Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

[JayUtah]

Though, I don't really expect to reach the truth here.

The truth has been reached. You simply don't want to face it. You admitted you lost, but still think you're right. And you all but told us nothing could make you abandon your belief.

So much of what I face here is insulting.

No. The forum has a mechanism for dealing with posts that are truly insulting, or even merely over personalized. It has operated in your thread, and the overwhelming majority of the posts have passed muster.

And insults do not foster an open mind.

Vaguely accusing your critics of closed-mindedness does not solve the problem that your argument is riddled with error. The vast majority of posts put to you do nothing more than expose that error and attempt to hold you accountable for it.

Then I'm told that by trying to ignore the insults, I'm the one who's being rude.

Because what you are proposing to ignore is objectively not insulting. You're simply calling it that as an excuse not to be responsible for it.

Do you realize how non-objective we humans are?

I know how non-objective you have several times admitted you are. You have berated your critics for their supposed "bias" but the fact remains that your argument is simply in error -- mathematically, logically, and factually.

And 95% of the participants here are dedicated materialists.

Irrelevant. You chose the venue knowing exactly who your audience would be.

And as always, I only have so much time, and I'm slow anyway...

And you spend so much of your precious time trying to blame your critics for your own failure.

 

[Belz...]

Argumemnon,
- Can you give me an example?

Sure, here's one:

Dave,
- The following was my understanding of what you had accepted after our preceding discussion. Where was I mistaken?

1. There must be an infinite number of potential, different, personal identities (Human). 2. Personal identities are not physically reducible or re-creatible. 3. The likelihood of their current existence, therefor, can be treated as random. 4. The likelihood of the current existence of your personal identity is therefor analogous to you winning the lottery. 5. There are about 7 billion current examples of personal, human, identities.6. And the likelihood of the current existence of your personal identity is therefor about 7 billion over infinity.

Dave responded:

2, 3, 4, 5, and in 1 "different" means "separate", not "unique".

You also tend to deliberately misrepresent other people's conclusions, like here:

- So, we have no idea who will come out. "Who" is random.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

What insults jabba? Please, quote an insult and I'll report it for you.

 

[Belz...]

- Though, I don't really expect to reach the truth here.

Ignoring the truth is a great way to avoid reaching it.

- So much of what I face here is insulting.

I think you meant to say "unpleasant". That's not the same thing.

- Do you realize how non-objective we humans are?

And yet we managed to send people to the moon because we were able to put emotion aside to reach goals. IF truth is the thing you really want here, you can do the same and reach the uncomfortable conclusion.

- And as always, I only have so much time, and I'm slow anyway...

Then stop wasting time telling us that you're slow, repeating the same stuff over and over, misrepresenting your opponents, and avoiding the obvious conclusion. If your time is short, it's not worth hanging on to outdated beliefs.

 

[jond]

Jabba, when you are not open minded enough to acknowledge that you might be wrong, you are in no position to argue that the other side is close minded. Further, any insulting posts happen when you repeatedly ignore arguments that you know you can't win, then do a fringe reset as though no one had ever dealt with all of this before. The rest of us find this behavior incredibly insulting.

 

[JayUtah]

"Too insulting" is just the latest in a long string of incompatible excuses Jabba has given for deliberately avoiding posts he can't cope with. Other candidates have included "too long," "too complicated," "too uncomfortable," and "I don't have time to read everything."

 

[Mojo]

"Too insulting" is just the latest in a long string of incompatible excuses Jabba has given for deliberately avoiding posts he can't cope with. Other candidates have included "too long," "too complicated," "too uncomfortable," and "I don't have time to read everything."

Don't forget "not friendly enough".

 

[MRC_Hans]

Some sentient organism. Not one specific sentient organism. This is your blind spot. You fail to distinguish between the general and the specific. You argue as if the prior probability of your specific existence is equal to the probability of some random sentient organism existing somewhere in some random universe.

*snip*

No, this is Jabba's argument. Jabba wants to count every "potential self" (which under H = potential sentient being) from the BB to now, including offspring of people separated thousands of years in time.

So this is Jabba's construct, and its obvious consequence is that each and every one of those potential beings might wonder (and probably often did) "Why and how am I here?".

Nobody (except possibly Jabba, although this was never clear) argues the prior probability of any specific being. It is always "what is the probability of your existence?", a question that presumes that you do in fact exist (because otherwise the question makes no sense).

Hans

 

[Mojo]

Mojo,
- What you guys mean by "putting words in your mouth is when I ask you, "Is this what you mean?"

Do you really want me to go back and link to you saying that someone has agreed to something when they clearly haven't?

 

[Jabba]

- Anyway, what I'd like to do is develop a debate map analogous to an Internet map of the U.S. -- providing the ability to "zoom in" (on the many different sub-issues, in such a situation).
- I hope to provide the most critical issues and sub-issues first -- e.g. the Texas sharp shooter issue, number of potential selves issue, etc. I could use your help in that regard.
- What I want to do is probably impossible (for me), but I bet that if someone who really understood the computer and the Internet would attack the problem, they could solve it. I would like to make it in diagram form -- like a Venn Diagram or an algorithm (hopefully my terminology is appropriate).
- If I can actually get the blog going, you will be able to post your own comments. And theoretically, I won't even moderate your comments. If I can get a few neutrals in the audience, they can judge emotionality and objectivity for themselves.
- That's it for now.

 

[Hokulele]

- I hope to provide the most critical issues and sub-issues first -- e.g. the Texas sharp shooter issue, number of potential selves issue, etc. I could use your help in that regard.

Sorry, I don't have enough time, and I am old. And slow.

 

[Jabba]

Do you really want me to go back and link to you saying that someone has agreed to something when they clearly haven't?

- Yeah.

 

[jond]

There are no such thing as potential selves. That is a construct of yours and yours alone. And yet, despite the number of times this has been pointed out to you, you continue to ignore it.

 

[Jabba]

Sorry, I don't have enough time, and I am old. And slow.

- Sorry about that.

 

[Belz...]

"Too insulting" is just the latest in a long string of incompatible excuses Jabba has given for deliberately avoiding posts he can't cope with. Other candidates have included "too long," "too complicated," "too uncomfortable," and "I don't have time to read everything."

Remember when he'd say he could only respond to the first point of every post, so that we'd all have to be careful to start our posts with the most revelant objection?

Good times.

 

[Jabba]

There are no such thing as potential selves. That is a construct of yours and yours alone. And yet, despite the number of times this has been pointed out to you, you continue to ignore it.

- Theoretically, you'll be able to post that on the map for 'all' the neutrals to see.

 

[jond]

- Theoretically, you'll be able to post that on the map for 'all' the neutrals to see.

Alternatively, you could address this issue HERE since it's been brought to your attention so many times.

 

[Jabba]

Remember when he'd say he could only respond to the first point of every post, so that we'd all have to be careful to start our posts with the most revelant objection?

Good times.

Argumemnon,
- All you need do is indicate which point you wish me to address first.

 

[Belz...]

Argumemnon,
- All you need do is indicate which point you wish me to address first.

You don't actually address points, jabba. You do everything in your power to grind the debate to a halt so that you never have to admit to being wrong.

We actually see through your tactics, you know.

 

[The Sparrow]

- Theoretically, you'll be able to post that on the map for 'all' the neutrals to see.

and then...........someone whom you decide qualifies as 'neutral' will agree with you.........and then..............you will be right, you are immortal?