RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
How long ago did JayUtah post that list?
Cont: Proof of Immortality VIII
- Thread starter Jabba
- Start date
How long ago did JayUtah post that list?
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2012
- Messages
- 10,259
What about a poorly coded AI?
Hear me out. The REAL person died years ago. That’s why the old Shroud Debates web site was allowed to expire. A critic of his created a lame AI and gave it the ability to post to forums. It’s a slightly more evolved version of Eliza, with a few extra canned phrases thrown in.
The goal is twofold.
1. Amateur AI research.
2. Destroying the legacy of a shroud true believer(tm) by associating him with the dumbest arguments made in support of a hypothesis since basic hygiene research was countered with the brain-dead, “A gentleman’s hands are always clean” from a classist, and frankly stupid, British surgeon.
It all makes sense! Why else would the old Shroud debates URL now be pointed at politically themed porn????
Last edited:
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
No. You tried that excuse before. If it takes you longer than an hour to do it, you're not doing what I asked. I've specifically disallowed you the techniques you commonly use to waste time, so I'm not interested in your whining over the level of effort I'm asking for. Now quite stalling. Your critics want to see your answers. Or, as is historically more likely, your feeble excuses.
One post, all answers to all the fatal flaws in it. One or two sentence for each flaw describing how your final answer will fix the flaw. No simply repeating your claim. No dialectics. No quotations. No distractions, evasions, or side trips. And especially no whining. We hate it when you whine. One hour gives you roughly five minutes for each of the fatal flaws. I'm sure, after pushing this theory for five years, you can come up with one or two sentences in five minutes.
I know how evasive you are, and how flagrantly dishonest and lazy. You whine for this-and-that to be repeated to you because we're supposed to indulge your precious time and your diminishing faculties. But then when you think you have a gotcha moment, you managed to whip out an anthology post including snips from a dozen or more prior posts scattered all over the thread. All this while having a parallel debate at another forum and writing your "map." Your alleged infirmity comes and goes depending on whether it gives you a rhetorical advantage. It's an act, and one we're sick of. You've demonstrated you can put your mind to it when writing on this forum. Now do it when your critics ask for it, or else apologize to them for wasting their time.
Sounds to me like business as usual. You're going to keep doing what you know will work to keep people on the hook, but you've calculated that you have to give some lip service to the problems with your proof at its fundamental level. Like I just said, you know can't survive unless you're steering the debate. And right now you're trying to steer it back to your typical shenanigans while pretending to do something else.
Your performance here is a disgrace. You seem to think we need to be reminded every month or so what your claims are, so you post the same wall of text, expecting people to read and respond to it. And when they do -- comprehensively -- you propose to ignore those glaring errors in favor of niggling, irrelevant squabbles. When others try to be as comprehensive as you, you shut it down right away.
I've learned that what a person defends most irrationally is what he considers the weakest part of his argument. For you it's the colossal simultaneous failure along several broad-strokes directions. Therefore you distract from your argument's rotten foundation by quibbling over its doorknobs and doilies, which you've demonstrated you can do indefinitely if allowed to. Why are you back here? Because this is the only place your method of holding attention has worked. Everyone else is satisfied to give you one or two shots, then write you off as a crackpot when you fail to engage honestly.
If you have a single shred of honesty, your next post in this forum will be the answers I've been asking for for nine months, not more whiny excuses for why you can't or won't do it.
Last edited:
You do understand the meaning of 'fatal', don't you? That any one of the items labelled 'fatal' is enough, by itself, to prove your train of 'logic' incorrect? Any one that you fail to refute (to date, all of them), means you have failed. You can't ignore that and carry on as if it's not important.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
- I'm sorry. I simply can't do what you ask. I would go ahead and try to answer all of your objections in one post -- but since you want me to do it in a hurry -- which I can't do -- I'll go back and try to answer one "fatal flaw" at a time.
IT... HAS... BEEN... OVER... FIVE... YEARS... AND... YOU... HAVEN'T... ADDRESSED... ONE... SINGLE... THING.
"Want you to hurry" my hanging slightly lower left ball.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
What are your thoughts on your hypocrisy in posting walls of text with multiple points counter-posed with your sham claimed inability to answer posts which point out the numerous fatal flaws in yours?
Back when I was an LPO/WCS in the Navy I had a sailor that was the hardest worker you would ever met.. in the sense that he put more effort into getting out of work than anybody ever put effort into anything.
I'm having flashbacks to that.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Are you attempting to prove that you’re immortal by taking an infinite amount of time to address JayUtah’s points?
‘Cause it ain’t gonna work.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
I have a sneaking suspicion that Jabba thinks that this thread will work out like this:
ETA: that’s a comment about Jabba’s debating technique, not necessarily about Jabba.
Last edited:
jond
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 3,440
Pants, Fire, etc.
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
These are certainly important things you'll need, but there is something far more important you will need first.
You are making numbers up. That does not help at all. More to the point, though, is how can you come up with a valid estimate of P(H) for the prior probability of H before you have defined what you mean by H, a fair nickel?
So, what do you mean by a fair nickel? Would you take that to mean a nickel is fair if and only if P(Heads) = P(Tails) = 0.5? That's what you are thinking, right?
If so, then the prior and the posterior probabilities of it being a fair nickel are both zero. A perfectly correct result, but not at all informative.
Are there better choices for the meaning of "a fair nickel"?
Belz...
Fiend God
....but not actually answer any of the objections, right? Why do you feel like reposting something he just reposted?
Belz...
Fiend God
Nobody buys this excuse. You've demonstrated that you can do this sort of work when you think it helps you.
Belz...
Fiend God
Of all the dishonest lies, this takes the cake. You were just looking for an opportunity to not do what he asked; you initially tried to use the "I'll be anwering some other stuff in the meantime" and now you're saying that you just can't do it when you've demonstrated time and time again that you CAN.
You are a liar, jabba. Through and through.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
As I predicted: lame excuses and an insistence that we stay the course of the current unproductive waste of time.
First the excuse is that I've set you some unreasonably onerous task. "Oh, poor poor me! Even though this list has been put in front of me every day for nine months, I just can't possibly answer it all! It's oh, so much work, and you're so terrible for making me do it. I'd rather just keep pursuing this unproductive course for another five years or more."
Now the excuse is that I'm rushing you after nine months. "An hour!? I only have an hour to answer all the questions? Oh, poor poor me! That's unreasonable and more than I could ever cope with." And so forth. (Often the excuse is, "Jay's just a big meanie, he doesn't coddle me like I expect, and he uses vigorous language to attack my proof. Oh, poor poor me! I have to deal with such distasteful critics, even though I keep inexorably coming back for more.") What's so unreasonable about expecting your next post to be what we've all asked for? All you have to do is not post about other things until you've taken an hour to do as I've asked. It's not that you're being rushed. It's that you are not being allowed to direct the debate like your own little play. Heck, you threw a hissy fit when jsfisher didn't answer you within a few hours. I'm allowing you to respond in your own good time, but within the constraints I've imposed and without the threat of distraction. Whatever answers you think you need to give to people today can wait. I've waited nine months, and I'm first in line.
The sort of whining in your recent posts doesn't substitute for the mature discussion we hope for and the answers we need. Your approach to avoiding responsibility is to make this look like some impossible task so you can convince people you don't have to do it. As I said, the weakest point of an opponent's argument -- in his own estimation -- is the part he defends most irrationally. Here you are pulling out all the stops to avoid discussing all of your argument at once at the fundamental broad-strokes level. Hence that's what I suggest you recognize as its weakest point: taken as a whole, it's a house of cards with no strength or substance.
It's pretty silly of you to try this tactic. Clearly it's not working. But more importantly, most of the requirements I've set for the task are aimed at making it easier for you to complete. And it's not like I've kept secret the reasons for the rules. There's no subterfuge. My thesis is that you know your argument can't survive if seen in breadth, which is why you participate in discussions only at depth. I've contrived a test for that thesis. And you're proving it correct.
You've relied hitherto on ambiguity. You say, "I'm doing this for reasonable reason X," but your critics note that the same behavior would also follow from unreasonable reason Y. "The rules of effective debate say we should focus on the small sub-issues until they are resolved." Is that the real reason for your posture? Or is it that you want to distract away from the glaring high-level problems? Normally when we point out that your proof is a house of cards, you respond by saying that they're the best cards, and all the experts from Hoyle confirm that there's nothing wrong with the individual cards.
Thus we construct an experiment to generate data that helps us burn through ambiguity and discriminate between X and Y. Your reluctance to participate confirms that you don't believe the ambiguity will resolve in your favor, which is frankly all we need to know.
When a professional mathematician believes he has discovered an important proof, he is expected to submit it in a paper to a respectable journal. As part of that submission, he is expected to summarize the proof in a single paragraph, the paper's abstract. This is true for proofs or arguments in any scholarly field, whether primary arguments or rebuttals and rejoinders. The abstract is not the proof. The details of the proof and the evidence in favor for it are naturally to be found within the paper itself. The proof does not succeed via its summary, but it can fail because of it. If the broad-strokes outline of the proof is deficient at the high level of the abstract, no amount of detail can save it.
Similarly when a case is brought before the law, the complaint document outlines the allegations and describes in broad terms what evidence supports the claim. The document is not the case. The allusions to evidence are not the evidence itself. The actual argument takes place at trial. As above, a case does not prevail on the complaint, but it can fail because of it. And when it fails at that stage, it is to say that no amount of evidence presented at trial can salvage the flaws at that level. Passing muster at the complaint stage or the preliminary hearing stage justifies moving on to trial.
What's happening here is similar. You've presented your case. The errors in it have been identified. Since each of these is individually fatal to your case, you owe your critics an abstract or summary brief to assure them that you have answers for all of them. Because if there are any you can't answer, there's no point to proceeding to "trial." Regardless of what interesting topics would arise in discussion, the proof per se would be dead.
So let's visit those requirements and see whether they're really as imposing and unfair as you want everyone to believe.
You don't have to provide in-depth answers. Or more specifically, you are forbidden from providing in-depth answers. You don't get to add dialectics, quotatons, side-trips, or any of the things that would take you time and require effort in the form of research, collation, and commentary. This is so you can't use the excuse that this is too much work. Similarly the one-hour and/or two-sentence limit is intended to guide you in understanding what size answers are satisfactory at this point. The answers I'm looking for are the ones you can reasonably compose in an hour, or express in a couple sentences. The detail comes later. I'm not looking for another kind of answer at this point, so your desire to write a different kind of answer is irrelevant.
You don't get to spread the answers out. That would result in the depth-first argument that is your usual mode of evasion, which is expressly what we're trying to avoid. As soon as you post the answer to Fatal Flaw 1, you know full well it will be discussed and debated. You naturally wanting to hold up your side of that discussion becomes the excuse for why we never get to Fatal Flaws 2-12. This rule keeps you from playing the shell game that's been so effective for you until now; you have to turn over all the shells at once. Nothing to fear unless you're running a crooked shell game. Are you running a crooked shell game?
You don't get to just repeat the original claim. The list of fatal flaws presumes your critics know your argument. The list is a response to it. Restating the claim doesn't address the response. You're constantly "resetting" the argument every time you switch sub-sub-sub-issues, so we never get anywhere. This time we intend to get somewhere; the state of the argument after your response has to be farther ahead than before it. Answers that start, "My claim is..." would probably be immediately rejected.
So can you explain why this is unreasonable?
After several years, the evidence shows your notion of "effective debate" doesn't work anywhere with anyone. At best it's years of stalemate watching you play your typical games. At worst people can tell immediately that you're not serious. So since your method demonstrably sucks, what's wrong with trying my version of effective debate? Mine attempts to determine quickly whether failure is inevitable or whether there's enough to proceed to a laborious detailed examination. It worries me that you're not interested in doing that. It worries me that you just want to keep playing the shell game.
Last edited:
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
Then you admit you have lost the argument.
If and when you think you can do it by all means try; until then this thread is done.
gabeygoat
Master Poster
Five years! This thread always reminds me of my aging. At least the shroud thread taught me a lot about history, art, religion, chemistry etc. in this thread, I learned a little bit about probability in the first couple of pages, but then just became years of bizarreness
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2012
- Messages
- 10,259
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
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.
- I've changed my wording since that expression to
3. If an event is unlikely – given a particular hypothesis (H) – but the event occurs, the occurrence will tend to have a negative effect upon the probability of H — but, it need not.
- Also, I've pointed out the effect is indefinite as there are other variables in the formula.
- Also, probability is not an absolute value, it's an estimate based upon the info we have. If all we knew about the election was that the state elected a democrat and that only 10% of "red" states elected a democrat, our best guess would be that this is a "blue" state.
- And finally, Bayesian inference includes the probability of an event -- given a particular hypothesis -- and the event being considered may have already occurred.
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.
- I've changed my wording since that expression to
3. If an event is unlikely – given a particular hypothesis (H) – but the event occurs, the occurrence will tend to have a negative effect upon the probability of H — but, it need not.
- Also, I've pointed out the effect is indefinite as there are other variables in the formula.
- Also, probability is not an absolute value, it's an estimate based upon the info we have. If all we knew about the election was that the state elected a democrat and that only 10% of "red" states elected a democrat, our best guess would be that this is a "blue" state.
- And finally, Bayesian inference includes the probability of an event -- given a particular hypothesis -- and the event being considered may have already occurred.