I would really rather bet against you. Let’s select a suitable arbitrator and translate that probability into some (finite) odds.
Say, hypothetically, that every living relative of yours out to fourth cousin is captured and brought before you. They are then, every man woman and child, beaten to death with a rubber chicken. The assailant then begins to beat you with the aforementioned toy and you exhibit similar symptoms of physical decay to your previously bludgeoned kin. No unbiased arbitrator would judge that no legitimate evidence for your individual mortality has been presented to you. Short of non-occamian priors the evidence is clear.
(First, there is nothing to bet on. Your mission, s.y.c.t.a.i., is to provide me with evidence of my individual mortality. Whether I actually die at some point or not is irrelevant.)
So, if all your relatives were already dead, and your heart stopped beating for one reason or another, there would be little point in attempting to revive you? Could it be that all my dead relatives were mortal, while I am not? Even if I bleed when pricked by some defective design element of a Chinese-made rubber chicken? And how could I know for sure that these mere mortals were actually relatives of mine. I mean, tsk, they’re a bit ephemeral, aren’t they?
I require evidence of my mortality, not my propensity to bruise and bleed when hit. I predict that I’m never going to be presented with such evidence.
Meanwhile, I’ve noticed that the voting appears a little biased toward people who are losing the debate. What’s that all about? Groupthink?
First, there is nothing to bet on. Your mission, s.y.c.t.a.i., is to provide me with evidence of my individual mortality. Whether I actually die at some point or not is irrelevant.
The bet would (quite obviously) be on whether you are provided evidence of your individual mortality.
So, if all your relatives were already dead, and your heart stopped beating for one reason or another, there would be little point in attempting to revive you?
No, you have it backwards. Chewbacca was born on Kashyyyk but lives on Endor.
Could it be that all my dead relatives were mortal, while I am not? Even if I bleed when pricked by some defective design element of a Chinese-made rubber chicken? And how could I know for sure that these mere mortals were actually relatives of mine. I mean, tsk, they’re a bit ephemeral, aren’t they?
Orthonormal was kind enough to provide you with an explanation of what evidence means.
I require evidence of my mortality, not my propensity to bruise and bleed when hit. I predict that I’m never going to be presented with such evidence.
You already have overwhelming evidence of your mortality. Providing more by beating you with a rubber chicken until you were bloody and bruised would just be icing.
Meanwhile, I’ve noticed that the voting appears a little biased toward people who are losing the debate. What’s that all about? Groupthink?
Votes would have hovered around 0 if you had let it go when it turned out your joke didn’t quite work. Meanwhile, I had best not reply further lest I be found to violate the “don’t feed the trolls” injunction.
“Votes would have hovered around 0 if you had let it go when it turned out your joke didn’t quite work. Meanwhile, I had best not reply further lest I be found to violate the “don’t feed the trolls” injunction.”
Wow, that’s pretty harsh. Can you provide any evidence to back up that accusation as to my intent? How do I know you’re not just a sore loser?
Meanwhile, I’m posting in good faith, and I think I’m holding my ground pretty well. The “there’s no real evidence that humans always die” thing that occurred to me (see Zack’s comments on this thread segment) strikes me as very discussable.
Meanwhile, I’m posting in good faith, and I think I’m holding my ground pretty well.
It sounds like you are posting in good faith. Just go easy on the “but I’m winning! lolz, groupthink!” stuff, that tends to be a tipping point.
I do recommend you look a bit closer at what people are telling you about ‘evidence’, it’s important. I have been involved with communities in which finding clever ways to say “That isn’t evidence. Where is your evidence?” in response to any given piece of evidence is rewarded with status and the stronger the evidence ignored the more respect is granted. This, for most part, isn’t one of them. If you continue to speak nonsense and fail to comprehend those who are engaged with you you’ll just be voted down to oblivion.
No, you accused me of being a troll. Are you now stating you believe me to be a troll posting in good faith?
“If you continue to speak nonsense and fail to comprehend those who are engaged with you you’ll just be voted down to oblivion.”
What a perfectly rational argument. I’m speaking nonsense, therefore, you are right and I’m wrong, and I must change. Brilliant… if a trifle lazy. Okay, tell me what to say so that I get voted most popular boy. What’s considered acceptable rational thought around here?
I must say that I loved your ‘Just go easy on the ”...groupthink!” stuff, that tends to be a tipping point .’
Which, to all intents and purposes, means that I’m immortal. Please form an orderly queue to worship, leave offerings, etc.
I would really rather bet against you. Let’s select a suitable arbitrator and translate that probability into some (finite) odds.
Say, hypothetically, that every living relative of yours out to fourth cousin is captured and brought before you. They are then, every man woman and child, beaten to death with a rubber chicken. The assailant then begins to beat you with the aforementioned toy and you exhibit similar symptoms of physical decay to your previously bludgeoned kin. No unbiased arbitrator would judge that no legitimate evidence for your individual mortality has been presented to you. Short of non-occamian priors the evidence is clear.
(First, there is nothing to bet on. Your mission, s.y.c.t.a.i., is to provide me with evidence of my individual mortality. Whether I actually die at some point or not is irrelevant.)
So, if all your relatives were already dead, and your heart stopped beating for one reason or another, there would be little point in attempting to revive you? Could it be that all my dead relatives were mortal, while I am not? Even if I bleed when pricked by some defective design element of a Chinese-made rubber chicken? And how could I know for sure that these mere mortals were actually relatives of mine. I mean, tsk, they’re a bit ephemeral, aren’t they?
I require evidence of my mortality, not my propensity to bruise and bleed when hit. I predict that I’m never going to be presented with such evidence.
Meanwhile, I’ve noticed that the voting appears a little biased toward people who are losing the debate. What’s that all about? Groupthink?
The bet would (quite obviously) be on whether you are provided evidence of your individual mortality.
No, you have it backwards. Chewbacca was born on Kashyyyk but lives on Endor.
Orthonormal was kind enough to provide you with an explanation of what evidence means.
You already have overwhelming evidence of your mortality. Providing more by beating you with a rubber chicken until you were bloody and bruised would just be icing.
Votes would have hovered around 0 if you had let it go when it turned out your joke didn’t quite work. Meanwhile, I had best not reply further lest I be found to violate the “don’t feed the trolls” injunction.
“Votes would have hovered around 0 if you had let it go when it turned out your joke didn’t quite work. Meanwhile, I had best not reply further lest I be found to violate the “don’t feed the trolls” injunction.”
Wow, that’s pretty harsh. Can you provide any evidence to back up that accusation as to my intent? How do I know you’re not just a sore loser?
Meanwhile, I’m posting in good faith, and I think I’m holding my ground pretty well. The “there’s no real evidence that humans always die” thing that occurred to me (see Zack’s comments on this thread segment) strikes me as very discussable.
It sounds like you are posting in good faith. Just go easy on the “but I’m winning! lolz, groupthink!” stuff, that tends to be a tipping point.
I do recommend you look a bit closer at what people are telling you about ‘evidence’, it’s important. I have been involved with communities in which finding clever ways to say “That isn’t evidence. Where is your evidence?” in response to any given piece of evidence is rewarded with status and the stronger the evidence ignored the more respect is granted. This, for most part, isn’t one of them. If you continue to speak nonsense and fail to comprehend those who are engaged with you you’ll just be voted down to oblivion.
No, you accused me of being a troll. Are you now stating you believe me to be a troll posting in good faith?
“If you continue to speak nonsense and fail to comprehend those who are engaged with you you’ll just be voted down to oblivion.”
What a perfectly rational argument. I’m speaking nonsense, therefore, you are right and I’m wrong, and I must change. Brilliant… if a trifle lazy. Okay, tell me what to say so that I get voted most popular boy. What’s considered acceptable rational thought around here?
I must say that I loved your ‘Just go easy on the ”...groupthink!” stuff, that tends to be a tipping point .’
And that from a “rational thinker”!