[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[pakeha]

Mmmm.
Soapberries.
A new pleasure.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

So wait, are you asking Jabba for evidence for a soul, or to explain his dichotomy first? Either way, I'd be interested to see how he responds.

 

[Slowvehicle]

So wait, are you asking Jabba for evidence for a soul, or to explain his dichotomy first? Either way, I'd be interested to see how he responds.

Is this addressed to me?

If so, I am suggesting that Mr. Savage lay aside the attempt to logically exclude everything except his assumed conclusion (by, for instance, continually trying to define both A and ~A by terms--inevitable omitting great chunks of one or the other).

Instead, I am suggesting that he go back to his original claim, that the "self" exists independent of the brain, and is immortal, and provide evidence--practical, empirical, objective evidence--for his claim.

The self/soul thing is a red herring. Mr. Savage already admitted that he just did not want to use the term, "soul". Whatever term is used, there is (according to Mr. Savage) something with a continuity of existence independent of the brain (even if Mr. Savage is not forthcoming about what that continuity is, if it is not memory or experience). What I am suggesting to Mr. Savage is that he present his evidence for that continually-existing thing.

Without that evidence, we are left with Mr. Savage's conviction about how he believes things ought to be.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

It was addressed to all participants in this discussion. In the interest of fairness, I think it best to ask Jabba to answer one question at a time. That way, there can be a clear focus and direction to the debate, and he won't have the excuse that people are demanding too much from him at once.

 

[zooterkin]

It was addressed to all participants in this discussion. In the interest of fairness, I think it best to ask Jabba to answer one question at a time. That way, there can be a clear focus and direction to the debate, and he won't have the excuse that people are demanding too much from him at once.

Didn't we already try that?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

- I'll have to look up "apophatic."

Why would you type that rather than looking it up before you start writing your post, or opening a new tab and looking it up while typing your post?

 

[Agatha]

IIRC Jabba uses Windows 8, which I assume supports tabbed browsing. All he has to do is highlight the word in question, right click it and select 'search google for <word>', and a new tab will open with the results of a google search. The top results are generally Wiktionary and the dictionary sites.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

That would destroy the illusion that only technical incompetence and time prevent him from convincing the world of his claims.

 

[Jabba]

Didn't we already try that?

- No.
- A moderator tried to do that, but he couldn't resist presenting numerous question/comments at once.
- And then, he gave up after several retorts.
- If you guys can figure out a way to present one Q/C at a time, I will do my best to answer each one.

 

[Garrette]

- No.
- A moderator tried to do that, but he couldn't resist presenting numerous question/comments at once.
- And then, he gave up after several retorts.
- If you guys can figure out a way to present one Q/C at a time, I will do my best to answer each one.

This is a lie. We read the thread, Jabba, and we can read it still.

First, LossLeader did not participate as a moderator and made no comments as a moderator. You throw that in there because you want to muddy the waters. You knew his status as mod when you accepted him as your opponent.

Second, he only presented one thing at a time that you had to deal with.

Third, you had the option of responding only to one thing even if he hadn't.

Fourth, you were the one who was not responding to the points and the one who left the thread languishing.


Insofar as this amounts to character assassination of LossLeader who gave you absolutely every consideration possible and far more consideration than you deserve, it is worse even than your recent lie about no one pointing out why your ~A remains a false dichotomy. You still have not responded to my response to that post of yours.

Let me summarize my position: Your arguments are vapid, hollow, fallacious, and thoroughly and reputedly rebutted; that part is separate from your behavior. Your behavior has been at times petulant, whiny, libelous, deceitful, and outright full of lies. You demand civility when you really want quiet agreement, yet you extend repeated discourtesy.

ETA: While I have long given up hope of any real learning on your part, I had primarily thought that you were somewhat sincere and that you were simply overreaching without having the capacity to recognize it. This last post changes that. You are intentionally deceitful, intentionally rude, and you have no intention of actually learning anything.

 

[Kid Eager]

- No.
- A moderator tried to do that, but he couldn't resist presenting numerous question/comments at once.
- And then, he gave up after several retorts.
- If you guys can figure out a way to present one Q/C at a time, I will do my best to answer each one.

Which universe did this version of events occur in? Bizzaro?

 

[pakeha]

... All he has to do is highlight the word in question, right click it and select 'search google for <word>', and a new tab will open with the results of a google search. The top results are generally Wiktionary and the dictionary sites.

What's not to love about this thread?
I'm getting new culinary horizons and a new use for the right click!
Reasons to think we're immortal, not so much.
Meh.

- No.
- A moderator tried to do that, but he couldn't resist presenting numerous question/comments at once.
- And then, he gave up after several retorts.
- If you guys can figure out a way to present one Q/C at a time, I will do my best to answer each one.

That's not how I recall that particular event, Jabba.

 

[John Jones]

- No.
- A moderator tried to do that, but he couldn't resist presenting numerous question/comments at once.
- And then, he gave up after several retorts.
- If you guys can figure out a way to present one Q/C at a time, I will do my best to answer each one.

Lies.

 

[Jabba]

delete

 

[Garrette]

Jabba,

I suggest you read the Charles Bukowski quotation in your own signature.

 

[dlorde]

- If you guys can figure out a way to present one Q/C at a time, I will do my best to answer each one.

I think you'll find the forum software only allows one post at a time, and if posters restrict themselves to one question per post (as the majority do - and you could ignore those who don't), then that only leaves you to do your best answering them.

In any case, you may answer whatever questions you like, bearing in mind that it is you who have a vested interest in having your point understood.

That you posts typically distract or derail, and obscure, defer, or delay explanation of your point, seems to suggest this isn't your objective.

 

[godless dave]

- No.
- A moderator tried to do that, but he couldn't resist presenting numerous question/comments at once.
- And then, he gave up after several retorts.
- If you guys can figure out a way to present one Q/C at a time, I will do my best to answer each one.

I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt for a long time Jabba. After this post, I'm done. You clearly have no interest in honest discussion.

 

[Slowvehicle]

- No.
- A moderator tried to do that, but he couldn't resist presenting numerous question/comments at once.
- And then, he gave up after several retorts.
- If you guys can figure out a way to present one Q/C at a time, I will do my best to answer each one.

Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

At the risk of being accused of being "condescending", please let me remind you that it is, in fact, you, who gets to choose that to which you respond and that which you ignore. My suggestion (that is, to abandon for the nonce the effort to logically front-load your desired conclusion and to present, instead, the evidence that convinces you that there is a phenomenon of consciousness {or "self", if you will} that exists independently of the body and is immortal) would let you step away from the A/~A dichotomy with which you struggle, and simply present your evidence.

Put away Bayes, for a bit. You can come back to working out why, in your opinion, logic inevitably results in your belief. Forget rhetorical advantage, or spin-doctoring what has bone before.

Pour a cup of your morning stimulant of choice (Tanzanian peaberry, full city roast, this morning, for me), order your thoughts, and simply present the evidence (empirical, practical, objective evidence) upon which you have built your claim that consciousness is something other than an emergent property of the neurosystem. Believe it or not, if your evidence is compelling, that process will help you if and when you return to your demonstration of the logic of probability. To the extent that the thing you are claiming to "essentially prove" is "immortal" is undefined and unevidenced, you will continue to trip on ~A.

 

[Garrette]

I think you'll find the forum software only allows one post at a time, and if posters restrict themselves to one question per post (as the majority do - and you could ignore those who don't), then that only leaves you to do your best answering them.

In any case, you may answer whatever questions you like, bearing in mind that it is you who have a vested interest in having your point understood.

That you posts typically distract or derail, and obscure, defer, or delay explanation of your point, seems to suggest this isn't your objective.

This. I haven't done the actual count, but I would wager a significant amount that a categorization of Jabba's posts would show that those actually explaining, clarifying, or discussing his position would be the second smallest category, the smallest being where he acknowledges and addresses calmly presented objections and questions.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

- No.

Yes we did. The thread was set up under the rules and conditions that you specified.

- A moderator tried to do that, but he couldn't resist presenting numerous question/comments at once.

You explicitly said in that thread that if there was more than one question or point put to you that you'd simply address the first posted and ignore the rest. And you, yourself, posted more than one point on more than one occasion.

- And then, he gave up after several retorts.

You gave up. You started posting in other threads instead of posting in that one. You abandoned the thread. You stopped posting in it. You went against what you claim to be the very foundation of your own style of discourse.

He agreed to many of your premises without making you justify them and gave you a far easier ride than you deserved.

- If you guys can figure out a way to present one Q/C at a time, I will do my best to answer each one.

No. You keep trying to dictate how the debate should go, all the while ignoring and flouting your own rules. Well, your style of debate was tried. And it failed. And the reason it failed was that you gave up on it. You abandoned it.

That you now try to control the debate again is staggeringly rude.