Proof of Immortality III

[MRC_Hans]

Why do we keep playing with this sick puppy?

Hans

 

[JoeMorgue]

Why do we keep playing with this sick puppy?

Hans

1. Because it's good practice. Like running with a weight vest or swing two bats on the on deck circle.

2. Because it gives us an airtight retort to any suggests that the big mean skeptics don't give people enough time to try and explain their views.

3. Kinda fun at times.

 

[I Am The Scum]

I'm just trolling, mostly.

Maybe Jabba is, too.

 

[Jabba]

If Jabba will answer (unless he already has) whether it is Roger Hoerl or Arthur Hoerl, it would be possible to contact Dr Hoerl as both have published their email addresses.

Not that I'm advocating winding up a professional.

gypsy,
- It's Roger Hoerl.

 

[abaddon]

gypsy,
- It's Roger Hoerl.

Yes, Jabba. We know that. We already confirmed that, as you would know if you were actually paying attention to the thread.

Really, you have to be simply pretending to participate.

 

[carlitos]

I went to the supermarket yesterday, and while walking I thought to myself -"this place is really a potential beef Wellington."

 

[ComfySlippers]

I went to the supermarket yesterday, and while walking I thought to myself -"this place is really a potential beef Wellington."

Can you prove it mathematically?

-You'll be back

 

[Loss Leader]

I never got an apology for being called stupid.

 

[abaddon]

I never got an apology for being called stupid.

I doubt you will.

 

[Tale]

I never got an apology for being called stupid.

I'm sorry.

 

[The Sparrow]

Why do we keep playing with this sick puppy?

Hans

Because its entertaining in a sick way to see someone desperately squirming and playing silly games to try to convince himself he is smarter than the rest of us, and failing every time.

 

[ferd burfle]

1) Is the formula I'm using appropriate for determining the posterior probability of OOFLam?
- Dr Hoerl said that it is -- so hopefully, we can skip that sub-issue and move on to #2?

He does not agree with you. And you are so far unwilling to discuss his reservations with him. As with "Sally" we never seem to get anything from Dr. Hoerl that doesn't come through you, and doesn't end up sounding like it came from you. I don't believe you have been conversing with a professional statistician.

No, it is not the right formula. And, in fact, to phrase it in terms of "the right formula" is rather provincial. It is a line a hack Hollywood screenwriter would put in the mouth of a professor. It is the correct formula for computing a posterior probability, but this is not a posterior probability problem..

Exactly. Dr. Hoerl may have stated the formula, in and of itself, is correct. Jabba, is trying to equivocate the formula itself with his application of it. Once again it appears Jabba is being economical with the truth.

 

[ComfySlippers]

Because its entertaining in a sick way to see someone desperately squirming and playing silly games to try to convince himself he is smarter than the rest of us, and failing every time.

"Providing a Fair trial for Jesus" was never a good campaign slogan.

 

[Dancing David]

What makes you think there is a sense of the brain that cannot be reproduced?

A brain could conceivably be reproduced but even if the same wiring and neural patterns were exactly duplicated they would diverge immediately.

Heck,
I don't think that what is labelled as my 'self' is the same moment to moment.

 

[JayUtah]

Exactly. Dr. Hoerl may have stated the formula, in and of itself, is correct.

The formula, in and of itself, is reproduced correctly.

Jabba, is trying to equivocate the formula itself with his application of it. Once again it appears Jabba is being economical with the truth.

Indeed, as I expounded upon comprehensively some weeks ago, this is a common fringe tactic. I don't believe for a minute that Jabba has supplied Dr. Hoerl with anything approaching a full and faithful picture of his exertions here. However, it is common among the fringe to seek an expert's endorsement of some detail, caricature, or diluted version of a claim and extend that improperly to the claim in all its particulars. This is accomplished either by carefully crafting the questions that are asked, or by simply misrepresenting the nature and scope of any answer.

 

[Jabba]

By which I assume you mean "numerical proctology," as I described it above.

It is by no means wrong to use estimates as priors in Bayesian analysis. It depends on what you want the analysis to show. Using a spectrum of estimates as priors is a common method of constructing decision trees to account for contingencies. However, this does nothing to validate the priors or justify a substitution for fact if fact is available. It simply shows what would be justifiable decisions from new facts and uncertain circumstances. If the priors are considered a distribution of estimated likelihood, as would be proper, then the result of iterating the model over given facts would be a new distribution -- not a single number.

Similarly, one may certainly encode a belief as a quantitative likelihood. This is a common method of constructing decision trees that mix belief and fact. However, the posterior probability distribution function -- even combined with fact that is later observed -- has absolutely no power to confirm the prior belief as fact. Bayesian analysis is not an invertible function -- this inescapable mathematical fact is the basis of the Prosecutor's Fallacy. The results of Bayesian analysis in this mode hold only insofar as the belief. It essentially places the belief beyond the realm of computation and shows only what would be justified, given new information, without questioning the belief. It has absolutely no value for someone who does not share the belief.

Neither of these cases constitutes in any way a proof of anything. The only way Bayesian analysis can be used as a proof is where the priors and parameters are measured facts. And the proof, in the form of posterior probability distributions, is only of a probability. In no way, under any circumstances, by any means, can a probabilistic argument be proof of an allegation of fact. That is, at its very heart, the sum total of Jabba's error.

Jay,
- OK. I'll try to understand what you're saying, but I gotta do it slowly. I'm suggesting a particular prior for H of .99. I'm willing to try a spectrum of possibilities. Do you have another, or others, to suggest?

 

[JayUtah]

I'll try to understand what you're saying, but I gotta do it slowly.

No. If you don't understand what I'm saying already then you don't have enough grasp of statistical modeling in general to even have had this conversation as far as it has gone. You've had years to come up to speed and you have no leeway to beg further indulgence. No more "slowly." No more "organization." No more "itemization." You either know this field or you don't.

You don't.

I'm suggesting a particular prior for H of .99. I'm willing to try a spectrum of possibilities. Do you have another, or others, to suggest?

No.

Let me repeat what I said just a few posts above.

In no way, under any circumstances, by any means, can a probabilistic argument be proof of an allegation of fact.

I trust you are able to read that. Once again you're trying to pretend that the problem with your approach is only in the quibbling values of the inputs rather than in its entire concept. To be sure, simply making up input values won't get you anything qualitatively similar to fact. But in addition to your simply making up numbers, you commit the far more glaring error of supposing that the model you've selected has any capacity to do what you propose to use it for. You're not making a decision tree, and you have no facts or evidence. Therefore the approach you propose is inappropriate.

You cannot use statistical models to prove that an immortal soul "must" exist.

 

[ComfySlippers]

...
In no way, under any circumstances, by any means, can a probabilistic argument be proof of an allegation of fact.
...

Blood red.
Appropriate.

 

[Loss Leader]

Jay,
- OK. I'll try to understand what you're saying, but I gotta do it slowly. I'm suggesting a particular prior for H of .99. I'm willing to try a spectrum of possibilities. Do you have another, or others, to suggest?

So long as you think Bayes is in any way appropriate for what you're trying to do, you do not understand what Jay is saying.

Even if all you want to do is show that an immortal soul is barely possible, Bayes is the wrong tool.

You have no prior and posterior fact. You just have a bunch of stuff you're putting in whatever position suits you.

Trying to quibble about numbers is just more gibberish. Present evidence that a soul exists.

 

[godless dave]

Jabba, the previous two posts are more important than my observation that the model you're trying to disprove is not the model materialists and most skeptics subscribe to.