Oh the "Random out of context, out of nowhere jab against skepticism as a concept in a schoolyard 'Well you are too!' way"
Oh it's so adorable.
Proof of Immortality III
- Thread starter Humots
- Start date
- Status
Oh the "Random out of context, out of nowhere jab against skepticism as a concept in a schoolyard 'Well you are too!' way"
Oh it's so adorable.
caveman1917
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2015
- Messages
- 8,143
The arrogance of self-identified skeptics on this forum to believe they actually embody "skepticism as a concept". It's so adorable. Especially when they are under the bizarre impression that their own self-declared arrogance actually constitutes an argument.
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
Astonishingly wide brush you are tarring with...
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
- Anyway…
- Lately, I’ve just been trying to answer as many questions/comments as possible – but, that (like everything else) doesn’t seem to get anywhere…
- I need to claim again that I’m not here trying to be a thorn in the sides of a bunch of skeptics – I doubt that anyone can be truly objective, but that’s my real target. I wonder if anyone here believes me…
- Anyway, and again, as far as I can tell (to the extent that I can read my own mind), I feel pretty sure that my only questionable entry in the Bayesian formula is the likelihood of my particular current existence[/] as P(E|H). It’s easy to suspect that such is equivalent to concluding that the lottery must be rigged because somebody won it…
- So anyway, I’m going to try again to focus on that issue.
- As always, I’m cutting this short because I prefer to address as few issues as possible at a time.
- And, per usual, I’ll be back…
- Lately, I’ve just been trying to answer as many questions/comments as possible – but, that (like everything else) doesn’t seem to get anywhere…
- I need to claim again that I’m not here trying to be a thorn in the sides of a bunch of skeptics – I doubt that anyone can be truly objective, but that’s my real target. I wonder if anyone here believes me…
- Anyway, and again, as far as I can tell (to the extent that I can read my own mind), I feel pretty sure that my only questionable entry in the Bayesian formula is the likelihood of my particular current existence[/] as P(E|H). It’s easy to suspect that such is equivalent to concluding that the lottery must be rigged because somebody won it…
- So anyway, I’m going to try again to focus on that issue.
- As always, I’m cutting this short because I prefer to address as few issues as possible at a time.
- And, per usual, I’ll be back…
Last edited:
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
And when you do, would you be so kind as to clarify what exactly you mean by E and what exactly you mean by H?
At the very least, your E in P(E|H) appears different from your E in P(E|~H).
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
It should be clear why it doesn't get anywhere. Your "answers" simply repeat the claims. The questions are designed to show you the error in your argument. Restating the argument doesn't fix the error.
Why should anyone believe you? If memory serves, you told your Shroudie friends you were coming over here to give what-for to "those godless atheists" at ISF. If memory serves, you suggested the Randi prize was rigged. And more than once your "mathematical" argument devolves into telling your critics they just aren't as adept thinkers as you are.
At this point there's little question, based on your own admissions, that you are far too emotionally entrenched in your belief to participate in a reasoned argument about its veracity. You obviously can't make the math work -- Dr. Aldrin invented line-of-sight orbital rendezvous in half the time it has taken you to muddle around one simple conditional probability formula. So, having told us that you can't emotionally endure the possibility of your belief being wrong, you need some other reason why your proof isn't working. In your Shroud thread you also admitted failure, but then went on to insist that it was all your critics' fault for not agreeing that your speculation should be considered evidence. Why should we not draw the conclusion that your excuse in this thread is to be that your critics just aren't open-minded enough and just can't appreciate your special genius.
You're far too predictable, Jabba, and you haven't given anyone any reason to believe you're debating in good faith. In fact, the past four years have been a litany of evidence to the contrary, that even in this post you show absolutely no sign of abandoning. So stop begging for lenience; it's insulting.
And out comes the Befuddled Old Man character, shuffling across the stage to once again recite his tedius, homespun rhetoric for why he doesn't have to pay attention to all the many errors in his argument.
Many of your critics would find this discussion more productive if, instead of looking only in your own mind, you would pay attention to the very helpful rebuttals they give, which show in great detail and to great extend all the many things wrong with your proof. You say you have 2-3 hours daily to devote to this forum. That's certainly far longer than I have, and I daresay more than the average amount your critics can spare. You certainly have plenty of time to pay attention to your critcs and show that you're paying attention.
No, the errors in your argument compose an entire list of fatal flaws, practically none of which you care to address.
And once again you find some ham-fisted excuse to ramble on about whatever you want rather than dealing with the actual responses of your critics.
Your preference is irrelevant; stop being such a prima donna. You don't get to claim this debate is a "stalemate" when you admit to picking and choosing what to answer. What happened to those 2-3 hours a day you said you typically devote to this forum? This post took me all of 15 minutes to write, and I was eating breakfast at the same time.
Instead of just doubling down on being insulting, why don't you provide a few detailed examples of the behavior you find so arrogant? If it were as you say it should shut your critics up. As it stands you can be dismissed as just name calling your way through this. Prove them wrong.
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
Before you start recalculating the odds that you exist, please remember that you first need to define "you."
The shambling mess called Loss Leader is a trillion cells from several different species. As I was born quote young, 96% of me didn't exist at all in the beginning. Furthermore, though I have some of his memories, I am not the "person" Loss Leader was at age 4.
The odds of my existing as I am now were very low at the moment of my birth. Yet billions of people do grow up, awash in low-odds events.
If you don't fix your definition of "you" then everything else is borked.
Last edited:
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
js,
- E is the current existence of my "self." H is the scientific hypothesis that each of us humans has only one finite life at most. ~H is simply that H is wrong.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
And as soon as you define "self" you can use it.
And as soon as you fix all the problems with that composite hypothesis, you can use it.
Have you learned nothing?
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
If H is the scientific hypothesis then your self is your physical body, and we're back to Mount Rainier.
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
Which one includes the clockwork universe? H or ~H?
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Note that Jabba has redefined E. Previously E was Jabba's current existence, which obviously requires his body. Now it us the current existence of his "self". Now obviously if his "self" exists throughout eternity then the likelihood of it existing at a particular time is one, while if it only exists for around 80 gears true probabity of it existing at a randomly chosen time is small. But this has nothing to do with the relative probability of the two hypotheses. Quite apart from anything else that pesky Texan is still pretending to be a sharpshooter. If Jabba is framing hypotheses and wondering how a new piece of information will affect their likelihood, the probability that he exists is one, we know he exists, and his existence is not a new piece of information.
Last edited:
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Is there such a "scientific hypothesis"? A finite lifetime is implied by materialism, but has it ever been proposed as a testable hypothesis?
Mojo
Mostly harmless
And you are back to the problem that your ~H now includes all hypotheses under which each of us has a finite lifetime other than the "scientific" one.
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
In addition to all the issues others have raised, Jabba, please bear in mind that the so-called scientific hypothesis does not exclude a soul (or other equivalent) from the possibilities under H.
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
I started typing but this is all insane.
There's no definition of "soul" or "self." There's no evidence for either. There's no clear distinction between the hypothesis and its negative. The possible universes in either the hypothesis or its negative have not been thoroughly sorted. There is no way to calculate the odds of any of them being the case. There is no reason to focus on the creation of one specific person, unless that person was defined before any universe even began. There is no reason anything other than a "person" would be subject to different odds. Nothing is testable. And even if the idea that people are immortal were true, it gives us no usable information as to how we conduct our lives.
There's no definition of "soul" or "self." There's no evidence for either. There's no clear distinction between the hypothesis and its negative. The possible universes in either the hypothesis or its negative have not been thoroughly sorted. There is no way to calculate the odds of any of them being the case. There is no reason to focus on the creation of one specific person, unless that person was defined before any universe even began. There is no reason anything other than a "person" would be subject to different odds. Nothing is testable. And even if the idea that people are immortal were true, it gives us no usable information as to how we conduct our lives.
caveman1917
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2015
- Messages
- 8,143
I'm not insulting, I'm counter-insulting.
I just did, I even quoted it again and highlighted it, see my previous post. Why do you think those highlights are there?
I said something negative about a group of people who are defined by being users of this forum and self-identifying as "skeptic". The immediate response was that I said something negative about skepticism as a concept. In order for this to hold, JoeBentley must hold that said group of people are a perfect personification of the concept of skepticism. If that's not arrogance, then I don't know what is.
Who are my critics? The only one that responded was JoeBentley and that didn't even come close to an argument. And why should they shut up? As far as I can see they haven't even said anything yet.
Given that I have to explain to you for the second time why something is arrogant I'm not going to care very much about being dismissed by you.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
LL,
- "Me" (you?) is the thing, process or illusion that I call my "self."
- From Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self:
The self is the subject of one's own experience of phenomena: perception, emotions, thoughts. In phenomenology, it is conceived as what experiences, and there isn't any experiencing without an experiencer, the self. The self is therefore an "immediate given", an intrinsic dimension of the fact of experiencing phenomena. In some other trends of philosophy, the self is instead seen as requiring a reflexive perception of oneself, the individual person, meaning the self in such a view is an object of consciousness.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Dave,
H is OOFLam, which basically implies that the self is entirely physical.
- And, we are, indeed, at least close to Mt Rainier again. I think that your MT Rainier issue is much the same issue as my P(E|H) issue -- if the likelihood of my existence is an appropriate entry for P(E|H) in the posterior evaluation of OOFLam, the likelihood of Mt Rainier should be an appropriate entry for P(E|H) in the posterior evaluation of the scientific model.
- Status