Filippo Lippi
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2002
- Messages
- 5,554
It is the epitome of 45 years of Effective Debate
-
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, the IV league
- Thread starter Mojo
- Start date
- Status
It is the epitome of 45 years of Effective Debate
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
Very eloquent. And false. The anecdotes provide evidence that the perception actually happens, but they offer us no way of distinguishing between hypotheses of WHY it happens.
Hans
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
LL,
- I just think you're wrong about anecdotes, somebody here should agree with me and I hadn't noticed (or, remembered?) anything from Hans or Dave. I was hoping...
Belz...
Fiend God
You've been trying to get people to agree with you for ages now. Has it not yet occured to you that they won't because the evidence and the logic simply do not support your case?
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
I replied. The anecdotes of Near Death Experiences and Out of Body Experiences you linked to are not useful in evaluating any scientific hypotheses.
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
In a more effective debate you might offer an argument.
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
He isn't, and you aren't willing to entertain the reasons why he's not wrong, nor the reasons put forward helpfully by all the other people who are not wrong. That's the important part: your utter, bewildering, selfish, and rude unwillingness to discuss the reasons.
But why? Not why someone should agree with you, but what is the reason for their agreement? You don't want to talk about reasons. You just want to continue groping, pleading, groveling for some sense of personal validation in the form of token agreements. You just want to hear the applause. You don't care that you had to do the intellectual equivalent of violating a pig in order to get it.
Your hope has consumed you. You are not approaching your proof rationally. I set out several times a year to do something I think can be done, and which turns out requires more than I know, more than I'm willing to commit, or simply cannot be done. The essence of reason is to walk away from them and stop wallowing in the sunken-cost fallacy.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Both replied to you. You are demonstrably not reading the thread nor any replies or rebuttals.
Both stated you were spouting utter bollocks.
This is most dishonest behaviour, Jabba.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Deleted - misread timeline.
Last edited:
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
...and c) remembering that he specifically solicited opinions from those two and should have carefully looked for them.
He hasn't been competent for some time. He keeps citing his alleged frailty and lack of available time as reasons for failing to address rebuttals against him. Those are not excuses; they merely attempt to curry sympathy. I take it rather that he admits he cannot pursue a competent proof and is simply looking to excuse his failure.
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
You haven't provided any evidence that unscientifically gatheted anecdotes have evidentiary value. You can think whatever you want, but you can't build a case around such belief because it isn't true.
You are now begging for others to offer some sort of vague agreement. But you chose me to correspond with. It seems unsporting for you to go shopping for another debate partner because you don't like losing.
But you haven't lost. You've won. You subjected your ideas to the crucible of rational, scientific and logical thought. Very, very few people bother to try such a thing. If they did, there would be no Mormons, "diet" water, or Donald Trump.
You should be congratulated for educating yourself.
Last edited:
CriticalThanking
Designated Hitter
Jabba, if you purely want someone to agree with you without giving a reason, why are you posting here? You can go to most any forum and get at least one person to say "yes". The more people, the more likely the number will grow.
If your goal is to learn, whether science or how to debate effectively - not "effective debate(tm) - you will either substantively answer objections or take the objections on board. You have had a tremendous number of people patiently explain their reasoning and the science as best they understand. As Loss Leader eloquently stated, many here will gladly change their opinions given falsifiable, repeatable evidence.
CT
[ETA] Ninja'd and bettered by LL, as usual
If your goal is to learn, whether science or how to debate effectively - not "effective debate(tm) - you will either substantively answer objections or take the objections on board. You have had a tremendous number of people patiently explain their reasoning and the science as best they understand. As Loss Leader eloquently stated, many here will gladly change their opinions given falsifiable, repeatable evidence.
CT
[ETA] Ninja'd and bettered by LL, as usual
Last edited:
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
LL,
- Thanks for the congratulations anyway...
- But, I'm 99% sure that I'm right about the potential value of anecdotes such as those found in the book I'm reading (The Self Does Not Die) -- they can increase, or decrease, the prior probability of a scientific hypothesis. (Keep in mind that I'm referring to Bayesian probability rather than frequentist probability.)
- Feeling so sure that I'm right about this, I keep thinking that there has to be supporters hiding in the bushes out there. Where are caveman1917 and jt512 when I need them?
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Why do you think you are right? What is the reasoning behind your certainty?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Then how do you explain your inability to address the reasons given by others why you are not right? You've even taken the disgraceful step of quoting me elsewhere, without additional comment, after ignoring me for weeks. How selfish of you to co-opt my contribution to this thread for what you think will be advantage to you.
Rather than simply insist that you must be right, please give reasons why you are right.
Have you forgotten that neither of those posters agree with the validity your proof?
This post pretty much nails the coffin lid shut on the notion that you are interested in an actual debate. You simply want fans. You want people to cheer for you, not help you overcome your errors.
Belz...
Fiend God
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
Do you think anecdotes such as the ones in the book Abduction: Human Encounters with Aliens can increase or decrease the prior probabilities of scientific hypotheses about extra terrestrial life?
Do you understand that anyone can write a book that says anything they want?
But but but!
Jabba, if you're only 99% sure, that leaves 1% unsure! If there's a 1% chance, then you may not be sure at all!
Think of the implications! Apply your own reasoning (BTW, you could get a patent on your kind of reasoning; surely nobody else ever thought of it) and you'll see that you're completely unsure! OMG!
Me, I'm 100% sure that you know, and not very deep down, that you're not immortal, and that, like all of us, you were born to die.
When you plead age and weakness, I for one believe you. Fear is exhausting, and a lifetime of it must be debilitating.
Ignore this if you like.
Jabba, if you're only 99% sure, that leaves 1% unsure! If there's a 1% chance, then you may not be sure at all!
Think of the implications! Apply your own reasoning (BTW, you could get a patent on your kind of reasoning; surely nobody else ever thought of it) and you'll see that you're completely unsure! OMG!
Me, I'm 100% sure that you know, and not very deep down, that you're not immortal, and that, like all of us, you were born to die.
When you plead age and weakness, I for one believe you. Fear is exhausting, and a lifetime of it must be debilitating.
Ignore this if you like.
CriticalThanking
Designated Hitter
Let's see... a 1% chance you are wrong. Looking at it in Bassian statistics (a more funky kind of groove), there is one way you can be right - an immortal soul. There are an infinite number of ways you can be wrong. So 1/inf implies no chance of being right. Sorry, Jabba.
- Status