way of understanding “potential selves”...
Materialism contains no such concept. You may not use it to falsify materialism. (fatal flaw 8 restated)

Quote:
Another way of understanding “potential selves”...
Materialism contains no such concept. You may not use it to falsify materialism. (fatal flaw 8 restated)

Quote:
Whatever, in either case, there should be an infinity of potential selves.
Materialism contains no such concept. In materialism, the self is an emergent property of the brain. As with all such properties, it is not countable.

Fatal flaw 10: You err in attributing mathematical countability to an abstract concept.

Quote:
And, once we’re talking about potential selves, the scientific theory needs to be re-worded to, “We each have only one finite life to live (at most).” Let’s make that “OOFLam.”
Straw man. Let your critics state what they believe.

Dishonest tactic 3: Shoving words into your critics' mouths.

Quote:
IOW, in the latter case, in a sense, each of us comes out of nowhere, we’re all “brand new.” The particular DNA seems to produce a bit of consciousness with an accompanying particular “self”, but if we were able to replicate the DNA, we wouldn’t get the same self.
Simply more question-begging. The notion that we are "brand new" and "come out of nowhere" are clearly concepts you believe in, but do not have any meaning under materialism. Therefore they cannot be used to falsify materialism. (fatal flaw 8 restated)

Quote:
P(H|E)=P(E|H)P(H)/P(~H) =
(7,000,000,000/ ∞)*.99/.01 =
Δx→0
This formulation is gibberish. The third line doesn't follow from the first in that a purported real number cannot equate to the extent of a limit, which is a concept and not a number. You haven't specified a limit. You haven't defined x. Division of a non-zero real number by infinity, where it is defined, is defined as zero, not "virtually zero." It is not defined for this particular circumstance. You have provided no rationale for ~H. ~H is not an hypothesis but a set of mutually exclusive hypotheses; the formulation must consider them individually.

Fatal flaw 11: Your formulation is pseudo-mathematical gibberish in a number of ways.

Quote:
I don't suppose that anyone here would volunteer to represent the "defendant"?
Begging the moderator's indulgence for responding to the off-topic foisting of ground rules...

No one is obliged to assist in your misrepresentations and theatrics. You have had dozens of well-informed, polite, and engaged critics right here over the years, whom you have flagrantly and deliberately ignored. The answers to the above claims are in these threads, right before your very eyes. It is the most odious of insults to ask for more answers. Trying to move to a venue that you control is tantamount to admitting you can't do here what you set out to do. Or worse -- see below.

Quote:
Maybe, someone here would suggest some one else?
- If I can't get any volunteers, I'll ask specifically.
Instead of trying to run the show your way, why don't you expend the energy responding to the years worth of posts already provided to you on the subject in this thread? You've simply provided us the predicted fringe reset, setting us on a course for another half-decade of your evasions and insults.

Quote:
If no one agrees to volunteer, I'll have to provide my best guess as to the best arguments for each issue -- and, I'll probably quote someone (without providing a name).
Which was almost certainly your plan all along. It's highly likely you planned that none of your critics would accept an invitation to debate you in a forum you moderate. Several have already explicitly rejected the prospect and denied you consent to use material.

Now in the face of that almost certain rejection, it's not as if you would simply present your side on your "map" and leave it unanswered. The evident purpose of the "map" is as a fictionalized account to show how you prevailed over your critics, such as what you did to the Shroud debate. Since you're unlikely to find a palooka for your congruent Immortality drama, my guess is that you'll use that as an excuse to edit both sides of the debate yourself -- again, just as you did to the Shroud debate. Your plan for the "map" is bound to be the same as before, only this time you're shrewdly fabricating a justification to retain full creative control. You're trying to make it seem to be your critics' fault that you must "reluctantly" represent both sides of the debate, and thus wash your hands of any accusations misrepresentation.

This venue manipulation, too, is a classic fringe tactic, and it's insulting that you think your critics don't see right through it. You propose to tilt the playing field in your area and then claim that your opponents forfeit the game because they wisely don't agree to play a rigged game. So very, very dishonest, Jabba, to foist a Hobsonian dilemma that forces your critics to play by your rules or not at all.

I propose we continue the debate right here, right now, under the ground rules you agreed to when you signed up and began the thread. You've presented no reason why that shouldn't happen, no reason why your "map" improves over what we're already doing here -- and ample reason why no one should trust you as an editor and moderator.
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 Back to Top
Old 6th June 2017, 10:21 AM   #3199
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,241
Jabba, as Godless Dave and JayUtah have kindly responded to you point by point I will save you the trouble of ignoring another full response and simply point out the following: you continue to ignore the fatal problem that no matter how unlikely your existence is under H, your preferred hypothesis (that you have a soul in addition to the brain and that it somehow connects with your brain) is FAR less likely. You've been shown the math and yet you continue to pretend it's not been even brought up. Does this strike you as honest debating tactics?
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 Back to Top
Old 6th June 2017, 11:26 AM   #3200
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,114
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
...
21.1. P(H|E)=P(E|H)P(H)/P(~H) =
...
Surely you meant P(H|E) = P(E|H) x P(H) / P(E).
__________________
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
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 Back to Top
Closed Thread

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 07:40 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.