Proof of Immortality III

[JayUtah]

But then, no one has even talked about this idea (except toontown) (that I can find)...

Hogwash. You didn't originate the notion of being special because of some supposedly improbable chain of events. Most of Creationism is based on a false dilemma against exactly that straw man. Toontown even posted a link to an author who makes nearly exactly the same argument you do.

Again, when do we start getting suspicious...

You start getting suspicious before you even do the numbers. You start with the belief that you have a soul, and you're trying to cobble up a backfill argument out of statistics to pretend there's some intellectual reason to be suspicious, not just religious angst. Only you can't make the statistics work and you're apparently too emotionally invested in it to admit that.

 

[JayUtah]

It would appear that we humans have two different ways of processing data -- analytically and holistically.

NO

I've refuted this four times and you've ignored all four times. If you're going to insult people by claiming they just aren't capable of thinking as well as you do, then at least do your critics the courtesy of paying attention to the thinking they did.

 

[Loss Leader]

Again, when do we start getting suspicious -- that there is more here than meets the reductive materialistic eye?

I would start getting suspicious when the system produces any result other than what we expect - life somewhere at some time at some level of complexity is not an unexpected result.

As for your solipsism, please note that it runs in contradiction to you model. Your entire Bayes nonsense relies on the universe actually existing. So, choose one or the other.

 

[Pixel42]

Hogwash. You didn't originate the notion of being special because of some supposedly improbable chain of events.

I've always suspected Jabba got the idea from the last verse of Monty Python 's Galaxy Song:

Just remember when you're feeling very small and insecure
How amazingly unlikely is your birth
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere out in space
Because there's bugger all down here on earth

 

[JayUtah]

I've always suspected Jabba got the idea from the last verse of Monty Python 's Galaxy Song:

Just remember when you're feeling very small and insecure
How amazingly unlikely is your birth
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere out in space
Because there's bugger all down here on earth

Can I have his liver, then?

 

[sackett]

But can you believe all these things before breakfast?

I think you've got your answer.

 

[HighRiser]

Jay,

- Yes. You would think so…

- But then, no one has even talked about this idea (except toontown) (that I can find), and (obviously, to me) it sure seems worth thinking and talking about…
- First you have the anthropic principle – interesting coincidences.
- Then, you have that I have come into existence – lots of coincidences.
- Then, now happens to be between 1942 and, say, 2042 – amazing coincident.
- If we accept determinism and the anthropic principle, not only did our universe have the right content for life and intelligence, it also had to have the right content for me, and for now being between 1942 and 2042…
- When do we start getting suspicious?

- Then, whatever I am, I’m the only TPI (thing, process or illusion) that I know exists -- everything else could be my imagination..
- And, without me existing, there might as well be nothing.
- And, without me ever existing, there might as well never be anything.
- We take ourselves totally for granted; but, we must be the very last TPI we should take for granted.
- Did I have to exist?
- Then, there’s the uncertainty principle and the observer's role in quantum mechanics.
- And besides, nothing really makes sense. If there were nothing, now that would make sense!
- And, it goes on...

- Again, when do we start getting suspicious -- that there is more here than meets the reductive materialistic eye?

Solipsism is still useless navel-gazing and irrational beliefs are still irrational.

What you seem to be calling holistic thinking could be more rightly called willful ignorance.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It would appear that we humans have two different ways of processing data -- analytically and holistically.

This is functionally identical to saying "It would appear that we humans have two different ways of processing data -- with evidence and reason and by making stuff up."

It would appear that the beliefs I proposed come through holistic thinking, and if a person is too analytic, he or she will not be able to appreciate (or, imagine) these beliefs.

Jabba you literally pretty much just said "My ideas don't work if you actually think about them."

And finally, it would appear that you guys are just too analytic in order to easily appreciate -- or imagine -- such beliefs.

Jabba I get that at this point trying to find some way to demonize the concept of... thinking is pretty much the only avenue you have left but seriously think about that for a moment.

You are saying nothing that isn't reducible to "I'm better then the rest of you because I just make crap up at random while you people actually 'think' about stuff and use evidence and reason."

Woo Slingers trying to find some way to turn "Knowing what you are talking about" into a sin got old a while ago.

 

[godless dave]

LL,

- They do bring me comfort.

- I've said all this before -- but it still applies.
- It would appear that we humans have two different ways of processing data -- analytically and holistically.
- It would appear that the beliefs I proposed come through holistic thinking, and if a person is too analytic, he or she will not be able to appreciate (or, imagine) these beliefs.
- It would appear that either analytic thinking is transcendence blind, or holistic thinking hallucinates.
- And finally, it would appear that you guys are just too analytic in order to easily appreciate -- or imagine -- such beliefs.

I have no problem imagining such beliefs. I just don't think they're true.

Originally you stated you could demonstrate that one of those beliefs was likely to be true. Over the four year course of the discussion, it's become clear that your demonstration of immortality being likely to be true depends on the existence of souls being true, and even then it depends on arbitrary probabilities for various scenarios that you haven't justified. Since I don't believe in souls at all, an argument that depends on their existence is not going to persuade me.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Jabba this isn't a discussion about what we want to be true.

You made a direct claim that you could prove something mathematically and have spent literally years dancing around it, avoid talking about while never dropping your claim trying to find a way to sneak it in under our radars.

We're not the bad guys for not playing your game.

 

[Pixel42]

Jabba still thinks he has had a great insight which none of us are understanding, therefore we must be missing something which he alone can see. In fact we understand it perfectly, and we also understand that his "great insight" is based on a fundamental mistake which he alone can't see. He is the one who is missing something, but he is so emotionally invested in the belief his mistake allows him to maintain that he will never see it.

 

[Mojo]

LL,

- They do bring me comfort.

- I've said all this before -- but it still applies.
- It would appear that we humans have two different ways of processing data -- analytically and holistically.
- It would appear that the beliefs I proposed come through holistic thinking, and if a person is too analytic, he or she will not be able to appreciate (or, imagine) these beliefs.
- It would appear that either analytic thinking is transcendence blind, or holistic thinking hallucinates.
- And finally, it would appear that you guys are just too analytic in order to easily appreciate -- or imagine -- such beliefs.

For "holistic" read "wishful".

 

[JoeMorgue]

Jabba still thinks he has had a great insight which none of us are understanding, therefore we must be missing something which he alone can see. In fact we understand it perfectly, and we also understand that his "great insight" is based on a fundamental mistake which he alone can't see. He is the one who is missing something, but he is so emotionally invested in the belief his mistake allows him to maintain that he will never see it.

Yeah but even that isn't exactly unique to Jabba. We've seen Woo Slingers do the whole "I'm just sooooo much more enlightened than you" routine countless times on this board and even the craziest of the crazy never took it to this level.

We've reached the point where "No you don't have some magical special way of looking at the universe" is something he should have gotten through skull by now.

For "holistic" read "wishful".

I've never heard a workable definition of "holistic thinking" that was functionally different from wishful thinking.

 

[Loss Leader]

I've never heard a workable definition of "holistic thinking" that was functionally different from wishful thinking.

It has a definition in medicine where a team of specialists all cooperate in diagnosing and treating a patient.

But that's not the use of the word here.

 

[godless dave]

For "holistic" read "wishful".

Jabba seems to be using it to mean "fallacious thinking". This post is nothing but an argument from incredulity paired with the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. Apparently fallacies only matter to us analytical types.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The amount of effort Woo Slingers put into trying to find some magic code word for some special magical type of different thinking that makes unsupported made up nonsense equal to... well not making up unsupported nonsense is very telling.

 

[JayUtah]

It honestly doesn't matter what name he comes up with for the magical froofy style of thinking he says is necessary to comprehend his claim. He has specifically contrasted it with the "analytical" thinking he says we do around here. The problem is that he's attempting a mathematical proof. It doesn't get more analytical than that. If he says we have to adopt a markedly different form of thinking in order to understand his argument, that pretty much admits he can't use mathematics. So he can tap dance all he wants about his magical thinking. The more he advocates it, the farther he gets away from the mathematics he said he had. And more importantly, the closer he gets to the sort of wishy-washy nonsense he knows won't appeal to skeptcs, and which he was specifically trying to eschew by invoking math.

 

[sackett]

Jabba sez

"… (obviously…me) …you have the anthropic principle …Then … I have … existence … between 1942 and… amazing….
- …our universe have the right content for … me, and for … 2042…we start … suspicious?
- Then … without me … there …never be anything.
- … totally … I have to exist…
- Then, there’s … quantum….
- And besides, nothing really…. If … it goes on … we start getting … more … meets the reductive materialistic…?
…bring me comfort… it still applies… holistic thinking hallucinates …you guys are just too transcendence blind…no one has even talked about … toontown…that I can find …"


An array of second-hand flapdoodle that was old stuff when Jabba 'n me were kids.

But, you know, it's a more honest outcry than his crank math and logic. Those of us who are doing an increasing number of things for the last time can afford to be honest -- really, it's fitting and decent for us to approach mortality unshielded and without pretense.

 

[Thor 2]

LL,

- They do bring me comfort.

- I've said all this before -- but it still applies.
- It would appear that we humans have two different ways of processing data -- analytically and holistically.
- It would appear that the beliefs I proposed come through holistic thinking, and if a person is too analytic, he or she will not be able to appreciate (or, imagine) these beliefs.
- It would appear that either analytic thinking is transcendence blind, or holistic thinking hallucinates.
- And finally, it would appear that you guys are just too analytic in order to easily appreciate -- or imagine -- such beliefs.

Well Jabba, as you are gifted with this ability to think "holistically" when do you turn it on and off.

I mean, if you were designing an aircraft for example, would you throw in a bit of holistic thinking to keep the maths simple. I don't think I would like to fly in it if so.

 

[caveman1917]

And more importantly, the closer he gets to the sort of wishy-washy nonsense he knows won't appeal to skeptcs, and which he was specifically trying to eschew by invoking math.

I've found wishy-washy nonsense to be quite appealing to skeptics. In fact, I don't think I know even one user on this forum who self-identifies as "skeptic" yet whom I have not seen at least once being engaged in talking about wishy-washy nonsense in a manner that was obviously appealing to said user.