Proof of Immortality III

[Jabba]

This is marvelous news. Now, pretend you're the quarter. Do we have nearly as much information about you as the quarter? Do we know how many "sides" or possibilities there were to create your neurosystem? Can we run experiments over and over on fair quarters with expected outcomes? Do we know the probability of a random system over a designed one?

You took all of that for granted with the quarter. Now you seem to be taking it all for granted in order to speculate about immortality. But do you know how the system works through careful experimentation? Do you know when it's working or cheating? How do you know any of this?

Remember also that we have plenty of evidence that ]two-headed quarters exist. We can describe their properties and even flip them to compare them to regular quarters.

Do we have any evidence that your immortal "soul" even exists?

LL,
- If I understand your question, we have much more info about me than we do about that quarter.

 

[JoeMorgue]

LL,
- If I understand your question, we have much more info about me than we do about that quarter.

No.

We actually have a lot more info about the quarter then we do about the "you" you are trying to convince us exists.

We know what quarters are. We can observe them, touch them, study them. We know their properties and how they act when certain forces are applied to them.

We know nothing this mystical, Woo-woo, non-physical, non-neurological process version of "you" that you are proposing.

 

[godless dave]

Jay,
- I would really like to address your questions and comments -- you easily provide the most challenges to my argument -- but I can't keep up with them. Please give me one q/c at a time. And also, please answer my singular questions directly -- I just don't have time to look for, and sort out, your previous answers.
- If you can slow down, I'll try to keep up.

You managed to quote one of Jay's posts, so you should, at the very least, be able to read the post you quoted.

Are stalling tactics part of truly effective debate?

 

[Jabba]

jt,
- Assuming, for the moment, that you do agree that your explanation above is another way of describing the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy...

- I do think that the target was there before the shooting, and I tried to explain that back in #1898.

- But, I also think that there is no need for a target in this situation. What a pre-existing target does is provide a reasonable alternative to "happenstance" (luck of the draw?). Here, IMO of course, we already have a reasonable alternative(s) to OOFLam. There is a reasonable possibility that OOFLam is not correct. We are not stuck with luck of the draw if there is a reasonable alternative to luck. We use Bayes to figure out which side -- H, or ~H -- scores the most points in the formula.
- Given that I exist, which is more probable -- H or ~H? Which is more likely to produce my current existence?

jt,
- I assume that you disagree with my claim above. Are you working on an explanation?

 

[Jabba]

You managed to quote one of Jay's posts, so you should, at the very least, be able to read the post you quoted.

Are stalling tactics part of truly effective debate?

Dave,
- I don't understand your question. I did read the post I quoted.

 

[JoeMorgue]

jt,
- I assume that you disagree with my claim above. Are you working on an explanation?

Unbelievable.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- I don't understand your question. I did read the post I quoted.

Then you should be able to address Jay's objections that were in that post, instead of asking him to restate them one at a time.

 

[Jabba]

Or just read the part you quoted that explains why 21-23 are irrelevant:

Dave,
- I now think that I understand your question.
- I think that my answer is that Jay was probably referring to 21-23 as being narcissistic, but to me, 21-23 has nothing to do with narcissism -- it's simple logic.
- Hopefully, I can get this out before you respond to my previous response...

 

[Jabba]

Then you should be able to address Jay's objections that were in that post, instead of asking him to restate them one at a time.

Dave,
- Just to make sure -- are you referring to the following post?

Narcissism isn't an explanation or proof. Do not simply incorporate your most recent fringe reset by reference, especially when you demonstrate absolutely no interest in the many rebuttals that followed.



Changing horses. Your argument has been that the scientific model could produce that precious, unique combination of "you" only by the sheerest of luck. You insist that the probability of you, given only one finite life, is "virtually zero." That is exactly the exercise of identifying a target and claiming it's so hard for science to hit it that we must conclude some other means accomplished it.



There is no luck involved in the scientific model. You desperately need there to be so that you can create a false dilemma that props up your half-baked notion of a soul. The "luck" in that formula comes from your preconceived notion of the significance of the outcome that is you. Go back and read jt512's card-deck explanation until you understand it. The odds of drawing a royal flush of spades is exactly the same as drawing any other hand. We only get excited about it because we predetermined that that hand means something important.



Not with made-up numbers. If you just make up all the numbers in your model, you're just spinning your wheels. And you have been told this by multiple people.

 

[JayUtah]

I think that my answer is that Jay was probably referring to 21-23 as being narcissistic, but to me, 21-23 has nothing to do with narcissism -- it's simple logic.

Do not persist in stalling by trying to put words in your critics' mouths. I have answered your question. Deal with the answer I actually gave, not the answer you're desperately trying to pin on me.

 

[JayUtah]

Just to make sure -- are you referring to the following post?

Dave does not speak for me, although I agree with his admonition that you quit stalling and address my answer. You asked whether certain points of your most recent reset were what I was referring to when I described your narcissism. My answer to that was to refer you to the posts I had previously made addressing your reset. That is still my answer. You have told me you are unwilling to do that. That does not obligate me to have the discussion de novo. I will not indulge your laziness.

I have given you my answer. Don't pretend it is anything other than I have given you, or that Dave's take on your latest obvious evasions are anything other than his opinion.

 

[John Jones]

Dave,
- I don't understand your question. I did read the post I quoted.

Let me explain. He wants to know if your stalling tactics are a part of truly effective debate.

 

[JayUtah]

I would really like to address your questions and comments -- you easily provide the most challenges to my argument -- but I can't keep up with them.

Not my problem. And since most of your posts are little more than clumsily reworded repetitions of previously-made and previously-rebutted claims, or obstructionist requests for unnecessary clarifications, I'd say you can make better use of what limited time you have available. You've recognized correctly that the problem is you. Now fix it by being a more effective debater.

For example, you quoted your entire most recent fringe reset and asked me a question about it that I had already answered. How should we interpret this as anything more than an attempt to reset your reset? You didn't need to repeat those statements from earlier; they were already answered. You didn't need to quote the entire post in order to ask about four points. It's blatantly insulting when you ignore someone for pages and pages, try to blunt the insult by flattery, and use his post only to springboard your latest self-serving purpose without addressing his actual points. What's worse is that you actually seem to believe your critics don't notice these ham-fisted shenanigans.

Please give me one q/c at a time.

No.

You have proposed that you are able to prove that you are immortal. You have chosen to do that in a public forum filled with skeptics whom you know for a fact will vigorously and adeptly challenge that claimed ability. You have made no secret of your disdain for skepticism, and have told us more than once that your views and methods would be more welcome elsewhere. Yet despite the circumstances that you do not deny, you chose this forum in which to present your case, knowing full well the amount and kind of response you would receive.

To beg now for lenience is the epitome of hubris. If you are unequal to the debate or unable to face all comers, then resign the debate and apologize to all those whose time you have wasted by ignoring their questions and comments.

Further, you have proven in this very forum that even when you are limited to single interlocutors and single-threaded debates, you are still ineffective. So let's dispense with the mistaken notion that the problems you're having in this debate are caused by your critics overwhelming you. You've tried playing this card before; your comical attempts to curry sympathy usually come on the heels of telling your critics they're just not able to think as broadly as you. If you're going to play these sorts of rhetorical games, you have to let more time pass between telling your critics off and begging them for leniency.

And also, please answer my singular questions directly --

I will answer your questions and rebut your claims in the way I feel is effective and appropriate. Do not be so arrogant as to presume to dictate how your critics must respond to you. They are not your puppets and this is not just some scripted exercise.

I just don't have time to look for, and sort out, your previous answers.

Again, not my problem. Nor is it credible. You attempt to massage my ego by telling me I'm your most challenging critic. Yet you go dozens of pages deliberately ignoring my posts. How are we to interpret that?

If you can slow down, I'll try to keep up.

Nice try, but you'll have to find some other excuse for ignoring critics you can't answer.

 

[Loss Leader]

LL,
- If I understand your question, we have much more info about me than we do about that quarter.

Then you clearly didn't understand the qiestion.

 

[Jabba]

Dave does not speak for me, although I agree with his admonition that you quit stalling and address my answer. You asked whether certain points of your most recent reset were what I was referring to when I described your narcissism. My answer to that was to refer you to the posts I had previously made addressing your reset. That is still my answer. You have told me you are unwilling to do that. That does not obligate me to have the discussion de novo. I will not indulge your laziness.

I have given you my answer. Don't pretend it is anything other than I have given you, or that Dave's take on your latest obvious evasions are anything other than his opinion.

Jay,
- Can you just tell me what my latest reset is?

 

[JayUtah]

but to me, 21-23 has nothing to do with narcissism -- it's simple logic.

No, it's a straw man. You cited your latest fringe reset to support the claim that you had identified the "target" beforehand, using the Texas sharpshooter nomenclature. Several of your critics, including myself, pointed out that your reset had been thoroughly refuted. Therefore it does not substantiate that your probability target existed ab initio. More to the point, you were reminded of the chief reason why your latest fringe reset was unconvincing.

You, on your own, plucked a handful of points from all those in your post and asked specifically whether that's what your critics were talking about. This obsession over the excerpt exists in your mind alone. Your critics are not bound to fall for your clumsy debate tricks, nor are they bound to repeat de novo explanations you freely admit you ignored.

Whether it is your intent or not to frustrate your critics into either flouncing or lashing out, you simply must do better at debating than this. Your arguments today have been the worst sort of obtuseness and evasion. These are not arguments I expect from a mature human being. Now shape up and get on with your proof.

 

[JayUtah]

Can you just tell me what my latest reset is?

The post to which Dave refers here

Now quit stalling.

 

[Jabba]

The post to which Dave refers here

Now quit stalling.

Jay,
- Thanks. I'll be back.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Now quit stalling.

Jay,
- Thanks. I'll be back.

*Groans, reaches up and rubs the bridge of my nose*

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- I now think that I understand your question.
- I think that my answer is that Jay was probably referring to 21-23 as being narcissistic, but to me, 21-23 has nothing to do with narcissism -- it's simple logic.
- Hopefully, I can get this out before you respond to my previous response...

There is nothing logical about privileging your subjective point of view. It's the antithesis of rational thought.