Proof of Immortality, VI

[Jabba]

...
- The first problem is that I am not set apart from other humans in the currently accepted way. I'm claiming that the way I am set apart has to do with perspective. I'm my only perspective... That should sound familiar...

So right off the bat your approach is to not be objective.

- Yeah -- at least in a sense -- and that is the problem.
- But first, keep in mind that I apply this argument to all of us. I think that we're all immortal -- so in that sense, I don't want to set us apart. How can I set us apart from each other, but not set us apart from each other?
- How about if I set us apart subjectively, but not objectively.
- Pretty creative, huh? It might even work...

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.)

- Moving along a little bit -- remember all the events that had to occur in order for you and me to be here today.
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.
- And, here you are.

- I seem to be suggesting that while the "strength" of being set apart from other humans is subjective, and therefore weak, it isn't zero -- and the strength of unlikelihood is so large that the degree of being set apart only needs to be greater than zero in order to make the overall unlikelihood overwhelming.

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.
- And, there are reasons to believe that science has never been nearly as ADVANCED as SCIENCE has thought it was.

- More to come.

 

[zooterkin]

- Yeah -- at least in a sense -- and that is the problem.
- But first, keep in mind that I apply this argument to all of us. I think that we're all immortal -- so in that sense, I don't want to set us apart. How can I set us apart from each other, but not set us apart from each other?
- How about if I set us apart subjectively, but not objectively.
- Pretty creative, huh? It might even work...

No.

 

[Belz...]

- How about if I set us apart subjectively, but not objectively.
- Pretty creative, huh? It m]ight even work...

Absolutely not. The reason why humans have developed objective tools of thinking and debating and experimentation is specifically because what you propose doesn't work. You can't get people to agree on anything, much less find ways to put findings into practical applications, if you don't find common grounds.

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.)

No, absolutely not. This does not set you apart since you've just made it true for everyone and everything.

- Moving along a little bit

No. Address the objections and flaws of your argument before "moving along".

 

[godless dave]

- Yeah -- at least in a sense -- and that is the problem.
- But first, keep in mind that I apply this argument to all of us. I think that we're all immortal -- so in that sense, I don't want to set us apart. How can I set us apart from each other, but not set us apart from each other?
- How about if I set us apart subjectively, but not objectively.
- Pretty creative, huh?

No.

- Moving along a little bit -- remember all the events that had to occur in order for you and me to be here today.
10. And, the thing is, logically speaking, NOTHING should exist.

That's not logical at all.

11. Given that something does exist, the likelihood of LIFE existing is unimaginably small.

Maybe, but the universe is unimaginably large.

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.

Completely irrelevant.

13. Given that I do come to exist sometime, the likelihood of me CURRENTLY existing is even smaller.
14. Yet, here I am.[/I]
- And, here you are.

No, this is the only time you and I could exist.

- I seem to be suggesting that while the "strength" of being set apart from other humans is subjective, and therefore weak, it isn't zero

It is zero.

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.
- And, there are reasons to believe that science has never been nearly as ADVANCED as SCIENCE has thought it was.

Repeating this nonsense doesn't make it true.

 

[Belz...]

That's not logical at all.

This is at least the third time he brings this up even though everyone is telling him he's wrong.

 

[abaddon]

- But first, keep in mind that I apply this argument to all of us. I think that we're all immortal -- so in that sense, I don't want to set us apart. How can I set us apart from each other, but not set us apart from each other?

You don't see the problem there?

You want to set all of us apart by claiming that we are all the same? Really?

- How about if I set us apart subjectively, but not objectively.

How about you don't?

- Pretty creative, huh? It might even work...

Harry Potter is creative, so is Jon Snow, so is Aragorn. They might work too.

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.)

Point 0 makes points 1-8 utter bollocks. You have no idea what you really want to claim.

If everyone is special, then "special" has no meaning.

- Moving along a little bit -- remember all the events that had to occur in order for you and me to be here today.
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.
- And, here you are.

What a load.

- I seem to be suggesting that while the "strength" of being set apart from other humans is subjective, and therefore weak, it isn't zero -- and the strength of unlikelihood is so large that the degree of being set apart only needs to be greater than zero in order to make the overall unlikelihood overwhelming.

You "seem to be suggesting"? This from the bloke who claimed "proof"? Give me a break.

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.
- And, there are reasons to believe that science has never been nearly as ADVANCED as SCIENCE has thought it was.

- More to come.

I don't know what that is, but it is not either religion or science. You simply made that up.

Now, How about you address Jay's points starting with #1?

 

[jond]

- Yeah -- at least in a sense -- and that is the problem.
- But first, keep in mind that I apply this argument to all of us. I think that we're all immortal -- so in that sense, I don't want to set us apart. How can I set us apart from each other, but not set us apart from each other?
- How about if I set us apart subjectively, but not objectively.
- Pretty creative, huh? It might even work...

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.)

- Moving along a little bit -- remember all the events that had to occur in order for you and me to be here today.
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.
- And, here you are.

- I seem to be suggesting that while the "strength" of being set apart from other humans is subjective, and therefore weak, it isn't zero -- and the strength of unlikelihood is so large that the degree of being set apart only needs to be greater than zero in order to make the overall unlikelihood overwhelming.

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.
- And, there are reasons to believe that science has never been nearly as ADVANCED as SCIENCE has thought it was.

- More to come.

It seems like you haven't read any of the multitudes of posts that have shown you to be wrong. Perhaps that's because you haven't? Well, at least the jury has.

 

[Dancing David]

4. I’m the only “vantage point” that I have.
5. I'm the only 'thing' that I know does exist.

And you just assume that this 'vantage point' and 'thing' are actually the same moment to moment, one day to the next.

You assert that it is 'same', but you have yet to show it.

How do you know that your 'perspective' is not constantly shifting and fluid with no sense of permanency or consistency?

 

[Agatha]

If you only read the first bit of this post, Jabba, then read this bit in bold. Ignore the rest (you usually do anyway).

None of us is special. None of us is set apart from any other person, and none of us is necessary to the universe. If any of us had never existed, the universe would still be existing.

Each individual person is a product of their ancestors, which means that the only time we could exist is the time when we do.

All of your statements about nothing existing if you don't, and about how it's unlikely for you to exist at this time rather than at any other time, are all wrong. Sorry to be so blunt, but that's the way it is.

- Yeah -- at least in a sense -- and that is the problem.
- But first, keep in mind that I apply this argument to all of us. I think that we're all immortal -- so in that sense, I don't want to set us apart. How can I set us apart from each other, but not set us apart from each other?
- How about if I set us apart subjectively, but not objectively.
- Pretty creative, huh? It might even work...

You want to claim that we are all set apart so we're all the same?

4. I’m the only “vantage point” that I have.
5. I'm the only 'thing' that I know does exist.

For heaven's sake, Jabba. If you are a solopsist and you really think that your wife, children and grandhildren don't actually exist (rather than you adopting a solopsist position in order to boost your failing argument), then you wouldn't be concerned about immortality. You'd believe that the universe begins and ends with your existence.

6. And, if I didn't exist, it would be as if nothing existed.

No, that's not correct. You are not necessary to the universe.

7. If I never existed, it would be as if nothing ever existed.

Again no. If you never existed, the universe would still be here, pootling along and doing universe-y things.

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.)

No! The universe didn't begin with your conception. Before you were born, the universe was here and doing its thing. After you die, the universe will continue to exist. If you had never existed, the universe would still be happily universing away.

- Moving along a little bit -- remember all the events that had to occur in order for you and me to be here today.

So? They did happen. Lots of other things which would have led to different people being here today didn't happen.

10. And, the thing is, logically speaking, NOTHING should exist.

You have not even attempted to demonstrate the logic of this statement, nor why you think that nothing 'should' exist.

11. Given that something does exist, the likelihood of LIFE existing is unimaginably small.

Nope.

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.

This OOFLam of yours is a bastardisation of the materialist position. Once your parents met up and exchanged bodily fluids, the likelihood of you existing was actually quite high.

13. Given that I do come to exist sometime, the likelihood of me CURRENTLY existing is even smaller.

Again no. The only time you could ever have existed is now, because your existence required your parents to meet, and their parents, and their parents....

14. Yet, here I am.
- And, here you are.

Just as expected by the materialist position.

- I seem to be suggesting that while the "strength" of being set apart from other humans is subjective, and therefore weak, it isn't zero -- and the strength of unlikelihood is so large that the degree of being set apart only needs to be greater than zero in order to make the overall unlikelihood overwhelming.

It's zero. None of us is set apart.

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.
- And, there are reasons to believe that science has never been nearly as ADVANCED as SCIENCE has thought it was.

- More to come.

Many of us have already addressed this nonsense, as I did in a post upthread which you ignored. Suffice it to say that even if your points 15-17 were accurate (they are not), they don't advance your argument one iota.

 

[JoeMorgue]

You know Jabba most people can sum up their existential crisis in far fewer words.

 

[JayUtah]

How about if I set us apart subjectively, but not objectively.

No, that commits the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

Pretty creative, huh?

No, lots of people commit the Texas sharpshooter fallacy while trying to reach outcomes they desire in spite of evidence.

It might even work...

No. When you try to cheat by using the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, your argument is just as wrong as every other time someone else commits the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. It doesn't work. Your critics have told you why it doesn't work. Simply expressing a fervent hope to the contrary does not rejoin the debate.

remember all the events that had to occur in order for you and me to be here today.

The statistical picture of those events is relevant only if the events had significance before they happened. Your statistical analysis presupposes their prior significance, and is thus incorrect. Not just numerically incorrect, but qualitatively incorrect for connecting things that aren't connected.

I seem to be suggesting...

If you don't know what you're suggesting then you're just stabbing wildly in the dark, and your critics are correct to interpret your behavior overall today as an admission of having no actual argument that you can defend. In fact what you "seem" to be suggesting is just another special-pleading claim that you aren't really committing a known fallacy, when in fact you clearly are.

...that while the "strength" of being set apart from other humans is subjective, and therefore weak...

No, assigning a new ad hoc meaning to "strength" does not correct the error you're making. There is no equivocation you can make here that lands you somewhere between correct and incorrect in a way that lets you leave this alone and proceed. You are simply incorrect.

...it isn't zero

Yes it is, effectively, because the proposition is based on a post-selection belief and is therefore qualitatively meaningless as a statistical model of this type, not just quantitatively skewed. There is no "lesser" degree of reliability in the method you're attempting. Again, you're simply trying to say that the Texas sharpshooter fallacy shouldn't be a fallacy. You're saying it's maybe just a little non-fallacious in your case, so maybe your argument is "weaker" but still somehow valid.

And, there are reasons to believe that science has never been nearly as ADVANCED as SCIENCE has thought it was.

No reason that you've shown. Whenever you take the route of insulting scientists and belittling science, all you end up showing is that you really have no clue what science is and what scientists do. In your perspective they're just the mustache-twirling villains in the melodrama you're writing for yourself.

Sorry, but if your argument is based on falsifying the materialist hypothesis, calling scientists stupid and incompetent toward that end won't work any better for you today than it did yesterday, or last month, or last year. And it really doesn't help you here. There's no shortfall or ambiguity in science that is even remotely related to your ongoing reliance on the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. Casting vague aspersions is a sign of desperation.

 

[Hokulele]

1- How about if I set us apart subjectively, but not objectively.
- Pretty creative, huh?

Abject failure isn't very creative. Lots of people do that.

 

[sackett]

Jabba, don't read even the first sentence of this post.

 

[Mojo]

You say that like it's funny. It's actually highly annoying and rude when you respond to well-formed rebuttals by demanding another do-over.

The amazing thing is that he seems to think that if he keeps allowing himself Mulligans, eventually one of them will turn out differently.

 

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Yeah -- at least in a sense -- and that is the problem.
- But first, keep in mind that I apply this argument to all of us. I think that we're all immortal -- so in that sense, I don't want to set us apart. How can I set us apart from each other, but not set us apart from each other?
- How about if I set us apart subjectively, but not objectively.
- Pretty creative, huh?

No...

- Keep in mind that if I'm right, we're all the same re our mortality and I can't set us apart the usual way...

 

[JayUtah]

How can I set us apart from each other, but not set us apart from each other?

Has it occurred to you that you can't, because it's inherently a logical paradox? Has it occurred to you that it might have been premature to claim you could prove your beliefs mathematically before, you know, actually coming up with the proof?

How about if I set us apart subjectively, but not objectively.
- Pretty creative, huh?

No, it's no more correct or creative than it was two hours ago when you said the same thing. You're just committing a common fallacy and asking for people to applaud you for it.

 

[Jabba]

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Moving along a little bit -- remember all the events that had to occur in order for you and me to be here today.
10. And, the thing is, logically speaking, NOTHING should exist.

...
That's not logical at all...

- Yes it is. Logically speaking, either something has come from nothing, or something has always existed --
neither of which makes any sense.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Yeah -- at least in a sense -- and that is the problem.

It's a problem because you need it to be a problem. You're creating a problem for you to solve.

But first, keep in mind that I apply this argument to all of us. I think that we're all immortal -- so in that sense, I don't want to set us apart. How can I set us apart from each other, but not set us apart from each other?

Jabba I explained to you years ago that if you want to have an existential crisis knock yourself out, just leave us out of it.

- How about if I set us apart subjectively, but not objectively.

Well that's a problem because your claim is an objective fact and those can't be proven "subjectively."

- Pretty creative, huh?- Keep in mind that if I'm right, we're all the same re our mortality and I can't set us apart the usual way...

No. Jabba you're not anywhere near as a clever as the D&D character sheet you've written for yourself would suggest.

 

[JayUtah]

Logically speaking...

This carries the same weight as when you preface nonsense with "Scientifically speaking..." You really don't know much about science, and you really don't know much about logic.

...either something has come from nothing, or something has always existed --

False dilemma.

...neither of which makes any sense.

No, you're the only one not making sense. You're just throwing around a bunch of existential snippets like so many croutons in a salad and claiming it amounts to some sort of cogent argument. Do you really think your critics are this stupid?

 

[godless dave]

10. And, the thing is, logically speaking, NOTHING should exist.
- Yes it is. Logically speaking, either something has come from nothing, or something has always existed --
neither of which makes any sense.

In what way do neither of those make sense? Something obviously exists, so if that seems illogical, then at least one of your premises must be wrong.