Proof of Immortality, VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
6.2. an unimaginably small number for the prior probability of me currently existing
Click to expand...

A number you just pulled out of a dark place and which has nothing to do with any knowledge or evidence.

7. If P(E|I) is NOT an example of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy,
Click to expand...

Which, of course, it is.

8. Am I using the formula properly?
Click to expand...

No, no part of your model is correct. You were told why, but you don't care. You know you're wrong, and you know why you're wrong. The question is why you're back with the same old nonsense, if not simply to get attention.
 
Jabba said:
7. If P(E|I) is NOT an example of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy,
Click to expand...

Explain your understanding of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy again for the first time. I want to be sure my understanding is the same as yours. Yours seems to be.... non-standard.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
1. I’m back!
2. Can’t help myself.
3. Simple Bayesian formula: P(I|E)=P(E|I)*P(I)/P(E)
4. I: I’m immortal
5. E: I currently exist
6. If I allow for
6.1. a 1% prior probability for my immortality, and
6.2. an unimaginably small number for the prior probability of me currently existing, and
7. If P(E|I) is NOT an example of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy,
7.1. P(I|E)=1*.01/.00000000000…1=.9999999…9, and
7.2. I must be immortal.
8. Am I using the formula properly?
Click to expand...

No. Just... no.
 
Asking the same question over and over, expecting the answer to be different is what, again?
 
I was really hoping this thread had died.

You might have thought that Jabba, if he did return, would have a new argument, or at least an actual defence of the old one, rather than just the same nonsense that's been utterly destroyed dozens of times already. You might have thought that, if you hadn't been following this thread since its beginning and consequently known what a forlorn hope it was.
 
Pixel42 said:
I was really hoping this thread had died.

You might have thought that Jabba, if he did return, would have a new argument, or at least an actual defence of the old one, rather than just the same nonsense that's been utterly destroyed dozens of times already. You might have thought that, if you hadn't been following this thread since its beginning and consequently known what a forlorn hope it was.
Click to expand...

What better proof of immortality of proof of immortality you need?
 
Pixel42 said:
I was really hoping this thread had died.

You might have thought that Jabba, if he did return, would have a new argument, or at least an actual defence of the old one, rather than just the same nonsense that's been utterly destroyed dozens of times already. You might have thought that, if you hadn't been following this thread since its beginning and consequently known what a forlorn hope it was.
Click to expand...

Jabba was checking back at least every couple of days. He has his obsession, I have mine.
 
Indeed. I thought I missed this thread. But what I really missed was an idealized version of the thread. About 3%-5% of the thread is actually interesting in that it has actual 'movement'. New things discussed. Progress apparently being made. The rest is just sheer repetitiveness.

Jabba coming back and just re-posting the same 'summary' that he posted thousands of posts back just shows his contempt for this board and all of us. He doesn't give a damn about what we post, other than if he can somehow quote mine part of it out for his nefarious purposes which we will not mention here.

No one is being fooled.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
1. I’m back!
2. Can’t help myself.
3. Simple Bayesian formula: P(I|E)=P(E|I)*P(I)/P(E)
4. I: I’m immortal
5. E: I currently exist
6. If I allow for
6.1. a 1% prior probability for my immortality, and
6.2. an unimaginably small number for the prior probability of me currently existing, and
7. If P(E|I) is NOT an example of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy,
7.1. P(I|E)=1*.01/.00000000000…1=.9999999…9, and
7.2. I must be immortal.
8. Am I using the formula properly?
Click to expand...


Jabba -

I cannot tell you how disappointed I am. When you departed here, I thought it would give you time to really learn about the underlying subjects of your ideas. I thought you could talk with Buddhists, Hindus and other spiritualists about their ideas of reincarnation. I hoped you would try a refresher course in logic. Maybe you would even audit an introductory statistics class.

There was so, so much you could have done to strengthen your argument - not for our sake, but for yours. With more knowledge you might have given yourself a firmer grasp on your feelings and unevidenced beliefs.

Instead, you return here with exactly the same garbage. Nothing is new, nothing is different, nothing is more nuanced. It may as well be page 1.

I want you to understand that I feel personally insulted by your behavior. In dumping all your old nonsense, you have shown me great disrespect. Carry on here, but understand that you are not "right" or "wrong," you're just rude.
 
Loss Leader said:
I cannot tell you how disappointed I am. When you departed here, I thought it would give you time to really learn about the underlying subjects of your ideas. I thought you could talk with Buddhists, Hindus and other spiritualists about their ideas of reincarnation. I hoped you would try a refresher course in logic. Maybe you would even audit an introductory statistics class.
Click to expand...

Did you really?

You're adorable.
 
Loss Leader said:
Instead, you return here with exactly the same garbage. Nothing is new, nothing is different, nothing is more nuanced. It may as well be page 1.
Click to expand...

Actually, I've just been checking, and you're wrong; it couldn't be page 1, because Jabba didn't actually start posting his "proof" till page 6, at which point he started by outlining his Texas Sharpshooter fallacy in excruciating detail and then set out to persuade everyone to accept it was a valid piece of reasoning before posting the next part. I tried to find where he posted his actual invocation of Bayes' Theorem for the first time, but after I'd been a few pages further into the thread I decided to stop before the urge to drill my own eyeballs out became too strong to resist.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Actually, I've just been checking, and you're wrong; it couldn't be page 1, because Jabba didn't actually start posting his "proof" till page 6, at which point he started by outlining his Texas Sharpshooter fallacy in excruciating detail and then set out to persuade everyone to accept it was a valid piece of reasoning before posting the next part. I tried to find where he posted his actual invocation of Bayes' Theorem for the first time, but after I'd been a few pages further into the thread I decided to stop before the urge to drill my own eyeballs out became too strong to resist.
Click to expand...


You're right. I remember doing the same search some time back. In any case, even if he didn't state it on page 1, his half-baked ideas were already half-baked right from the start.
 
Found it. Page 18. In effect it's the reciprocal of the current proof; he started out trying to prove that the probability of science being correct was zero, now he's trying to prove that the probability of science being incorrect is infinite[1]. Impressively, in five years, he's gone from a fallacious and utterly specious argument to a fallacious, utterly specious and mathematically incompetent argument.

I hid the power drill. I'll look for it on Sunday when I feel a bit better.

Dave

[1] Yes, that's right. Infinite. Scroll up and look.
 
Jabba! They have ears but hear not, neither do they see!

Time to give up, wouldn't you say?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom