Mojo
Mostly harmless
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Proof of Immortality III
- Thread starter Humots
- Start date
- Status
*Head desk* Do you think God stays in heaven because he too is afraid of what he's created.
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Yay. Another non-response. Presumably, you will promise to be back "later", only later never happens. Funny that.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Stop trying to put the words in my mouth that let you continue the same pointless exercise in wheel-spinning you have for the past four years. Do not simply continue to state your claims over and over again. I will not play your games.
You said you thought you could prove immortality mathematically. You have presented the same argument, largely unchanged, for four years. You have been told by me and others specifically what is wrong with that argument. For four years you have done nothing but simply repeat the argument and feign befuddlement or obtuseness when refuted.
Quit stalling.
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
Do you even realize that you belie yourself?
Filippo Lippi
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2002
- Messages
- 5,554
Jabba's been back three times since midday yesterday, I bet he's posted loads of evidence.....
.... oh
.... oh
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
Evidence to support the idea that it's possible we're living in a dual universe - that's the last thing be promised.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
That was what he promised before putting words in my mouth so that he could pretend what's asked for now is the same nonsense he's been spewing for years.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Let's see, Jabba says he'll do something, then goes quiet for a couple of days. Time for a reset?
Last edited:
He doesn't even really have anything to reset from.
It will be the same stalling litany of more rules for how the discussion has to go before Jabba will start it, more begging us to agree with him on something, anything before he will start, more numbered lists of... nothing, more befuddled old grandpa that just can't keep up with the arguments he's making routine.
To beat the metaphor a bit the machine isn't constantly resetting so much as it can't get out of the bootup process.
Last edited:
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Jay,
- The links I provide below are rushed (My usual speed is missing due to my being on a short vacation.), and support my claims less directly than indirectly -- but, there are literally millions of such links that support my different claims (at least indirectly), you all can find them easily without my help and I think that a neutral audience/jury would disagree with your claims #1 and #2 above and below, anyway.
- So, after this, I'll move on to #3 -- which, I think is the only real issue here.
1. Bayesian statistics does not apply to my argument. 2. I have no evidence to support P(H) and P(~H).
2.1. As I said before, personally I think that there is a lot of evidence for immateriality and for life after death -- you guys just don't think that any of that is credible.
2.2. But then, all I’m asking for is a credibility of 1%!
2.3. And, I doubt that I need even that in order to make my case. I think that any ‘real’ number (I don’t think ‘real’ is the right word, but I don’t know what the correct word is -- and you guys should know what I mean anyway) as the prior probability of ~OOFLam should be sufficient -- as the likelihood of my current existence – given modern science (and OOFLam in particular) – is not a ‘real’ number.
2.4. Then, there’s NDEs, OOBEs, and claimed reincarnation. (Googling “Evidence for life after death,” I got over 9,000,000 hits.)
2.5. There’s evidence for all the different sub-categories under parapsychology. (Googling “Evidence for paranormal,” I got 670,000 hits.)
2.6. Most of us don’t remember most of our dreams – if we have had previous lifetimes, would we remember them?
2.7. For many of us (most of us?), consciousness would seem to be anything but physical – the prototype of non-physical -- and if somehow physical, is different than anything else we call physical.
2.8. Then,
2.8.1. We humans think in two different ways – analytically and holistically.
2.8.2. These appear to be the result of two cerebral hemispheres – one processing data analytically, while the other processes data holistically.
2.8.3. Each of us tends to be dominated by one or the other – men, especially.
2.8.4. It appears that what we call “transcendence” is perceived, or imagined, only by the holistic hemisphere.
2.8.5. In other words, either the analytic hemisphere is transcendence-blind, or the holistic hemisphere hallucinates.
2.8.6. Western schools teach mostly towards the analytic hemisphere.
2.8.7. People who do well in western schools tend to be dominated by their analytic hemispheres – especially those people most interested in science.
2.8.8. As they progress through school, they become more dominated by their analytic hemispheres.
2.8.9. This could be why so many scientists dismiss transcendence, and immateriality.
2.8.10. They could be right to do that; but, they could also be wrong…
2.9. Now, I’ll see what I can do towards supporting claims “2.4.” through “2.8.”
2.9.1. (2.4. NDEs, OOBEs and reincarnation claims)
2.9.1.1. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...-body-and-near-death-experiences-9780195.html
2.9.1.2. http://livingontheedge.org/broadcas...e-after-death-part-1/daily-radio#.V584DLgrK00
2.9.1.3. http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/german-scientists-prove-there-is-life-after-death/
2.9.1.4. http://www.16rounds.com/2009/01/evidence-for-reincarnation/
2.9.2. (2.5. different sub-categories under parapsychology)
2.9.2.1. http://whatculture.com/science/10-compelling-pieces-evidence-prove-ghosts-real
2.9.2.2. http://hplusmagazine.com/2010/11/04...eleases-powerful-new-evidence-human-mind-can/
2.9.2.3. http://www.spiritoday.com/telekinesis-psychokinesis/
2.9.3. (2.6. Most of us don’t remember most of our dreams.)
2.9.3.1. http://www.bustle.com/articles/7138...reams-5-questions-about-dream-recall-answered
2.9.3.2. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...esearchers-uncover-people-recall-morning.html
2.9.4. (2.7. Consciousness – the prototype of non-physical.)
2.9.4.1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness
2.9.4.2. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-superhuman-mind/201303/what-is-consciousness
2.9.5. (2.8. Analytic vs holistic thinking.)
2.9.5.1. http://www.intropsych.com/ch07_cognition/analytic_vs_holistic_thinking.html
2.9.5.2. http://www.slideshare.net/yaryalitsa/holistic-vs-analytical-thinking
I Am The Scum
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 5,942
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
In what way is it not a "real" number? It's a positive number, meaning it's greater than zero.
And none of that evidence is credible.
And if we didn't have past lives at all, we wouldn't remember past lives either.
You never did support your claim that consciousness seems nonphysical, or even explain what it means to seem nonphysical.
This is discredited 1970s nonsense.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
And are no more convincing now then when you tried this before. Wishful attribution is not proof.
Asked and answered. You keep accusing your critics of special bias, yet this is the venue you choose. Do not try to shame your critics away from disputing you.
I covered this at length in a previous post which you have obviously not read. Do not insult me by bringing up claims I have already refuted, unless it is to address the refutation.
No. You made up those "issues" and tried to cram them in my mouth so that you didn't have to change your argument or style. Please address the arguments I made, not the arguments you're desperately trying to pin on me.
Because it isn't, and the best you can come up with is "indirect." That's because you're just Gish-galloping a bunch of phenomena and attributing it to a soul. We don't think it's credible and we're telling you why it's not credible. Don't keep whining about your critics disputing you unless it is to address the actual reasons why they do.
Irrelevant. You're asking us to believe an attribution that is qualitatively unjustified. Do not beg your critics for the tiny number you already know you need to make your rigged equation seem to amplify it.
Equivocal weasel words. Your claim to be able to prove immortality mathematically requires the kinds of numbers upon which math works. Statistical inference -- which essentially cannot prove anything -- still requires ordinary numbers. Up until now you have been trying to provide ordinary numbers. I suspect you are now playing your standard word game to avoid having to admit you cannot.
Your feelings are irrelevant. You have proposed to prove immortality mathematically. That has nothing to do with how you feel or how you imagine any number of other people might feel.
Asked and answered. In fact, I discussed this also at length, and you also appear not to have read it. Do not insult me by bringing up arguments I have already refuted unless it is to address the refutation. And do not insult the rest of your critics by continuing to insist -- without evidence -- that you are somehow so much better or more suitable a thinker than they and that this is why your critics reject your arguments.
It seems you are quite unaware of what I have previously posted regarding your arguments today. It sounds like you have a lot of vacation reading to do before you're prepared to continue this debate. Do not post again until you have read my previous posts on the subjects I identified as having been covered already, and are prepared to summarize those posts for the class.
I Am The Scum
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 5,942
Let's just grant that any given Powerball ticket has a 1% chance of being a winner. I mean, come on! 1% is so tiny!
So if I take my next paycheck and blow it all on 500 lottery tickets, then I have a chance of winning that is greater than 99%. That's pretty high odds for millions of dollars! I can't lose!
So if I take my next paycheck and blow it all on 500 lottery tickets, then I have a chance of winning that is greater than 99%. That's pretty high odds for millions of dollars! I can't lose!
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
He can't make the math work, because everyone can see him pulling numbers out of his kiester. So now he's trying blatant pseudo-math. That's where you use a lot of mathy-sounding words but are really just begging the question. "C'mon guys! You feel that the probability of not-ooflammation or non-dog or whatever must be at least a little bit, and then it will be hoooooge when I run it through this mess I've made of Bayesian inference."
It's his failed Shroud of Turn argument all over again. "Here's a bunch of crap I've Googled up while on vacation. But if you guys don't accept it as evidence then you're just biased and overly analytical." I see "indirect" is rearing its ugly head again. He doesn't have any actual evidence for immortality or even dualism in general, but here's some "indirect" evidence for
But the nouveaux hippies still love it. It's the standard ploy among fringe theorists for dealing with any sort of uncomfortable fact, expertise, or their own lack of rational basis. And of course it has already been refuted, and very recently.
1. "Holistic" thinking means something else. What Jabba claims is "holistic" thinking doesn't exist.
2. Jabba provides no evidence that his critics are unable to think in the manner necessary to understand his claims.
3. Jabba provides no evidence that he is able to think competently in the manner necessary to understand his claims.
4. Jabba provides no evidence that the manner he prescribes is best suited to what he's trying to prove.
5. Jabba explicitly proffered a mathematical argument, which is necessarily analytical.
So today it boils down, as it always does, to Jabba's weak effort to convince people that his subjective feelings are a substitute for the proof he promised. His critics are under no obligation to accept a proof for a different conclusion than what was originally promised. Nor under any obligation to accept a different manner of proof than what was originally promised.
As I've said several times, Jabba really only has one argument. He just makes it about different things.
1. He states a belief in X.
2. He claims it can be proven.
3. He creates a false dilemma so he can cast aspersions and call it disproving the alternative.
4. He purports that Bayesian inference can resolve the dilemma by making the alternatives to his belief seem virtually impossible.
5. He makes up numbers for the model.
6. He tap-dances among the categories the number represents to avoid facing the false dilemma.
7. He alludes to qualitative evidence but provides only attribution and assumption.
8. He chides his critics for being too left-brained to accept his handwaving.
9. He complains that he would be better received elsewhere.
10. He avoids refutations by claiming he doesn't understand them or doesn't have time to read them.
11. He stalls by repeatedly restating his claims and asking for clarifications on others' posts.
12. He quotes his critics' posts and tries to "summarize" them by simply putting his words in their mouths so that he can...
13. ...repeatedly reset the argument and make it look like the reset was meant to address their challenges.
This here, this is why doves cry.
No it does not.
No you do not.
You haven't provided any evidence. Don't sit there and pretend we're being unreasonable.
No you are not. We are not stupid Jabba. We will not play your game. We aren't going to let you get a foot in the door just so you can pretend we all agree with you.
None of which are meaningful in the slightest.
Meaningless twaddle.
Meaningless twaddle.
Meaningless twaddle.
Oh Jesus Christ just talk like a human being. You aren't writing code. You don't have to make nested if/than statements.
- Status