jond
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 3,440
Proof of Immortality, VI
- Thread starter jond
- Start date
- Status
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
More broadly, Jabba, if your claim is that the rest of your argument falls into place as soon as you've addressed the one point you happen to be focusing on at any given moment, you need to substantiate that you have an answer to all that's wrong with your argument. If your critics have been so gracious as to comprehensively summarize the errors in your argument, you owe it to them to provide a comprehensive summary of your proposed answer.
Nevertheless Dave is right to chastise you for wanting to change horses right now. You know you're stuck on the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, and you don't get to simply declare that you know you're committing it and ask to move on to something else. Today you have made two claims: you can get around the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, and that this is all that's wrong with your argument. The former must be supported by providing a new argument (your previous one was refuted) for pre-selection. The former must be supported by a comprehensive summary of your answers to all the identified fatal flaws.
No part of your argument today is supported by choosing another single subject to discuss.
Last edited:
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Thank you for acknowledging your previous lie.
Since they are all fatal to your argument, pick the one you think will be easiest to address, keeping in mind that the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy remains a fatal flaw that you admit you were unable to overcome and remains on the list.
Belz...
Fiend God
Belz...
Fiend God
A minute ago you said the sharpshooter fallacy was the only issue, and now you brought up the post that you dishonestly pretended didn't exist just a short while ago. See why I said "no you don't" in my previous post? Because I knew you were aware of that post and now you prove it.
How dishonest of you. For all your cries of people being rude, you are easily the rudest and least respectful person in this thread.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
- For now, this seems to be the best I can do re being "set apart." Maybe, I can do better, later.
- But having crossed the Red Sea, and now the Jordan, my eyes are currently on the walls of JayUtah...
1. A target can be legitimate even if it is not specified to an observer ahead of time.
2. There are other factors of an event that can make it a legitimate target.
3. The following kinds of factors, though not generally recognized as doing so, make my current existence a legitimate target for E in the Bayesian formula.
4. I’m the only “vantage point” that I have.
5. I'm the only 'thing' that I know does exist.
6. And, if I didn't exist, it would be as if nothing existed.
7. If I never existed, it would be as if nothing ever existed.
8. That’s how I’m set apart, made special and make for a legitimate target.
9. (Though, the same is probably true for everyone.)
10. And, the thing is, logically speaking, NOTHING should exist.
11. Given that something does exist, the likelihood of LIFE existing is unimaginably small.
12. Given that life does come to exist anyway -- and we each have only one finite life at most -- the likelihood of ME ever existing is unimaginably small.
13. Given that I do come to exist sometime, the likelihood of me CURRENTLY existing is even smaller.
14. Yet, here I am.
15. And then, maybe “now” isn’t what we think it is.
16. There are reasons to believe that science isn’t nearly as ADVANCED as we have thought that it was/is.
17. There are reasons to believe that cause and effect is not perfect – that reality is MAGICAL in that sense.
18. My current existence is extremely unlikely -- and though every other human can make the same claim, I am set apart in a way that relates to OOFLam (as is most likely true in every other human (and others)) and makes my current existence a legitimate E in the Bayesian formula.
19. I’m saying that for me to currently exist requires an unimaginable number and magnitude of unlikely events, and that if I didn’t exist, there might as well be nothing – which is what sets me, and probably everybody else, apart.
- But having crossed the Red Sea, and now the Jordan, my eyes are currently on the walls of JayUtah...
1. A target can be legitimate even if it is not specified to an observer ahead of time.
2. There are other factors of an event that can make it a legitimate target.
3. The following kinds of factors, though not generally recognized as doing so, make my current existence a legitimate target for E in the Bayesian formula.
4. I’m the only “vantage point” that I have.
5. I'm the only 'thing' that I know does exist.
6. And, if I didn't exist, it would be as if nothing existed.
7. If I never existed, it would be as if nothing ever existed.
8. That’s how I’m set apart, made special and make for a legitimate target.
9. (Though, the same is probably true for everyone.)
10. And, the thing is, logically speaking, NOTHING should exist.
11. Given that something does exist, the likelihood of LIFE existing is unimaginably small.
12. Given that life does come to exist anyway -- and we each have only one finite life at most -- the likelihood of ME ever existing is unimaginably small.
13. Given that I do come to exist sometime, the likelihood of me CURRENTLY existing is even smaller.
14. Yet, here I am.
15. And then, maybe “now” isn’t what we think it is.
16. There are reasons to believe that science isn’t nearly as ADVANCED as we have thought that it was/is.
17. There are reasons to believe that cause and effect is not perfect – that reality is MAGICAL in that sense.
18. My current existence is extremely unlikely -- and though every other human can make the same claim, I am set apart in a way that relates to OOFLam (as is most likely true in every other human (and others)) and makes my current existence a legitimate E in the Bayesian formula.
19. I’m saying that for me to currently exist requires an unimaginable number and magnitude of unlikely events, and that if I didn’t exist, there might as well be nothing – which is what sets me, and probably everybody else, apart.
Belz...
Fiend God
Ok, let's see.
Wow. Fail right out of the gate.
The point of objectivity is to remove yourself from the equation. You're doing the exact opposite.
Don't stoop to solipsism. You lose automatically if you do.
To you.
No, you need to be a legitimate "target" for all. Not just for yourself.
You're assuming that "nothing" is even possible. How about the possibility that "nothing" is impossible, logically, and that something must exist?
What? Why?
You still don't understand probabilities. The likelihood of your existence is 1:1.
And? Being very unlikely doesn't mean you're impossible or magical. Your entire post is a string of non sequiturs.
No, there aren't.
That is absolutely not how "setting yourself apart" works.
Wow. Fail right out of the gate.
The point of objectivity is to remove yourself from the equation. You're doing the exact opposite.
Don't stoop to solipsism. You lose automatically if you do.
To you.
No, you need to be a legitimate "target" for all. Not just for yourself.
You're assuming that "nothing" is even possible. How about the possibility that "nothing" is impossible, logically, and that something must exist?
What? Why?
You still don't understand probabilities. The likelihood of your existence is 1:1.
And? Being very unlikely doesn't mean you're impossible or magical. Your entire post is a string of non sequiturs.
No, there aren't.
That is absolutely not how "setting yourself apart" works.
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
That does not address the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy at all. Nothing about that sets you apart in any way from people who could have existed but don't or from any other possible outcomes.
Last edited:
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Is your plan to march around outside for a while, then blow your horn and hope they magically crumbles away without you ever making a proper assault on them?
This signature is intended to irradiate people.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
No, you really can't. How do we know this? Because you aren't doing any better now than before when you raised this same argument in the same words. You don't change your arguments. You don't alter or clarify your arguments to accommodate rebuttals from your critics. You just repeat the same set of beliefs over and over again, apparently expecting that if we don't believe them to be true then we simply don't understand you. If this is the best you can do, it's not good enough. And since this was the best you could do all the other times you tried, you're not going to succeed. Stop wasting everyone's time and admit you can't prove your point.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. It's not clear whether this post is intended merely to address the Texas sharpshooter fallacy or whether it was intended to provide the required comprehensive answer. Your critics are not obliged to accept partial answers in support of your claim that only cursory disagreement persists.
No. If we pare away your straw-man add-ons, this statement is just the essence of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. If the criteria for significance aren't explicit prior to selection, any claim of significance is forfeit. You steadfastly refuse to explain what that fallacy is in your own words, and what makes it a fallacy. At this point we'll just have to assume that it's beyond your mental faculties.
Only if they are explicit before the selection, and are criteria that don't simply boil down to having been selected. You were unable to do that for any of the examples you alleged for 1. above, and you continue to be unable to do so for your own existence.
It's rather disingenuous to call them merely "not generally recognized" when they are in fact nothing more than the same navel-gazing hogwash you've tried to foist -- every time -- for the past few years. Your line of reasoning still boils down to claiming you must be special because you were chosen.
Same argument as before, refuted already several times. If this is the best you can muster, it's time to admit once and for all -- not just a hundred times temporarily -- that you can't get past this.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
You ain't crossed nuthin...
...and so there you go with the reset again.
But it requires the same number and magnitude of unlikely events if you are immortal, because that still requires your body to exist. You aren't claiming that you are a disembodied soul, are you?
If it sets everyone apart it doesn't set anyone apart from them.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
And, Jabba, if you are going to say that you are set apart from people who don't exist because you exist, then I am going to have to repeat the request for you to explain what the Texas sharpshooter fallacy is in your own words.
Actually, given what you have just posted I'll repeat it anyway.
Actually, given what you have just posted I'll repeat it anyway.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
- Mmm... I think it does, but must admit that I can't clearly explain why I think it does... I'll keep workin on it.
- For now, I'll start addressing Jay's list.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Belz...
Fiend God
It doesn't because your very first item commits the fallacy!
Okay, so I'll choose Johnson Gazorpazorp as my target.
Since he doesn't exist, that means you're not immortal right?
You're trying to use a formula though. This is an objective thing, that - if correct - should apply in all situations.
No. You're confusing each specific thing being unlikely with anything at all being unlikely. Each specific order of cards in a deck is insanely unlikely but that doesn't mean playing cards can't exist.
Now you're just getting into a whole other mess.
This applies to everything, including rocks.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
Jabba, what on Earth is the point of repeating all this rubbish for the umpteenth time? It's been made abundantly clear to you why it's rubbish, and you've made no attempt to defend it. You just keep repeating it. Either come up with some kind of defense for it, or admit you can't and concede defeat.
That is the very essence of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.
That's still the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.
So much for objectivity.
Solopsism is not a good look for anyone. It might be fun to philosophise about it, but I suspect that you are fully aware that you walk on the ground, that you interact with your family (you have mentioned grandchildren), you see the world around you. If it's all an illusion to you, you wouldn't be posting here.
If there was no you to observe the universe, the universe would just keep right on existing. You are not necessary to the universe - none of us is.
Only from your non-existent perspective. The universe would still be existing, it just wouldn't contain you.
Nope. No, nein, non, nej <insert the word no in any language here>
If you had never existed, the universe would still exist. If I had never existed, the universe would still exist. If Mrs Higgins at number 76 had never existed, the universe would still be there, existing. If my cat had never been born, the universe would be the same. If the dinosaurs had never existed, our planet would be very different to how it is now. But it would still be here. Maybe there would be no humans, but humanity is not necessary to this planet.
Absolute nonsense, and unsupported by any kind of logic or evidence.
How do you figure that? History and biology shows us that life finds a way wherever conditions exist to support it.
Complete non-sequitur. How do you know that universe is not deterministic and you therefore had to exist?
Bunkum. You exist now because your parents existed when they did (and their parents, and their parents.... und so weiter). You could not have existed at any other moment in time.
And? You are a product of your ancestors, and the only time you could have existed is now.
What does this have to do with the price of fish?
I don't even know what this is supposed to mean; there are so many errors underlying this statement that it's embarrassing.
Lolwut? If you are invoking magic you may as well forget this thread and just admit you believe in souls.
No, no, no and no again. Four claims in one sentence and every one of them wrong.
We know you are saying this. But the thing is, you are incorrect.
Jabba, if you didn't exist, the universe would still be pootling along. Very little would be different about the universe if we could wind the universe back to prior to your conception and rerun the universe with a different one of your father's sperm winning the race to fertilise your mother's egg. Even if we were able to wind the universe back to prior to your parents meeting each other, and prevent that from happening, the universe would be largely unchanged.
You need to abandon the notion that if you didn't exist, then nothing would. If you didn't exist there would be no you to observe the universe, but the universe would still be here, just as it was prior to your existence.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
If you can't explain why you won, then you have no business claiming you did. I can, however, explain why you lost. Your first point is simply what you've been suggesting all along: the Texas sharpshooter fallacy shouldn't be a fallacy in your case. That's special pleading.
- Status