slyjoe
Illuminator
Not at all. But some people misuse it. I just happened to notice similarities in the use of prior probabilities.
Is ESP More Probable Than Advanced Alien Life?
- Thread starter Fudbucker
- Start date
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
Take my marbles and go home? Really? Have I not bent over backwards trying to explain this in many different ways? Do you think I have an infinite amount of time to talk about some logically possible/impossible scenario?
I have explained why you are wrong, and given plenty of examples that show the flaw in your reasoning: Two-headed coins can "land" tails in the same way a bachelor can "land" as a married man (which you've already admitted can happen). The married man is still the same person. The coin is still the same coin. Both were changed during a time interval in the scenario.
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
Nor is it within your range of talents, AFAICT.
I didn't assign any prior probabilities when I did my calculation.
A prior probability is what you assign to a hypothesis before you evaluate the evidence. I have not assigned a prior probability to either alien life or ESP.
Daylightstar
Philosopher
Only from a subjectivist point of view, even then, poorly.
Daylightstar
Philosopher
You reject prior probabilities, as explained to you earlier, you define them away.
Which means you're not really calculating any probabilities, you're effectively doing pointless basic arithmetic.
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
Remarkably silly, and a lot of work to avoid admitting your own error.
The bachelor ceases to exist in midair; he is, as you put it, changed into "something entirely else"; what lands is not a "bachelor", but a "married man".
Your "two-headed coin" ceases to exist when the "magic" happens (when the crowd claps its hands); it is, as you put it. changed into "something entirely else"; what lands is not a "two-headed coin", but a coin with at least one tail.
Do you "see it now", Fud? You are making an indefensible claim about an untenable position. It doesn't matter how you pretend to "explain" it. A "two-headed coin" cannot land showing "tails"; a coin that has at least one "tails" to show is not (by definition) a "two-headed coin".
Q: how many "tails" does a "two-headed coin" have?
A: Zero (not "almost zero"; zero)
No matter how widely you wave your hands, Fud.
Daylightstar
Philosopher
Infinite is likely too strong put, but you have or will make a lot of time to express your belief.
All in all there is good prior probability for you to continue in exactly the same way.
Daylightstar
Philosopher
I marvel at the need for such a simple to understand thing having to be explained several times and it apparently still not having any effect.
Daylightstar
Philosopher
Maybe you need to draw a cartoon version 
What???? Does a kid "cease to exist" when he turns 18? Does a drunk "cease to exist" when he sobers up? I certainly didn't cease to exist when I got married.
Now you're confusing labels with ontology.
What lands is a person who was a bachelor but is now a married man. What lands is a coin that was two-headed but is now two-tailed.
You seem to have got this idea in your head that when a thing changes so that a new label is applied, the thing "ceases to exist", along with the label. I don't have to tell on how many levels how wrong that is.
Neither of us are kids. We didn't cease to exist when we turned 18. The label "kid" simply no longer applied to us.
Really now.
You seem to have got this idea in your head that when a thing changes so that a new label is applied, the thing "ceases to exist", along with the label. I don't have to tell on how many levels how wrong that is.
Neither of us are kids. We didn't cease to exist when we turned 18. The label "kid" simply no longer applied to us.
Really now.
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
Apparently, it is, in fact, important to you. Why else would you keep ignoring the reality that your construction is indefensible?
A "two-headed coin" cannot land showing "tails".
A coin that shows "tails" cannot be a two-headed coin.
Even if (pace technology) you were to posit a coin with holographic faces that could be programmed to change in midair; a "coin with multiple programmable faces" is not a "two-headed coin".
No matter how loudly you declare yourself "right", Fud.
What rhetorical advantage do you think falsehood boons you?
Go back and read: The bachelor, married in midair, lands as a married man, no longer a bachelor. The "two-headed coin", magically changed in midair, lands as "a coin with at least one tail to show", no longer a "two-headed coin".
That is not the "admission" you claim I made.
No matter what you "declare", Fud.
He is not, however, "the same"; no longer a "bachelor"; he is "married".
Just in case you are actually paying attention, "married" =/= "bachelor".
it is not, however, "the same"; no longer a "two-headed coin", it has at least one "tail" to show.
Just in case you are actually paying attention, "two-headed coin" =/= "coin with at least one 'tails' to show".
And when you beat it into a ploughshare, it is, in fact, no longer a sword, Fud. In fact, you would be hard-pressed to beat it back into a decent sword...
But by all means, do enjoy your "declarations". Reality will still be here.
Last edited:
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
Maybe you need to draw a cartoon version
That is not, in fact, a bad idea.
I'll get right on it.
I wondered if you would go down this road. It's a strange one for materialists to take. You've blundered (either knowingly or unknowingly) into the Ship of Theseus problem. Namely, how much change does a thing have to go through before it's not the same thing anymore.
Slow, you are a particular person. Would you say you're essentially the same person you were five minutes ago? Many, many atoms have migrated into and out of your body in that time. Does your identity change with each changing particle, or are you still essentially you?
You are claiming that the bachelor (who doesn't even undergo a physical change when he gets married) "ceases to exist". If you were to tell him that he doesn't exist anymore, you would have quite an argument on your hands!
Or maybe you believe that a thing ceases to exist if one tiny change is made. Is that what you believe? If the two-headed coin changes so that one side is now tails, is there now a brand new coin? Are you a completely different person with each breath you take? You could take that position, of course, but it is a very strange one.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-time/
Last edited:
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
No offense, but I think you're going off the deep-end. I'll avoid responding to you until you come back to Earth-based discussions.
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
Wait. There was that one guy. Didn't he spend 2+ years trying to prove immortality via Bayesian theory?
That worked-out pretty well didn't it?
Certain recent posts have convinced me that some individuals will simply never, ever admit error, not even tiny errors. I am happy to honestly argue legitimate points, but I don't see how continuing this discussion, at least as it is presently, would be any fun for me. I thank almost all of the participants for their knowledge and their persistence; I have learned a lot from them. Ultimately I may not be able to stay away, but I certainly feel as if I explained my views as best as I can.
Last edited: