godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
Jabba, nobody is stopping you from responding to just JayUtah.
Proof of Immortality, VI
- Thread starter jond
- Start date
- Status
CriticalThanking
Designated Hitter
Well, if we use the "engine as a radio" analogy, we know that there is at least one "going 60 MPH" looking through multiple sets of headlights right now.
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2008
- Messages
- 8,449
Wait, seriously? Seriously??
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
Personally I'd be quite happy if Jabba responded only to JayUtah, provided he responded with something more than "I don't understand, please explain it to me again, even though you've already explained it in the simplest possible terms at least a dozen times". Start with his point by point rebuttal of your most recent fringe reset please Jabba.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Dave,
- Can I legally quote him without his permission?
Jay,
- What sub-issue would you like me to address first?
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
Every sub-issue you've raised these last 5 years had been shot down. You want to go through that again?
Waterman
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2008
- Messages
- 251
Here is one that I would like to see addressed.
What repeatable, scientific observation has been made that is not consistent with the current scientific consensus that consciousness (and self-identity) is a brain function based on physical condition and accumulated experience.
jond
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 3,440
Why not start with his point by point refutation of your last fringe reset?
MetalPig
Illuminator
Jabba's existence, apparently
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
- Adding to the map.
- The following is my opening statement so far -- I could have to revise it...
- I think that, using Bayesian statistics, I can virtually disprove the consensus scientific hypothesis that we each have only one, finite, life to live…
1. If something occurs that is unlikely to occur -- given a particular hypothesis -- the event is evidence against the hypothesis. (V3189)
(Godless Dave)1.1. Untrue.(V3193)
1.2. Dave,
- True (You're right). I probably should have said something like, "The event is potential, significant, evidence against the hypothesis."
- I'm still trying to figure out how to best number and reference additions to my map. 1.2. is new.
- The following is my opening statement so far -- I could have to revise it...
- I think that, using Bayesian statistics, I can virtually disprove the consensus scientific hypothesis that we each have only one, finite, life to live…
1. If something occurs that is unlikely to occur -- given a particular hypothesis -- the event is evidence against the hypothesis. (V3189)
(Godless Dave)1.1. Untrue.(V3193)
1.2. Dave,
- True (You're right). I probably should have said something like, "The event is potential, significant, evidence against the hypothesis."
- I'm still trying to figure out how to best number and reference additions to my map. 1.2. is new.
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
You still have no idea what "evidence" means.
Belz...
Fiend God
Perhaps if you stopped trying to figure out everything and instead have a discussion with us you'd have learned something by now.
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
Still untrue.
If a hypothesis predicts a wide variety of possible events, each of them individually unlikely, then one of those events happening is not evidence against the hypothesis and there is no reason to think it could potentially be evidence against the hypothesis.
The individual location of each grain of sand on a beach is very unlikely. That tells you nothing about any hypotheses about how beaches are formed.
Jabba I have a question.
Why not just make it all up? I'm serious.
Why not just go onto this other site that has this mythical audience of supporters you claim you have... and just lie?
Tell them you won the argument. Just outright make up opponents and counter arguments yourself. Just write the epic story of how Jabba went in alone against the army of big mean skeptics and just broke their brains with your amazing debate style.
I mean you aren't listening to us here enough for anything we say to be meaningful even within the dishonest context you are promoting, so why are we even necessary?
It would literally be no more intellectually hollow or dishonest than what you are openly admitting you are doing now.
Why is a token, almost symbolic participation in this thread the one line you won't cross? You're making up our arguments out of whole cloth to feed your fantasy why not make up the entire debate?
Why not just make it all up? I'm serious.
Why not just go onto this other site that has this mythical audience of supporters you claim you have... and just lie?
Tell them you won the argument. Just outright make up opponents and counter arguments yourself. Just write the epic story of how Jabba went in alone against the army of big mean skeptics and just broke their brains with your amazing debate style.
I mean you aren't listening to us here enough for anything we say to be meaningful even within the dishonest context you are promoting, so why are we even necessary?
It would literally be no more intellectually hollow or dishonest than what you are openly admitting you are doing now.
Why is a token, almost symbolic participation in this thread the one line you won't cross? You're making up our arguments out of whole cloth to feed your fantasy why not make up the entire debate?
Last edited:
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Dave,
- I think that's wrong.
- When an event is unlikely to happen given a particular hypothesis, it is potential evidence against the hypothesis, in that, it being evidence depends upon other conditions. Here, one of the conditions is that the "hypothesis predicts a wide variety of possible events, each of them individually unlikely."
What you "think" is irrelevant Jabba if you can't provide some evidence for it.
That's like say getting dealt a Royal Flush disproves poker.
Or in your case it's like dealing hand after hand until you get a Royal Flush, then gasping and going "That's so unlikely!"
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Unacceptable.
I don't mean the statement is unacceptable, I mean that it is unacceptable for you to be making an "opening statement" in the sixth chapter of this five-year debate, in which there are already thousands upon thousands of posts addressing all the points you've made and all the points you're about to make all over again. Do something besides rev the engine, Jabba.
No.
You said you "[thought you could] essentially prove immortality by means of Bayesian statistics." That was your affirmative proposition. Do not try to change horses now to some easier, indirect, or negative statement. Do not try to reverse the burden of proof. Do not be dishonest. Trying to sneak things in by the back door is one of the abhorrent behaviors I called you out on earlier, and will continue to call you out on until you stop doing it.
This was discussed in my answer to your last manifesto. As early as this morning you were keen to dive into it, but now It appears you've abandoned it to start yet again. Unfortunately for you, my last response still stands and still goes ignored and unaddressed by you. Since you are deliberately ignoring it, I take it to mean you are unable to answer it. The eleven fatal flaws I identified in your argument individually and collectively refute it. You will not answer, so that must mean you accept the refutation. Now the honorable thing would be for you to concede.
We don't care. You've fiddled and fussed with irrelevant details for days now recently, and for years on end rather than actually engage your critics meaningfully. You've strained the patience of your critics to the breaking point. Quit playing games. Quit wasting our time.
- Status