JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
No, you're not doing what I asked. Answer rejected.
Cont: Proof of Immortality VIII
- Thread starter Jabba
- Start date
No, you're not doing what I asked. Answer rejected.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Jay,
- You're going to reject everything I say, and refuse to help me understand why.
- Hopefully, js or jt or someone else can help me understand.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
I'm going to reject everything that doesn't satisfy the criteria I've laid out several times for answering the list of fatal flaws. That's why they call them criteria. They are the standards by which work offered is accepted or rejected.
That's a bald-faced lie. I have explained several times the reasons behind the criteria for answering the fatal flaws and what they are designed to accomplish that hitherto hasn't been addressed. You didn't rationally dispute them. And you still don't rationally dispute the desired goal and the plan to accomplish it. All you seem able to do is whine like a child that you're being tested in a way you can't control to your advantage.
We have all tried and you show absolutely no interest in learning. Therefore your critics remain your critics, not your colleagues or teachers. No one has an obligation to spoon-feed you elementary concepts you pretend already to know.
Last edited:
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
- From FF2 above:
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.
- it seems to me that
1. An event may, or may not, be a fact.
2. An event may be likely or unlikely based upon the particular hypothesis being re-evaluated.
3. Based upon an "event" (new info), the posterior probability of a particular hypothesis may be larger or smaller than its prior probability.
4. Events can affect the probability of more than one hypothesis, and will have opposite effects upon complementary hypotheses.
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.
- it seems to me that
1. An event may, or may not, be a fact.
2. An event may be likely or unlikely based upon the particular hypothesis being re-evaluated.
3. Based upon an "event" (new info), the posterior probability of a particular hypothesis may be larger or smaller than its prior probability.
4. Events can affect the probability of more than one hypothesis, and will have opposite effects upon complementary hypotheses.
Last edited:
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
What would be the point? I wrote a post telling what needed to come next; you quoted the post to ask what needed to come next.
Gibberish.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
- Are you referring to PDF? If so, I'll go back and try to figure out how to produce what you're looking for.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Don't attempt to teach; you're not qualified.
jt512 has you cornered on the P(E)=1 premise. Jsfisher has you cornered on the PDF. You tried your usual tricks -- throwing some task back onto your critics, changing the subject, and whining at how badly you're supposedly being treated. Now you're trying to shift into "teacher mode" where you comment on general principles rather than address what your critics are saying.
It's Debate Theatre, Jabba, and you're just not doing it very well. We've seen all these characters before. They're boring.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
This is something a statistician should be able to do in his sleep, as a matter of course. If you have to "go back and try to figure [it] out," then you can't say you have any appreciable experience in statistics.
Can we at least get a concession from you that you are not any sort of "certified statistician?" Will you at least renounce that claim?
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
That's the problem, you wont go back and even try to figure out anything. We know this because you have been refusing to do so for years. What reasonable expectation may we have that this time you really will as opposed to the many times you have not? Ever? You have a track record. You may not like it much, but you do. Going back years. Why should anyone believe you are sincere after years of insincerity? Is this not a case of the "boy who cried wolf"? Do explain how it is different, because the objections are not, you simply ignore the inconvenient facts and attempt to invent you own facts. We all see this, point it out and get browned off when you ignore everything said to you.
At this point, I post little in this thread simply because I realise that you will ignore anything I post. Now, I only post when your posts become particularly egregious, not for you, so that others can see the egregious crap arguments you post and realise that your argument has no standing and ignores the copious rebuttals.
You don't much like that, so you ignore my posts. The simple fact is that you are EOL and will cling to any baloney to grasp a straw so that your life does not end. I can understand that straw clutching to an extent. Clutching those straws does not make them real.
As I am heading for 50 in short order, I have no such straws to clutch. And it doesn't really bother me. In 30 years, I will not be in your pickle. I am certain that only two things can happen. Either
A. I am right and that is the end of me. In which case I am right, I am done and gone.
Or
B. I am wrong and your god exists. In which case I am right and your god is an immoral thug who I reject anyway.
Or your other posit, reincarnation. That makes your god a moral thug and a deciever, because jebus makes no sense under any flavour of reincarnation and your cranky shroud nonsense is borked because it matters not a whit.
You can posit the reincarnation crap, or you can posit the jebus crap, but they are mutually exclusive and you cannot have both. You want both, but you can't have both.
If you try, you are being dishonest.
As if it were not bad enough, you will simply ignore this honking great problem with your conflicting faiths as though it doesn't exist and sweep it under the theological carpet and hope nobody notices your abdication of the arguments you sling about.
ETA: I don't recall anyone ever before adhering to two faiths? Is this a first?
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
No you won't.
Belz...
Fiend God
Has it not occured to you to simply follow the instructions given? You persist in ignoring what people tell you to do or what people ask you, and then complain when they call you on this. It's a trick: you're deliberately making sure they don't accept your answers because then you get to complain instead of learning.
Jay has spend YEARS trying to help you understand why. It takes an extreme level of dishonesty by you to pretend otherwise.
Belz...
Fiend God
Point in fact: how does this fulfill Jay's requirements? In what way does this address the fatal flaw?
Belz...
Fiend God
...or proficiency.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
I answered this post a few hours ago from the perspective of the list of fatal flaws and the exercise in broad-strokes analysis that we propose around it. Now I'm going to answer this post in a broader scope of the whole debate.
I'm going to reject everything you say that's provably wrong. You don't seem to have warmed up to the idea that you can (gasp!) actually be wrong. You may not actually have proven immortality by means of statistics. You behave as if you think the bar should just keep being lowered until you can clear it, and that this accomplishes something you deserve full credit for.
You slop through school and still expect the PhD. You decide you can't prove immortality, so you decide just to falsify materialism and ask if that will be enough. You don't know about probabilities as continuous functions, so you suggest only means are sufficient. You can't defend your argument at the high level, so you try to rewrite the terms of that test too. There is hardly any proposition I've seen you chase that can't be characterized as insisting that the bar be lowered to meet you.
That's not how arguments and proofs work. If your proof doesn't meet the standards of mathematical rigor, it fails. The sooner you realize you can't rewrite logic and math to accept whatever idea you come up with as if it were valid, the sooner you'll let go of this undeserved devotion to a teenage epiphany.
That's an even balder-faced lie in the larger context. Among your critics there is a small group of people who have expended great effort attempting to educate you. I'll presume to count myself in that group. I write sometimes at length, and when I do it's to explain something as thoroughly as I think I can within the confines of this forum and my time -- all for your benefit. One of those posts even won the Language Award. In all this time, I haven't seen you respond substantially or with genuine interest to any of them. In fact at one point you even complained that reading them was too much of a chore, and would I please write shorter posts.
Even recently I wrote this post. You quoted the first line of it and responded to that with a one-line rejoineder, then changed the subject. You never responded to the rest of the post, which contained information designed to help you see the error in your reasoning. You admit to doing this -- to reading only the first lines of posts and ignoring the rest, if you read any of the posts at all. This is not a rational basis from which you can characterize the entire debate or your critics' participation in it.
So you're basically twice a liar. You're lying to say I do nothing to help you learn. Your disinterest doesn't dispel my effort. But you lie also to suggest you're competent to determine what other posters have and haven't said. You admit to not reading it. Why would someone make such a ludicrous claim as yours today, given the evidence? I'm guessing it's to poison the well. In all my tenure in this thread, you've fallen all over yourself trying to come up with reasons why Jay is mean or unreasonable or why you don't have to pay attention to him -- Jay writes too little, or too much, or won't obey Jabba's clerical requests, or his whims and foisted ground rules. You're so desperate not to have to deal with some of your critics that you're now making up easily-seen-through lies in order to justify your behavior against them.
That's a really sad substitute for a real argument, Jabba. You seem to have no argument for me that rises above ham-fisted gaslighting and other social engineering. When you fix that, then many reasonable people will stop writing you off as a crackpot.
Since you've displayed no interested in understanding, our exercise has moved on.
At least once, all of your debates here reach a point where you admit you cannot answer your critics' refutations. But you hasten to say you still believe you're right. The message that says is, "I still think all you guys are wrong, but I admit I can't prove it." Last summer, before your flounce, we reached that point here. The subtext of your statement and others seems to be a belief that atheists and skeptics are unqualified to properly refute you. It may look on paper like we did, but you're still somehow right and your critics must still somehow be wrong, and if only a "holistic" solution could be found, then you'd win properly.
But of course we know of a different reason you might think you're still right: your stated devotion to the proposition that you are immortal, and the emotional devastation you said you would experience if you were unable to prove yourself right mathematically.
So now a reader has to weigh that possibility against the flagging but still flying proposition that you're just a genius "holistic" statistician and that your knowledge of statistics in that superior way means your proof is right in ways your critics and the reader can't immediately see. This is why you go into "teacher mode." You're trying to leave a record behind that shows you can pontificate on the subject in a roundabout way and hopefully get someone to believe you are still the great "certified statistician" the visitors to your blog encounter.
Well, we've proposed to test that. Over the past few days you're being asked questions not to elicit information from you, but to test your knowledge of statistical elements and methods. You're failing. But because you don't understand the purpose of the line of reasoning -- or perhaps because you do -- you're once again doing the social-engineering tricks to try to get someone to spoon-feed you the answers. (How many times have we seen you pick up on a word or phrase your critics have used, and try to use it yourself as if you always knew what it meant -- it's funnier when you do that and use it incorrectly.) You're trying to shame people away from testing your knowledge. It's like trying to shame the professor for not giving you the answers to the final exam while you're taking it.
You need to grasp the distinct likelihood that you will fail this test. And when it's painfully obvious despite your pleas for help that you really don't know the first thing about statistics (and your critics do -- in spades), then it becomes less likely that the disagreement between you and your critics is not best explained by your supposed intellectual superiority, but better by the other reason you admitted to.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
It looks to me like he's breaking all of them. That makes a statement, not an argument. He's flouting the criteria of the test to express his opposition to them, but without giving a rational explanation for why the criteria should be opposed.
Of course he opposes a breadth-first examination because it reveals all his errors at once and prevents him from playing his shell game. He opposes the other criteria because they deny him the means by which he prolongs a meaningless semblance of a debate. They're criteria designed to get right at the heart of the proof without his typical distractions, and he clearly doesn't want that.
Sure, on the one hand he can perhaps try to convince people that he's satisfied the "spirit" of the exercise -- while missing every single one of its points. Or on the other hand he can complain that the criteria are too stringent or too arbitrary to too ... whatever, just so he can have something to complain about instead of facing the debate.
Jsfisher has Jabba to the point where he will have to admit he doesn't know how to use a PDF, the basic building block of statistical computation. And he doesn't want to have to do that. So he's begging for help, complaining and evading, trying to change the subject. And jt512 has Jabba to the point where he can't have both a proposal to fix the conjunction fallacy and an arithmetically favorable outcome at the same time. He doesn't know how to get around that, so more begging, more complaining, more lashing out at Jay, more frantic changes of subject.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
By way of notice and not criticism, this is what Jabba hopes for. He wants to pretend to do as I ask, but retaining the one-at-a-time footing instead of the high level. He wants people to read and respond to his individual points on the spot so that he can shove the discussion back down into the pointless detail where he thrives. He wants to give people lots of detail to discuss, so that they'll have some reason to respond.
And from that I'd expect something like, "But Jay, I can't get to all the rest of the answers. I'm obliged to stay here and discuss these things with these people who are asking me about details."
It's Debate Theatre. At this point there appears to be little to this debate other than some frantic manipulations to keep the attention focused.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
- from Jay
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.
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
- Unless someone wants to clarify this for me, I'll have to skip it...
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.
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
- Unless someone wants to clarify this for me, I'll have to skip it...
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
This is not what I asked you to do. Answer rejected. Also there has been considerable discussion since your last post about your anti-compliance. Please provide some evidence that you have paid attention to it and have a plan to remedy it.
Last edited: