Proof of Immortality, VI

[Toontown]

Nope. I find it amusing that you espouse it.

I find it overtly dishonest and kind of pathetic that you claim I espouse it.

 

[Mojo]

What criteria is that?

Plural ones.

 

[abaddon]

Does this horrible loss of "credibility" include shunning?

Meaning my posts will be studiously ignored rather than being assaulted by gangs of freaked out Stockholm synromers?

If so, I like it.

No. I have an ignore list, population zero. And zero it shall remain. I have a fundamental issue with the very notion that ignoring anyone is functionally of any purpose. I do not visit this place with the sole intent that I have nobody disagreeing with me. My ignore list will remain at population zero regardless of any opinion that may be expressed on any issue by anyone.

 

[abaddon]

I find it overtly dishonest and kind of pathetic that you claim I espouse it.

Even with outright insult added in. So you think that I am dishonest and pathetic. Still not going to ignore you regardless of your blatant provocation.

 

[Jabba]

Just like a person.

- But, whether or not we will wither and die is not the issue here.
- The issue here is whether or not we each have only one finite life at most.

 

[John Jones]

- But, whether or not we will wither and die is not the issue here.
- The issue here is whether or not we each have only one finite life at most.

No. The issue is you said you would provide proof of immortality. Where is it?

 

[abaddon]

No. The issue is you said you would provide proof of immortality. Where is it?

Proof? In the five tedious years of this thread, not only has Jabba presented no proof, he cannot even offer a scintilla of evidence at all.

 

[jond]

- But, whether or not we will wither and die is not the issue here.
- The issue here is whether or not we each have only one finite life at most.

And since the materialistic model, in which we have one finite life, is far more likely than your model, you lose.

 

[Toontown]

double post

 

[Toontown]

Even with outright insult added in. So you think that I am dishonest and pathetic. Still not going to ignore you regardless of your blatant provocation.

Well, it is certainly possible that your recent posts were not intentionally dishonest and pathetic. You became quite agitated when I said many posters "don't get it", (meaning perspective dependent significance). So you may have spoken in haste.

Basically, there are two possible explanations for your labeling me a solipsist.

One possible explanation is that you are unable to discern the difference between "significance" and "existence", and you think I'm lying when I deny being a solipsist.

I give that possibility a low probability.

And don't bother being coy about who first hopped on the liar-calling bus. People can read. You're busted.

It is not often that one happens upon a witches brew of solipsism, superstition, math ineptitude, denial, Dunning Kruger, blatant flip flopping, false concessions and outright mistruths. Perhaps a note should be made.

 

[The Sparrow]

- But, whether or not we will wither and die is not the issue here.
- The issue here is whether or not we each have only one finite life at most.

If we die, how can we have more than 1 life? Even as I type it it is silly. The "Me" or "We" arises as a process from our body. The body dies, no more process. Done. Finit. Finale. Game over. Buh Bye. Thanks for playing.

 

[Toontown]

If we die, how can we have more than 1 life? Even as I type it it is silly. The "Me" or "We" arises as a process from our body. The body dies, no more process. Done. Finit. Finale. Game over. Buh Bye. Thanks for playing.

You had no process before you were born either. 7 billion years ago, the atoms of your body were scattered over half the galaxy.

But now you have a process.

 

[ferd burfle]

Dave,
- Remember, it isn't the size of the likelihood that determines the legitimacy of a target -- the size of the likelihood is relevant only when the event can be otherwise suspected of being a target. In order to be identified as a legitimate target, the particular event needs to be somehow "meaningfully set apart" (like the second cousin of the lottery controller winning the lottery) from the multitude of other similar events. Mt Rainier is different in some respects from every other mountain, but not, apparently, in a way that is meaningful to the issue at hand. In regard to this issue at hand, there is nothing to suggest that Rainier is not the precise result of physics, nor that it won't wither away like any other mountain...

You're still not a special snowflake.

 

[Toontown]

double post

 

[Mojo]

You had no process before you were born either. 7 billion years ago, the atoms of your body were scattered over half the galaxy.

But now you have a process.

Irrelevant to the thread topic, which is Jabba's attempt to prove that it won't cease.

 

[theprestige]

You had no process before you were born either. 7 billion years ago, the atoms of your body were scattered over half the galaxy.

But now you have a process.

Welcome to the process discussion already in progress. The Collective welcomes your agreement on this point.

This signature is intended to irradiate people.

 

[JayUtah]

- But, whether or not we will wither and die is not the issue here.

The issue is whether you can prove immortality mathematically. The fact that we all wither and die makes that a tall order. The fact that everything withers and dies, in its own idiom, is fairly strong proof that the materialist hypothesis is true enough to account for all we observe. You're saying you can prove otherwise. Except you have no evidence that anything magical occurs beyond the withering and dying. You just have a very strong emotionally laden desire for there to be such an occurrence, and you've let this muddle your thinking. You believe in it so strongly that you have leapt to the conclusion it must be mathematically ascertainable. Luckily math and other objective forms of reasoning are very good at separating fact from fervent desire.

The issue here is whether or not we each have only one finite life at most.

No, the issue is whether you can make good on your claim to be able to prove immortality via mathematics. After five years of the same blatantly wrong logic and a huge dose of mathematical illiteracy, it's clear you can't. So the issue for the past, say, four and half years has been whether you will stop the comical attempt at saving face and grant your critics their due.

 

[godless dave]

- But, whether or not we will wither and die is not the issue here.
- The issue here is whether or not we each have only one finite life at most.

Right - whether we can live again after withering and dying. To live again I would have to exist again. There's no reason to think mountains or people can exist more than once.

 

[abaddon]

Well, it is certainly possible that your recent posts were not intentionally dishonest and pathetic. You became quite agitated when I said many posters "don't get it", (meaning perspective dependent significance). So you may have spoken in haste.

LOL agitated? No. Mildly amused perhaps

Basically, there are two possible explanations for your labeling me a solipsist.

One possible explanation is that you are unable to discern the difference between "significance" and "existence", and you think I'm lying when I deny being a solipsist.

I give that possibility a low probability.

You do? Then 2: You are a solipsist. must by your account have a very high probability.

And don't bother being coy about who first hopped on the liar-calling bus. People can read. You're busted.

Coy? Busted? I made no such claim of any time that anyone hopped on any form of bus. That is your person of straw.

 

[MRC_Hans]

- But, whether or not we will wither and die is not the issue here.
- The issue here is whether or not we each have only one finite life at most.

Nice to see you remember. Will you approach the idea of providing evidence for either option any time soon?

Hans