IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Closed Thread
Old 4th March 2014, 06:29 AM   #3961
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,692
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
And Jabba believes that it is some kind of magical soul. This thread is now in the wrong forum.


It's pretty much in the wrong Universe.
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th March 2014, 06:35 AM   #3962
Filippo Lippi
Illuminator
 
Filippo Lippi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,882
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Pixy,
- It does leave "you guys" in such a situation -- but, it isn't you guys that I wish to convince. My hope is to present a case that would convince most neutral observers that my case is better than yours.
Why did you lie in your OP?
__________________
You can't defeat fascism through debate because it's not simply an idea, proposal or theory. It's a fundamentally flawed way of looking at the world. It's a distorting prism, emotionally charged and completely logic-proof. You may as well challenge rabies to a game of Boggle. @ViolettaCrisis
Filippo Lippi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th March 2014, 06:38 AM   #3963
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,692
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Pixy,
- It does leave "you guys" in such a situation -- but, it isn't you guys that I wish to convince.


Since us guys are the only ones here, you seem to be in the wrong venue.

Or are you pretending that there's a vast readership out there hanging on your every word?



Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
My hope is to present a case that would convince most neutral observers that my case is better than yours.


Not only are you ignoring that you've been told hundreds of times in multiple threads that facts aren't determined by a show of hands, you're ignoring that those with whom you are attempting to argue are neutral in so far as their opinions are shaped by the evidence. That you want their opinions to be shaped by rhetoric is but one more indication that this is the wrong place to be peddling your nonsensical ideas.
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th March 2014, 06:40 AM   #3964
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,768
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Pixy,
- It does leave "you guys" in such a situation -- but, it isn't you guys that I wish to convince. My hope is to present a case that would convince most neutral observers that my case is better than yours.
Another direct admission that you are not interested in proof, science, or fact. Rather, you are interested in rhetorical tricks employed to give the impression of science to those who have already chosen to believe -- without evidence -- the same things you believe.

As has been said: wrong forum. Take it to religion & philosophy.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th March 2014, 06:42 AM   #3965
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,692
Originally Posted by Filippo Lippi View Post
Why did you lie in your OP?


Because the way the OP is written is the same way the opening address was made in his favourite episode of Perry Mason.
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th March 2014, 06:42 AM   #3966
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
 
PixyMisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny Munuvia
Posts: 16,343
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Pixy,
- It does leave "you guys" in such a situation -- but, it isn't you guys that I wish to convince. My hope is to present a case that would convince most neutral observers that my case is better than yours.
Jabba, we are neutral observers. If you present us with a sound argument, we will accept it. If your premises are false, or your logic is flawed, we will point that out.

In this case, your premises are false, and your logic is flawed. To proceed with your argument you need to fix both problems. For various reasons already presented, I don't think that's possible.
__________________
Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu
What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO
PixyMisa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th March 2014, 06:44 AM   #3967
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Pixy,
- It does leave "you guys" in such a situation -- but, it isn't you guys that I wish to convince. My hope is to present a case that would convince most neutral observers that my case is better than yours.
You say that quite often - both on this thread and on the shroud thread. Has it happened even once?
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th March 2014, 06:53 AM   #3968
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,768
Originally Posted by Akhenaten View Post
--snip--

you're ignoring that those with whom you are attempting to argue are neutral in so far as their opinions are shaped by the evidence.
This.

Jabba, add the word "objective" to the list of many words you do not understand. It does not mean "has no opinion," nor does it mean, "never bluntly points out the fallacies in my thinking." Rather, it means what Akhenaten has said it means above. Don't believe me? Let's go to the relevant online oxford dictionary page.

1. (Of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts

2. Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual


Pretty much everyone participating in this thread is a highly opinionated sort, you included, so you have no advantage there.

But the only one in this thread who has based his conclusion entirely on those opinions and on his personal feelings is you. Not those who point out your errors; you. And read the second definition above: it perfectly describes what your version of the self is not. Your version is entirely dependent on your mind for its existence, and that's mind in the imagination sense, not in the physical neurobiological sense.

Your proof fell to pieces in the first response to it in this thread. Everyone else knew it, but it has taken you scores of pages to grudgingly admit that it isn't really a proof but an argument. It took scores more to make it plain that it's not an argument so much as it is an attempt to define something into existence. It has taken these last few pages to make it plain that it isn't a definition issue so much as it is a religious hope that you plan to use in your online evangelizing.

Face it: there is no science in your thoughts; there is no logic in your reason. Even if it were presented in a courtroom as you mistakenly think it should be, any objective judge and jury would say, at best, Nice thought, even if rather sophomoric. Hope it keeps you happy at night.
__________________
My kids still love me.

Last edited by Garrette; 4th March 2014 at 06:55 AM. Reason: Grammar
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th March 2014, 06:58 AM   #3969
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,571
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Pixy,
- It does leave "you guys" in such a situation -- but, it isn't you guys that I wish to convince. My hope is to present a case that would convince most neutral observers that my case is better than yours.
So you want to omit information and lie to the neutral observer to convince him ? Lie by omission is still a lie. Omitting to mention that science part, is akin to a lie.
Aepervius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th March 2014, 07:16 AM   #3970
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,266
Originally Posted by Jabba
- Maybe, I should have called it an "aspect" of the self, or better yet, the "core" of the self. Whatever, it's the part of the self that does not change from it's first memory, at least, to its last. And probably, it doesn't change from conception to death -- at least.
I'm going to expand a little more on why this doesn't meet the scientific idea of the self, and thus is not the appropriate definition for proposition A.

"Conception" is not a scientific term. I don't know if you're referring to fertilization or implantation, but either way, at those two points none of the cells in a zygote have differentiated into neurons yet. In the scientific view, to have an "experiencer" there has to be a brain. The brain doesn't even begin to develop until week 5 of pregnancy. So, the very earliest we could say there is an "experiencer" - a self - is the fifth week of fetal development.

But it does not remain unchanged - ever. Human brains are constantly changing. Neurons form new connections and discard some of the old ones. Sometimes this happens very fast (early childhood and adolescence), sometimes slower, but it's always happening.

This is the self according to our best scientific understanding. There aren't an infinite number of potential ones because there are finite chemicals available to make new ones and, at any given time, a finite number of possible situations that will result in new humans.

If you're not talking about a self that is made of neurons, then you aren't talking about the scientific model of human consciousness.
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm

Last edited by godless dave; 4th March 2014 at 07:21 AM.
godless dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th March 2014, 07:27 AM   #3971
elbe
Illuminator
 
elbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,983
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Pixy,
- It does leave "you guys" in such a situation -- but, it isn't you guys that I wish to convince. My hope is to present a case that would convince most neutral observers that my case is better than yours.
Not to beat a dead horse, but why would any "neutral observers" feel swayed by your case if you can't actually address any criticisms laid upon it?
__________________
"Take the weakest thing in you and beat the bastards with it"
realityisnotadditive... blog... thingy...
elbe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th March 2014, 07:38 AM   #3972
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 32,124
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Pixy,
- It does leave "you guys" in such a situation -- but, it isn't you guys that I wish to convince. My hope is to present a case that would convince most neutral observers that my case is better than yours.
You've used this insult before.

We are neutral observers. Show us evidence and convincing arguments, and we'll agree with you. That's what being neutral is.

Don't try to frame your own failures as our bias.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th March 2014, 07:41 AM   #3973
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Pixy,
- It does leave "you guys" in such a situation -- but, it isn't you guys that I wish to convince. My hope is to present a case that would convince most neutral observers that my case is better than yours.
Good Morning,Mr. Savage:

I hope you are well.

I wonder if you have any idea how dismissively rude of you it is to assume that the reason your nebulous and insubstantial denotations of a "soul" theat is "immortal" find no purchase here, on an Education forum, is that the people with whom you are interacting are not "neutral" enough to simply accept your unsubstantiated and evanescent claims as representations of fact.

If your "case" were "better"--if you were explaining observable phenomena more usefully, more accurately, more completely, or with better evidence--many, many posters who havetaken the time to interact with you would have recognized that.

You are, as I have said before, still trying to sell an immortal pig in an invisible poke. You want the acceptance, and the accolades, without having done the work.

Instead of trying finesse the admission that you are "right" in your assumed consequent, why not provide your evidence? Why not show the "soul" in action? Why not deal with the problem of traumatic aphasia?

I say again: you have not failed to convince me because I am not "neutral" enough, or because I am not "sensitive" to "transcendence" enough, or because I have blinded myself to wonder.

You have failed to convince me because you make inconsistent and self-contradictory claims, because you cannot keep your claims straight from post to post,and because you provide no support for your claims.

Perhaps you are selling your pitch to the wrong audience.

ETA: I see that the ninja legion is out in force, as Akhenaten (may he post forever!), PixyMisa, Garrette (he's a genius, you know), Johm Jones, Aepervirus, elbe, and Squgee Beckenheim all beat me to my point. That'll teach me to sleep in!
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze

Last edited by Slowvehicle; 4th March 2014 at 07:47 AM.
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th March 2014, 08:09 AM   #3974
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Pakeha, I think that is what I'm trying to do -- at least in a sense. What I have tried to define, or denote, is the "self" that I'm talking about. I don't know a better word to use. (I know that last sentence makes for a great "straight line," but what'r'ya'gonna'do?)
I can see your point, Jabba. You're trying to describe a sentiment or feeling you have.
Sooner or later either you'll come to see that the self is simply a function of the brain or not and that the notion of an observer is simply a meme employed by a quite a number of spiritual and/or meditative schools, often with an eventual eye on your bank balance.

Your notion that your self is independent of your brain is something you have yet to demonstrate to anyone's satisfaction here.
Now, about those definitions of A and non-A?
pakeha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th March 2014, 11:11 AM   #3975
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- From Wikipedia"
The self is the subject of one's own experience of phenomena: perception, emotions, thoughts. In phenomenology, it is conceived as what experiences, and there isn't any experiencing without an experiencer, the self. The self is therefore an "immediate given", an intrinsic dimension of the fact of experiencing phenomena. In some other trends of philosophy, the self is instead seen as requiring a reflexive perception of oneself, the individual person, meaning the self in such a view is an object of consciousness.

The self has been studied extensively by philosophers and psychologists and is central to many world religions. With the recent rise in technology, the self has been discussed under various new emerging fields, such as Technoself Studies.


Dave,
- This is the best "scientific" definition I could find, and I think that it does fit with what I have tried to define. My most recent "definition" invoking what we who fear oblivion mean by "self" is really a denotation, more than a definition.
You defined self as unchanging with time; where is that part of this definition?

Should I point out that Wikipedia also has an excellent definition of Vishnu? Do you therefore believe in Vishnu?

As others have posted, you are being very rude to say that unlike a "neutral" audience, we are prejudiced against your posts. First, we are particularly open to any proof you might make; but it has to be correct. Math, in particular, is neutral; you have made fatal flaws in your math, and that would be true no matter the audience. Are you looking for an audience that might not know these are errors? That would be an ignorant audience, not a neutral one. Despite your promises, you appear unable to find any neutral mathematician who agrees with your view of math; doesn't that tell you something?

I am not afraid of death, but I would enjoy knowing that I would somehow continue after I die. I am prejudiced in favor of your view. But currently I see no proof that I will continue; only the contrary. So convince me otherwise; I want to be convinced!

Last edited by Giordano; 4th March 2014 at 11:23 AM.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th March 2014, 05:41 PM   #3976
Frozenwolf150
Formerly SilentKnight
 
Frozenwolf150's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,134
Originally Posted by PixyMisa View Post
Jabba, we are neutral observers. If you present us with a sound argument, we will accept it. If your premises are false, or your logic is flawed, we will point that out.

In this case, your premises are false, and your logic is flawed. To proceed with your argument you need to fix both problems. For various reasons already presented, I don't think that's possible.
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
You've used this insult before.

We are neutral observers. Show us evidence and convincing arguments, and we'll agree with you. That's what being neutral is.

Don't try to frame your own failures as our bias.
Speak for yourselves. I'm not a neutral observer. I'm biased as hell, and can admit to my bias. I've already explained my reasons why I think immortality would be an undesirable fate. Even now, as Jabba is getting into his arguments for a part of the self that remains unchanging over the course of one's life, my bias is kicking in and I can tell you that I'm subjectively opposed to the very idea.

That said, if he were to present the requested evidence and convincing arguments, I might consider it and change my mind. It's just very hard for me to remain unbiased about the thought of being psychologically tormented for all eternity.
__________________
We'll meet again, Don't know where, Don't know when
But I know we'll meet again some sunny day
Keep smiling through, Just like you always do
Till the blue skies drive the dark clouds far away
Frozenwolf150 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2014, 09:44 AM   #3977
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
- Unfortunately, I'm still not sure that you and I are talking about the same concept...
- Some of you probably are -- but, I'm not sure. And, it's hard to move on with that doubt in mind...

- I'll try, at least one more time, to clarify -- just what it is to which I'm referring by "self" -- with an analogy.
- The "self" I'm referring to is like a DVD recording a particular lifetime. Clearly, the DVD "changes" enormously over that lifetime, but it is still the same DVD. In that sense, I am the same self that I was when I was three.
- The difference between what you believe and what I believe is that I don't believe that the DVD exists only while the particular neurosystem exists.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2014, 09:48 AM   #3978
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,910
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Unfortunately, I'm still not sure that we are talking about the same concept... - Some of you probably are -- but, I'm not sure. And, it's hard to move on with that doubt in mind... - I'll try, at least one more time, to clarify -- just what it is to which I'm referring by "self" -- with an analogy. - The "self" I'm referring to is like a DVD recording a particular lifetime. Clearly, the DVD "changes" enormously over that lifetime, but it is still the same DVD. In that sense, I am the same self that I was when I was three. - The difference between what you believe and what I believe is that I don't believe that the DVD exists only while the particular neurosystem exists.

Literally everybody knows that this is what you think. And everybody who has expressed an opinion believes you are wrong.

No amount of definition or analogy by you will cause anyone to think that your conception of the soul is correct.

However, since you seem married to it, please take the next step and explain why this thing (which does not and cannot exist) is actually independent of the physical body.


(Understand, however, that you are defining your way to success. You are not making a logical or even a coherent argument.)
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2014, 09:49 AM   #3979
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,266
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Unfortunately, I'm still not sure that you and I are talking about the same concept...
- Some of you probably are -- but, I'm not sure. And, it's hard to move on with that doubt in mind...

- I'll try, at least one more time, to clarify -- just what it is to which I'm referring by "self" -- with an analogy.
- The "self" I'm referring to is like a DVD recording a particular lifetime. Clearly, the DVD "changes" enormously over that lifetime, but it is still the same DVD. In that sense, I am the same self that I was when I was three.
- The difference between what you believe and what I believe is that I don't believe that the DVD exists only while the particular neurosystem exists.
In that case, we're mostly talking about the same self, except your last sentence means you are not talking about the scientific conception of the self, which means your proposition A is not the scientific explanation for consciousness.
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm
godless dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2014, 09:52 AM   #3980
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Unfortunately, I'm still not sure that you and I are talking about the same concept...
- Some of you probably are -- but, I'm not sure. And, it's hard to move on with that doubt in mind...

- I'll try, at least one more time, to clarify -- just what it is to which I'm referring by "self" -- with an analogy.
- The "self" I'm referring to is like a DVD recording a particular lifetime. Clearly, the DVD "changes" enormously over that lifetime, but it is still the same DVD. In that sense, I am the same self that I was when I was three.
- The difference between what you believe and what I believe is that I don't believe that the DVD exists only while the particular neurosystem exists.
Good Morning, Mr. Savage!

What evidence do you offer in support of your highlighted belief?

For that matter, what evidence do you offer to support your claim that the "DVD" exists, at all? (Where does it "exist"? Of what is it constructed?)

How do you explain the effect of physical trauma?
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2014, 09:52 AM   #3981
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Unfortunately, I'm still not sure that you and I are talking about the same concept...
- Some of you probably are -- but, I'm not sure. And, it's hard to move on with that doubt in mind...

- I'll try, at least one more time, to clarify -- just what it is to which I'm referring by "self" -- with an analogy.
- The "self" I'm referring to is like a DVD recording a particular lifetime. Clearly, the DVD "changes" enormously over that lifetime, but it is still the same DVD. In that sense, I am the same self that I was when I was three.
- The difference between what you believe and what I believe is that I don't believe that the DVD exists only while the particular neurosystem exists.
DVDs don't die. We do. Your 'self' will die with you. Bad analogy. Take this to the religion forum, it's about a god and an immortal soul and that has nothing to do with science.

Last edited by dafydd; 5th March 2014 at 09:54 AM.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2014, 10:01 AM   #3982
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
...- The "self" I'm referring to is like a DVD recording a particular lifetime. Clearly, the DVD "changes" enormously over that lifetime, but it is still the same DVD. In that sense, I am the same self that I was when I was three.
- The difference between what you believe and what I believe is that I don't believe that the DVD exists only while the particular neurosystem exists.
That's OK, Jabba. I think it's always better to put these things on the table so we know where we are.
Are you going to request the shift of this thread to R&P?
pakeha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2014, 10:28 AM   #3983
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Unfortunately, I'm still not sure that you and I are talking about the same concept...
- Some of you probably are -- but, I'm not sure. And, it's hard to move on with that doubt in mind...

- I'll try, at least one more time, to clarify -- just what it is to which I'm referring by "self" -- with an analogy.
- The "self" I'm referring to is like a DVD recording a particular lifetime. Clearly, the DVD "changes" enormously over that lifetime, but it is still the same DVD. In that sense, I am the same self that I was when I was three.
- The difference between what you believe and what I believe is that I don't believe that the DVD exists only while the particular neurosystem exists.
That has to be the worst analogy I have ever seen! But lets go with it just for entertainment:
The DVD recording clearly requires the physical integrity of the plastic disk that we call the DVD and arises directly from the physical structure of the disk (dips and bumps). Similarly, our concept of consciousness ("self" by your definition) comes directly from the physical brain and arises from the physical activity of it. If the physical disk of a DVD sustains significant damage, the recording is damaged; if the physical DVD disk is too damaged, the recording is unavailable; it "dies." Same happens to the brain and to consciousness.

Call the self whatever you want; but don't call your definition part of the "scientific" model. It isn't and can't be used that way.

By the way, have you calculated the chance that a given Poker hand exists? I just drew a hand of 2c, 3c, 8d, 8h, and Jackc. The odds of that particular hand (1/52x1/51x1/50x1/49x1/48) are enormous! Must the hand be immortal after I shuffle it?
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2014, 01:21 PM   #3984
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,613
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
In that case, we're mostly talking about the same self, except your last sentence means you are not talking about the scientific conception of the self, which means your proposition A is not the scientific explanation for consciousness.
Dave,
- Good.
- But, Proposition A is only the claim that we human selves exist for one finite time at most. That last sentence refers to proposition B. (I'm no longer trying to compare the posterior probabilities of A and ~A.)
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2014, 01:32 PM   #3985
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,266
I thought your math for proposition A depended on an infinite number of possible selves.
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm
godless dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2014, 01:36 PM   #3986
Humots
Critical Thinker
 
Humots's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 413
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Unfortunately, I'm still not sure that you and I are talking about the same concept...
- Some of you probably are -- but, I'm not sure. And, it's hard to move on with that doubt in mind...

- I'll try, at least one more time, to clarify -- just what it is to which I'm referring by "self" -- with an analogy.
- The "self" I'm referring to is like a DVD recording a particular lifetime. Clearly, the DVD "changes" enormously over that lifetime, but it is still the same DVD. In that sense, I am the same self that I was when I was three.
- The difference between what you believe and what I believe is that I don't believe that the DVD exists only while the particular neurosystem exists.
Jabba: Your analogies are redundant.

I believe we all clearly understand what you are referring to by "self". In religious terms, it is commonly called a soul.

But you seem to be adamant that you have some kind of non-religious proof that the "self" you speak of exists.

What is your evidence that some "self" analogous to your neurosystem-independent DVD actually exists?
Humots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2014, 01:58 PM   #3987
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 36,003
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- The "self" I'm referring to is like a DVD recording a particular lifetime. Clearly, the DVD "changes" enormously over that lifetime, but it is still the same DVD. In that sense, I am the same self that I was when I was three.
- The difference between what you believe and what I believe is that I don't believe that the DVD exists only while the particular neurosystem exists.

Do you have any evidence that it exists independently of "the particular neurosystem"?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2014, 02:16 PM   #3988
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Do you have any evidence that it exists independently of "the particular neurosystem"?
My bet's on the bible.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2014, 02:43 PM   #3989
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Good.
- But, Proposition A is only the claim that we human selves exist for one finite time at most. That last sentence refers to proposition B. (I'm no longer trying to compare the posterior probabilities of A and ~A.)
Haven't you asked if people here accept your definition of "self?" They overwhelmingly did not. So were you asking if, to begin with, people here accept your conclusion? Is that science? Is that proof? By the way, I don't see how A will determine B if B is not ~A. But my grasp of statistics is poor. Perhaps you can explain again?

By the way, have you finished calculating the posterior probabilities of me drawing the unique Poker hand I did (1/52x1/52x1/50x1/49x1/48)? Versus the current probability of me having it in front of me (=1). Or the chance of any one lottery ticket having a specific winning number (1/10 million) vs. a given lottery ticket having any unique, if non-winning, number on it (=1)? Or the very strong probability (close to 1) that someone will get the winning number? Please explain how these ideas (the rarity of the posterior probability of any one specific outcome versus the certainty of some sort of outcome) are any different from your "feeling" that the posterior probability of a Jabba is so small that your existence proves reincarnation?

Repeat of hint: there are many combinations of gametes possible between your mom and dad. Many of those combinations will produce some sort of person: Jabba, your sister, your brother, or a possible someone who never was born. You just happened to be Jabba, but you could have been one of many other people: your sister, your brother, or a possible someone who never was born.

Please explain the difference between your model and these models since your explanation is critical to your concept of a self and of reincarnation. Thanks.

Last edited by Giordano; 5th March 2014 at 03:18 PM.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2014, 02:50 PM   #3990
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
You realize that Jabba only responds to what appears to be the least critical post, then still ignores the real concern in that post but tries to build a fake consensus around it?

Godless Dave has enough serious concerns, but you also need to address everyone's concerns if you hope to convince us.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2014, 02:54 PM   #3991
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 23,382
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Unfortunately, I'm still not sure that you and I are talking about the same concept...
- Some of you probably are -- but, I'm not sure. And, it's hard to move on with that doubt in mind...

- I'll try, at least one more time, to clarify -- just what it is to which I'm referring by "self" -- with an analogy.
- The "self" I'm referring to is like a DVD recording a particular lifetime. Clearly, the DVD "changes" enormously over that lifetime, but it is still the same DVD. In that sense, I am the same self that I was when I was three.
- The difference between what you believe and what I believe is that I don't believe that the DVD exists only while the particular neurosystem exists.

So, this DVD-self would exist for all life forms, then? You, an amoeba, a pink carnation, or is an explicit neurosystem required? A pet dog, then? What about semi-life forms like viruses? What about inanimate objects? Do billiard balls have this DVD-self of which you refer?

Then there is the question of Jabba parts. Is it just Jabba in total that has this DVD-self, or would an amputated arm, say, have a separate DVD-self? What about toenail clippings? If not the arm nor clippings, just how much of Jabba is needed to have the part with the DVD-self?
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group.

"He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost
jsfisher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2014, 02:58 PM   #3992
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Giordano,
- Bayesian statistics distinguishes between "prior probability, "posterior probability" and "likelihood" -- none of these is, "The probability of your existence, being you are here..."
- The probability of me being here, given A, is called the "likelihood" of me being here, given A.
Just to revisit this post- I don't care what you call it, right or wrong. You exist (=1). Are you then telling me that your proof, relying on Bayesian statistics (see the OP) can not be properly applied to your current existence (current probability =1)? I think that is exactly what we are trying to tell you here.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2014, 03:03 PM   #3993
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
Just curious: i have been unconscious before (either standard sleep or under anesthesia). Where has my consciousness been at those times?

Last edited by Giordano; 5th March 2014 at 03:16 PM.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2014, 03:53 PM   #3994
jt512
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,820
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post

By the way, have you finished calculating the posterior probabilities of me drawing the unique Poker hand I did (1/52x1/52x1/50x1/49x1/48)?

I don't know whether Jabba has finished the calculation, but I know you haven't. You need to clean a typo and multiply by 120.
jt512 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2014, 04:20 PM   #3995
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,910
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
I don't know whether Jabba has finished the calculation, but I know you haven't. You need to clean a typo and multiply by 120.

Divide by 120.

I corrected a math thing! I'm so happy!
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2014, 04:22 PM   #3996
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
I don't know whether Jabba has finished the calculation, but I know you haven't. You need to clean a typo and multiply by 120.
Thanks!

I cleaned up the typo (thank you!), but why the 120 as multiplier? I was calculating drawing any specific sequence of 5 cards from a 52 original card deck once.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2014, 05:14 PM   #3997
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 36,003
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Just curious: i have been unconscious before (either standard sleep or under anesthesia). Where has my consciousness been at those times?

On the DVD.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2014, 06:17 PM   #3998
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
 
PixyMisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny Munuvia
Posts: 16,343
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Unfortunately, I'm still not sure that you and I are talking about the same concept...
- Some of you probably are -- but, I'm not sure. And, it's hard to move on with that doubt in mind...
We do understand what you are proposing. The problem is, what you are proposing is contradicted by all available evidence.

Quote:
- The difference between what you believe and what I believe is that I don't believe that the DVD exists only while the particular neurosystem exists.
That's one difference. The other is that there is nothing like a DVD recording experience during life, let alone beyond it.
__________________
Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu
What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO
PixyMisa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2014, 06:18 PM   #3999
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 23,382
..never mind..
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group.

"He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost
jsfisher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2014, 06:21 PM   #4000
jt512
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,820
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Thanks!

I cleaned up the typo (thank you!), but why the 120 as multiplier? I was calculating drawing any specific sequence of 5 cards from a 52 original card deck once.

Indeed, you calculated the probability of drawing a unique 5-card permutation, but what you said you were calculating was the probability of drawing a unique poker hand. In poker, A♣K♣Q♣J♣10♣ and 10♣J♣Q♣K♣A♣ are the same hand.

Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Divide by 120.

I corrected a math thing! I'm so happy!

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but it really is "multiply."
jt512 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:01 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.