jt512
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2011
- Messages
- 5,087
[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics
- Thread starter Jabba
- Start date
- Status
I do not understand the distinction you are making here. Personally, I would think I had witnessed a miracle if I had seen something magic, and vice versa.
Magic - and miracle - to me is something that cannot be explained by the laws of physics, but it must break them in a big way; breaking them at the fringe of human knowledge, such as seen when galaxies rotate in a wrong way, or protons have surprising diameters do not count.
What is your definition of magic and miracles?
Kevin_Lowe
Unregistered
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2003
- Messages
- 12,221
Traditionally, "magic" is when ignorant brown people think their silly ritual chanting causes immaterial beings to help them out. "Miracles" are when proper white people think their very important and serious ritual chanting causes immaterial beings to help them out.
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
NVM
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
You're really entirely out of your depth, here.
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
Last edited:
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
- In a sense, my overall objective is to effectively present my significant evidence and logic supporting the validity of the numbers I've inserted into the Bayesian formula.
- Specifically, I think that I've answered everyone's claim about my proposed dichotomy being false. Consequently, I think I'll move on.
- This will be my second "move-on" -- unless, someone still thinks that my dichotomy is false, and tells me why.
- My first move-on was after I apparently effectively answered the objection that my dichotomy did not include the possibility of a deterministic universe.
- I think that the next objection to be answered should be regarding my evidence and logic supportive of the prior probability of ~A. Let me know if you'd prefer that I address a different objection.
- Specifically, I think that I've answered everyone's claim about my proposed dichotomy being false. Consequently, I think I'll move on.
- This will be my second "move-on" -- unless, someone still thinks that my dichotomy is false, and tells me why.
- My first move-on was after I apparently effectively answered the objection that my dichotomy did not include the possibility of a deterministic universe.
- I think that the next objection to be answered should be regarding my evidence and logic supportive of the prior probability of ~A. Let me know if you'd prefer that I address a different objection.
Nay_Sayer
I say nay!
Not that it has'nt been said to you; Your life is finite as all things in the universe are finite, eventually even the universe will die [heat death].
You are not not, before or in the future, Immortal in any sense.
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
Good Morning, Mr.Savage!
At the risk of seeming to be condescending, you asked me two questions yesterday:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9815152#post9815152
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9815184#post9815184
I responded with a request for clarification, in one case, and a direct answer, in the other:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9815165#post9815165
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9815208#post9815208
It seems to me, this morning, that you have simply ignored my responses, and are proposing to "move on", as it were.
Ignoring my attempts to clarify, and respond to, your questions seems (to coin a phrase) condescending, impolite, and unfriendly.
Further, as I and others have pointed out, as long as you are defining ~A in terms of specific things that it is, you cannot help but omit and excluse significant parts of ~A. The only correct way to define ~A is as "anything and everything that is not A". This is not a trivial distinction. You are still misidentifying the dichotomy.
I repeat my suggestion: instead of getting mired down in questionable misaplication of Bayes' work, why not start at the other end? Why not simply present all of the evidence you have that the "soul" does, in fact, exist, and is, n fact, immortal?
I anticipate your responses to my sallies of yesterday.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
The highlighted bits are nothing more than running jokes.
The Bayes thing is nothing more than a poor attempt at subterfuge.
You've responded to a "select" few. You've ignored "most" and "answered" none.
And you won't move on. You'll just start again from some arbitrary point in the middle of your failed argument.
This will be your 347th "move on" -- it matters not one whit who thinks what about your stupid dichotomy, mainly because you're ignoring 95% of the people who are telling you why it's such a crock.
Not in order, and by no means exhaustively, your "move-ons" include:
- I (you're clearly not at all sure what this even means)
- think (you meant to type "believe", obviously)
- I (as above)
- can (fallacy of ambitions vs capabilities. See: Dunning-Kruger)
- essentially (as nearly as anyone can tell, this means "if you squint really hard")
- prove (= "imagine", "believe", "want" or "hope for")
- immortality (for values of "immortality" that exclude actual immortality)
- using Bayesian statistics. (abusing is a type of use, isn't it?)
Let you know how, exactly? For all the notice you take of those objecting to your outlandish, fantasy-based nattering we may as well be writing our responses on a marshmallow with a cutting torch.
Last edited:
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 32,124
Everybody does. For all the reasons that have been outlined to you over and over and over and over again.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Slowvehicle,
- I'm happy to go back to your sallies of yesterday. I had forgotten about them.
- But first, your suggestion is (I think) just another way to say, "...the next objection to be answered should be regarding my evidence and logic supportive of the prior probability of ~A" -- which is what I just proposed.
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
Good Morning, Mr. Savage!
I must remonstrate against your misunderstanding, here. You have yet to successfully identify, or define, ~A, for all of the reasons listed above. You cannot, and you may not, pretend that misdefining a carefully-circumscribed minor iteration of a limited example of part of ~A is, in fact, a proper synecdoche for all of A.
This is why I continue to suggest that you focus on the other end of the problem. Forget Bayes. Lay down your struggles with properly defining the A/~A dichotomy. Consider that you have a belief, about which you have made a claim. Instead of trying to semantically front-load reality so that it seems that your claim is a logical inevitability, why not simply present the evidence for your idea?
Not the non-evidence for the proper complement of your idea, but the evidence for your idea.
Not the apophatic non-proof of the not-existence of not-your-idea, but the empirical, objective, rational evidence that the "soul", in fact, exists, and is, in fact, immortal.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Slowvehicle,
- As I often complain, I only have so much time to commit to the discussion here, so I have to keep a very narrow focus. I realized that my question about "free will" would open up a whole new can of worms, so I turned to focus on something more central to our dichotomy issue.
- In the future, I'll try to let you know when I do that.
- Keep in mind that most of my available time is in the morning, New York time.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Fifteen months of discussing a single issue.
No recollection of points made 24 hours ago.
Self-professed master of Truly Effective Debate™.
Let's play "Spot the Disconnect!"
You've been proposing for more than a year that you're just about to present some evidence.
Why don't you "just" do it?
jond
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 3,440
I was thinking it might be worth asking:
1. How one might objectively differentiate between one life infinitely repeating with no memory of the previous one, and a different life lived once.
1a. How the concept of one life infinitely repeating squares with the historical record of continuous growth and change.
1b. If Jabba thinks he's the same person as he was at 14 when he started believing in this "soul" thing.
1c. Why my previous post about the concept of consciousness as a process was ignored only to have Jabba announce that his position on this has evolved over the thread.
But I suspect that this too will be ignored. It is, after all, snowing.
1. How one might objectively differentiate between one life infinitely repeating with no memory of the previous one, and a different life lived once.
1a. How the concept of one life infinitely repeating squares with the historical record of continuous growth and change.
1b. If Jabba thinks he's the same person as he was at 14 when he started believing in this "soul" thing.
1c. Why my previous post about the concept of consciousness as a process was ignored only to have Jabba announce that his position on this has evolved over the thread.
But I suspect that this too will be ignored. It is, after all, snowing.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Slowvehicle,
- I think that I have now actually answered both of your questions...
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
And yet you still somehow lose track of questions that were put to you a day ago.
It beggars belief that your perception that you are in any way in control of this discussion endures, despite the ample evidence available to all that you are, for all intents and purposes, barely a participant.
May I suggest a flow chart?
How about you
Last edited:
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Everyone else thinks otherwise.
What do you see as the ramifications of this in terms of your theory of Truly Effective Debate™?
- Status