That's true, even in that case that we did have that odd and useless type of immortality that Jabba is arguing for it still wouldn't make his formula right. So I suppose the best answer he could possibly hope for is "you're right about the end result but totally wrong about being able to prove it through statistics; you are partially right but totally by coincidence".
Cont: Proof of Immortality VIII
- Thread starter Jabba
- Start date
That's true, even in that case that we did have that odd and useless type of immortality that Jabba is arguing for it still wouldn't make his formula right. So I suppose the best answer he could possibly hope for is "you're right about the end result but totally wrong about being able to prove it through statistics; you are partially right but totally by coincidence".
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
It's been said several times that if Jabba were simply to express his belief in an immortal soul, few if any would fault him for it. Even skeptics have to concede that animistic dualism is a widespread belief that can't be easily extricated from the human experience. The objection by skeptics is when Jabba claims he can prove it mathematically. He can't, and this is readily apparent even to people who don't self-identify as skeptics. He's fond of saying it's all ISF's fault, or skeptics' fault in general, that he can't make a convincing case. But the facts are simply not compatible with that. Talk Stats is the control. We have no idea where those people fall in a belief spectrum. Jabba has to concede they rejected his argument, and it has nothing to do with any preconceived belief or bias they might have. For all he knows, they could all be believing Christians who agree with his conclusion but simply object to the misuse of mathematics. It's possible to believe in something but also to say, "Your proof is not a valid proof for the belief."
He's trying to paint in broad strokes and primary colors. He tosses out references to writings dealing with scientists and belief, pointing out that some scientists have various spiritual beliefs. The unspoken insinuation is that scientists should all be atheists, and if they aren't in some cases then that means spiritual beliefs must have some toehold in science. It's a highly simplistic argument, obviously. But it's enough for him to come here and suggest that all the skeptics here secretly know there's a god, that they have immortal souls, and that all their skeptical protests to the contrary must just be an act. It gives him a passable chance of being able to trap at least one person by begging the question. But by posing what he thinks is a valid mathematical proof, he thinks he's bested atheists at their own game and shown that they need to believe in something spiritual in order to claim to be rational.
The corollary to skepticism is that if you promise to base all your conclusions on fact and reason as devoid as possible of emotion and bias, you don't get to be happy when you're accidentally right. Skepticism is not about getting the right answer. It's about getting the right answer for the right reasons. It's a show-your-work philosophy.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Jabba, please stop coming back to look at the thread without posting anything. Instead, use the time to type up your response to JayUtah’s list, and then come back and post it when you’ve finished. Then we might have something to discuss.
Whoa there. Are you... stalking Jabba? Are you obsessing a bit or something?
He might be doing that very thing. Jabba not posting here isn't a problem that needs to be fixed. The only problem would be if he posts and it's garbage. As long as he's posting nothing, that's totally fine. If he returns and posts something constructive that's also fine.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Prediction:
1. Jabba complains that answering Jay's request will take a long time.
2. Jabba spends a long time in silence
3. Jabba returns to Jay's request with... nothing.
1. Jabba complains that answering Jay's request will take a long time.
2. Jabba spends a long time in silence
3. Jabba returns to Jay's request with... nothing.
Toontown
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2010
- Messages
- 6,595
Thereby demonstrating that answering Jay's request will indeed take a long time.
The greatest irony here may be that proving Jabba is incapable of proving immortality is not proving much. I'm not even sure it's proving that Jabba cannot prove immortality. It's proving that he hasn't done it yet, in 5 years. But there is always tomorrow. If a monkey is allotted enough hours to bang away at a typewriter, the possibility cannot be entirely ruled out that the monkey might randomly type out a mathematical proof of immortality.
But even if that did happen, very likely no one would understand it, and the priceless proof would be balled up and tossed. It would superficially look just like all the other gibberish.
I've read about genetic programming code randomly producing an algorithm that solved an intractable programming problem, but the code was so convoluted and entangled that nobody could see how it worked. But in that case the code was recognized because it was actually run and actually worked.
Last edited:
Humots
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- May 29, 2012
- Messages
- 425
I am interested in genetic algorithms. Do you have any links for this?
Toontown
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2010
- Messages
- 6,595
Sorry. It's just something I recall having read about.
Anecdote:
I used to write BASIC programs for my own use. I imagine some of my code must have been like the results of genetic algorithms, because I didn't plan or do flowcharts much. I'd just start writing code and working my way through and around problems as I stumbled blindly into them. Many of my solutions were basically random, because I more or less stumbled upon them by trial and error.
My code was inefficient and inelegant, but I would keep working at it until I got it to do what I wanted it to do somehow. Then, if I had to return to it a couple of months later to add something or fix a bug, it was like looking at alien software. I would have completely forgotten what I had done. I'd have to analyze my own code.
These experiences made me a believer in trial and error as a problem solving method. What one can't think and design one's way through can often be stumbled through by trial and error.
Last edited:
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
- I tried, but it isn't working...
- So now, I'm going to go back to one fatal flaw at a time. If no one is interested, so be it.
- If someone responds to this response, I'll have to decide whether to respond to that response or respond to the next fatal flaw.
- I revised that later to:
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. - In explanation -- that likelihood is only one of the variables in the applicable formula.
- The following supports my position.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26212520
As a convention, a p-value is often computed in hypothesis testing and compared with the nominal level of 0.05 to determine whether to reject the null hypothesis. Although the smaller the p-value, the more significant the statistical test, it is difficult to perceive the p-value in a probability scale and quantify it as the strength of the data against the null hypothesis. In contrast, the Bayesian posterior probability of the null hypothesis has an explicit interpretation of how strong the data support the null. We make a comparison of the p-value and the posterior probability by considering a recent clinical trial. The results show that even when we reject the null hypothesis, there is still a substantial probability (around 20%) that the null is true. Not only should we examine whether the data would have rarely occurred under the null hypothesis, but we also need to know whether the data would be rare under the alternative. As a result, the p-value only provides one side of the information, for which the Bayes factor and posterior probability may offer complementary evidence.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Vague excuses aren't answers. "It's not working" isn't any more convincing that "I'm slow" or "It's too hard." Every time I try to have a serious discussion with you about your proof I get nothing but these excuses and evasions.
No. The cardinal rule is that we're looking for a breadth-first answer that defuses your fractal reduction tactic. You also broke the rule about length of answer, the rule about dialectics, the rule about simply repeating your argument, and the rule about quoting excessively, which made your answer harder to compose than what I asked for.
I'm right. You simply can't have an actual debate about your proof. We tried your debate method and proved it didn't work. As soon as your cherished time-wasting process is disallowed, you lose interest in whatever topic is being debated. Your only goal is to keep your "debates" mired down, spinning their wheels endlessly.
I'm interested in what I asked for, not what you plan to foist instead. Stop trying to make it sound like your critics are the ones at fault if they don't like the way you engage with them.
Of course that's your plan: create a discussion on your terms that you can prop up as a needful alternative to what you were asked to do. Do you really think you're that clever? It's been your plan all along, and the only plan you have: try to force everyone back onto your script. "Gee, Jay, I can't do what you asked because now I have to engage with these other people who have taken the bait." Stop wasting our time and stop trying to manipulate the debate.
Naturally I reject your answer. Go back and do it the way I asked, please.
Your post is a mess. Why are you posting links and quoting stuff?
HOW DO YOU PLAN TO ADDRESS THIS FATAL FLAW?
It's a simple question. Only YOUR WORDS should be in the box.
ETA - This is just muddled thinking. There is no hope. It's like any of the nonsense in the conspiracy theory section. These types of posters cannot keep a train of thought, cannot make a concise point, cannot complete a simple task like answering a question within a specific framework. As an example, read one of the President's tweets. He can't even get through 140 characters before changing the subject, insering parenthetical unrelated remarks, using non-standard language, etc. Failed epistemology.
Jabba, please go take a logic class and don't come back until you do.
Last edited:
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Of course it doesn't work for you. It's effective debate. The bane of woo argumentation.
No one is interested.
Give one or two sentences to each of JayUtah's fatal flaws as to how you intend to refute them. Should take you an hour or less.
Only do so for each fatal flaw which you think you can refute. The ones you don't have one or two sentences for, we can assume are fatal flaws which you acknowledge destroy your argument.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Jay,
- You seem to be saying that the occurrence of a particular event that was previously deemed unlikely according to a particular hypothesis casts no doubt on that hypothesis. Is that what you're saying?
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
Why didn't you ask a year ago when JayUtah made the post?
This is an interesting thing to say.
What JayUtah was asking for was a short comment saying how you plan to address each flaw. That's a really easy thing to write up as long as:
1. You understand why he thinks something is a fatal flaw.
2. You have even a basic idea of how you would like to respond.
So the only real reasons you wouldn't be able to complete this request are that you have no idea what we're talking about (which would be a really bad sign since it's been explained quite thoroughly by many people), you have zero idea how you think you can address these flaws (which would imply the flaws are valid and your argument is dead).
But instead, you imply the problem somehow is doing this all in one post. That's a really strange thing to say, Jabba. If you can write up a concise sentence or so saying how you plan to address each fatal flaw, then nothing would stop you from doing all of them in one post.
Jabba, this appears to be a tactic meant to obfuscate the fact that there are multiple fatal flaws that you have no idea how to address. This will bog down the conversation for another five years and get absolutely nowhere.
Also, for the record, you've failed to even respond to the one that you picked for this post. The request was for a sentence or so saying how you planned to address it. Instead you skipped ahead to presenting evidence, but it wasn't any evidence that would actually refute the fatal flaw in question. This would be like if I asked "How do you plan on making a peanut butter sandwich when we're out of bread?" and you responded with three entire pages out of a cookbook, none of which involve bread.
No one is interested. You've repeatedly shown that you are incapable of responding to even simple requests for anything that might make any progress in this debate. If this ever changes, please PM me and I'll stop by again. Until then, my previous analysis stands and I see no reason to waste my time responding to you:
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Do not ignore my long-standing request and try to script me back to your terms and desired topic. Especially do not put words in my mouth. It's disrespectful, and we talked about this behavior in your other thread.
What I'm saying is that nearly a year ago I presented you with a list of flaws in your argument, each one of which is fatal to it. You must correct all of them for your argument to have a chance to succeed. I proposed that you demonstrate your ability to complete this debate by giving us a high-level, broad-strokes outline of your plan to address them all. Further, since your critics have amassed a catalog of the tactics you typically use to forestall any actual progress, I stipulated that your answer had to follow a certain format and avoid certain features that refer to those tactics. Your continued unwillingness to do so does not instill confidence that you have any actual interest in the topic at hand. As I said, you seem to be interested only in drawing other people into the illusion of a debate and then wasting their time with your pretentious nonsense.
Now please stop playing games and do as I ask.
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
No, he is saying you do not understand statistics.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
This is an admission that you have no idea how to address the fatal flaws in your argument that Jay Utah has enumerated, and are therefore conceding defeat.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Give one or two sentences to each of JayUtah's fatal flaws as to how you intend to refute them. Should take you an hour or less.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
This is important. Since any one of the dozen or so flaws is individually fatal, they all have to be corrected. And if any one of them cannot be remedied, then there is no point in discussing any of them since the proof will fail anyway. That's why we have to know if there's a plan for all of them before we start looking at them in depth. The depth is irrelevant and unnecessary if a smoking gun can be found earlier.
Further, requiring someone to say what his argument will be, instead of just making the argument, forestalls some kinds of evasion. When you're required to say, "My answer to this flaw will be to repeat my original claim," your incapacity is revealed in all its ignominy. That's not as evident when you just blunder ahead and repeat your original claim as if it were moving the discussion forward.