[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[Humots]

Working in background . . .

A Hutt with its tail way, way into its mouth (since they don't have feet)?

 

[Garrette]

Jabba: Do you consider it even possible that you are wrong?

Do you consider it possible that the issue is that we understand what you are saying but recognize flaws?

Or do you only consider it possible that any disagreement is borne of our misunderstanding?

 

[Sideroxylon]

Jabba: Do you consider it even possible that you are wrong?

Do you consider it possible that the issue is that we understand what you are saying but recognize flaws?

Or do you only consider it possible that any disagreement is borne of our misunderstanding?

Jabba, could you express this using Bayes' theorem?

 

[carlitos]

A Hutt with its tail way, way into its mouth (since they don't have feet)?

A zombie saying "Bayes" instead of brains?

 

[jond]

Jabba: Do you consider it even possible that you are wrong?

Do you consider it possible that the issue is that we understand what you are saying but recognize flaws?

Or do you only consider it possible that any disagreement is borne of our misunderstanding?

Jabba, please respond to this post. And do so truthfully, please.

 

[Giordano]

Jabba: Do you consider it even possible that you are wrong?

Do you consider it possible that the issue is that we understand what you are saying but recognize flaws?

Or do you only consider it possible that any disagreement is borne of our misunderstanding?

Excellent questions. Jabba, please do not post anything else before answering these questions. Please?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Jabba: Do you consider it even possible that you are wrong?

Do you consider it possible that the issue is that we understand what you are saying but recognize flaws?

Or do you only consider it possible that any disagreement is borne of our misunderstanding?

Good Afternoon, Mr. Savage!

For what it is worth, I concur that you ought to consider these "the most important questions", and answer them before you go on to anything else.

 

[John Jones]

Good Afternoon, Mr. Savage!

For what it is worth, I concur that you ought to consider these "the most important questions", and answer them before you go on to anything else.

Agreed. Jabba, answer these most important questions before you start another annoying fringe reset.

And please do so before you waste any more of your interlocutors time - who have apparently wasted 2 years of their lives - on your redonkulous claims.

 

[Loss Leader]

Jabba: Do you consider it even possible that you are wrong?

Do you consider it possible that the issue is that we understand what you are saying but recognize flaws?

Or do you only consider it possible that any disagreement is borne of our misunderstanding?

I think he's made it pretty clear that his version of debate does not include changing one's view or being swayed by evidence. Both sides are just supposed to shout their objections at each other while some invisible audience casts ballots.

 

[Garrette]

I think he's made it pretty clear that his version of debate does not include changing one's view or being swayed by evidence. Both sides are just supposed to shout their objections at each other while some invisible audience casts ballots.

Heaven forfend.

 

[Giordano]

Dear Moderators,

Thanks for switching this thread to where it really belongs: Religion and Philosophy!

 

[Aepervius]

Dear Moderators,

Thanks for switching this thread to where it really belongs: Religion and Philosophy!

Not really, they were quire generous with jabba.

it should actually belong to Abandon all hope.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Jabba: Do you consider it even possible that you are wrong?

Do you consider it possible that the issue is that we understand what you are saying but recognize flaws?

Or do you only consider it possible that any disagreement is borne of our misunderstanding?

Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

Please do not let the move tonew digs cause you to lose sight of just how important these questions are.

I seriously hope you will adopt them as the "most important" questions to answer, and address them before you move on, or reset.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

"The best man in the fight" has checked back on his droppings, but hasn't had the time to prepare a detailed riposte.

Yes, lack of time, I'm sure that's the reason.

 

[JoeMorgue]

On the plus side if I wind up in hell pushing a boulder up a hill it won't seem that weird anymore.

 

[Jabba]

I have a sense of a continuous self, but not an unchanging self.

…The self consists of the characteristics of the self and nothing else. The characteristics of a thing are what make up that thing…

Dave,

- There is a single “you” that continues looking out while your characteristics are changing.
- In that sense, there are two “yous” – or maybe, two aspects of “you.” There is a you that remains the same – and, a you that is constantly changing. That first you is unaffected by environment -- and is, apparently, not the result of your specific DNA.
- In other words, while that first you is probably the result of some type, or level, of physicality (an emergent property), it is not the result of your specific physicality.
- We have always agreed that, according to the scientific model, you had no previous existence. Now, we should agree that you had no previous “representation” either.
- In still other words, who that first you would be was unlimited – according to the scientific model.

 

[carlitos]

 

[pakeha]

- In that sense, there are two “yous” – or maybe, two aspects of “you.” There is a you that remains the same – and, a you that is constantly changing. That first you is unaffected by environment -- and is, apparently, not the result of your specific DNA. ...

Wait, what?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Dave,

- There is a single “you” that continues looking out while your characteristics are changing.
- In that sense, there are two “yous” – or maybe, two aspects of “you.” There is a you that remains the same – and, a you that is constantly changing. That first you is unaffected by environment -- and is, apparently, not the result of your specific DNA.
- In other words, while that first you is probably the result of some type, or level, of physicality (an emergent property), it is not the result of your specific physicality.
- We have always agreed that, according to the scientific model, you had no previous existence. Now, we should agree that you had no previous “representation” either.
- In still other words, who that first you would be was unlimited – according to the scientific model.

Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

Multiple posters have suggested that you deal with this:

Jabba: Do you consider it even possible that you are wrong?

Do you consider it possible that the issue is that we understand what you are saying but recognize flaws?

Or do you only consider it possible that any disagreement is borne of our misunderstanding?

...before you go on picking the easiest question that lests you pretend to keep dancing.

What say you?

 

[Jabba]

Jabba: 1) Do you consider it even possible that you are wrong?

2) Do you consider it possible that the issue is that we understand what you are saying but recognize flaws?

3) Or do you only consider it possible that any any disagreement is borne of our misunderstanding? ?

Garrette,
- I suspect that you know what I need to say here -- whether what I say will be really true or not.
1) Yes.
2) Yes.
3) I do believe that our disagreements tend to be borne of your misunderstanding.