Proof of Immortality, VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
- It isn't my astonishment in noticing that I exist -- it's my astonishment that I do exist. There is a real difference.
Click to expand...

Both are conditional on your existence. If you didn't exist, would you feel that this was a more natural state of affairs? No, you wouldn't, because there wouldn't be a "you" to feel that.

Still, it's hardly relevant. You've long ago effectively conceded this argument by refusal to address the high level fatal flaws in your proof.

Dave
 
Jabba said:
- It isn't my astonishment in noticing that I exist -- it's my astonishment that I do exist. There is a real difference.
Click to expand...

I don't see a difference at all. Either way it's equally silly.

If you were on a planet that didn't support life, with no parents, and no plausible way of getting there, then I could understand being astonished that you exist.

But given present circumstances I don't know of any reason to be astonished that I exist. I know where I came from. I know how biological reproduction works. I can see other animals being born. I have single celled organisms reproducing in an Erlenmeyer flask in my house right now. There's nothing questionable about any of it. Fascinating, yes. Astonishing, no.
 
Jabba said:
[...]
- Obviously, I think it's my audience that doesn't understand these ideas.
Click to expand...

Obviously you think wrong. You haven't been able to persuade anyone of the correctness of your Immortality Fantasy, have you?

You don't have any audience. You have critics. What you're hoping for are known as sycophants.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
I'll have to drop "human" for now.
Click to expand...

In favor of what?

Arguably, I suppose, but not necessarily. We're addressing the same experience that reincarnationists think returns -- just without its previous memories.
Click to expand...

No. Without having done any homework or exhibiting any sophistication whatsoever on the subject, you're grasping desperately at the subject of reincarnation as an ongoing dodge. You refuse to define your theory so that you can shift rapidly between vague concepts and avoid any intellectual responsibility.

It's hard finding the right words and syntax...
Click to expand...

Especially when you have no desire to be pinned down. Five years of obfuscation don't constitute a proof.

Physicists have the same problem with their equations.
Click to expand...

No, they don't. Physicists manage to make headway on new ideas in much shorter time frames than five years.

Obviously, I think it's my audience that doesn't understand these ideas.
Click to expand...

Yes, you keep implying that it's your audience's fault for being too stupid to understand your claims. Everyone's dumb except Jabba, who's an unsung genius.

The problem is that your critics can -- and have -- demonstrated their astute understanding of what you're trying to prove, and have provided clear refutations to your claims to show that your proof doesn't work. Your problem is not that your critics don't understand you. It's that they do, and that they are not letting you get away with fairly obvious errors.
 
Jabba the reason there aren't mornings where you wake up and marvel at how you don't exist is... brace yourself because this is going to blow your mind... if you don't exist you can't notice yourself not existing.

I'm trying to find to dumb that down anymore without outright just being insulting and... I got nothing.

The idea that you only realize you're existing when you're existing is just something we really shouldn't have to explain to this insane level to you.
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
You've long ago effectively conceded this argument by refusal to address the high level fatal flaws in your proof.
Click to expand...

And I would argue that he conceded it long before that, when he devolved into endless streams of fringe resets. As you can see, he's trying desperately to recast the high-level rebuttal into yet another "one sub-sub-sub-issue at a time" reboot.

Jabba presents his argument in a single post with numbered paragraphs. He has been given a reasonably comprehensive rebuttal, also numbered. It is not at all unreasonable to expect a single rejoinder to serve as the roadmap for a more detailed discussion. However, Jabba immediately abandons the high-level approach as soon as it's shown how massively broken his argument is at the high level. He immediately delves into minutia, where he thinks he can at least keep the discussion mired in trivial irrelevancy. He has amply shown that he cannot overcome the totality of brokenness in his argument. He has also shown amply that he has no "game" beyond simply stating his beliefs. He doesn't know how to debate. He doesn't even know how to defend an argument against basic criticism. As we've seen today, he keeps retreating back to the insulting position that he's an unsung genius and that his critics are just too stupid to see how.
 
JayUtah said:
And I would argue that he conceded it long before that, when he devolved into endless streams of fringe resets. As you can see, he's trying desperately to recast the high-level rebuttal into yet another "one sub-sub-sub-issue at a time" reboot.

Jabba presents his argument in a single post with numbered paragraphs. He has been given a reasonably comprehensive rebuttal, also numbered. It is not at all unreasonable to expect a single rejoinder to serve as the roadmap for a more detailed discussion. However, Jabba immediately abandons the high-level approach as soon as it's shown how massively broken his argument is at the high level. He immediately delves into minutia, where he thinks he can at least keep the discussion mired in trivial irrelevancy. He has amply shown that he cannot overcome the totality of brokenness in his argument. He has also shown amply that he has no "game" beyond simply stating his beliefs. He doesn't know how to debate. He doesn't even know how to defend an argument against basic criticism. As we've seen today, he keeps retreating back to the insulting position that he's an unsung genius and that his critics are just too stupid to see how.
Click to expand...

He is a very stable genius. He's, like, really smart...
 
JoeBentley said:
The idea that you only realize you're existing when you're existing is just something we really shouldn't have to explain to this insane level to you.
Click to expand...

I gather he doesn't realize the statistical implications of such a condition -- reasoning from within the sample space. He seems hell-bent on repealing the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, so I gather he understands why you can't do what he's doing -- but he really, really wants to.
 
Jabba said:
Zoo,
- I'll have to drop "human" for now.
Click to expand...

And where does it end Jabba? In 50 more pages and 5 mores years are we going to be explaining to you why the fact that all of the individual sub-atomic particles that made up you always (and yes I know there's more nuance to it than that before one of the thread nannies breaks out the red pen) existed and when you die your atoms are still going to technically exist that somehow makes you immortal?

You are somehow redefining things you refused to ever define. It's monumentally rude and anti-intellectual.

We're addressing the same experience that reincarnationists think returns -- just without its previous memories.
Click to expand...

What? What does that even mean? If the previous memories aren't there and the body is different what in ever loving chuffing hell is actually carried over? Hell here you can't even try to backdoor in a soul.

It's hard finding the right words and syntax.
Click to expand...

Soul. The word is soul. We've told you that. You've admitted that. You just know damn well you can't provide any evidence for a soul so you're gonna keep playing that sad and silly role of the wise old master trying to confuse his students into agreeing with him by restating things. It's transparent and insulting.
 
JoeBentley said:
And where does it end Jabba? In 50 more pages and 5 mores years are we going to be explaining to you why the fact that all of the individual sub-atomic particles that made up you always (and yes I know there's more nuance to it than that before one of the thread nannies breaks out the red pen) existed and when you die your atoms are still going to technically exist that somehow makes you immortal?
Click to expand...



Mouseover Text:

Dad, Where is Grandpa right now?
 
Jabba said:
Mojo said:
For your existence to be a piece of information to be considered, it must be observable. You can only be observed while your body exists. The likelihood that your existence is observed right now is, at most, equal to the likelihood that your body exists right now.
Click to expand...

Mojo,
- The word "likelihood" in statistics refers to the probability of an event -- given a particular hypothesis. Given that each body can have only one finite existence, the likelihood that your body would exist right now is less than 10-100.
Click to expand...


You seem to have missed this response, Jabba, so I'll post it again.

The "new information" on which you are basing your argument is the observation that you exist. If the likelihood of your body existing "right now" is less than 10-100 then the likelihood that your existence is observed "right now" must also be less than 10-100, whether or not you have an immortal "self". The thing that is observed is your body, not your "self".
 
Jabba said:
We're addressing the same experience that reincarnationists think returns
Click to expand...


Liar! Liar!

You have no idea what any of the many, many types of reincarnationist religions do or do not believe. You have done no research into it - none. You haven't even asked a Buddhist or Hindu for an explanation over the internet.

Furthermore, "the definition is whatever they believe," is a cop-out. It's meaningless and you know it.

Also, you're using "experience" to mean the word "thing" again. Why do you continue to do this? It causes your entire "statistical" argument to crash around you.
 
Loss Leader said:
Liar! Liar!

You have no idea what any of the many, many types of reincarnationist religions do or do not believe. You have done no research into it - none. You haven't even asked a Buddhist or Hindu for an explanation over the internet.

Furthermore, "the definition is whatever they believe," is a cop-out. It's meaningless and you know it.

Also, you're using "experience" to mean the word "thing" again. Why do you continue to do this? It causes your entire "statistical" argument to crash around you.
Click to expand...

Because it gets us to pay attention to his posts.
 
Loss Leader said:
It causes your entire "statistical" argument to crash around you.
Click to expand...

halleyscomet said:
Because it gets us to pay attention to his posts.
Click to expand...

The high-level list of flaws and Jabba's lackluster-to-nonexistent response to them is mean to flush this out. As I wrote a few days ago, I can't keep people from acting foolish. But I can keep them from successfully lying about it. Jabba wants some "neutral jury" to think he's serious and has a serious argument. But by foregoing a serious examination of his claims he's demonstrating -- to a neutral jury -- that he's all about the performance art instead. I've forced him to behave either in a way that's consistent with what he says he wants, or with the ulterior motive we all suspect he's harboring. Guess where his behavior points?

The argument died a long time ago. We're deep into the several-dozenth fringe reset. As desperate as he is to characterize one as "opening statement" and another as "closing statement," it's all the same nonsense phrased in not-very-imaginative attempts at a new coat of paint. The actual logic and proof died a long time ago. But defibrillating a corpse always produces a show of flopping about, and this lifeless flopping is what Jabba is relying on year after year to attract and retain the audience for his one-man show.
 
JayUtah said:
The actual logic and proof died a long time ago. But defibrillating a corpse always produces a show of flopping about, and this lifeless flopping is what Jabba is relying on year after year to attract and retain the audience for his one-man show.
Click to expand...

In other words, this is the state of the thread because Jabba won't let it die a respectful death:



MjPli8Ql.png
 
*Sighs* Listen we've already gotten the "It's our fault for giving him attention" speech more than once. We get it. We disagree.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom