Proof of Immortality, VI

[Toontown]

A swing and miss on the question (and on preview I see Mojo beat me to that expression).

You really wanted to say that, didn't you.

But it's just not the same when you say it, for a couple of reasons; I said it first, and you said it inappropriately in your haste to say it.

You seem to be saying (among the jabs at our collective ability to understand) that Jabba isn't entirely wrong because the subjective view is perfectly valid, and may give one person more information or more significant information than it gives someone else.

Then you dodge my question my by saying it doesn't happen very often that everyone has the same information in a card game. This means that it does in fact happen, and implies you're afraid to address it as it relates to the analogy's applicability to Jabba's "proof".

Strike 44.

I'm not Jabba, and my post was not about supporting Jabba's assertions. It was my own assertion, supported by my own reasoning and an analogy, which does happen to be related to Jabba's use of his subjective perspective in his formula.

It was about the dependence of significance on perspective. I stated that at the outset. At no point did I say or imply that the analogy was intended to support any specific assertion of Jabba's.

The analogy supported my own assertion, made at the beginning of the post.

Jabba's scenario is the card game equivalent of everybody having the same hand and everyone is waiting for the same card. He even says there is nothing different between him and everyone else, that we are all special in exactly the same way, i.e. that our subjective viewpoints are all the same in this regard.

What does that have to do with me? My post is my post. Jabba's posts are his posts.

I don't agree or entirely disagree with Jabba's position on the above, assuming you've accurately represented his position. Nor am I required to either defend or attack Jabba's position.

Nor am I trying to dodge anything. I'm happy to point out where I think Jabba is wrong there. I say all of our subjective perspectives differ on which brain is subjectively specific and which brains are arbitrary bits of an inevitable universe. I say for each of us, a different brain is specific and significant.

So your stories about how the subjective viewpoint may give different information may be true but do not apply in this case.

Strike 45.

That wasn't my point either. My point was that the same event can have different significance to different observers, dependent on their perspective, and I specifically stated precisely that at the outset.

In the analogy, the turn 3 was the example event.

In reality, the existence of your brain is insignificant to me. From my perspective, your brain is an arbitrary bit of an inevitable universe, thus not surprising, unlikely, or otherwise significant. It is arbitrary because I just happened to notice it's existence, much like godless dave just happened to notice Mt. Rainier, and arbitrarily decided to use it in his argument that it is as insignificant as Jabba's brain to him (godless dave). To that extent, I agree with godless dave. The mountain and Jabba's brain are both arbitrary and thus insignificant bits of an inevitable universe to me also.

And I will happily admit that my brain should be arbitrarily insignificant to all the other brains as well. Their existence establishes the inevitable existence of human brains. Nothing (for you) to see here. Move along.

And I will happily consent to viewing all other arbitrarily noticed brains as equally insignificant bits of an inevitable universe.

However, I did not arbitrarily happen to notice my own brain. That one, to me, is specific. And I can validly view a specific event as unlikely. In this case, ridiculously unlikely. Roughly estimated at 1 in 10 ⁸⁰ (factorial) worth of unlikely.

Why is that significant? Again, that depends on what perspective I choose. If I choose to conditionally assume Jabba's interpretation of "H" as the explanation, then I"m thinking, "Seriously, "H"? This is really the only brain that could ever be "me"? And you're telling me I beat those odds? Well, all righty then. I"m your huckleberry. Now show me some flying hogs."

 

[abaddon]

It is not often that one happens upon a witches brew of solipsism, superstition, math ineptitude, denial, Dunning Kruger, blatant flip flopping, false concessions and outright mistruths. Perhaps a note should be made.

 

[John Jones]

Dave,
- Remember, it isn't the size of the likelihood that determines the legitimacy of a target --

Right. Its not the size of the ship. It's the motion of the ocean.

 

[abaddon]

Right. Its not the size of the ship. It's the motion of the ocean.

Yep. Noah was toast before he set sail. But who cares. Noah was clearly immortal. Wait a minute, does that not mean the everyone that bible god drowned was also immortal? And doesn't that mean that all of them survived?

And doesn't that mean that Jabba must perforce reject the bible accounts? And where in the seven hells does that leave his Shroud claims?

 

[Toontown]

It is not often that one happens upon a witches brew of solipsism, superstition, math ineptitude, denial, Dunning Kruger, blatant flip flopping, false concessions and outright mistruths. Perhaps a note should be made.

All your charges are false, and if I believed you are serious about them, I would pity you.

I'm not going to bother with each and every one of your bogus charges. Too time consuming. I'll just address the first one. That will be sufficient.

Solipsism - the belief that nothing except the self can be known to exist.

False. I know you all exist. Said so. I just don't find your existences probabilistically significant or useful for testing "H".

Sorry. I just don't. And I don't want to date you either. Unless you're secretly Veronika Zemanova.

 

[jsfisher]

Solipsism - the belief that nothing except the self can be known to exist.

There is a second definition you might consider.

 

[Loss Leader]

Dave,
- Remember, it isn't the size of the likelihood that determines the legitimacy of a target -- the size of the likelihood is relevant only when the event can be otherwise suspected of being a target. In order to be identified as a legitimate target, the particular event needs to be somehow "meaningfully set apart" (like the second cousin of the lottery controller winning the lottery) from the multitude of other similar events. Mt Rainier is different in some respects from every other mountain, but not, apparently, in a way that is meaningful to the issue at hand. In regard to this issue at hand, there is nothing to suggest that Rainier is not the precise result of physics, nor that it won't wither away like any other mountain...

That made ... no sense.

The human body will wither away like any other body. So how are humans and mountains any different?

You not only failed to answer the question, you made the question more relevant.

 

[Fudbucker]

Define emergent property and you'll have your answer.

It's a topic for another thread anyway.

 

[abaddon]

All your charges are false, and if I believed you are serious about them, I would pity you.

I'm not going to bother with each and every one of your bogus charges. Too time consuming. I'll just address the first one. That will be sufficient.

Solipsism - the belief that nothing except the self can be known to exist.

Not entirely accurate, but however...

False. I know you all exist.

How do you know that?

Said so.

Oh, because you say so. Now you are into Hard Solipsism.

I just don't find your existences probabilistically significant or useful for testing "H".

And you have not tested this. Hence you have no clue whether we exist outside of your very own mind. How do we know if this is all in your mind alone? Or not? How do we know that none of us are real and all of this is simply a construct and illusion of your brain?

Your solipsism would have it that only you exist. Therefore all these voices disagreeing with you are simply your imagination run riot and you are talking to yourself. Under solipsism, you are merely hearing yourself and this forum does not really exist, it is simply an expression of you. Do you not see a problem with this?

Sorry. I just don't. And I don't want to date you either. Unless you're secretly Veronika Zemanova.

How do you know such a person even exists? Surely she/he could simply be a figment of your solipsistic mind.

 

[Toontown]

There is a second definition you might consider.

There are several versions of it. I checked a few of them out. I hated every one I looked at. They were all variations of wimping out on taking a stand about what reality is because you can't be absolutely certain what it is beyond an unreasonable paranoid doubt.

Screw that. I don't even treat knowledge that way. I deal in degrees of certainty.

As far as considering all of your existences insignificant, well, you are, in terms of being of any use in resolving the problem "H" has in accounting for my sentient experience. Sorry.

But if I see all of you running at me brandishing various weapons, then I'll consider you significant in a different way.

 

[abaddon]

There are several versions of it. I checked a few of them out. I hated every one I looked at. They were all variations of wimping out on taking a stand about what reality is because you can't be absolutely certain what it is beyond an unreasonable paranoid doubt.

Screw that. I don't even treat knowledge that way. I deal in degrees of certainty.

As far as considering all of your existences insignificant, well, you are, in terms of being of any use in resolving the problem "H" has in accounting for my sentient experience. Sorry.

But if I see all of you running at me brandishing various weapons, then I'll consider you significant in a different way.

You are able to hate ideas. Wow.

Have you anything else we should know about?

 

[Toontown]

Your solipsism would have it that only you exist. Therefore all these voices disagreeing with you are simply your imagination run riot and you are talking to yourself. Under solipsism, you are merely hearing yourself and this forum does not really exist, it is simply an expression of you. Do you not see a problem with this?

Yeah. I see a problem with that. But it's your problem, not mine.

 

[abaddon]

The juxtaposition of those last posts is just precious.

 

[Toontown]

You are able to hate ideas. Wow.

Have you anything else we should know about?

...

There is no "collective".

 

[abaddon]

...

Bwahahahahahahahahaha.

<deep breath>

Bwahahahahahahahaha.

Your content? Three dots.

Bwahahahahahahahahaha.

That is your best?

Stick a fork in it, you're done. Credibility is not a boomerang. When you wilfully chuck it away it is not coming back.

Face it. You are reduced to quibbling about pronouns as a substitute for an actual argument of merit.

I can promise you one thing. I absolutely will NOT be adding you to my vacant ignore list. There is nobody on it and I would grieve the loss of comedy gold.

 

[The Norseman]

It's all off topic anyway.

 

[Toontown]

The juxtaposition of those last posts is just precious.

OMG. You've lost touch with the difference between "significance" and "existence", haven't you.

Dude. Trust me. I believe you exist.

 

[Toontown]

Bwahahahahahahahahaha.

<deep breath>

Bwahahahahahahahaha.

Your content? Three dots.

Bwahahahahahahahahaha.

That is your best?

Stick a fork in it, you're done. Credibility is not a boomerang. When you wilfully chuck it away it is not coming back.

Face it. You are reduced to quibbling about pronouns as a substitute for an actual argument of merit.

I can promise you one thing. I absolutely will NOT be adding you to my vacant ignore list. There is nobody on it and I would grieve the loss of comedy gold.

Damn. You hit those three dots hard, didn't you.

What is your problem? Are you pissed because I hate and despise solipsism?

Sorry.

 

[abaddon]

Damn. You hit those three dots hard, didn't you.

What is your problem? Are you pissed because I hate and despise solipsism?

Sorry.

Nope. I find it amusing that you espouse it.

 

[Toontown]

Stick a fork in it, you're done. Credibility is not a boomerang. When you wilfully chuck it away it is not coming back.

Does this horrible loss of "credibility" include shunning?

Meaning my posts will be studiously ignored rather than being assaulted by gangs of freaked out Stockholm synromers?

If so, I like it.