$30k challenge to Interpreter’s “Team Bayes”

[MG 2.0]

What other religious leader of import was a savant? They would meet the clinical requirements?

Or was Joseph Smith one of a kind in this regard?

Regards,
MG

Without implying equality of degree...

Outside of Christianity:
Confucius
Zarathushtra Spitama
Siddhattha Gotama
Baháʼu'lláh

Within Christianity:
Augustin Gretillat
Charles Wesley

Outside of Religion proper though, there are a buttload (to use the very scientific latin term) of other philosophical and/or political savants that could easily be inserted into the realm of religious leader if some type of even casual spiritualism were inserted into their general ideology and teachings.

Hi Doctor Steuss,

I guess I would question whether there is such a thing as a religious mystic savant. How would one clinically diagnose this? Earlier I posted the wiki link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savant_syndrome

and have also looked elsewhere, and I’m not seeing anything that would lead me to think that a religious mystic is a savant by default. Savants are looked at as being gifted in other areas, but not in the realm of ‘revelatory’ inclinations/gifts. At least I think this to be the case.

The folks you’ve listed. Are they recognized by the medical community as being savants? Can you point to any literature written by professional psychology experts that call out certain religious leaders/practitioners as being in the class of humans we refer to as savants?

Would you be willing to bet that the production of the Book of Mormon was a result of a savant? Does Joseph Smith, his personality and character, cause you to think that he was a savant in the classical sense?

Regards,
MG

[Lem]

Kyler’s arrogance toward scientifically legitimate criticism is professionally immature. In essence it’s, “You say I am doing stuff wrong which means I must be doing something right.” This is not a serious person doing serious work.

I think he's been playing with the apologists for too long - anything is OK as long as you pwn the critics.

His recent comments to Billy Shears illustrate this completely. KR is incredibly dismissive of Shears as a person, and yet, doesn't quite manage to adress to technical points Shears brings up. I wonder what mopologist taught him that tactic!

[Doctor Steuss]

Hi Doctor Steuss,

I guess I would question whether there is such a thing as a religious mystic savant. How would one clinically diagnose this? Earlier I posted the wiki link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savant_syndrome

{...}

With your above (and the portion I snipped) response, I believe we are operating under a differing definition -- or at the very least, I am using a more gelatinous jiggly-wiggley pliable definition of the word. I (and I assume maybe Dr. Moore?) am using the term not in the modern clinical sense, but in the more general sense. Something along the lines of a focused polymath.

To circle back to complexity though, which I believe ties into this; it would be interesting to see this loosely Baysian approach applied to the Mahabharata, Paranas, Brahma Sutras, Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, and all other texts attributed to Vyasa.

If singular attributed authorship and complexity probability are viable metrics for evaluating the likelihood of miraculous assistance, I imagine in Vyasa’s texts, they’ll find a far superior religious tradition to convert to.

[MG 2.0]

MG seems to rely on outdated readings because he glosses over posts on this board and dismisses all of it as "tired, old stuff," seemingly unaware of where current apologetics stands on the complexity involved in defending Joseph's translation projects.

I will admit that most of the in-depth reading I’ve done in regards to the Book of Mormon translation has not been within the last five years or so. I got into it quite deeply in the nineties up through 2010-2015 or somewhere around there. During the years that Brant Gardner, Royal Skousen, Grant Hardy, Blake Ostler, Brett Metcalf, and those folks were publishing. Along with a LOT of the stuff found online up through 2015 or so. For the last few years, not as much. Just here and there. I’m pretty settled on where I come down on the Book of Mormon.

I have not seen or heard of any Book of Mormon translation theory that would cause me to think that it doesn’t meet the ‘smell test’ for being a product ultimately resulting from divine origin.

Including your proposition that Joseph was able to carry out this task of translation from start to finish as a result of his capabilities due to being a Savant.

Regards,
MG

[Lem]

Hi Doctor Steuss,

I guess I would question whether there is such a thing as a religious mystic savant. How would one clinically diagnose this? Earlier I posted the wiki link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savant_syndrome

{...}

With your above (and the portion I snipped) response, I believe we are operating under a differing definition -- or at the very least, I am using a more gelatinous jiggly-wiggley pliable definition of the word. I (and I assume maybe Dr. Moore?) am using the term...

Dr. Moore made a very casual reference to it, in the context of a post that was discussing the "Team Bayes" blog entries currently coming out of Rasmussen.

[Dr Moore]

With your above (and the portion I snipped) response, I believe we are operating under a differing definition -- or at the very least, I am using a more gelatinous jiggly-wiggley pliable definition of the word. I (and I assume maybe Dr. Moore?) am using the term...

Dr. Moore made a very casual reference to it, in the context of a post that was discussing the "Team Bayes" blog entries currently coming out of Rasmussen.

In my view, current scholarship on Joseph's translations have, in just the last 2-3 years, firmly established Joseph Smith's curiosity, literary range, incredible memory, and wonderfully imaginative mind. I wouldn't reduce it to one word, but savant does convey something about his abilities, insofar as a savant is someone who expresses talents well above socially-observed norms. Wikipedia has a collection of individuals who expressed as savants in a number of categories, ranging from poetry to sports to mathematics to art.

Say there are two equally gifted mathematics savants. One is born into poverty, grows up in a trailer park and peaks out as a store clerk who counts inventory for his grateful boss and does math tricks for friends as a drinking game on weekends. The other is born in a line of Princeton legacies, earns a PhD in theoretical mathematics by age 22, and goes on to win a Nobel prize. Both are equally gifted at birth, but expressed their gifts through the projection of their respective upbringings. As a result, the world regards one as a genius, the other as, well, nothing.

Discussing Joseph as a sort of savant isn't a thread derail in my mind. As I've said repeatedly, Joseph Smith is the single common, causal, correlated factor in Kyler's discrete Bayesian conditional analysis. You cannot un-correlate Joseph from himself, and for that reason Kyler's process fails the basic standard for probability multiplication. And is one reason (out of many) why his project is nothing but math porn for believers, and a waste of time for everyone.

[Lem]

Dr. Moore made a very casual reference to it, in the context of a post that was discussing the "Team Bayes" blog entries currently coming out of Rasmussen.

In my view, current scholarship on Joseph's translations have, in just the last 2-3 years, firmly established Joseph Smith's curiosity, literary range, incredible memory, and wonderfully imaginative mind. I wouldn't reduce it to one word, but savant does convey something about his abilities, insofar as a savant is someone who expresses talents well above socially-observed norms. Wikipedia has a collection of individuals who expressed as savants in a number of categories, ranging from poetry to sports to mathematics to art.

Say there are two equally gifted mathematics savants. One is born into poverty, grows up in a trailer park and peaks out as a store clerk who counts inventory for his grateful boss and does math tricks for friends as a drinking game on weekends. The other is born in a line of Princeton legacies, earns a PhD in theoretical mathematics by age 22, and goes on to win a Nobel prize. Both are equally gifted at birth, but expressed their gifts through the projection of their respective upbringings. As a result, the world regards one as a genius, the other as, well, nothing.

Discussing Joseph as a sort of savant isn't a thread derail in my mind. As I've said repeatedly, Joseph Smith is the single common, causal, correlated factor in Kyler's discrete Bayesian conditional analysis. You cannot un-correlate Joseph from himself, and for that reason Kyler's process fails the basic standard for probability multiplication. And is one reason (out of many) why his project is nothing but math porn for believers, and a waste of time for everyone.

I concede to the OP on the savant topic not being a derail. Billy Shears started a thread on episode 9, I'll take my statistical analyses there so the savant topic can proceed.

[MG 2.0]

[Dr. Rasmussen’s] project is nothing but math porn for believers, and a waste of time for everyone.

I don’t think so. I’m not doing much with all the Bayesian stuff. It’s above my pay grade. I’m simply interested in the topics he’s discussing and getting his input and point of view. Then I can weigh his opinions/findings on the balance of common sense and compare it with my own experience with thinking about and reasoning through these things.

Keeping it simple. Occam’s Razor works well for me.

I don’t get too hung up with all the analysis stuff.

Regards,
MG

[Lem]

...Something along the lines of a focused polymath.

To circle back to complexity though, which I believe ties into this; it would be interesting to see this loosely Baysian approach applied to the Mahabharata, Paranas, Brahma Sutras, Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, and all other texts attributed to Vyasa.

If singular attributed authorship and complexity probability are viable metrics for evaluating the likelihood of miraculous assistance, I imagine in Vyasa’s texts, they’ll find a far superior religious tradition to convert to.

Wouldn't that be something? This bayesian series really has opened the door to the supernatural assessment overall, if they're going to be honest about it. I recall reading Siddhartha while going back and forth on the subways in NYC when I was in school. It was complex and intriguing, and led me to consider what I agree with you is "a far superior religious tradition."

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Well, Dr. Rasmussen really opened my eyes to just how effective Bayesian analysis is when addressing thorny issues taught from the pulpit. I just ran ‘Quakers of a uniform size living on the moon’ through my Kylculator and wouldn’t you know it, the probability of the former living on the moon is about 99.999%.

- Doc