Proof of Immortality III

[JayUtah]

Giordano,
- One of my pet peeves is when one of the vast majority of angry skeptics on this forum claims that some non-skeptical position has been discredited to death (or words very similar) when they have simply been disclaimed to death by angry skeptics.

This is rich, coming from someone who does nothing except repeat the same debunked arguments over and over again and promise (and fail) to address salient rebuttals. It's even richer coming from someone who flagrantly advertises that he doesn't read any farther than the first line of each post -- if he reads it at all. I submit, especially in light of the latter admission, that you are the least qualified of all members of this forum to determine whether a topic has been adequately covered.

Also, you have made it plain that you have no respect for any of your critics here, but characterizing them in the majority as "angry skeptics" is low. Please improve the civility of your discourse. Claiming a moral high ground as you do is incompatible with name-calling.

 

[ComfySlippers]

Giordano,

- One of my pet peeves is when one of the vast majority of angry skeptics on this forum claims that some non-skeptical position has been discredited to death (or words very similar) when they have simply been disclaimed to death by angry skeptics.

I think your pet peeve is that you're unable to admit that you can't prove any of the nonsense you are so desperate to believe in.

 

[carlitos]

Well I'm super angry.

 

[sackett]

Jabba, you were born to die. You know it. We all know it.

There’s that old folksong (recorded by the Carters and others) that includes these lines:

“Wouldn’t mind dyin’,
But I go to go by myself.”

I’d rework that:

“Wouldn’t mind dyin’,
Cuz I get to go by myself.”

Or, to use another old folksong, you don’t have to walk that lonesome valley. All you do is lie down in it and let the dust blow you away.

What are you so scared of?

 

[John Jones]

Dave,
- I'm still here. I'm thinkin.

Whoa! Don't take up any new activities without consulting your physician.

As always, we are waiting for your rebuttals. It's been more than 4 years. Put up or shut up.

 

[Loss Leader]

Giordano,
- One of my pet peeves is when one of the vast majority of angry skeptics on this forum claims that some non-skeptical position has been discredited to death (or words very similar) when they have simply been disclaimed to death by angry skeptics.

Discredited is the right word. They've
been considered and found to lack evidence or, frequently, any coherence whatsoever.

In this thread you aren't even trying to introduce evidence. You're making an argument of pure math and logic. However, no matter how often you are corrected or directed to good learning materials, you refuse to be moved.

I personally have listed a dozen or more statistics professors within a half hour of you ... math as well. You have not sought expert help in all those years.

Don't believe for a moment that anyone here is trolling. We're doing nothing but asking you to live by the same evidentiary and logical standards to which we hold ourselves.

 

[jsfisher]

I personally have listed a dozen or more statistics professors within a half hour of you ... math as well. You have not sought expert help in all those years.

In fairness, Jabba did have lunch with a Union College professor of statistics to discuss his views on Bayesian statistics versus reality. No details other than an admission that the professor did not agree with Jabba.

Jabba, of course, was unswayed.

 

[JayUtah]

Don't believe for a moment that anyone here is trolling.

At least in his shroud thread, Jabba has already admitted to having lost the case on its merits. Hence he seems to be trying to show that his loss was unfair or disingenuous in some way. What better way to portray one's critics as ineffectual and insincere than to imply they are driven by emotion?

The sentiment remains: Jabba can lick his wounds on his own time. Here he will be expected to provide evidence and sound reasoning.

 

[JayUtah]

In this thread you aren't even trying to introduce evidence. You're making an argument of pure math and logic.

That's not per se inappropriate for a thread that promises to provide a mathematical proof. However, proper math stems from mutual understanding of the applicability of method and the validity of starting assumptions. Especially where probability is concerned, one may not simply "estimate" one's way unilaterally into a prevailing conclusion.

I'm sure Jabba is hard at work trying to come up with some new obfuscation or complication that justifies his blatant ongoing double standard. Insofar as he remains this evasive and dishonest, he can expect his critics to express frustration.

 

[Jabba]

So why are human selves any different? Why does motive or will change anything?

Dave,

- My basic problem is that I'm not sure what makes them different -- but, I'm sure they are...

- The exact shape of multifaceted objects will naturally be extremely unlikely. The exact shape of every rock, for instance, is extremely unlikely -- but that has no negative mathematical implication re our givens about rocks...
- And, I'm afraid, that's central to the problem I'm having with your questions -- the likelihood of the rocks shape is not virtually zero based upon the givens of natural scientific law. IOW, it appears that I have to change my mind again re your original question...

- I now think that I was right the second time. The likelihood that Mt Rainier of having the exact shape it has -- given the natural laws governing geology -- is virtually one. Then, keeping in mind that the human self to which I'm referring is not multifaceted, and that we have found no natural scientific laws determining the singular 'shape' (the "who") of a particular human self currently existing is still virtually zero, we do find negative mathematical implications re OOFLam.

 

[Jabba]

In fairness, Jabba did have lunch with a Union College professor of statistics to discuss his views on Bayesian statistics versus reality. No details other than an admission that the professor did not agree with Jabba.

Jabba, of course, was unswayed.

js,
- Dr Hoerl was supposed to get back to me in two weeks (IOW, after his required publication date) but, he hasn't so far. I suspect that he can't get himself really interested...
- I should probably force myself to visit SUNY at Albany and ask for help...

 

[godless dave]

Dave,

- My basic problem is that I'm not sure what makes them different -- but, I'm sure they are...

If you are not sure what makes them different, how do you hope to convince anyone else?

- I now think that I was right the second time. The likelihood that Mt Rainier of having the exact shape it has -- given the natural laws governing geology -- is virtually one. Then, keeping in mind that the human self to which I'm referring is not multifaceted, and that we have found no natural scientific laws determining the singular 'shape' (the "who") of a particular human self currently existing is still virtually zero, we do find negative mathematical implications re OOFLam.

I don't know what you mean by the part I bolded. We know what biological processes result in the existence of human brains, and we have a general idea which parts of the brain are involved in self-awareness.

 

[Loss Leader]

Dave,

- My basic problem is that I'm not sure what makes them different -- but, I'm sure they are...

- The exact shape of multifaceted objects will naturally be extremely unlikely. The exact shape of every rock, for instance, is extremely unlikely -- but that has no negative mathematical implication re our givens about rocks...
- And, I'm afraid, that's central to the problem I'm having with your questions -- the likelihood of the rocks shape is not virtually zero based upon the givens of natural scientific law. IOW, it appears that I have to change my mind again re your original question...

- I now think that I was right the second time. The likelihood that Mt Rainier of having the exact shape it has -- given the natural laws governing geology -- is virtually one. Then, keeping in mind that the human self to which I'm referring is not multifaceted, and that we have found no natural scientific laws determining the singular 'shape' (the "who") of a particular human self currently existing is still virtually zero, we do find negative mathematical implications re OOFLam.

Utter nonsense. You are doing nothing except assuming your premise is true and then using it to conclude your premise is true.

Assuming I'm Angelina Jolie, what is the chance I'm Angelina Jolie?

You keep asserting that the "self" is some non-corporeal entity apart from the body. However, you never provide any evidence. In fact, all the evidence seems to indicate that the self is an illusion created by the neurosystem. When you kill the person, there is nothing left to test for. No psychic medium has ever passed a proper test.

Whether you choose to admit it out not, the difference between a mountain and a person to you is that a person has a soul. Demonstrate this and then you can move on to the next step.


- All of this is even more alarming when I remember that you have already agreed the self is an illusion, though a very good one. Why you are resetting now is baffling.

 

[Giordano]

Utter nonsense. You are doing nothing except assuming your premise is true and then using it to conclude your premise is true.

Assuming I'm Angelina Jolie, what is the chance I'm Angelina Jolie?
You keep asserting that the "self" is some non-corporeal entity apart from the body. However, you never provide any evidence. In fact, all the evidence seems to indicate that the self is an illusion created by the neurosystem. When you kill the person, there is nothing left to test for. No psychic medium has ever passed a proper test.

Whether you choose to admit it out not, the difference between a mountain and a person to you is that a person has a soul. Demonstrate this and then you can move on to the next step.


- All of this is even more alarming when I remember that you have already agreed the self is an illusion, though a very good one. Why you are resetting now is baffling.

Assuming that you are not doing anything this Saturday night- do you want to go out on a dinner date with me?

 

[Loss Leader]

Assuming that you are not doing anything this Saturday night- do you want to go out on a dinner date with me?

Apparently I've been married since 2014, although the papers say I'm headed for divorce.

 

[Giordano]

Apparently I've been married since 2014, although the papers say I'm headed for divorce.

Oh you Hollywood types! So unstable in your relationships!

For some reason I suddenly thought of a USA TV soap opera that was broadcast for over 40 years, "One Life to Live." Seems an appropriate subtitle for when this thread morphs into version IV.

 

[wollery]

...snip...

- I now think that I was right the second time. The likelihood that Mt Rainier of having the exact shape it has -- given the natural laws governing geology -- is virtually one.

...snip...

Since all mountains are governed by the same geological laws, does that mean that all mountains should be the same shape?

If not then why not?

If they should all be the same shape then why are they actually all sorts of different shapes?

 

[ferd burfle]

js,

- Dr Hoerl was supposed to get back to me in two weeks (IOW, after his required publication date) but, he hasn't so far. I suspect that he can't get himself really interested...

Sounds familiar. Did he say he'd be back?

 

[JayUtah]

My basic problem is that I'm not sure what makes them different -- but, I'm sure they are...

And it is exactly your inability to articulate a rationale behind your belief that makes your argument fail so fantastically. You have arrived first at your belief and are now trying to backfill it with circular arguments to make it seem logical. You didn't arrive at your belief through thought.

And, I'm afraid, that's central to the problem I'm having with your questions...

The problem you're having with godless dave's questions is that they expose the crucial flaw in your reasoning. And you're having trouble trying to sweep it under the rug in a way that your critics don't immediately catch.

Then, keeping in mind that the human self to which I'm referring is not multifaceted...

It's exactly multifaceted in the same way that Mt. Ranier is multifaceted. We understand some, but not all of the laws in each case, and we note that even a scientifically based understanding of those laws does not give rise to an ability to predict given outcomes to any appreciable degree of precision. That unpredictability is not a basis for claiming that complexity is necessary supernatural in practice.

...and that we have found no natural scientific laws determining the singular 'shape' (the "who") of a particular human self...

You're kidding, right? You're actually going to argue that there is no evidence for a scientific basis for the formation of the self? The non-corporeal and ineffable nature of ... whatever ... is exactly what you're trying to prove as a premise to your claim that the ... whatever ... persists after corporeal death. You most certainly don't get to assume its existence and properties as a premise to proving it exists and has the properties you claim.

As I predicted, you're just trying to find some new way to obfuscate the central circularity in your approach. In fact almost all your arguments in every thread are based around deliberately concealing a circular line of reasoning.

 

[ComfySlippers]

js,
- Dr Hoerl was supposed to get back to me in two weeks (IOW, after his required publication date) but, he hasn't so far. I suspect that he can't get himself really interested...
...

I suspect he's probably changed his number, and choice of dining establishments.