Proof of Immortality III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Even then, all he'd have shown was that a positive result was possible. He wouldn't have shown why the result occurred.

He would have shown that his not-scientific hypothesis was more far more probable than his supposedly-scientific hypothesis. That's pretty much all science does.

But it is kind-of absurd to talk about the ramifications of an impossible experiment.
 
Last edited:
- I'm not a troll.
- You guys won't believe this, but it is what I believe makes me look like a troll.

- I'm more holistic than you and "perceive" (either actually see, or just imagine) the/a forest better than do you.
- You see the trees -- maybe, better than do I.
- Consequently, I often have to work pretty hard in order to make out the trees under my perceived forest. That's why it can take me a long time, and a lot of missed turns, trying to find and explain my logic.
- But, I'm not just jerkin your chain...
 
Last edited:
- I'm not a troll.
- You guys won't believe this, but it is what I believe makes me look like a troll.

- I'm more holistic than you and "perceive" (either actually see, or just imagine) the/a forest better than do you.
- You see the trees -- maybe, better than do I.
- Consequently, I often have to work pretty hard in order to make out the trees under my perceived forest. That's why it can take me a long time, and a lot of missed turns, trying to find and explain my logic.
- But, I'm not just jerkin your chain...
Translation: "I'm smarter than you. "
 
I'm not a troll.

Then stop behaving like one. You just keep circling through the same statements, ignoring all but what you perceive as the least critical of your critics. You display absolutely no interest in an actual discussion or debate.

I'm more holistic than you...

No.

And this veiled boastfulness is becoming tedious. I have addressed this argument from you at least twice before, and you ignored it both times. I see it's going to take a third time.

1. "Holistic" doesn't mean what you think it means.
2. You haven't demonstrated that you are a holistic thinker.
3. You haven't demonstrated that your critics are not holistic thinkers.
4. You haven't explained how holistic thinking solves your problem.
5. You have elected a mathematical approach, which is analytical and not holistic.

Naturally you'll keep pretending you didn't see this response, because it shows just how pathetic your excuses have become. You have not a single mathematical leg to stand on, so all you can resort to now is the most odious of special pleading.

You see the trees -- maybe, better than do I.

We see both the trees and the forest better than you. You've had ample opportunity to show us either forests or trees, but you can't do either one. You simply can't. So now your critics must endure endless rounds of you trying to save face rather than admit you can't do what you set out to do.

That's why it can take me a long time, and a lot of missed turns, trying to find and explain my logic.

Nonsense. Your logic is plainly wrong. You just try to dress it up using different forms of evasion. Do you really think your critics are so dense that they can't see you bouncing from one fringe reset to the next?

But, I'm not just jerkin your chain...

Yes, you really are. And it remains an insult that you think we can't see this. I have taught difficult subjects at the college level. I know what genuine interest looks like. I know what genuine confusion and difficulty with the material looks like. I've also been debating fringe theorists -- both on the Internet and in the larger public arena -- for nearly two decades. I know what evasion looks like. I know what feigned confusion looks like.

The jig is up, Jabba. The kindly old grandfatherly character doesn't play anymore. The beffuddled old intellectual character doesn't play anymore. You are not any different than any of the dozens upon dozens of fringe theorists who pretend they have some great intellect that has gone unappreciated their whole lives. You don't have one of those.

You have been shown your errors many times. Your utter unwillingness to face those issues, focusing instead on ham-fisted word games and fairly obvious evasion, tells your critics far more about you than any of these faux protests and pseudo-apologies.

Put up or shut up.
 
- I'm not a troll.
- You guys won't believe this, but it is what I believe makes me look like a troll.

- I'm more holistic than you and "perceive" (either actually see, or just imagine) the/a forest better than do you.

Is that it? Or are you making some unjustified assumptions about what you perceive without examining them?

Are you privileging your subjective viewpoint instead of trying to view things objectively?
 
Last edited:
I'm not a troll.

Maybe, maybe not. To be fair this isn't a distinction I worry about as much as most because for me on the level I argue at makes very little difference at the end of the day.

Your arguments are meaningless bunk with a transparent ulterior motive and an occasional sprinkling of pretentiousness. I care not of figuring out how married you are to them.

You guys won't believe this, but it is what I believe makes me look like a troll

What makes you look like a troll is a half decade of continued dishonest argumentatives. Do not attempt to split this hair.

I'm more holistic than you and "perceive" (either actually see, or just imagine) the/a forest better than do you.

Jabba there is not a brow high enough for the eye roll motion that is in my heart right now.

You see the trees -- maybe, better than do I.

Stop it. Just stop it. There's no forest. There's no trees. There's no metaphor. There's reality and you aren't facing it.

Consequently, I often have to work pretty hard in order to make out the trees under my perceived forest. That's why it can take me a long time, and a lot of missed turns, trying to find and explain my logic.

No. Stop it. You aren't that special. You aren't that unique. You haven't invented some entirely new and unique way of looking at the world, to say nothing of one so complicated it would take you five years to fail at explaining it to us simpletons.

But, I'm not just jerkin your chain...

And yes you are and you know it. What I don't think you do know is to what degree you are also jerking your own.
 
Last edited:
- I'm not a troll.
- You guys won't believe this, but it is what I believe makes me look like a troll.

- I'm more holistic than you and "perceive" (either actually see, or just imagine) the/a forest better than do you.
- You see the trees -- maybe, better than do I.
- Consequently, I often have to work pretty hard in order to make out the trees under my perceived forest. That's why it can take me a long time, and a lot of missed turns, trying to find and explain my logic.
- But, I'm not just jerkin your chain...


Then why did you post this, rather than addressing (or at least acknowledging) jt512's argument?
 
- I'm not a troll.
- You guys won't believe this, but it is what I believe makes me look like a troll.

- I'm more holistic than you and "perceive" (either actually see, or just imagine) the/a forest better than do you.
- You see the trees -- maybe, better than do I.
- Consequently, I often have to work pretty hard in order to make out the trees under my perceived forest. That's why it can take me a long time, and a lot of missed turns, trying to find and explain my logic.
- But, I'm not just jerkin your chain...

Does this mean you have abandoned your claim that you can essentially prove immortality by Bayes? After several years of having the claim eviscerated in every possible way, do you now, finally, understand that you have no leg to stand on either wrt immortality or statistics? And now all that's left is to insist that we simply do not see the "big picture"?

There is only one thing that you can do to gain yourself a modicum of respect here on this forum. And that would be to admit defeat, apologize for your behavior, and walk away before you make a bigger buffoon out of yourself.
 
Hmm..there's the holistic "I'm smarter than you" gambit. Doesn't that usually precede a reset?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
T--snip--
We see both the trees and the forest better than you.
--snip--
He sees neither trees nor forest. He sticks green toothpicks in styrofoam as part of a grade school science project and calls it a forest. When the adjudicator points out that it's okay to pretend that toothpicks are a forest but he should have remembered he was supposed to make a volcano, Jabba's response is "So I'm getting an A, right?"
 
He sees neither trees nor forest. He sticks green toothpicks in styrofoam as part of a grade school science project and calls it a forest. When the adjudicator points out that it's okay to pretend that toothpicks are a forest but he should have remembered he was supposed to make a volcano, Jabba's response is "So I'm getting an A, right?"

No, he says: "Do I understand that you say that forests are more likely than volcanoes?"

Hans
 
- Anyway, that is my opinion so far.

- I am not very objective (as hard as I try to be objective), and, I am swayed by my subjectivity. But you guys are also.
 
- Next.

- In effect, I'm claiming that we are all "special cases."
- If we're here, we're special cases.

- I think that we're too quick to assign an event to chance and luck, given the existing scientific hypothesis -- even though we generally accept that it's only an hypothesis.
- My claim has been that all we need in order to avoid that conclusion (H) is a reasonably possible alternative hypothesis under which the event is more likely (RPAH(eml)) than it is under the existing hypothesis. Once the RPAH is applied, we have cross-hairs on the target -- whereas before, we had only a straight line that crossed the target.
- I tried to apply that claim to our lottery issue, and found that in my effort to make this claim work, I had unwittingly made E a special case... Which poked a hole in my bucket.

- But now, I'm wondering if the hole was just an illusion -- after all, I have always claimed that this conclusion applies to all of us. Or, in other words, we must all be special cases -- in, that we currently exist...
- And in fact, each of us that does exist is much more likely to exist given ~H, than given H. IOW, the likelihoods of our current existences, given OOFLam and ~OOFLam, should all be appropriate entries into the Bayesian formula, and all yield the same results...

- I must admit that this sounds wrong -- but so far, I can't figure out why.

- Just as a reminder -- if we are in fact reincarnated, in order to account for so many of us now, and so few of us a long time ago, we need that we are all part of an infinitely divisible 'bucket' of consciousness -- and more than one of us was Napoleon in a previous life...

- So, say we had a lottery in which all of the winners turned out to be far-flung relatives of the controller of the lottery (say that happened 10 times, then the controller and winners disappeared). Wouldn't that be analogous to everyone who currently exists being a special case, and the likelihoods of each, given H and ~H, be appropriate entries into our formula?
- If this is not correct logic, hopefully I can figure it out before you guys do...
 
Last edited:
- If any of you want me to address more of your posts, try to make them as short as possible, and friendly. Just pretend that you respect me.
 
Last edited:
In Jabba's threads, everything precedes a reset.
Mojo,
- That often happens when new theories are proposed -- a problem in the theory is pointed out to the author who sees if they can come up with a reasonable reset. You don't think that my resets are reasonable, but I do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom