Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

[JayUtah]

You originally claimed you could prove immortality through Bayesian statistics. Then you revised that to claim you could virtually prove immortality. Now you claim to virtually disprove something else entirely.

You left out the part where he begged to prove only "immateriality" instead.

 

[Waterman]

- The following is my opening statement so far -- I could have to revise it...

- I think that, using Bayesian statistics, I can virtually disprove the consensus scientific hypothesis that we each have only one, finite, life to live…

I will not move forward to all your other points as you have obviously set up this opening statement using language that you can twist to you purpose.

I can play this game too:

The current Scientific Consensus is that life requires a substrate to exist. Under current technology this is limited to a biological organism.
You can simply disprove this by demonstrating life existing without a biological substrate. Many have tried and all have failed to do so. Without this, your opening premise is moot.

But let’s back up a bit.

Your approach seems to be based upon: “Isn’t it amazing that I exist here and now in just this way. Therefore there must have been special circumstances surrounding events before me or I would not exist in just this way. The odds of that happening are just astronomical and I shouldn’t be here at all. I wonder what explains this mystery?”

This way of thinking is a blending of the Puddle and TSS logical fallacies. You were NOT a target beforehand and were random collection of gamete cells that were at the same place and time by provided by your parents which merged into an embryo. (No target to shoot) Upon your birth and subsequent growth you were shaped by your environment and experiences to become the Jabba that you are today. If we were to roll back time and take the 2 year old Jabba and put him in a very different environment, the future Jabba could be significantly different in their way of thinking and attitudes than your current form. (you are a product of your environment, the hole was not make to fit the Puddle)

What observations have you made that are inconsistent with the current scientific theory that the self is an emergent property of the biology and accumulated experiences of a typical human. Your mere existence is not inconsistent with the prevailing theory as much as you would like to assume so.

Also as someone whose has a front row seat to the decline of someone due to Alzheimer’s, I am fully aware that at the end there is precious little, if any, of the original person left.

 

[Jabba]

- Will anybody volunteer? LL, js, Agatha, Hans, whoever?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Jabba please provide your evidence for immortality using Bayesian statistics as per the thread topic.

PTB if he resets or stalls again he should be at the very least warned. If other people are going to get warned for talking about how to debate so should he.

 

[jond]

- Will anybody volunteer? LL, js, Agatha, Hans, whoever?

Why not respond to JayUtah, here, where you've been posting for so many years?

 

[Mojo]

- Will anybody volunteer? LL, js, Agatha, Hans, whoever?

You're manifestly unable to address the objections to your 'proof' that have been posted to this forum. Why would it be different anywhere else?

 

[carlitos]

2 sets of eyes found its way back into the list. If ever there was a doubt about Jabba's honesty, that should put it to rest. I'll bet he can't find a single instance of that phrase here without someone answering "no" in the very next post.

 

[carlitos]

just for fun

13. Another way is to say that if cloning would produce the same self, that self would be looking out two sets of eyes…

Agatha,
- If we produced that perfect copy while I was still alive, would I find myself looking out two sets of eyes?

If you have two identical things, how many things do you have?

Would it be physically connected to both sets of eyes?

Jabba, this has been answered many times. There would be two Jabbas, each would think they were Jabba, and no one would have any way of knowing which was which.

No, because two identical things are two things, not one.

....

......................

Jim,
- I can't be sure we're talking about the same self -- it isn't something we can point at.
- If this was done before I died, would I find myself looking out two sets of eyes?

Would you be physically connected to two sets of eyes?

Jabba, whose eyes would the copy have?

"Different" meaning there would be two of them, not that there is any difference between them.

If selves are physical, then it would be impossible for one self to be connected to two sets of eyes in two separate bodies.

 

[abaddon]

- Will anybody volunteer? LL, js, Agatha, Hans, whoever?

Wow. LL did so and you failed.Why should we disregard your failure.

 

[JayUtah]

Will anybody volunteer? LL, js, Agatha, Hans, whoever?

Stop playing games, Jabba. If your true intent is to have your argument addressed, it has been addressed here in spades. You have been given at least two comprehensive summaries of the rebuttals to your points.

If your true intent is to transplant this debate to a venue that you moderate, and a single critic that you edit, then there are plenty of questions you refuse to answer about how that's supposed to improve things. Absent your answers, and considering your history, we must conclude you intend to lie again about the debate. In which case, you should not expect anyone here to acquiesce to that.

Time to show your true colors, Jabba.

 

[Belz...]

ETA: Never *********** mind.

 

[Mojo]

Stop playing games, Jabba. If your true intent is to have your argument addressed, it has been addressed here in spades. You have been given at least two comprehensive summaries of the rebuttals to your points.

If your true intent is to transplant this debate to a venue that you moderate, and a single critic that you edit, then there are plenty of questions you refuse to answer about how that's supposed to improve things. Absent your answers, and considering your history, we must conclude you intend to lie again about the debate. In which case, you should not expect anyone here to acquiesce to that.

Time to show your true colors, Jabba.

I think this response showed Jabba in his true colours:

- So Dave, I'll go with you. Though, you can represent Jay as much as you choose.

 

[carlitos]

More on #13 from Jabba's dishonest list:

Hokulele,
- If I were actually duplicated, I would be looking out both sets of eyes -- and, my best guess is that my self would remember which body was there first.
- Like a computer hooked to two robots. All of a sudden, I'd have two sets of eyes, and my self (the computer) would remember which set was first.
- But then, I don't know why that should matter...

Not under H.

No, you wouldn't. There would be two Jabbas, each looking through its own set of eyes.

Mojo's Avatar

Jabba,
- Here's a dog:



- Here's a duplicate of the dog:



The dogs are identical.

That's not what the word "duplicate" means.

 

[Jabba]

- I assume that no one will volunteer to help me with the map, so I'll just have to review your responses and use what I consider to be the best. I'll plan on continuing my responses here, but use my blog/map as my "murder board."

Jay,
- I'm sorry that you don't want to represent the skeptical side, but quoting you seems to be my prerogative -- and, you do seem to be especially well-versed. I suspect that most participants here would be happy to have you as their spokesperson.
- Consequently, I plan to start adding your opening response to my blog...

- If anyone wishes to volunteer, and take the onus off of Jay, I'll be happy to change horses.

 

[jond]

- I assume that no one will volunteer to help me with the map, so I'll just have to review your responses and use what I consider to be the best. I'll plan on continuing my responses here, but use my blog/map as my "murder board."

Jay,
- I'm sorry that you don't want to represent the skeptical side, but quoting you seems to be my prerogative -- and, you do seem to be especially well-versed. I suspect that most participants here would be happy to have you as their spokesperson.
- Consequently, I plan to start adding your opening response to my blog...

- If anyone wishes to volunteer, and take the onus off of Jay, I'll be happy to change horses.

Bear in mind that many of us, myself included, have expressly insisted that you not quote us on any other site. Your inability to honestly quote entire arguments in appropriate context is well established.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Jabba the topic is proving human immortality using Bayesian statistics, not your silly "roadmap."

Why only you are allowed to stray from topic is starting to confuse me.

 

[JayUtah]

I assume that no one will volunteer to help me with the map, so I'll just have to review your responses and use what I consider to be the best.

How dishonest of you. But as I wrote above, I think this was your plan all along. Given your incontestable history in such matters, I don't think anyone in his right mind would accept your offer. But by tendering it -- no matter how Hobsonian its form -- you can deceive your conscience by pretending you gave your critics a chance.

I'll plan on continuing my responses here, but use my blog/map as my "murder board."

We're quite familiar with what you use your "maps" for. You use them to lie about a debate that's happening elsewhere, to portray a fictionalized version that makes it seem like you're winning. You've given no reason to suppose you won't do the same thing again. I predict you will misrepresent the nature of your offer to allow your critics to participate. I predict your map will not have a link back to this forum, so that readers can see for themselves whether you're accurately representing your critics. If these predictions turn out to be true, we will have our confirmation that you are not at all interested in an honest debate and are interested instead only in massaging your ego at the expense of others.

As I wrote before, no one can persuade you to be honest simply by writing. But by careful criticism we can force you to have to commit overtly dishonest acts in order to complete your agenda, rather than allow you to benefit from ambiguity. You stand on the brink of just such manifest dishonesty. If you step over it, we win in the sense that you can never have the benefit of the doubt. Your true colors will have been made unambiguously visible.

I'm sorry that you don't want to represent the skeptical side...

Straw man. I never said I don't want to represent the skeptical side. What do you think I've been doing here for years? According to most accounts, I've represented the skeptical side quite well. It is fascinating that you opt to pay attention to what I write only after you arrange to address it in a venue where you have full creative and editorial control and not in the forum where all the representations have been made to date.

I couldn't ask for better proof that you have no answer for the refutation you've had.

Let's be very clear: What I've refused to be is your punching bag. I decline to be a character in the drama you're scripting, where you get to be the hero and all the skeptics you've dealt with are the inept, closed-minded dolts you imagine them to be. That's how you treated your critics before, how you've treated them here, and you do not deserve to have my blessing to do it again.

...but quoting you seems to be my prerogative

How do you figure you have any such prerogative? I've expressly withheld any such consent. Obviously there's nothing I can do to physically prevent you from copying my post and molesting it however you wish. But to pretend you have any sort of right or blessing to do so is purely delusional. You're explicitly acting against the wishes of your sources. There's no prerogative.

Consequently, I plan to start adding your opening response to my blog...

I have no intention of visiting or participating in your blog. If giving your critics the bird by brazenly copying their materials against their wishes is a ploy to draw attention there and entice people to play your game, it will not work -- at least with me. We all know that you know the answers to your claims are here, and we all know that you know you have deliberately evaded them. Those facts do not go away no matter how much you strut your proposed fantasy-world "map."

If anyone wishes to volunteer, and take the onus off of Jay, I'll be happy to change horses.

Don't be insulting. No one consents to play your games, as well they shouldn't. You chose this forum. You have spent years presenting your case in this chosen venue. Your critics have already volunteered countless hours attempting to correct you, only for you to treat them with incomparable rudeness. Despite your insults and injuries, they have persevered. But now because you can't win here, all of a sudden ISF isn't good enough.

Let's call a spade a spade. After five years of failure, you're fleeing. You're just trying to disguise that flight in a childish face-saving costume that isn't fooling anyone. Oh sure, you'll be able to point other people to your obviously derivative blog and crow about how JayUtah was "obviously" unable and unwilling to withstand your withering logic and mathematical prowess. That's just the way the world works, or at least the Internet part of it. I'm an adult, and I can deal with it. I've had much, much worse than anything you can throw at me. But you won't ever escape the knowledge that your critics are fully aware of what a lie it is. And the knowledge that you're aware of what a lie it is. With every dollar of intellectual capital your blog affords you, you'll never be able to escape the fact that you had to rig the lottery to get those dollars.

Live with that.

 

[jsfisher]

js,
- Can you refer me to a source?

Jabba,
Please consider very seriously what you are requesting, here.

Your founding premise has been that you can proof yourself immortal using Bayesian statistics. Bayesian statistics has its origin in Bayes' Theorem. Anyone familiar with Bayesian statistics is intimately familiar with Bayes' Theorem.

Even someone who had, let's be polite, forgotten the exact formulation of Bayes' Theorem could still perform the trivial and obvious Google search with the terms "bayes theorem".

With me so far? Now, given your apparent unfamiliarity with Bayes' Theorem and your unwillingness or inability to do a simple Google search, what should the we conclude?

 

[Hokulele]

- I assume that no one will volunteer to help me with the map, so I'll just have to review your responses and use what I consider to be the best. I'll plan on continuing my responses here, but use my blog/map as my "murder board."

Jay,
- I'm sorry that you don't want to represent the skeptical side, but quoting you seems to be my prerogative -- and, you do seem to be especially well-versed. I suspect that most participants here would be happy to have you as their spokesperson.
- Consequently, I plan to start adding your opening response to my blog...

- If anyone wishes to volunteer, and take the onus off of Jay, I'll be happy to change horses.

This is exactly why I do not trust you at all. You are explicitly stating you will not respect other people's preferences, and will do whatever it takes to make it appear as if you haven't failed utterly and completely.

How shamefully dishonorable...

 

[sackett]

Don't let them buffalo you, Jabba! They're obviously afraid to debate the best man in the room!

But I'm not afraid! Not even of you! I volunteer! I'll take you on! Choose MEEEEE!

I've already said that you can quote me on your blog, or site, or map, or mimeoed handout, or anyplace! I ain't ascared!

So: One day when you were 14 you had this flash, right? And you have it still? What meds have you tried?

Over to you, Fective Debater.