Does this article assert the claim that confabulation is fundamental?
Did you read it. It is short.
In March, 2005, he held an event to announce "the fundamental mechanism of cognition" dubbed Confabulation Theory, which he believes is a process of confabulation (neural networks). He posits that all actions and thoughts begin as the "winners" of competitions, where confabulations are tested for cogency based on antecedent support.
Confabulation is central to a theory of cognition and consciousness by S. L. Thaler in which thoughts and ideas originate in both biological and synthetic neural networks as false or degraded memories nucleate upon various forms of neuronal and synaptic fluctuations and damage.
In March, 2005, he held an event to announce "the fundamental mechanism of cognition" dubbed Confabulation Theory, which he believes is a process of confabulation (neural networks). He posits that all actions and thoughts begin as the "winners" of competitions, where confabulations are tested for cogency based on antecedent support.
I still marvel that Mike is amongst the top neuroscientists in the world and spends his time studying pflap and the collaterals ..all of which are quite remedial.
Sounds like rock n roll group ..Pflap and the Collaterals!
That gives a little bit on it. This man, Robert Hecht-Nielsen, was one of the guest speakers at the UCSD group I attended. He was involved in the first A.I. machines that could read human hand-writing. Every Post Office has one now.
After his talk I visited him at his office one day and we talked about confabulation. Years later he published on it, and we e-mailed about it more. He liked my work on confabulation, but I don't think he used it.
I still marvel that Mike is amongst the top neuroscientists in the world and spends his time studying pflap and the collaterals ..all of which are quite remedial.
Sounds like rock n roll group ..Pflap and the Collaterals!
I saw them on a double bill with Gary and the Gumflappers.
It seems he is totally into confabulation, but just not using the word.
Right. Not using the word. After you watch the Lex Fridman podcast twice, we can discuss. It will take at least two listening sessions before you begin to absorb. I don't think this is a tall order. After all, I sat through 36 grueling histrionic hours of PFLAP!
Do you read what you write? Or do you fade in and out?
Saint Vic was obsessed with academia. After all, he implied he went to Princeton university and insisted everyone call him doctor. I doubt he had a TARIS hidden somewhere.
So, considering his obsession with academia, by your own admission he was NOT ALLOWED to have the truth or know it if it was in his lap.
22 hours ago, Nathan_Jr said:
This hypocrisy needs to be understood. Well said.
victor went to great lengths to bash academia, yet he beleeeved those credentials to be so very important that he purchased a "degree" so he could pretend to have academic authority and credibility. Why invoke an academic title, if it's meaningless?
Socrates and Nathan_Jr have pointed out the hypocrisy of wierwille – he disparaged academia and yet it appeared he so wanted to be accepted by them – buying a title from a degree-mill – always demanding everyone address him as “Doctor”
~ ~ ~ ~
6 hours ago, Mike said:
You must have missed the post where I said I was like a groupie there.
You also missed the main point: "...it was just a group of folks (superstar brain scientists) getting together..."
If you ever get the chance to be a mere tag-along groupie with the world's top brain scientists, I would strongly suggest you jump on such a great learning experience.
On 11/3/2022 at 3:29 PM, Mike said:
You sound like academia here. Sorry, you don't get spared. If God can't verify to you when you got the truth then maybe you got the wrong god. If you got the god of academia, you are NOT ALLOWED to have truth or to know if if it lands in your lap.
On 11/3/2022 at 4:05 PM, Mike said:
Yes, I think you got it right here.
I was told much same thing point-blank after attending for years. They were thankful that I did not cause trouble. Which reminds me of a story that happened there.
When I first arrived I only mentioned briefly my Biblical background to one of the grad students, but word got around very fast that I was a believer. Still, I played it cool, because I wanted to learn, and only once per year would I comment on something Biblical.
After I won their friendship, two of the grad students confided in me that they had been prepared for me to be a religious nut when I first arrived.They said that before my arrival there was a steady stream of nutcases who wanted to invade the school and the department and set them straight on some New Age truth or something.
These nutcases would set up shop in a class or in the hallways or outdoor gardens, and preach their better forms of enlightenment.Because UCSD was doing cutting edge work on the brain and A.I. the news media was often rustling up the nutcasess to harass these brain scientists.
So, they were thankful that I did not fit into that mold, and said so.
They also said that they were getting a weird sense that I was SHIELDING them from the steady stream of nutcases that would crash their groups.It seemed that my presence there was keeping the nuts out, they said.
This went on for years.Finally, as 1998 approached, the group was winding down, the professors were thinking of other things for the next year, and my life was changing. There was a sense that the club was over. Then, in the last meeting of the semester, along comes one of the nutcases to preach to the group.This was after SEVEN YEARS of none of them showing up.
One of my grad student friends came to me during the meeting and asked what was wrong with my shields!??He said that this was the kind of nut I had been shielding them from.
I give God all the credit.I did nothing to shield anyone. I just wanted to give glory to God and learn, and if I could teach them anything…. that would be great also.
18 hours ago, Mike said:
Actually, this is one reason I want to post my theory here. I honestly never thought to study free will in angels. Before the Pandemic, I did a lot of free will "surveys" at Star Bucks. It's also a great way to talk to ladies. But I never saw a real angel there, so never studied how they do it or did it. My guess is the Bible says nothing about it, or next to nothing.
That's the way it is with the Bible and free will for people: very skimpy. I was surprised at this in the early 1970s. I could find nothing substantial in the Bible on it. I did get those 3 tips from VPW, though.
Like father like son?
Mike likes to insinuate himself into academia too…but I find this odd…Mike often belittles academia – especially when comparing the greatness of PFAL – wierwille said you can’t go beyond what you’re taught– and since legitimate scholars wouldn’t waste their time with PFAL, theycan’t go beyond what’s taught in PFAL.
So why does he try to appear he has ties to academia? Why does he try to appear he’s in the same category as them in intelligence or even discipline-wise?
Edited by T-Bone editing is all academic at this point
No shonta. I don't remember what the answers were. I remember those phrases, for sure. I used to use them with my wife when she demanded frivolous luxuries we couldn't afford. Apparently, that's wasn't it.
So why does he try to appear he has ties to academia? Why does he try to appear he’s in the same category as them in intelligence or even discipline-wise?
I think he seeks a self-appointed platform of moral and intellecual superiorty to pull off his agenda, which he's failing miserably at...you know getting us to re-take pflap and all. Now...who else have I ran across that did that sort of thing...vic...victor Ppp....ahh..was coming to me....
I think he seeks a self-appointed platform of moral and intellecual superiorty to pull off his agenda, which he's failing miserably at...you know getting us to re-take pflap and all. Now...who else have I ran across that did that sort of thing...vic...victor Ppp....ahh..was coming to me....
That’s okay man, we’re here to help you remember the great things you forgot the first time you went through the PFAL-cognitive-skills-grinder…are you trying to remember his name – you were close – it’sPpppp …Pepé Le Pew and his stinky doctrines (sorry I have a little bit of a stuttering problem myself...might be that PPFALTSD - post PFAL traumatic stress disorder...I've been to hell and back...I thought I'd get a Purple Heart or something...but all I got was a way corps nametag)
That’s okay man, we’re here to help you remember the great things you forgot the first time you went through the PFAL-cognitive-skills-grinder…are you trying to remember his name – you were close – it’sPpppp …Pepé Le Pew and his stinky doctrines (sorry I have a little bit of a stuttering problem myself...might be that PPFALTSD - post PFAL traumatic stress disorder...I've been to hell and back...I thought I'd get a Purple Heart or something...but all I got was a way corps nametag)
you do remember it was wierwille who set up the ordination protocols for clergy - you do remember that don't you?
Yes, I do. I never got a satisfactory explanation for that stuff, and I thought it was pretty ignorable. In the early years the Reverends and the Robes were, from what I heard, supposed to be #1) temporary due to the large population of very young people. #2) for the non-ministry family members of grads at weddings, funerals, baptisms (lol) etc.
But it seemed to me that a lot of protocols seemed not best as the years progressed.
I disagreed with all the flowers at all the events.
I disagreed, at times, with VPW, and still do. I'm still processing a lot of that stuff.
VPW himself, admitted 4 days before PFAL'77 that God had scolded him for undertaking a mission to replace the film class with out His consultation. VPW admitted that he and his top men had come up with the idea and it turned out to NOT be from God. This VPW said at lunch, 4 days before PFAL'77 started. I was there. A hundred others were there.
So, I figure that if VPW was out in left field on cranking up PFAL'77, it wouldn't surprise me if he made other bad decisions. I think the decisions that went into the collaterals were his best decisions, and that was with a team of other believers.
VPW himself, admitted 4 days before PFAL'77 that God had scolded him for undertaking a mission to replace the film class with out His consultation. VPW admitted that he and his top men had come up with the idea and it turned out to NOT be from God. This VPW said at lunch, 4 days before PFAL'77 started. I was there. A hundred others were there.
God's foreknowledge failed him?
I think you're falling for another one of Saint Vic bull stories.
VPW himself, admitted 4 days before PFAL'77 that God had scolded him for undertaking a mission to replace the film class with out His consultation. VPW admitted that he and his top men had come up with the idea and it turned out to NOT be from God.
vpw "admitted" this? He did? Good for him!
vpw said God scolded him? Is that what God did?
Hey! I didn't write the book! VPW said it, that settles it, callah Kai latté!!
Tching nono?
The biggest problem in the world today is that people will just beleeve ANYTHING.
So, I figure that if VPW was out in left field on cranking up PFAL'77,
it wouldn't surprise me if he made other bad decisions. I think the decisions that went into the collaterals were his best decisions, and that was with a team of other believers.
I go further back on when he started making really bad decisions - like the claim of the 1942 promise.
T-Bone: You can mischaracterize other folks’ viewpoints as a mental rut - but noting your persistence in talking up PFAL and wierwille like they’re the greatest thing since the 1st century I think YOU ARE the ONE stuck in a rut for - what - some 20 years now.
~ ~ ~ ~ Mike: If PFAL were not from God, then you would be right. If PFAL is actually from God, then my closed mind is the right state to maintain.
It all comes down to placing our bets.
that's a pretty big gamble - what are the odds of a dead horse coming in first place?
hey wait - I covered that on another thread > here - this was in response to a question WordWolf asked "Is there any chance pfal is special and endorsed by God?" > here's link to beginning of thread ...anyway I treated the question like I was a gambler trying to figure out the odds of winning
but I'll save you the trouble of going there by reposting it here:
MATHEMATICS PROBABILITY AND STATISTICS
How to Calculate Probability
Co-authored by Mario Banuelos, PhD
Last Updated: October 1, 2022
Chances are (pun intended) you've encountered probability by now, but what exactly is probability, and how do you calculate it? Probability is the likelihood of a specific event happening, like winning the lottery or rolling a 6 on a die. Finding probability is easy using the probability formula (the number of favorable outcomes divided by the total number of outcomes). In this article, we'll walk you through exactly how to use the probability formula step by step, plus show you some examples of the probability formula in action.
1Choose an event with mutually exclusive outcomes. Probability can only be calculated when the event whose probability you’re calculating either happens or doesn’t happen. The event and its opposite both cannot occur at the same time. Rolling a 5 on a die, a certain horse winning a race, are examples of mutually exclusive events. Either a 5 is rolled or it isn’t; either the horse wins or it doesn’t.
Example: It would be impossible to calculate the probability of an event phrased as: "Both a 5 and a 6 will come up on a single roll of a die."
~ ~ ~ ~
2.Define all possible events and outcomes that can occur. Let’s say you're trying to find the likelihood of rolling a 3 on a 6-sided die. "Rolling a 3" is the event, and since we know that a 6-sided die can land any one of 6 numbers, the number of outcomes is 6. So, we know that in this case, there are 6 possible events and 1 outcome whose probability we’re interested in calculating. Here are 2 more examples to help you get oriented:
Example 1: What is the likelihood of choosing a day that falls on the weekend when randomly picking a day of the week? "Choosing a day that falls on the weekend" is our event, and the number of outcomes is the total number of days in a week: 7.
Example 2: A jar contains 4 blue marbles, 5 red marbles and 11 white marbles. If a marble is drawn from the jar at random, what is the probability that this marble is red? "Choosing a red marble" is our event, and the number of outcomes is the total number of marbles in the jar, 20.
~ ~ ~ ~
3.Divide the number of events by the number of possible outcomes.This will give us the probability of a single event occurring. In the case of rolling a 3 on a die, the number of events is 1 (there’s only a single 3 on each die), and the number of outcomes is 6. You can also express this relationship as 1 ÷ 6, 1/6, 0.166, or 16.6%. Here's how you find the probability of our remaining examples:
Example 1: What is the likelihood of choosing a day that falls on the weekend when randomly picking a day of the week? The number of events is 2 (since 2 days out of the week are weekends), and the number of outcomes is 7. The probability is 2 ÷ 7 = 2/7. You could also express this as 0.285 or 28.5%.
Example 2: A jar contains 4 blue marbles, 5 red marbles and 11 white marbles. If a marble is drawn from the jar at random, what is the probability that this marble is red? The number of events is 5 (since there are 5 red marbles), and the number of outcomes is 20. The probability is 5 ÷ 20 = 1/4. You could also express this as 0.25 or 25%.
~ ~ ~ ~
4.Add up all possible event likelihoods to make sure they equal 1.The likelihood of all possible events needs to add up to 1 or to 100%. If the likelihood of all possible events doesn't add up to 100%, you've most likely made a mistake because you've left out a possible event. Recheck your math to make sure you’re not omitting any possible outcomes.
For example, the likelihood of rolling a 3 on a 6-sided die is 1/6. But the probability of rolling all five other numbers on a die is also 1/6. 1/6 + 1/6 + 1/6 + 1/6 + 1/6 + 1/6 = 6/6 , which = 100%.
Note: If you had, for example, forgotten about the number 4 on the dice, adding up the probabilities would only reach 5/6 or 83%, indicating a problem.
Then I did a follow up post on the same thread > here which uses the formulas to figure if stuff like PFAL is worth betting on - - and I'm reposting it here also:
Much earlier, the reason I mentioned the Wiki How article on calculating probability had to do with my fuzzy idea of “faith”. To commit to something, I have to be certain something will happen – as they sayyou can bet on it.(for extra credit I have a related topic below – Gambler’s Fallacy)
Thinking of why I placed my faith in PFAL, it’s along the same lines asOldSkoolandChockfullmentioned – I was young and naïve. When I left TWI in ’86 I was having something like a double whammy crisis of faith – to have questions and doubts about PFAL and wierwille was to have questions and doubts about the Bible and God. That’s probably when my fascination with why I buy into something began.
I recently read a really cool bookThe Case for the Resurrection of Jesus(see extra credit section) – and like the title suggests the authors review evidence, witnesses and probabilities to present arguments and reasons for a phenomenal event. The analytical process in this book got me to see critical thinking as my ever-developing inner-brain-surgeon tasked to remove malignant growths but leave the healthy stuff intact.Physician, heal thyself.
I got to thinking about many of the other phenomenal events mentioned in the Bible and realized there were usuallywitnesses. It wasn’t justoneperson claiming he heard God’s voice and got snow upon request as validation.
Referring back to my probability post – how about we check out theVictaw Casino ( not to be confused with another casino) I’m somewhat of a gambling man – what’s there to bet on? Thestumbling dicetable looks interesting. What’s the chances of God-on the qt–in other words,there’sno other witnesses– what’s the chances of God asking a pathological liar/thief/plagiarist/drunkard/sexual predator to teach the Word? Hmmmm, well Paul was a persecutor of Christians that’s pretty bad too – so yeah, at this point I guess it’s possible.
Oh…wait…can I examine the dice? If it is indeed possible – then there should be other sides of the dice that have Biblical accounts of God secretly talking one-on-one to a scoundrel. I notice Paul’s conversion isNOTon the dice becausethere were witnesseson the road to Damascus (those who journeyed with Paul) and in the follow-up ofJesussendingAnaniasto restore Paul’s sight…sorry… I hate to quibble over a little thing like witnesses…so… what else you got?
Oh, thisother stumbling dice gamelooks like fun. Victaw claims every time you roll the dice it comes up withthe God-breathed PFAL class…
…Again - can I examine the dice? I notice each side of the dice has some tidbit of plagiarized, dubious, and mangled material. This is really puzzling to me – because how do any combinations of the roll add up tothe God-breathed PFAL class? It would be like claiming I could roll a13with one toss of real dice. Keep in mind the largest number I could roll is a12(each of the dice has numbers 1 through 6). Using probability calculations of my first post – or the extra credit hyperlink below on probability of rolling a 7 – the probability of any roll beingthe God-breathed PFAL classis0– it cannot happen.
~ ~ ~ ~
I recommend folks avoid theVictaw Casino. Rememberthe household of wierwillealways wins. What does that mean?It doesNOTmean thatVictaw Casinowill “win” everybet, just thatreturn to player rates(RTPs see extra credit link below for online casino guide) are set so thatthe household of wierwillewill profit overall. While at first individual players may believe they’ve won something –household profitsdepend on loyal paying customers frequenting a thoroughly throughly absolutely completely exceedingly abundantly above redundantly rigged cult-casino because they get free Kool-Aid.
What happens atVictaw Casinodoesn’t stay inVictaw Casino. It can spread by offshoots, wierwille-proselytizers and even linger as mental baggage. If you or someone you know has a gambling problem with wierwille/PFAL/TWI/offshoots/wierwille-proselytizers , may I recommendGrease Spot Café.
This is a good book to see how historians and lawyers use probabilities, hostile witnesses, preponderance of evidence
= = = ==
The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the incorrect belief that, if a particular event occurs more frequently than normal during the past, it is less likely to happen in the future (or vice versa), when it has otherwise been established that the probability of such events does not depend on what has happened in the past. Such events, having the quality of historical independence, are referred to as statistically independent. The fallacy is commonly associated with gambling, where it may be believed, for example, that the next dice roll is more than usually likely to be six because there have recently been fewer than the expected number of sixes.
The term "Monte Carlo fallacy" originates from the best known example of the phenomenon, which occurred in the Monte Carlo Casino in 1913.
Does this article assert the claim that confabulation is fundamental?
How does any of this matter for, to, or about anything?
Let's face it,
GSC has become a social media platform dominated by Mike and a small handful of people who somehow get their dopamine fix from asking him inane questions.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
120
259
157
205
Popular Days
Nov 2
154
Oct 30
111
Nov 3
106
Nov 4
104
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 120 posts
T-Bone 259 posts
OldSkool 157 posts
Nathan_Jr 205 posts
Popular Days
Nov 2 2022
154 posts
Oct 30 2022
111 posts
Nov 3 2022
106 posts
Nov 4 2022
104 posts
Popular Posts
penworks
VPW's statement that the Bible interprets itself is nonsense. The act of interpretation of any text is done by the reader of the text. People interpret what they read. They are the ones who give it me
waysider
And in doing so, he was violating his own "To Whom it is Written" rule.
Charity
What I see in what you wrote Chockfull is that we were meant to have a relationship with the class - you know the one that replaced our relationship with Christ. It was our lord in that it had power,
Posted Images
waysider
No
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Did you read it. It is short.
In March, 2005, he held an event to announce "the fundamental mechanism of cognition" dubbed Confabulation Theory, which he believes is a process of confabulation (neural networks). He posits that all actions and thoughts begin as the "winners" of competitions, where confabulations are tested for cogency based on antecedent support.
*/*/*/*
Also http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Confabulation_theory_(computational_intelligence)
Confabulation is central to a theory of cognition and consciousness by S. L. Thaler in which thoughts and ideas originate in both biological and synthetic neural networks as false or degraded memories nucleate upon various forms of neuronal and synaptic fluctuations and damage.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
You mean you made up three on the spot. You yourself said they were posted 15 or so years ago and you didn't remember them.
So when you made the claim you didn't have an answer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Great. Thanks.
Did you watch the Donald Hoffman videos?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I still marvel that Mike is amongst the top neuroscientists in the world and spends his time studying pflap and the collaterals ..all of which are quite remedial.
Sounds like rock n roll group ..Pflap and the Collaterals!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
IQ = IQ is an abbreviation for Intelligence Quotient. It is a score that shows how well someone understands and interprets the world around them.
Understood…you’re saying you’re filled with so much hate that it’s very difficult for you to understand and interpret what happens here
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
A smashing group – I was blown away by Pflap and the Collaterals' first album – it’s the bomb !
Album title: Collateral Damage
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
then, when there's a lull
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I saw them on a double bill with Gary and the Gumflappers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
3/4 through the short one.
It seems he is totally into confabulation, but just not using the word.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Right. Not using the word. After you watch the Lex Fridman podcast twice, we can discuss. It will take at least two listening sessions before you begin to absorb. I don't think this is a tall order. After all, I sat through 36 grueling histrionic hours of PFLAP!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Socrates and Nathan_Jr have pointed out the hypocrisy of wierwille – he disparaged academia and yet it appeared he so wanted to be accepted by them – buying a title from a degree-mill – always demanding everyone address him as “Doctor”
~ ~ ~ ~
Like father like son?
Mike likes to insinuate himself into academia too…but I find this odd…Mike often belittles academia – especially when comparing the greatness of PFAL – wierwille said you can’t go beyond what you’re taught – and since legitimate scholars wouldn’t waste their time with PFAL, they can’t go beyond what’s taught in PFAL.
So why does he try to appear he has ties to academia? Why does he try to appear he’s in the same category as them in intelligence or even discipline-wise?
Edited by T-Boneediting is all academic at this point
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
The three that I honestly don't remember are:
No shonta. I don't remember what the answers were. I remember those phrases, for sure. I used to use them with my wife when she demanded frivolous luxuries we couldn't afford. Apparently, that's wasn't it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I think he seeks a self-appointed platform of moral and intellecual superiorty to pull off his agenda, which he's failing miserably at...you know getting us to re-take pflap and all. Now...who else have I ran across that did that sort of thing...vic...victor Ppp....ahh..was coming to me....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
That’s okay man, we’re here to help you remember the great things you forgot the first time you went through the PFAL-cognitive-skills-grinder…are you trying to remember his name – you were close – it’s Ppp pp …Pepé Le Pew and his stinky doctrines (sorry I have a little bit of a stuttering problem myself...might be that PPFALTSD - post PFAL traumatic stress disorder...I've been to hell and back...I thought I'd get a Purple Heart or something...but all I got was a way corps nametag)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
YES!!! Nailed it!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Yes, I do. I never got a satisfactory explanation for that stuff, and I thought it was pretty ignorable. In the early years the Reverends and the Robes were, from what I heard, supposed to be #1) temporary due to the large population of very young people. #2) for the non-ministry family members of grads at weddings, funerals, baptisms (lol) etc.
Edited by MikeBut it seemed to me that a lot of protocols seemed not best as the years progressed.
I disagreed with all the flowers at all the events.
I disagreed, at times, with VPW, and still do. I'm still processing a lot of that stuff.
VPW himself, admitted 4 days before PFAL'77 that God had scolded him for undertaking a mission to replace the film class with out His consultation. VPW admitted that he and his top men had come up with the idea and it turned out to NOT be from God. This VPW said at lunch, 4 days before PFAL'77 started. I was there. A hundred others were there.
So, I figure that if VPW was out in left field on cranking up PFAL'77, it wouldn't surprise me if he made other bad decisions. I think the decisions that went into the collaterals were his best decisions, and that was with a team of other believers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
God's foreknowledge failed him?
I think you're falling for another one of Saint Vic bull stories.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
VPW himself, admitted 4 days before PFAL'77 that God had scolded him for undertaking a mission to replace the film class with out His consultation. VPW admitted that he and his top men had come up with the idea and it turned out to NOT be from God.
vpw "admitted" this? He did? Good for him!
vpw said God scolded him? Is that what God did?
Hey! I didn't write the book! VPW said it, that settles it, callah Kai latté!!
Tching nono?
The biggest problem in the world today is that people will just beleeve ANYTHING.
BULLSHONTA!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I go further back on when he started making really bad decisions - like the claim of the 1942 promise.
it's relative on what a person deems as bad
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
bear in mind that ALL protocols were established by wierwille
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Does this mean victor did NOT know
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
that's a pretty big gamble - what are the odds of a dead horse coming in first place?
hey wait - I covered that on another thread > here - this was in response to a question WordWolf asked "Is there any chance pfal is special and endorsed by God?" > here's link to beginning of thread ...anyway I treated the question like I was a gambler trying to figure out the odds of winning
but I'll save you the trouble of going there by reposting it here:
MATHEMATICS PROBABILITY AND STATISTICS
How to Calculate Probability
Co-authored by Mario Banuelos, PhD
Last Updated: October 1, 2022
Chances are (pun intended) you've encountered probability by now, but what exactly is probability, and how do you calculate it? Probability is the likelihood of a specific event happening, like winning the lottery or rolling a 6 on a die. Finding probability is easy using the probability formula (the number of favorable outcomes divided by the total number of outcomes). In this article, we'll walk you through exactly how to use the probability formula step by step, plus show you some examples of the probability formula in action.
1 Choose an event with mutually exclusive outcomes. Probability can only be calculated when the event whose probability you’re calculating either happens or doesn’t happen. The event and its opposite both cannot occur at the same time. Rolling a 5 on a die, a certain horse winning a race, are examples of mutually exclusive events. Either a 5 is rolled or it isn’t; either the horse wins or it doesn’t.
Example: It would be impossible to calculate the probability of an event phrased as: "Both a 5 and a 6 will come up on a single roll of a die."
~ ~ ~ ~
2. Define all possible events and outcomes that can occur. Let’s say you're trying to find the likelihood of rolling a 3 on a 6-sided die. "Rolling a 3" is the event, and since we know that a 6-sided die can land any one of 6 numbers, the number of outcomes is 6. So, we know that in this case, there are 6 possible events and 1 outcome whose probability we’re interested in calculating. Here are 2 more examples to help you get oriented:
Example 1: What is the likelihood of choosing a day that falls on the weekend when randomly picking a day of the week? "Choosing a day that falls on the weekend" is our event, and the number of outcomes is the total number of days in a week: 7.
Example 2: A jar contains 4 blue marbles, 5 red marbles and 11 white marbles. If a marble is drawn from the jar at random, what is the probability that this marble is red? "Choosing a red marble" is our event, and the number of outcomes is the total number of marbles in the jar, 20.
~ ~ ~ ~
3. Divide the number of events by the number of possible outcomes. This will give us the probability of a single event occurring. In the case of rolling a 3 on a die, the number of events is 1 (there’s only a single 3 on each die), and the number of outcomes is 6. You can also express this relationship as 1 ÷ 6, 1/6, 0.166, or 16.6%. Here's how you find the probability of our remaining examples:
Example 1: What is the likelihood of choosing a day that falls on the weekend when randomly picking a day of the week? The number of events is 2 (since 2 days out of the week are weekends), and the number of outcomes is 7. The probability is 2 ÷ 7 = 2/7. You could also express this as 0.285 or 28.5%.
Example 2: A jar contains 4 blue marbles, 5 red marbles and 11 white marbles. If a marble is drawn from the jar at random, what is the probability that this marble is red? The number of events is 5 (since there are 5 red marbles), and the number of outcomes is 20. The probability is 5 ÷ 20 = 1/4. You could also express this as 0.25 or 25%.
~ ~ ~ ~
4. Add up all possible event likelihoods to make sure they equal 1. The likelihood of all possible events needs to add up to 1 or to 100%. If the likelihood of all possible events doesn't add up to 100%, you've most likely made a mistake because you've left out a possible event. Recheck your math to make sure you’re not omitting any possible outcomes.
For example, the likelihood of rolling a 3 on a 6-sided die is 1/6. But the probability of rolling all five other numbers on a die is also 1/6. 1/6 + 1/6 + 1/6 + 1/6 + 1/6 + 1/6 = 6/6 , which = 100%.
Note: If you had, for example, forgotten about the number 4 on the dice, adding up the probabilities would only reach 5/6 or 83%, indicating a problem.
from: Wiki How: calculating probability
= = = = == = =
= = == = = = ==
Then I did a follow up post on the same thread > here which uses the formulas to figure if stuff like PFAL is worth betting on - - and I'm reposting it here also:
Much earlier, the reason I mentioned the Wiki How article on calculating probability had to do with my fuzzy idea of “faith”. To commit to something, I have to be certain something will happen – as they say you can bet on it. (for extra credit I have a related topic below – Gambler’s Fallacy)
Thinking of why I placed my faith in PFAL, it’s along the same lines as OldSkool and Chockfull mentioned – I was young and naïve. When I left TWI in ’86 I was having something like a double whammy crisis of faith – to have questions and doubts about PFAL and wierwille was to have questions and doubts about the Bible and God. That’s probably when my fascination with why I buy into something began.
I recently read a really cool book The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (see extra credit section
) – and like the title suggests the authors review evidence, witnesses and probabilities to present arguments and reasons for a phenomenal event. The analytical process in this book got me to see critical thinking as my ever-developing inner-brain-surgeon tasked to remove malignant growths but leave the healthy stuff intact. Physician, heal thyself. 
I got to thinking about many of the other phenomenal events mentioned in the Bible and realized there were usually witnesses. It wasn’t just one person claiming he heard God’s voice and got snow upon request as validation.
Referring back to my probability post – how about we check out the Victaw Casino ( not to be confused with another casino
) I’m somewhat of a gambling man – what’s there to bet on? The stumbling dice table looks interesting. What’s the chances of God - on the qt – in other words, there’s no other witnesses – what’s the chances of God asking a pathological liar/thief/plagiarist/drunkard/sexual predator to teach the Word? Hmmmm, well Paul was a persecutor of Christians that’s pretty bad too – so yeah, at this point I guess it’s possible.
Oh…wait…can I examine the dice? If it is indeed possible – then there should be other sides of the dice that have Biblical accounts of God secretly talking one-on-one to a scoundrel. I notice Paul’s conversion is NOT on the dice because there were witnesses on the road to Damascus (those who journeyed with Paul) and in the follow-up of Jesus sending Ananias to restore Paul’s sight…sorry… I hate to quibble over a little thing like witnesses…so… what else you got?
Oh, this other stumbling dice game looks like fun. Victaw claims every time you roll the dice it comes up with the God-breathed PFAL class…
…Again - can I examine the dice? I notice each side of the dice has some tidbit of plagiarized, dubious, and mangled material. This is really puzzling to me – because how do any combinations of the roll add up to the God-breathed PFAL class? It would be like claiming I could roll a 13 with one toss of real dice. Keep in mind the largest number I could roll is a 12 (each of the dice has numbers 1 through 6). Using probability calculations of my first post – or the extra credit hyperlink below on probability of rolling a 7 – the probability of any roll being the God-breathed PFAL class is 0 – it cannot happen.
~ ~ ~ ~
I recommend folks avoid the Victaw Casino. Remember the household of wierwille always wins. What does that mean? It does NOT mean that Victaw Casino will “win” every bet, just that return to player rates (RTPs see extra credit link below for online casino guide ) are set so that the household of wierwille will profit overall. While at first individual players may believe they’ve won something – household profits depend on loyal paying customers frequenting a thoroughly throughly absolutely completely exceedingly abundantly above redundantly rigged cult-casino because they get free Kool-Aid.
What happens at Victaw Casino doesn’t stay in Victaw Casino. It can spread by offshoots, wierwille-proselytizers and even linger as mental baggage. If you or someone you know has a gambling problem with wierwille/PFAL/TWI/offshoots/ wierwille-proselytizers , may I recommend Grease Spot Café.
~ ~ ~ ~
Extra credit section
The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona
This is a good book to see how historians and lawyers use probabilities, hostile witnesses, preponderance of evidence
= = = ==
The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the incorrect belief that, if a particular event occurs more frequently than normal during the past, it is less likely to happen in the future (or vice versa), when it has otherwise been established that the probability of such events does not depend on what has happened in the past. Such events, having the quality of historical independence, are referred to as statistically independent. The fallacy is commonly associated with gambling, where it may be believed, for example, that the next dice roll is more than usually likely to be six because there have recently been fewer than the expected number of sixes.
The term "Monte Carlo fallacy" originates from the best known example of the phenomenon, which occurred in the Monte Carlo Casino in 1913.
From: Wikipedia: Gambler’s fallacy
Math Answers - what's the probability of rolling a 7 with two dice?
online casinos - guide - the house always wins
Edited by T-Bone
come on, Grease Spot – daddy needs a new pair of shoes!
my editor is taking a huge gamble with this post
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
How does any of this matter for, to, or about anything?
Let's face it,
GSC has become a social media platform dominated by Mike and a small handful of people who somehow get their dopamine fix from asking him inane questions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.