Proof of Immortality, VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
You have not in any way shown how you are "set apart" from other humans who exist. Nor have you in any way shown how before you existed your possible existence was "set apart" from all the other possibilities.
 
godless dave said:
You have not in any way shown how you are "set apart" from other humans who exist. Nor have you in any way shown how before you existed your possible existence was "set apart" from all the other possibilities.
Click to expand...


He doesn't need to do the former, only the latter. He needs to set apart the observed result from all the results that are not observed, and his reason for setting it apart needs to be something that would not apply to another result if that were the observed result.
 
godless dave said:
You have not in any way shown how you are "set apart" from other humans who exist. Nor have you in any way shown how before you existed your possible existence was "set apart" from all the other possibilities.
Click to expand...
Dave,
- But, I think that's the only real issue. If you agree, I'll happily agree to argue my case for being set apart. If you have other issues re my overall case, please remind me.
 
If I got up at 6 or 7 AM and told some lies on the internet, it would make me sad for the rest of my day. I don't understand why someone would do this. Meditation or exercise would be a much better routine.
 
Jabba said:
In other words, I'm committing the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.
Click to expand...

Correct.

That's still the only issue.
Click to expand...

What a fantastically arrogant lie. Yes, Jabba, I'm straight-up calling you a liar. Whine all you want about "unkind" posts, but you know I can prove that you are fully aware of this post, which lists nearly a dozen other errors in your argument, each of which is individually fatal to it, and none of which you've addressed. In fact, now you've stooped to asserting none of them exists.

Shame on you, Jabba.

It is saying that if I am, in fact, set apart, this is the posterior probability of H.
Click to expand...

Just another reset. All this argument states is what you've wrongly claimed before: if you can but get past the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, the rest of your argument somehow magically falls into place and you win. And we already know you can't get past the Texas sharpshooter fallacy because your only defense has been to specially plead that it shouldn't be a fallacy in your case. And we already know you can't fix any of the rest of the argument, which is why you insist it be ignored while we focus on one issue for literally years.

Let's see where that takes us.
Click to expand...

It would take us on to the next fatal flaw that you refuse to admit exists.
 
Jabba said:
But, I think that's the only real issue.
Click to expand...

Lie. You know it isn't.

If you agree, I'll happily agree to argue my case for being set apart.
Click to expand...

You already tried. Your argument follows the notion that it's possible to look at post-selection data -- data in hand -- and determine that it was significant prior to having been chosen. You represent that this applies to your situation. You give two examples of something allegedly given appropriate significance after selection. In each of those cases I showed you the hidden assumptions that worked to provide significance, and were known prior to selection. You didn't answer. Then we have to consider that your argument here can't even go that far. You have explicitly tried to give your data significance on no better grounds than that it has been selected.

No one here, I wager, is in any mood to endure your fumbling your way through those arguments again.

If you have other issues re my overall case, please remind me.
Click to expand...

You mean this list, a link to which has been posted at least once a day for the past few weeks? You're going to tell us you somehow accidentally missed it?

I really, really hope you post a link back to this thread from your map or blog or whatever so your "jury" can see just how flagrantly dishonest you are. If I had an employee who behaved like this at work, he'd be kicked to the curb so fast you'd be able to hear the air closing together behind him.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- But, I think that's the only real issue. If you agree, I'll happily agree to argue my case for being set apart. If you have other issues re my overall case, please remind me.
Click to expand...

Bargaining for consensus. Invaliid.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- Pick your favorite from Jay's list...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11871278&postcount=3198
Click to expand...

No, read more carefully. Because you tend to focus on one issue at a time, ignoring the significance of all the other issues, that's is not how that list says to proceed.

For each of the individually fatal flaws, please write -- all together -- a few sentences describing how you will address each one. That way your critics can know that you actually have a plan for each one, and aren't just flitting from topic to topic to avoid being pinned down.

Now that you have acknowledged anew the existence of that list, when may we expect a comprehensive plan for addressing all of them?
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
No, read more carefully. Because you tend to focus on one issue at a time, ignoring the significance of all the other issues, that's is not how that list says to proceed.

For each of the individually fatal flaws, please write -- all together -- a few sentences describing how you will address each one.
Click to expand...


"I will address each one eventually. But first, will you agree that..."

- I'll be back.
 
Mojo said:
You need to address ALL of them.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Jabba changes the subject to restart the debate on a fallow point every time he gets cornered on a particular one, like the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. The irony of an argument being so far wrong for so many reasons is that its proponent can continually shift the discussion and essentially forestall the end game on any one point.

Stuck once again on the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, he wants to depart from it and pick some other individual item to obsess over for a few weeks so that people forget he hasn't actually fixed the Texas sharpshooter fallacy problem. Items he isn't actually addressing seem to be insignificant or somehow already fixed in his mind.

I aim specifically to break that cycle. There are a dozen or so errors in his argument in the post I identified. Each of them is individually fatal, meaning that his argument -- in order to survive -- must fix all of them. It is not at all too much to ask for him to explain how he will address each one of them, even if we postpone a more detailed debate until later. This insistence on addressing only one item at a time -- and blaming his critics for any departure, regardless of actual cause -- has to stop.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- But, I think that's the only real issue. If you agree, I'll happily agree to argue my case for being set apart. If you have other issues re my overall case, please remind me.
Click to expand...

You need to argue your case for being set apart regardless of whether it's the only issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom