Indeed. Jabba's "befuddlement" is a little on the nose, popping up only when it's convenient for his character.
"The Befuddled Old Man" is just another card in Jabba's Yu-gi-oh card deck.
Proof of Immortality, VII
- Thread starter abaddon
- Start date
- Status
Indeed. Jabba's "befuddlement" is a little on the nose, popping up only when it's convenient for his character.
"The Befuddled Old Man" is just another card in Jabba's Yu-gi-oh card deck.
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2012
- Messages
- 10,259
Could it be confirmation bias on our part? His arguments and points, on the rare occasions when they're actually articulated, as so shoddy that the "befuddled old man" routine could easily benefit him at ANY point in the thread.
Could our impression of the "timing" of these transitions not be the result of us having noticed the transition more than its utility in a specific situation? If there were an ongoing debate where ideas were being exchanged I would veer on the side of thinking he was doing it deliberately, but this thread has gone on for five years with Jabba consistently failing to make coherent, defensible points. He's been repeating the same nonsense with varying lucidity the entire time.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Yes. It doesn't rise to any higher a level of confidence than an impression. It's all second guessing.
That's an accurate observation, and we're all trying to explain it. Mental degradation? Sure, why not. Deliberate manipulation? Sure, why not.
Cyclical discussions can have a variety of explanations. Sometimes, for example, it's a simple matter of brain wiring. Paradoxically Jabba blames his critics for not being able to think the way he does -- "holistically." But in fact it might be that he just doesn't get logic and critical thinking. This is a real thing. Some people just never develop a means of thinking critically and analytically, and this leaves them without the ability to evaluate their own claims and beliefs introspectively. They tend to work intuitively, and are often very perceptive and astute in other ways for it. They can speak of the elements of logic intellectually, but lack the ability to apply them. For example, people have repeatedly asked Jabba to explain various principles of logic in his own terms, and he seems unable to do so. Very often the results of this mode of thinking is a presentation that never rises above propositional knowledge: they believe that simply stating their beliefs is tantamount to having proved them. This is why religion has such a grip on certain people.
But then consider also that it appears Jabba's real intent is to write up his own version of these various debates, edited in a way to show him to be the victor. That's what he did with the Shroud debate, and that's what he has apparently decided to do with this debate. That brings narcissism into the mix, and you have to decide where that fits with the cycle of debate. He repeatedly asks for approval in the form of agreement. That's not explicable so much by mental impairment as by deliberate action. You base your line of reasoning above on the premise that he's trying to prevail in a debate the normal way, by give and take and rejoinder and rebuttal. What if he has no intent to win here, but only to gather fodder for pretending to win elsewhere? That also explains a cyclical debate. He'll keep soliciting comment until he finally gets what he needs.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Check your PM. Read section 13 in full.
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2012
- Messages
- 10,259
Unless there's a secondary location where he's posting it, I've been directed to and read his summary of this debate. It's a mess. It's little more than an incoherent outline. I am not joking in the least when I say the TimeCube made more sense. I compared it to the edited Shroud debate site he used to maintain. It was that comparison, the old forum where he controlled the discourse versus the new one, that sparked my suspicion that he's suffering from a form of neurological decline.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
That's an MA minefield. I mostly avoid those but surely there is some point where one cannot. This is an issue that has been skirted many times before. IMHO, the right thing to do if one has actual concerns for someones health, the correct course is to speak right up.
The MA says no. Like it or lump it, we all signed up to it.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Indeed, the topic has to remain the What of the argument, not the Who or the Why. That's especially difficult when the Why is an explicit part of the presentation, and isn't a very palatable reason. That naturally gives rise to opinions on the Who. No argument exists in a vacuum, but we have to do our best to pretend it does.
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2012
- Messages
- 10,259
That gets us back to the fact that one person has spent five years, half a decade, claiming they can prove immortality through statistics and completely, comprehensively and undeniably failing in every effort to convey an even vaguely intelligible means of doing so. Nonsense is posted. People point out it's nonsense and explain its problems. Jabba denies it's nonsense and makes a long string of nonsense posts trying to claim their previous nonsense was not nonsense.
Aside from meta-discussion about the argument styles being used, this thread is the very definition of "there's no there there."
My only horse in the game is to address the persona that Jabba has openly and admittedly adopted in this discussion as it directly relates to his argument and argumentative style.
To what degree if any this is or isn't the "real" Jabba does not concern me.
To what degree if any this is or isn't the "real" Jabba does not concern me.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
This still needs an answer from you, Jabba.
It's like cheating when playing the card game "Solitaire" while other people watch you cheat.
And then you still lose and you tell those other people you won.
So what's the point?
It's like cheating when playing the card game "Solitaire" while other people watch you cheat.
And then you still lose and you tell those other people you won.
So what's the point?
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
He checks in a few times a day.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
He's here right now, viewing part III of the thread.
ETA: "Right now" might be an exaggeration; while his "current activity" is viewing part III, his "last activity" was 15 minutes ago.
Last edited:
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Gone again now, without further activity.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
I assume it's the "copy" step of the copy-and-paste he's doing to transplant this debate into more ego-reinforcing soil.
Well in the movies the "Wise Old Mentor" archetype doesn't typically take up a lot of screen time and generally disappears for long chunks of the narrative, only to pop back up occasionally to drop their wisdom to help the other character through a tough patch.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
- No, I don't.
- I first estimated the prior probabilities of the different hypotheses included under ~H in 'chapter' II on 3/27/16, #3007
...
11.3. Re P(E|~H):
11.3.1. The probability (“likelihood”) of E given ~H, involves several specific hypothetical possibilities.
11.3.1.1. That only some of us have but one finite life.
11.3.1.2. That we each have numerous finite lives.
11.3.1.3. That only some of us have numerous finite lives.
11.3.1.4. That we each have an infinity of finite lives.
11.3.1.5. That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives.
11.3.1.6. That we each have an infinite life.
11.3.1.7. That only some of us have an infinite life.
11.3.1.8. That time isn’t what we think it is (to be explained).
11.3.1.9. Some other explanation.
11.3.2. Now I must estimate (roughly) the prior probability (rounded off to three decimal places) of each more specific possibility (hypothesis), given ~H.
11.3.2.1. That only some of us have but one finite life: .000
11.3.2.2. That we each have numerous finite lives: .002.
11.3.2.3. That only some of us have numerous finite lives: .000.
11.3.2.4. That we each have an infinity of finite lives; .002
11.3.2.5. That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives: 000.
11.3.2.6. That we each have an infinite life: .002
11.3.2.7. That only some of us have an infinite life: .000
11.3.2.8. That time isn’t what we think it is (to be explained): .002
11.3.2.9. Some other explanation: .002
- Also on 3/27/16, in #3014, I added the likelihoods of my current existence -- given each included hypothesis -- and multiplied them by the prior probabilities of each included hypothesis.
11.3.3. And now, I must estimate the likelihood of my own current existence given the different specific hypotheses under ~Hs.
11.3.3.1. That only some of us have but one finite life: .10.
11.3.3.2. That we each have numerous finite lives: .10.
11.3.3.3. That only some of us have numerous finite lives: .25.
11.3.3.4. That we each have an infinity of finite lives; 1.00
11.3.3.5. That only some of us have an infinity of finite lives: .50.
11.3.3.6. That we each have an infinite life: 1.00
11.3.3.7. That only some of us have an infinite life: .50
11.3.3.8. That time isn’t what we think it is (to be explained): .50
11.3.3.9. Some other explanation: .50
11.3.4. And now, I must multiply each of the probabilities of ~H above by the likelihoods of my current existence, given each specific hypothesis, and add up their products. And, the total likelihood of my current existence given ~H:
11.3.4.1. P(E|~H) = (0*.5) + (.002*.10) + (0*.25) + (.002*1.0) + (0*.5) + (1*..002) + (0*.5) + (.002*.5) + (.002*.5), or
11.3.4.2. P(E|~H) = 0 + .0002 + 0 +.002 + 0 + .002 + 0 + .001 + .001, or
11.3.4.3. P(E|~H) = .0052. And,
11.3.5. P(H|E) = 0*.99/(0*.99 + .0052*.01) = (0/.000052) = 0.
11.3.6. P(H|E) = 0.
11.3.7. IOW, given my current existence, the posterior probability that I will have one, finite life is zero…
- On 7/21/16, in chapterIII, #2115, jt says
BTW, Jabba, the form of Bayes' Theorem that you are using requires H and ~H to be complementary hypotheses, that is, they must be mutually exclusive and exhaustive. If ~H is a specific hypothesis, and there is more than one alternative to ~H, then H must comprise all the alternatives. The problem with that is how do you come up with a single P(E|H), if H represents a collection of alternative models, each implying a different value of P(E|H)?
- Then,on 7/23/16, in chapter III, #2149, jt says
Alas, after stating that I didn't want to know how you calculated P(E|~H), I read your explanation anyway. Although the following correction doesn't matter, because (1) none of the numbers enters into the calculation of the posterior, since your P(E|H)=0, and thus the 0 probability of your posterior is a foregone conclusion, and (2) all your numbers are just made up, I feel pathologically pedagogically compelled to point out that the prior probabilities 11.3.2.1–11.3.2.9 need to be normalized to sum to 1. After doing so, P(E|~H)=.62 (not .0052). Thus under your pet hypothesis, or ensemble of hypotheses, you had a 62% chance (strangely enough) of having come into existence.
Alternatively, if H and ~H are both specific hypotheses, then they must be the only possible hypotheses in the universe. If, on the other hand, there are more than two possible hypotheses, then you cannot use the form of Bayes' Theorem that you've been using; you must use the odds form of Bayes Theorem instead.
- Then, on 7/23/16, in chapter III, #2156, I accept jt's correction.
jt,
- Showing my ignorance, and lack of recent statistical study, I now agree with .62 rather than .0052.
- I'll have to think more about the need to normalize -- but for now, I agree with you on that also...
Jay,
- As you can see above, I was doing that before jt "instructed" me, but I did accept his correction about normalization.
- Also, having realized that the simple formula doesn't work, I've returned to my earlier, more complicated, formula -- that Dr Horel(sp?) approved.
Last edited:
Peregrinus
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2015
- Messages
- 1,213
If an event has never been demonstrated, despite several thousand years' efforts of attempted support, its probability is as close to zero as makes no never mind. Sophisticated, convoluted semantic jiggery-pokery not withstanding.
jond
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 3,440
I will let JayUtah deal with the bulk of this. But the problem you refuse to address is that in your H, you consider the self to be an entity that exists separately from your body. This is not, and indeed cannot be, consistent with materialism. Unless and until you deal with this, all of your messing about with bayesian bollocks is, well, bollocks.
You have stated that you accept the premise that the self is a process, but you continue to assert that somehow this process exists separately from the brain which is generating the process. This cannot happen: brain stops functioning, process stops. That's how things work in the materialist world that you are trying to disprove. Unless and until you demonstrate that a process can continue after the components that give rise to it stop functioning, all of your messing about with bayesian bollocks is, well, bollocks.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Jabba, I told you I would be happy to visit your arguments in depth once we have covered them in breadth as I requested six months ago. Why have you ignored me and continued onward as if this is nothing more than your personal pulpit? In the time it must have taken you to reach back into the ether and quote reams of prior discussion, you could easily have done what I asked. I'm therefore forced to conclude that your dereliction is deliberate.
Last edited:
- Status