godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
Unfortunately this is sometimes mistaken for "holistic thinking".
Proof of Immortality, VI
- Thread starter jond
- Start date
- Status
Unfortunately this is sometimes mistaken for "holistic thinking".
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
As opposed to pulling numbers out of one's posterior, as seen in the original OP, which would be considered "holeasstic thinking"?
No doubt.
tvtropes.com said:
More sweet than bitter, bitter than sweet...it's a bittersweet surrender...
Mojo
Mostly harmless
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
The problem seems to be that Jabba has convinced himself he's an excellent sort of academic, intellectual -- a scholar and commentator on the nature of debate. The experience he seems to want to have -- whether by posting here or writing elsewhere -- is to analyze and comment on the debates he's had, but not actually to have them. That's one way to explain his obvious disinterest in others' comments. They are simply subject matter to be treated dispassionately, not arguments to be addressed and parried.
The reality is that Jabba's not an intellectual. He's not an academic. And he's certainly no expert on debate, or even how to properly state a proposition and make a case for it. He's wallowing in the intellectual weeds of pseudoscience, unable to tell it from real science and thereby unable to provide anything of value to a skeptical audience. He's enamored by elements of the mystical and transcendental, unwilling to apply critical thinking to them. (Very good, so also was my grandfather in his autumn years -- I sympathize.) While clearly having an interest in statistical reasoning, he's simply no good at it. But most importantly, he's simply unable or unwilling to see that his argument fails for what to any beginning philosophy or law student would be obvious as basic errors in reasoning. He's committing elementary fallacies.
As happens with so many fringe theorists, Jabba can't seem to conceive of just how obviously wrong his proof is. He seems to want to think these fallacies of which he's been accused are no big deal, and that his argument flies at a much higher altitude that can't be concerned with such petty details. It's a great soaring masterpiece of American mathematical reasoning that only needs a sympathetic jury to see it for what it is, not the rabble who dismiss it for "irrelevant" mechanical reasons. Great thinkers don't worry about false dilemmas or begging the question, and have no time for critics who can only think of those small-potato criticisms to make.
Stepping back from first-person participation and writing from the position of an analyst or commentator on his own work means he doesn't have to actually engage the argument. And that means its outcome can't have the emotional effect he has already told us he fears. It shifts the discussion from the potentially devastating possibility he might be wrong to a more antiseptic commentary on "effective debate." Recasting his own role from proponent to teacher or group-discussion leader is a face-saving gesture. But naturally his critics aren't going to let him do that. Nor should they. Jabba chose to present his proof to an audience he has known for years will demand intellectual accountability from him. His inability to provide it is his own fault. His unwillingess to get back into the role of proponent is just going to create more rancor.
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
Most of Jabba's posts are poorly reasoned, but this one stands out for the sheer amount of nonsense you would have to believe for it to even begin to make sense.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
SOdhner,
- So far, everyone else seems to accept that a perfect copy would not bring me back to life, nor have me seeing out of two sets of eyes. But, they also claim that there would be no difference between my self and its copy. To me, that doesn't make sense.
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
That's because you've started off by assuming the existence of souls. You can't assume the truth of one of your propositions. You have to prove it to be true. This has been one of your failings all along. You assume the existence of the thing you're trying to prove.
It's almost as if nobody has ever mentioned this to you before.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
No, that's a lie. Everyone agrees these two statements you constantly fall back to are meaningless in the context of materialism. Please stop insisting on vague handwaving when we have precise language on the table. But more importantly, stop this incessant lying about what your critics have or have not agreed to. You're getting ruder and more dishonest about this by the day.
Irrelevant. That's what materialism states and that's what you must use when evaluating P(E|H). Your inability to understand it or your unwillingness to accept it even for argument are simply irrelevant.
Perhaps if you were able to expand your imagination to encompass theories that don't involve a soul, you'd stop begging the question and being so confused all the time. Your "confusion" derives from you constantly trying to shove a soul into theories that don't allow for it.
Last edited:
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Jeez.
If we took you, Jabba #1, and made a perfect copy, called Jabba #2, what would be the difference between Jabba #1 and Jabba #2?
ETA: Don't go for the labels, please. That would be so lame.
Last edited:
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Wouldn't it feel good to tell the truth for a change? What are peoples' actual positions according to their own words and not the ones you dishonestly put in their mouths?
Now is your chance to say what the difference would be. You've been asked often and never answered. It would be the honest and well-educated thing to do.
What difference do you think there would be? And why does your ability to understand something trump reality?
I freely admit that there are parts of Stephen Hawking's Brief History Of Time which don't make sense to me. But that is my failing, not an error in physics. My lack of ability to fully understand Hawking's work does not mean that Hawking is wrong.
But you seem to be saying that if something doesn't make sense to you, it must be wrong. Not even the cleverest person in the entire world has a complete understanding of everything; what sets the seeker after truth apart from the deluded is that they are aware that "what makes sense to them" does not necessarily equal reality.
When do you intend to make your H, or OOFLam (or whatever the notation du jour is) conform to the scientific or materialist model?
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
You don't think two identical things can exist? If there are two things, there has to be a difference between them?
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
And he says your tire tread is low.
But the right front tire shows more wear than the right rear tire. How can this be? Both tires were identical from the factory. That means they must be the same tire, with no difference between them. It's really the same tire in four locations (five if you have a full size spare that was purchased at the same time). Anything that wore down the front tire must have affected the other tires as well, right?
Well that's probably because you aren't putting the tiniest amount of effort into understanding anyone else's arguments and are at this point practically making up your opponents arguments out of thin air.
Belz...
Fiend God
How about you explain why so we can actually have a conversation?
Why, exactly, do you think that a copy would bring you back to life unless you're positing a soul even though we're talking about materialism? We've pointed this out to you dozens of times by now. How about a little good faith on your part to address this?
Jabba,
You will ignore this question. You will ignore this question because you can't answer it and maintain the fantasy you are stuck in.
Do you in any way, on any level, in any capacity understand that your opponents do not agree to your starting position (that "self" is a singular, discrete thing that exist separately and unchanging from our neurological and biological processes) and therefore your question "Would a totally new but identical 'me' be 'me?" is meaningless?
When we say "Would some magical hypothetical completely identical but distinct version of 'me' be 'me'" is both yes and no we aren't creating some paradox that proves you right, we are saying the question is meaningless and not valid.
Our current concepts of identity and "self" do not account for every possible hypothetical. That doesn't mean there's a God creating souls and magic bathtowels that you can prove with your rude "Effective Debate Style" for this mythical audience of neutral spectators you've made up in the play you are writing in your head.
Ignore this like I know you will.
You will ignore this question. You will ignore this question because you can't answer it and maintain the fantasy you are stuck in.
Do you in any way, on any level, in any capacity understand that your opponents do not agree to your starting position (that "self" is a singular, discrete thing that exist separately and unchanging from our neurological and biological processes) and therefore your question "Would a totally new but identical 'me' be 'me?" is meaningless?
When we say "Would some magical hypothetical completely identical but distinct version of 'me' be 'me'" is both yes and no we aren't creating some paradox that proves you right, we are saying the question is meaningless and not valid.
Our current concepts of identity and "self" do not account for every possible hypothetical. That doesn't mean there's a God creating souls and magic bathtowels that you can prove with your rude "Effective Debate Style" for this mythical audience of neutral spectators you've made up in the play you are writing in your head.
Ignore this like I know you will.
Last edited:
- Status