Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
- 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
Click to expand...



Do You Believe The Soul Is Separate From The Body?
.........l..................................................l
........No..............................................Yes
.........l..................................................l
.........l..................Do you have any repeatable, falsifiable evidence?
.........l................................l................................l
.........l...............................No.............................Yes.
.........l................................l ...............................l
Accept the null position that the soul..................Really?
is not separate from the body.............................l.......l
...........^.........................................................No.....Yes
............l...........................................................l.........l
............L---------------------------------------------l........l
................................................................................l
........................................................................Publish it, genius.
 
Last edited:
Argumemnon said:
Sure, here's one:



Dave responded:



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

There you are Jabba. If you go to the post I've quoted above you can see a specific example of you putting words in someone's mouth.

This was on the previous page.
 
Jabba said:
- Lately, I've been responding to all your posts. Give me a post about the subject of this thread, and I'll try to answer it too.
Click to expand...

Read the thread. You don't get to proudly say that you deliberately ignore what people say and then demand they say it again. This is just your typical stonewalling tactic.
 
Jabba said:
- Lately, I've been responding to all your posts. Give me a post about the subject of this thread, and I'll try to answer it too.
Click to expand...

Posting a response is not answering points.

But here's one for you: you have no justification for using "infinity" as a denominator in your equation, since you've not established that there are an infinity of "odds" against a particular person existing. In fact, for all you know all things are deterministic, and thus all odds are 1:1. You have utterly failed to address this repeatedly.
 
Argumemnon said:
JayUtah has been EXCEPTIONALLY patient with you, addressing your points and claims with an ENORMOUS amount of poise and detail over the years, only to be RUDELY ignored by you at every turn. Your threat of ignoring him now rings hollow, since you've done nothing but that for years.

Jay's been your best option for learning something in all of your threads, and you've done nothing but being insulting by dismissing his best efforts to educate you as to the nature of your errors. You don't get to call him unfriendly.
Click to expand...
- Take a look. Jay Utah has been exceptionally unfriendly to me, and I keep giving him another chance...
 
Jabba said:
- Take a look. Jay Utah has been exceptionally unfriendly to me, and I keep giving him another chance...
Click to expand...

That is a bald faced lie, jabba. Jay has been engaging you for YEARS, posting very detailed rebuttals of your claims. You've been ignoring him and insulting him throughout, and now you complain that he's getting frustrated with you? That is entirely your own fault.
 
Argumemnon said:
Posting a response is not answering points.

But here's one for you: you have no justification for using "infinity" as a denominator in your equation, since you've not established that there are an infinity of "odds" against a particular person existing. In fact, for all you know all things are deterministic, and thus all odds are 1:1. You have utterly failed to address this repeatedly.
Click to expand...
Argumemnon,
- I have tried to address this numerous times. For some reason, it doesn't easily communicate.
- Maybe, it's just me -- but maybe, it's like calculus or factor analysis, and does not easily communicate.
- Whatever, I'll try again -- but, it won't be fast.
 
Jabba said:
I have tried to address this numerous times. For some reason, it doesn't easily communicate.
Click to expand...

It doesn't "communicate" because it's wrong. Your critics are telling you the reasons why it's wrong. Instead of addressing and fixing those reasons, you simply accuse your critics of not understanding you, or the problem of being somehow intractably complex, and then just repeating your claim over and over again. That is not how debate works.

Maybe, it's just me -- but maybe, it's like calculus or factor analysis, and does not easily communicate.
Click to expand...

No, it's simple. It's just wrong. If you look back a few weeks, you'll see how I was able to communicate the essentials of calculus in just a few paragraphs. It's not a matter of your critics being dense. It's a matter of the concepts you're trying to foist being wrong.
 
Jabba said:
Argumemnon,
- I have tried to address this numerous times. For some reason, it doesn't easily communicate.
- Maybe, it's just me -- but maybe, it's like calculus or factor analysis, and does not easily communicate.
- Whatever, I'll try again -- but, it won't be fast.
Click to expand...

See what I mean? Responding properly to my request would take barely more time than what you took to post this. You used it instead to -- surprise -- not answer the request.

It's a simple question, jabba: WHY do you use "infinity" as a denominator? You can respond in just a few sentences, but chose not to. That's because you know you have no answer.
 
Jabba said:
Jond,
- See below.
Click to expand...

Jabba, the problem you continue to fail to grasp is that the self isn't a thing. It is a process in a functioning brain. Now, conceptually there could be considered "potential brains" but that's not what you're trying to achieve. Further, you have no interest in discussing potential brains. You need there to be "potential selves" that are out there waiting to be born, but that's not what the scientific model indicates.

The self you are is the only self you can be, because your "self" is the result of your ongoing brain function.
 
Jabba said:
- 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.
Click to expand...

Sooo..... You want to have a site on the internet where the words that people write here can be posted for others to read. Then those writers may also be able to add additional posts. And you won't moderate these posts?

I'm thinking there is an easier way to accomplish this.
 
Loss Leader said:
Do You Believe The Soul Is Separate From The Body?
.........l..................................................l
........No..............................................Yes
.........l..................................................l
.........l..................Do you have any repeatable, falsifiable evidence?
.........l................................l................................l
.........l...............................No.............................Yes.
.........l................................l ...............................l
Accept the null position that the soul..................Really?
is not separate from the body.............................l.......l
...........^.........................................................No.....Yes
............l...........................................................l.........l
............L---------------------------------------------l........l
................................................................................l
........................................................................Publish it, genius.
Click to expand...

This.
 
Monza said:
I'm thinking there is an easier way to accomplish this.
Click to expand...

Jabba maintains that a neutral reader, upon reading this debate, will conclude that the materialists are biased, ostensibly to the extent that they are rejecting an otherwise well-reasoned argument. If that belief is sincere, then it requires only drawing the reader's attention to this forum and thread. But Jabba insinuates that it would only be through his "map" that a neutral reader would come to the predicted conclusion. It's hard to interpret that as anything other than an admission that the desired conclusion could only be reached via Jabba's proposed edits and redactions. The "map" is either superfluous or dishonest. There is very little other ground.
 
JayUtah said:
It's hard to interpret that as anything other than an admission that the desired conclusion could only be reached via Jabba's proposed edits and redactions. The "map" is either superfluous or dishonest. There is very little other ground.
Click to expand...

Indeed. If one could only agree with jabba were the conversation edited by jabba, it stands to reason that one only agrees with jabba if the conversation is presented dishonestly.
 
Argumemnon said:
Indeed. If one could only agree with jabba were the conversation edited by jabba, it stands to reason that one only agrees with jabba if the conversation is presented dishonestly.
Click to expand...

Summaries and redactions are prepared all the time in scholarship, and if accomplished properly they are useful when the essence of a controversy must be efficiently conveyed. But invariably such redactions aver their fidelity by referring easily back to the original source material. Even if the reader never follows the reference, the act of supplying it is an offer to be rebutted on the grounds of distortion.

Jabba's track record as an editor doesn't pass muster. He never referred back to the source material, and he conceded to accusations of distortion and omission (which he promised to correct, but never did). There is no legitimate goal in scholarship which is served by these actions. These actions are consistent only with a deliberate attempt to deceive. There is no reason to suppose, given the stated intent of his new "map", that he will act any differently this time around.
 
JayUtah said:
Summaries and redactions are prepared all the time in scholarship, and if accomplished properly they are useful when the essence of a controversy must be efficiently conveyed. But invariably such redactions aver their fidelity by referring easily back to the original source material. Even if the reader never follows the reference, the act of supplying it is an offer to be rebutted on the grounds of distortion.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Reading the original in these cases doesn't suddenly reveal bias. Jabba's idea is to introduce bias via the editing process.
 
Jabba said:
- I'm friendly to anyone who is somewhat friendly to me. I just try to ignore people who aren't.
Click to expand...

I don't know which is the sadder possibility; that you are using this as an excuse or that you honestly believe it.

Your childish definition of "nice" as "doesn't disagree with my inane statements" is your own problem of your own making Jabba.

You have been massively rude in this discussion and have been treated with kid's gloves in return. There is no mythical population of "neutrals" you are impressing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom