For now, here’s what I think.
1. We take our selves, our consciousnesses, totally for granted.
Some do and some do not. Your gross generalisation fails.
2. When, in truth, we are the very last things (or processes) we should take for granted.
Restatement of point one. Useless.
3. This idea seems impossible to communicate effectively…
Nope. You are unable to communicate what you intend. There is a difference in there.
4. We simply shouldn’t be here; yet we take ourselves totally for granted.
Why should we not be here? You have never explained why not.
5. Where in the hell did we come from?
Primordial soup. There is no deity.
Wait. You can't figure it out therefore nobody else can? Is that you claim du jour?
7. Either there has always been something, or at one time there was nothing.
So what? Neither supports your deity of choice. Why you think it might is anyone's guess.
8. That at one time there was nothing certainly doesn't make sense.
So you claim. Prove it
9. However, that there has always been something doesn't make sense either…
Then your deity of choice is out the window and thrown under the bus.
10. And, that sometime there will be nothing, also doesn’t make sense.
Why? Demonstrate that at some point in the future there will not be nothing. You cannot.
11. My best guess is that time is infinite – that there has always been something, and will always be something.
Wild guesses are utterly useless.
12. But then, that’s a pretty weak guess, and maybe a better guess is that my parameters are somehow wrong to begin with.
That has already been established.
13. How about multiverses?
What about them?
14. But still, one way or another, infinity seems to make the most sense.
Not demonstrated. It is simply crap you made up
15. As does there being an infinity of potential selves, awarenesses or consciousnesses.
Already demonstrated to be false.
16. And if so, the likelihood of my current existence, and the posterior probability of OOFLam must both be virtually zero.
Already demonstrated to be false.
17. And then, I am the only thing (or process) that I know for sure actually exists!
Really? Jump off a tall building and tell us all how it worked out for you afterwards.
18. I don’t think that I’m the only thing (or process) that exists – unless, we are (somehow) all the same.
19. This isn’t solipsism – it’s the truth.
Nope that is outright solipsism.
20. But then, the likelihood of me currently existing – given OOFLam – is one/∞, or virtually zero!
Already demonstrated to be false.
21. Now, this doesn’t mean that OOFLam is necessarily wrong -- unless I’m a legitimate target, it only means that the likelihood of me currently existing – given OOFLam – is one/∞, or virtually zero!
Texas sharpshooter again. Stop it.
22. If I didn’t currently exist, it would be as if there were nothing!
Nope. It would be as if YOU never existed. Everyone else would continue on as normal.
23. If I never existed, it would be as if there were(?) never anything...
Mostly, we wouldn't care and would simply get on with our lives as normal if you never existed. You seem to have an inflated notion of your own existence. It isn't real.
24. This is what I mean by “target meaningfulness.”
Nope. What you really mean is that you consider yourself to be some fashion of special snowflake and that you consider all of the rest of us to be figments of your solipsist imaginings.
25. There are different shades of target -- some targets are much more obvious than are others.
Agreed. You are an obvious target.
26. I’m claiming that targets don’t require red and white circles, that you and I make for real targets, that Mt Rainier is impressive, but Mt Rainier is not nearly as meaningful as are we.
What a load. You have already taken the solipsist path. None of the rest of us even exist.
27. My importance and likelihood, together, are really coincidental and impressive.
You are not coincidental (except trivially). You are not impressive. You are not important. None of us are. You might just as well be claiming to be jesus.
28. I suspect that the posterior probability of an hypothesis that claims the likelihood of an occurring event to be virtually zero should be considered probably wrong…
Why? We already know that you are utterly wrong. There well may be other levels of wrong in your claims, but once your basic claims have been demonstrated to be devoid of any foundation, why should anyone waste the time to travel down that road?
29. I suspect that modern science is well off the mark, and at some point we'll figure that what is now considered modern science will be compared to the science before Copernicus.
The Gallileo appeal by covert means. No. Ain't going to happen.
30. That’s all I can think of for now.
Let me get this straight. All you can think of is the litany of failed arguments you have presented for years and ignore the copious rebuttals presented at every step. You are stating that this is the best you can do? Is that correct?
