Proof of Immortality, VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
- Nothing.
Click to expand...

But in your argument there is a big difference. You want to prove immortality, i.e., an immortal soul. You cast "OOFLam" as whatever's opposite of that, so that by disproving one you can prove the other. But you then go on to discuss only materialism, believing that to be identical to OOFLam. It is not. (In fact, you don't even talk about materialism, but rather some crass caricature of it that seems to have all the flaws you need to make disproving it a foregone conclusion.) Having -- in your mind -- falsified materialism, you think you can assert the prospect of an immortal soul. That poses a false dilemma.

As I have told you repeatedly, you constantly flip-flop between situations where one or other proposition is the singular proposition and another variable represents "everything else." Since you don't remain consistent in this, that's where the false dilemma comes from.
 
Jabba said:
Must admit, that's cute...
Click to expand...

And comically indicative of your apparent argument, which point has escaped you. You know there exists a list of individually fatal flaws that I and others have identified in your argument. You can't disavow that knowledge, because I can link to where you discussed using it. You've seen it. You've ostensibly read it. You know it exists. Yet you do absolutely nothing about it. That leads us rightly to conclude that you're afraid of it. You're afraid of actually having the debate because you can't address the merits of it. All you know how to do is play silly word games and try to trick people into accidentally agreeing with you. Your "effective debate" is nothing more than "I know you are but what am I?" games we stopped playing when we graduated from the playground.
 
Regarding a distinction without a difference:

If Jabba perceives a difference between 2 identical things, which sense does he use to perceive the difference? Do they:

  • Taste different?
  • Look different?
  • Sound different?
  • Feel different?
  • Smell different?
 
Jabba said:
Joe,
- The attorneys are not going to convince each other; the best each can hope for. is to convince the jury. I'll also leave it to the eventual, hoped for, jury to decide who needs to grow up.
Click to expand...


And this is exactly the point I was making earlier, you clearly do not understand the difference between fact and opinion, objective and inter-subjective. You appear to believe that the truth is determined by consensus, rather than by experiment or research. Even if you manage to find 5 million people who agree with you, that does not make your claims correct.

At all.
 
Jabba said:
- Where do you find that agreement?
Click to expand...


It's really just math. The probability of something happening is always equal or greater than the probability of that same thing plus another thing happening. The probability of there being a VW in my garage is always greater or equal to the probability of there being a green VW in my garage.
 
Monza said:
It's really just math. The probability of something happening is always equal or greater than the probability of that same thing plus another thing happening. The probability of there being a VW in my garage is always greater or equal to the probability of there being a green VW in my garage.
Click to expand...

Yes, the probability of only my torso existing must be greater than the probability of not just my torso existing but also my legs and a means by which my legs are attached to my torso. It's just mathz!!11!!!1!
 
Indeed. Jabba's fantasy he's trying to write doesn't end with him winning an argument, it somehow ends with him being declared factually correct by fiat somehow. He somehow convinces one person he's correct (or browbeats someone, anyone into make any level of agreement with him) and that somehow means he somehow becomes objectively and provably right about this claim.

As I said in the past the story that Jabba is trying to write for himself is a story that is building to a climax or a resolution or a payoff... in his head its building toward a moral.

Again I think it is very important that we all remember what roles Jabba sees for us in his story. We're the stodgy old, set our ways faculty members blubbering "Ah preposterous... most preposterous... Unorthodox I say! UNORTHODOX!" as our monocles fall into our teacups because we just can't handle the Patch Adams / Dead Poet's Society newcomer who's having his students stand on their desk and Jabba just knows the story is gonna end with all of us (except for a couple of token villains who will be shown up and leave the story early) giving him a standing ovation as we realize his "crazy unorthodox" methods was just what our stuffy institution needed all along. Jabba knows that's how the story is gonna end because that's how the story always ends.

Except this isn't a story.
 
caveman1917 said:
Yes, the probability of only my torso existing must be greater than the probability of not just my torso existing but also my legs and a means by which my legs are attached to my torso. It's just mathz!!11!!!1!
Click to expand...

Oh goody the "Take the skeptics to task" thread nanny returns. Hopefully Jabba will assume you agree with him and we can have another 40 page hijack about it.

Yes you pointed out a pointless nitpick that had nothing to do with how the metaphor was actually being used to counter Jabba. Yes statistical clustering of certain things because they operate as part of complete complex systems does occur and the metaphor of "X is more probably than X+Y" does not work in those case. Here's your cookie for pointing it out. *Pats you on the head.*
 
Monza said:
It's really just math. The probability of something happening is always equal or greater than the probability of that same thing plus another thing happening. The probability of there being a VW in my garage is always greater or equal to the probability of there being a green VW in my garage.
Click to expand...

Presumably someone's already mentioned the Conjunction fallacyWP, but Jabba's ignored it?

Dave
 
caveman1917 said:
Yes, the probability of only my torso existing must be greater than the probability of not just my torso existing but also my legs and a means by which my legs are attached to my torso. It's just mathz!!11!!!1!
Click to expand...

No, not the probability of only your torso existing, and not greater than; the probability of your torso existing whatever else exists cannot be less than the probability of your torso, legs and means of attachment all existing.

If you're going to mock people, it works better if you're right and they're wrong. You lose the impact if you get that the wrong way round.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
No, not the probability of only your torso existing, and not greater than; the probability of your torso existing whatever else exists cannot be less than the probability of your torso, legs and means of attachment all existing.
Click to expand...

Yes, the probability of only my torso existing. The comparison made is between "only your body exists" and "your body + soul + connection exists".

If you're going to mock people, it works better if you're right and they're wrong.
Click to expand...

I am and they are.
 
Last edited:
godless dave said:
So now you do agree that H doesn't have that dimension. That means under H, two identical bodies would have two identical selves. Or are you going to change your mind again?
Click to expand...
- Under H, that dimension is not accepted/recognized and me and my copy are the same except for the time and space occupied.
- Under ~H, that dimension is recognized, and is claimed to be what not only sets me apart from most other humans, but sets me apart from all other humans.
- I accept that this latter (the Texas Sharpshooter issue) is a weak link in my argument (I think the only weak link), but I still think that I'm right about it setting me apart as a legitimate target.
 
Jabba said:
- Under H, that dimension is not accepted/recognized...
Click to expand...

No, the "dimension" you're trying to foist simply does not exist in the data. Your latest effort to create significance for the emergent properties associated with life as opposed to the emergent properties of inanimate (but nevertheless complex) entities has you asserting -- without evidence -- that those emergent properties occupy a special "dimension" that makes your critics' refutations inapplicable.

I accept that this latter (the Texas Sharpshooter issue) is a weak link in my argument (I think the only weak link)...
Click to expand...

No, that's a bald-faced lie. We can prove you know this list exists. You've never addressed it, and you have stopped acknowledging it. Therefore the evidence from your behavior is consistent with your "only weak link" being a deliberate lie.

ut I still think that I'm right about it setting me apart as a legitimate target.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. As usual, you've simply begged the same question using different language.
 
Jabba said:
- Under H, that dimension is not accepted/recognized and me and my copy are the same except for the time and space occupied.
- Under ~H, that dimension is recognized, and is claimed to be what not only sets me apart from most other humans, but sets me apart from all other humans.
- I accept that this latter (the Texas Sharpshooter issue) is a weak link in my argument (I think the only weak link), but I still think that I'm right about it setting me apart as a legitimate target.
Click to expand...

If it only sets you apart under ~H, then it is only relevant to P(E|~H). It is not relevant to P(E|H).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom