Then why are you here? — Christoffer

Same could be asked of you

Based on what? You don't listen to others at all. If you ever even looked at the dialectics I've gone through on this board you would see that when someone counter-argues my ideas I try and modify accordingly. You ignore everything.

If you see no counter arguments anywhere, go publish those papers you said you wrote. You said that you use these forum discussions to falsify your ideas and since, by your account, you don't seem to find any counter-arguments valid, your papers must be solid.

So, go publish and we'll continue when you get feedback on those papers. I think that would be a good lesson for you.

If you want to keep discussing here, you might need to actually listen to people instead of spamming the same things over and over.

I do modify my stance if someone comes up with a valid counter argument.

Link to an example of where I have ignored a valid counter argument

0%

0% — Terrapin Station

Which is the same chance anyone here has of getting through to Devans.

By the way, here's the only way that I think it makes some sense to do probabilities (aside from 1(00) and 0):

We have some phenomena that we can observe, where it doesn't seem to ridiculous to call multiple instances "the same phenomenon" (it's never going to be literally the same because of nominalism), and on those multiple instances, there are good reasons to assume that we know most of the variables and most are being controlled. We also need reasons to believe that our sample size wasn't ridiculously small compared to the total number of occurrences of the phenomena in question. So then we observe how often x occurred versus didn't occur, and we use induction to guess that a similar pattern might continue.

Note that I think the above still has some serious problems re its ontological grounding. It's still often difficult to take it as much more than a guess. But that is the ONLY way that I consider any sort of probability calculation "legitimate."

Everything else is balderdash.

"our primary directive is survival and this directive extends beyond the grave."

Hahaha hahaha--is about as insightful a comment as I believe this OP deserves.

My primary directive is to drive across the country, which includes flying into the sun, which is an interdimensional portal.

I have math to back it up.

Yea that's what I thought, you have no counter argument.

Is it a bad sign when the discussions you create quickly become damning parodies of your arguments?

I think so, and I'm right. Or, at least, I have an 89.52% chance of being right, because you have no valid counterarguments.

Link to an example of where I have ignored a valid counter argument — Devans99

Here.

Everything else is balderdash. — Terrapin Station

I think you will find that you do probability calculations all the time. Should I get on that plane? The last one did not crash. That sort of thing. You can use probability for anything - look at the vast range of things you can bet on.

A more specific link.



Back on topic, there is the possibility that life is but a dream and dying is equivalent to waking up. It has the advantage of not needing any messy transmigration of the soul or anything. Worth a couple more percentage points?

A more specific link. — Devans99

So, I go through the effort of doing that, and my reward is...? What?

Going around in circles with you again with regard to your failed logic, or your now famous catchphrase: no valid counterargument!

Going around in circles with you again with regard to your failed logic — S

Yes I'm sorry, I'm not using S-Logic.

Yes I'm sorry, I'm not using S-Logic. — Devans99

There's nothing wrong with my logic.

You haven't provided any valid counterargument.

You have something wrong with your logic if you doubt a first cause. Its like you've got an axiom in there somewhere equivalent to 'sure magic can happen'.

Valid counterarguments to what? You have not provided any arguments.

I think you will find that you do probability calculations all the time. Should I get on that plane? The last one did not crash. That sort of thing. You can use probability for anything - look at the vast range of things you can bet on. — Devans99

I think of things in probabilistic terms only in a frequentist context, as I described above.

You have something wrong with your logic if you doubt a first cause. — Devans99

:rofl:

Its like you've got an axiom in there somewhere equivalent to 'sure magic can happen'. — Devans99

Yes, that's an accurate representation of the argument I gave to you in one of your recent discussions. You know, the argument you're denying the existence of.

Valid counterarguments to what? You have not provided any arguments. — Devans99

You haven't created any discussions or submitted any comments. You don't even exist. You're not a member of this forum. You never joined. You were never even born.

Beat that!

So you admit your axiomatical system of the world includes 'magic can happen'?

You are not going to be able to reason much about the world with such an axiom... it invalidates all possible conclusions.

Why do you think so many people reject your “logic” and ideas about probability? You are basically standing alone, doubling down and repeating the same thing over and over while people try and get through to you.
Im just curious what YOU think their reasons for rejecting your view on probability are. Important, since your views in probability are the basis for virtually everything you post in this forum (that ive read).

So you admit your axiomatical system of the world includes 'magic can happen'? — Devans99

Yes, I said that with absolute sincerity. You accurately represented the argument I never provided. The argument I must have dreamt I had made, in public, on this very forum.

I think people reject my ideas because they are uncomfortable with where they lead.

There is no logical basis for strong atheism for example and my ideas on probability make that quite clear. So it tends to be a certain sort of person who disagrees with me (strong atheists for example).

"So you admit your axiomatical system of the world includes 'magic can happen'?
— Devans99

Yes, I said that with absolute sincerity. You accurately represented the argument I never provided. — S

You are going against the scientific method. You are condemned to ever live in darkness. You might as well sign up for a religion with that axiom.

Ok, well Im not a strong atheist and I have no problems with where your views lead.
So what is your explanation for me? Why do you think I disagree with you, since its not the reasons you stated?

You are going against the scientific method. You are condemned to ever live in darkness. You might as well sign up for a religion with that axiom. — Devans99

So, anyway, what else do you enjoy doing in your spare time besides trolling this philosophy forum? You're a fan of St. Thomas Retardass, I gather.

Shall we play a game of troll trolling troll?

Ok, well Im not a strong atheist and I have no problems with where your views lead.
So what is your explanation for me? Why do you think I disagree with you, since its not the reasons you stated? — DingoJones

Exactly what are you disagreeing with - can you be specific please.

Exactly what are you disagreeing with - can you be specific please. — Devans99

He's not disagreeing with anything you've said, because you haven't said anything. And he's not disagreeing with you, because you don't exist.

Provide a link.

So, anyway, what else do you enjoy doing in your spare time besides trolling this philosophy forum? You're a fan of St. Thomas Retardus, I gather. — S

I am an astronomer. And Aquinas was one of the most brilliant men to ever live.

The definition of a troll is someone who makes offensive posts. My posts are not offensive, unless it is your atheist sensibilities that are offended?

I am an astronomer. And Aquinas was one of the most brilliant men to ever live.

The definition of a troll is someone who makes offensive posts. My posts are not offensive, unless it is your atheist sensibilities that are offended? — Devans99

An astronomer! I don't believe that for a second. Obvious troll is obvious.

Nor do I believe that you don't know that the definition of a troll covers a lot more than that. I suspect that you're creating these really bad arguments, and responding in the ways that you typically do, on purpose, for your own satisfaction.

That's actually a better alternative, because if you're not doing this on purpose, then I feel sorry for you.

I disagree with your “math” and views on probability (specifically the way you conjure probability out of thin air, and do not understand the logic you refer to in your arguments).
So, im curious as to why you think I disagree.

I am working on several papers. I find it helpful to bounce my ideas off people. And (some) people seem interested anyway. So what is the problem with that?