ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events 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 12th December 2016, 03:30 PM   #2681
caveman1917
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,032
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
* if you want a physical justification, by the earlier-mentioned Bekenstein bound the number of possible physical configurations within the Hubble cosmic event horizon (and hence relevant, with "relevant" being "causally connected to us") is finite.
erratum
caveman1917 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 12th December 2016, 05:37 PM   #2682
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,114
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave and Sparrow,
- I see this as equivalent to the Mt Rainier and the Texas Sharpshooter arguments. Do you agree?
- If so, I agree that this issue deserves more consideration. And, for now at least, I also think that it is the weakest part of my argument.
What do you think is the strongest part of your argument? Please don't do yet another fringe reset. We've see it too many times already.
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.
John Jones is online now   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 12th December 2016, 06:10 PM   #2683
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,072
Ok, I have decided to answer.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave and Sparrow,
- I see this as equivalent to the Mt Rainier and the Texas Sharpshooter arguments. Do you agree?
Yes, I agree you are committing the texas sharpshooter fallacy.


Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- If so, I agree that this issue deserves more consideration. And, for now at least, I also think that it is the weakest part of my argument.
Not "weak", but "wrong".
The Sparrow 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 12th December 2016, 06:43 PM   #2684
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22,163
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
What do you think is the strongest part of your argument? Please don't do yet another fringe reset. We've see it too many times already.
In his body of work, the answer to this question is invariably an ad hoc citation thrown out without him even checking to make sure it's supportive. He literally has no idea what he's actually presenting. And invariably when someone else actually checks it for him, it does not support his argument at all.

The strongest part of his argument will be something he hasn't read, that does't actually support his argument.
theprestige is online now   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 12th December 2016, 07:04 PM   #2685
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,114
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
In his body of work, the answer to this question is invariably an ad hoc citation thrown out without him even checking to make sure it's supportive. He literally has no idea what he's actually presenting. And invariably when someone else actually checks it for him, it does not support his argument at all.

The strongest part of his argument will be something he hasn't read, that does't actually support his argument.
Jabba, do you have a rejoinder to this? I happen to agree with theprestige. Prove us wrong.
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.

Last edited by John Jones; 12th December 2016 at 07:07 PM.
John Jones is online now   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 13th December 2016, 11:23 AM   #2686
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 38,331
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Susan Blackmore says that she has a 'sense' (my word) of self, that she believes is an illusion. Do any of you guys have such a sense of self?

P1680143.jpg by zooterkin, on Flickr

Susan Blackmore is very disappointed in you, Jabba.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
zooterkin 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 15th December 2016, 11:21 AM   #2687
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,847
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave and Sparrow,
- I see this as equivalent to the Mt Rainier and the Texas Sharpshooter arguments. Do you agree?
- If so, I agree that this issue deserves more consideration. And, for now at least, I also think that it is the weakest part of my argument.
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Yes.
Dave,

- Good.
- Sorry this is taking so long, but for me, the issue/reasoning is very complicated and difficult to put together (though, I feel 99% sure I'm right).

- How is my sense of a particular and continuous self different from Mt Rainier, a bucket of sand thrown on a floor and random bullet holes on the side of a barn -- when it comes to the likelihood of my current existence -- given modern science vs the likelihood of Mt Rainier, etc, given modern science? (Sorry about that.)
- Apparently, a personal sense of continuous self is an intrinsic/inherent aspect of (the emergent property of) consciousness, and it cannot be reproduced -- when there is no aspect of the other situations that cannot be reproduced.

- That is a way that it's different -- but, does that difference make my sense of self a legitimate "E" in the Bayes formula for P(H|E), when the existence of Mt Rainier is not? I'll be back.
__________________
"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 15th December 2016, 11:23 AM   #2688
Filippo Lippi
Master Poster
 
Filippo Lippi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,629
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
(though, I feel 99% sure I'm right).
Another wildly inaccurate number plucked from thin air
__________________
"You may not know anything about the issue but I bet you reckon something.
So why not tell us what you reckon? Let us enjoy the full majesty of your uninformed, ad hoc reckon..."
David Mitchell
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 15th December 2016, 11:33 AM   #2689
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,072
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
....
- Apparently, a personal sense of continuous self is an intrinsic/inherent aspect of (the emergent property of) consciousness, and it cannot be reproduced -- when there is no aspect of the other situations that cannot be reproduced.
Says who?

(Emphasis mine.)
The Sparrow 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 15th December 2016, 11:34 AM   #2690
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,771
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Apparently, a personal sense of continuous self is an intrinsic/inherent aspect of (the emergent property of) consciousness
No, that is the emergent property of consciousness.

Quote:
...and it cannot be reproduced -- when there is no aspect of the other situations that cannot be reproduced.
Because, as you always do when confronted with this question, you make up yet another "thing" that you claim exists, that has exactly the characteristics you need, that you claim the scientific model cannot produce, but which -- as always -- is entirely made up.

Quote:
That is a way that it's different --
No, it isn't. You've just attempted once more to redefine what the scientific model says consciousness is.
JayUtah 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 15th December 2016, 12:21 PM   #2691
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,494
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,

- Good.
- Sorry this is taking so long, but for me, the issue/reasoning is very complicated and difficult to put together (though, I feel 99% sure I'm right).

- How is my sense of a particular and continuous self different from Mt Rainier, a bucket of sand thrown on a floor and random bullet holes on the side of a barn -- when it comes to the likelihood of my current existence -- given modern science vs the likelihood of Mt Rainier, etc, given modern science? (Sorry about that.)
- Apparently, a personal sense of continuous self is an intrinsic/inherent aspect of (the emergent property of) consciousness, and it cannot be reproduced -- when there is no aspect of the other situations that cannot be reproduced.

- That is a way that it's different -- but, does that difference make my sense of self a legitimate "E" in the Bayes formula for P(H|E), when the existence of Mt Rainier is not? I'll be back.
How do you know it isn't just the byproduct of an organic brain?
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David 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 15th December 2016, 12:26 PM   #2692
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,011
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,

- Good.
- Sorry this is taking so long, but for me, the issue/reasoning is very complicated and difficult to put together (though, I feel 99% sure I'm right).

- How is my sense of a particular and continuous self different from Mt Rainier, a bucket of sand thrown on a floor and random bullet holes on the side of a barn -- when it comes to the likelihood of my current existence -- given modern science vs the likelihood of Mt Rainier, etc, given modern science? (Sorry about that.)
- Apparently, a personal sense of continuous self is an intrinsic/inherent aspect of (the emergent property of) consciousness, and it cannot be reproduced -- when there is no aspect of the other situations that cannot be reproduced.
Why do you think it can't be reproduced?

Remember that in the scientific model of consciousness, everything about your sense of a continuous self is determined by your brain. If we had an exact copy of your brain, it would feel a sense of a continuous self in exactly the same way the original did, but referring to itself - the copy - instead of the original. There would be no difference between them. Each brain would think of itself as "me".
__________________
"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; 15th December 2016 at 12:28 PM.
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 15th December 2016, 01:04 PM   #2693
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 7,521
I got a figure*! that tonight's gonna be a good night! that tonight's gonna be a good, good nite!

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
(though, I feel 99% sure I'm right).
Make it a 100%. You're just making up numbers as you need them, why are you so demure now?

*make it 99%
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!
These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.
aleCcowaN 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 15th December 2016, 01:14 PM   #2694
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,114
I'm 99 and 44/100 percent sure that Jabba is mistaken.
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.
John Jones is online now   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 15th December 2016, 05:59 PM   #2695
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 23,268
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- How is my sense of a particular and continuous self different from Mt Rainier, a bucket of sand thrown on a floor and random bullet holes on the side of a barn

It isn't. They're all complex systems based on a few simple rules. They're all exceedingly low probability events. And all of them, except the bullet holes I guess, change over time. It is nothing but a linguistic convenience to call them by the same names as before.

Technically, You're Jabba-t0 but the guy who finishes reading this sentence is Jabba t-2. They're different people.
__________________
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 15th December 2016, 06:13 PM   #2696
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,961
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
I'm 99 and 44/100 percent sure that Jabba is mistaken.
I'm not sure. Are we allowed to make up numbers out of whole cloth for any reason? In that case anyone could prove anything.

For example, 99.99999999 percent of people believe jabba is wrong

I made that up, but hey, making numbers up seems par for the course in the jabbaverse, right?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon 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 15th December 2016, 06:29 PM   #2697
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 23,268
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
(though, I feel 99% sure I'm right)

Jabba t-30 -

Under what circumstances would you revise your estimate downward?
__________________
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 15th December 2016, 07:00 PM   #2698
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,961
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Jabba t-30 -

Under what circumstances would you revise your estimate downward?
Wow. That is hardcore optomism.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon 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 15th December 2016, 11:52 PM   #2699
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 7,521
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Jabba t-30 -

Under what circumstances would you revise your estimate downward?
Let's see.

One feeling only can be modified by another feeling.

... atonement after a mortal sin?
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!
These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.
aleCcowaN 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 16th December 2016, 12:35 AM   #2700
MetalPig
Master Poster
 
MetalPig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 22, Acacia Avenue
Posts: 2,792
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
I'm not sure. Are we allowed to make up numbers out of whole cloth for any reason?
Uh oh.
__________________
Just drive.
MetalPig 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 16th December 2016, 06:05 AM   #2701
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,847
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Why do you think it can't be reproduced?

Remember that in the scientific model of consciousness, everything about your sense of a continuous self is determined by your brain. If we had an exact copy of your brain, it would feel a sense of a continuous self in exactly the same way the original did, but referring to itself - the copy - instead of the original. There would be no difference between them. Each brain would think of itself as "me".
Dave,
- Here's how I see it so far.
1. Some sort of physical thing (probably organic) naturally brings with it the emergent property of consciousness.
2. A particular sense of continuous self is inherent to each new consciousness.
3. Scientifically speaking, once the physical thing ceases to exist (dies), so does the particular sense of self -- never to exist again, even if the physical thing is duplicated.
__________________
"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 16th December 2016, 06:17 AM   #2702
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 7,521
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
...Some sort of physical thing (probably organic) naturally brings with it the emergent property of consciousness.
...
When you don't understand what you have been told, you ask respectfully and wait for further explanations.

Under no circumstance you start to write a soap opera about it, mixing up words at random, so they sound like you are onto something.

Even people raised by wolves know that.
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!
These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.
aleCcowaN 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 16th December 2016, 06:27 AM   #2703
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,114
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Here's how I see it so far.
1. Some sort of physical thing (probably organic) naturally brings with it the emergent property of consciousness.
[...]
One wonders what definition of 'organic' you are using.

An emergent property is like The Beatles. The whole was greater than the sum of the parts.
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.
John Jones is online now   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 16th December 2016, 06:45 AM   #2704
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,509
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- How is my sense of a particular and continuous self different from Mt Rainier, a bucket of sand thrown on a floor and random bullet holes on the side of a barn -- when it comes to the likelihood of my current existence -- given modern science vs the likelihood of Mt Rainier, etc, given modern science? (Sorry about that.)

It is different, because unlike mountains, piles of sand, or bullet holes, your sense of self isn't a thing. Your "self" isn't the mountain, but its shape.
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele 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 16th December 2016, 06:52 AM   #2705
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,011
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Here's how I see it so far.
1. Some sort of physical thing (probably organic) naturally brings with it the emergent property of consciousness.
2. A particular sense of continuous self is inherent to each new consciousness.
3. Scientifically speaking, once the physical thing ceases to exist (dies), so does the particular sense of self -- never to exist again, even if the physical thing is duplicated.
If we were able to duplicate the physical brain, why wouldn't it produce an identical consciousness with an identical sense of self?
__________________
"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 16th December 2016, 07:52 AM   #2706
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,771
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Some sort of physical thing (probably organic) naturally brings with it the emergent property of consciousness.
You keep trying to rewrite the scientific model to make it sound like your hypothesis. Under H, the only relevant thing that exists is the brain, and it is undeniably organic. If you want to claim it's inorganic or that there is more that exists than the organic, that is your burden of proof. Second, the brain doesn't "bring with it" a consciousness. You're still trying to make consciousness an entity, and a separate one at that. Consciousness emerges from the brain as a property.

Quote:
A particular sense of continuous self is inherent to each new consciousness.
No. There is no separation between consciousness and a "particular sense of conscious self." You're just playing word games to try to create a new entity you say must exist, must exhibit the properties you desire, and cannot be produced by the brain.

Quote:
Scientifically speaking, once the physical thing ceases to exist (dies), so does the particular sense of self -- never to exist again, even if the physical thing is duplicated.
No, that is not the scientific model. If the physical organism is duplicated, the identical sense of self must arise from it. You've been told this many times. Now quit trying to foist your desired requirements and definitions on the model you're trying to disprove, if only so you can more easily disprove it. Deal with the scientific hypothesis as it is actually formulated, not as you desperately wish it were.
JayUtah 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 16th December 2016, 08:49 AM   #2707
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,908
Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
It is different, because unlike mountains, piles of sand, or bullet holes, your sense of self isn't a thing. Your "self" isn't the mountain, but its shape.
Quoting just because Jabba will ignore this post, although he really shouldn't.
jond 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 16th December 2016, 09:41 AM   #2708
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,847
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
If we were able to duplicate the physical brain, why wouldn't it produce an identical consciousness with an identical sense of self?
Dave,
- Would you be reincarnated if we produced an identical sense of self?
__________________
"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 16th December 2016, 09:42 AM   #2709
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,847
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,

- Good.
- Sorry this is taking so long, but for me, the issue/reasoning is very complicated and difficult to put together (though, I feel 99% sure I'm right).

- How is my sense of a particular and continuous self different from Mt Rainier, a bucket of sand thrown on a floor and random bullet holes on the side of a barn -- when it comes to the likelihood of my current existence -- given modern science vs the likelihood of Mt Rainier, etc, given modern science? (Sorry about that.)
- Apparently, a personal sense of continuous self is an intrinsic/inherent aspect of (the emergent property of) consciousness, and it cannot be reproduced -- when there is no aspect of the other situations that cannot be reproduced.

- That is a way that it's different -- but, does that difference make my sense of self a legitimate "E" in the Bayes formula for P(H|E), when the existence of Mt Rainier is not? I'll be back.
Dave,
- My best guess, so far, as to why the current existence of MPSoCS (my particular sense of continuous self) makes for a legitimate Bayesian target, when other extremely unlikely 'events' (such as Mt Rainier) do not, is that in order to make for such a target, it needs to be set apart from other selves in a critical way (like the 2nd cousin of the controller of the lottery in regard to winning the lottery).
- And, at least in a sense, it is -- in that the other selves are only apparent -- mine is for sure. (Keep in mind that I accept that MPSoCS may be only a process or illusion -- just that, in such a sense, it is real.)
- Anyway, so far, I think that is the critical factor -- even though, I fully expect that your MPSoCS is also set apart...
- Confusing, but...

- Clearly, we have spent a goodly amount of time dealing with this issue -- so, much of what I have to say I have said already. Hopefully, I can add something more convincing, or just say what I've already said more convincingly.

- My sense of self, even if just a process or illusion, is still the only 'thing' that I know exists.
- And, if it didn't exist, there might as well be nothing -- it would be as if there were nothing because, this self is the only observer I have.
- And, if my self never exists, there might as well never be anything...
- See what I mean?
- Probably not. But, Ill keep tryin.

- And then, as there is no pool of potential selves, there is no limit as to the number of selves possible. I was, in that sense, brand new -- created out of nothing (an inherent part of an emergent property)-- and the likelihood of my self currently existing -- given OOFLam -- is only 7 billion over infinity.
- My existence under OOFLam would be an ENORMOUS coincident. I would be DAMNED lucky! And, Im the only one I have!
__________________
"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 16th December 2016, 09:48 AM   #2710
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,509
Your self is not a thing. It goes away all the time, so your belief that it is continuous is simply a delusion.
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele 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 16th December 2016, 09:56 AM   #2711
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,908
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- My best guess, so far, as to why the current existence of MPSoCS (my particular sense of continuous self) makes for a legitimate Bayesian target, when other extremely unlikely 'events' (such as Mt Rainier) do not, is that in order to make for such a target, it needs to be set apart from other selves in a critical way (like the 2nd cousin of the controller of the lottery in regard to winning the lottery).
- And, at least in a sense, it is -- in that the other selves are only apparent -- mine is for sure. (Keep in mind that I accept that MPSoCS may be only a process or illusion -- just that, in such a sense, it is real.)
- Anyway, so far, I think that is the critical factor -- even though, I fully expect that your MPSoCS is also set apart...
- Confusing, but...

- Clearly, we have spent a goodly amount of time dealing with this issue -- so, much of what I have to say I have said already. Hopefully, I can add something more convincing, or just say what I've already said more convincingly.

- My sense of self, even if just a process or illusion, is still the only 'thing' that I know exists.
- And, if it didn't exist, there might as well be nothing -- it would be as if there were nothing because, this self is the only observer I have.
- And, if my self never exists, there might as well never be anything...
- See what I mean?
- Probably not. But, Ill keep tryin.

- And then, as there is no pool of potential selves, there is no limit as to the number of selves possible. I was, in that sense, brand new -- created out of nothing (an inherent part of an emergent property)-- and the likelihood of my self currently existing -- given OOFLam -- is only 7 billion over infinity.
- My existence under OOFLam would be an ENORMOUS coincident. I would be DAMNED lucky! And, Im the only one I have!
Jabba, your sense of self is process, not an entity. Your sense of self is fed by every experience you have. As such, there is no possibility of you being anyone other than you. It is created as your brain is functioning. In the end: Brain stops, process stops.

Also, however unlikely your body's existence may be, it is far more likely than your scenario which includes both an unlikely body and an unlikely soul, completed with an unlikely matching of the two. Please address this fatal flaw in your reasoning.
jond 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 16th December 2016, 09:59 AM   #2712
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,072
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
........ or just say what I've already said more convincingly.......
Oh for the love of crumb cake
The Sparrow 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 16th December 2016, 10:05 AM   #2713
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,908
Oh, and Jabba: the universe existed long before human beings came along, and will exist long after we are gone. If you didn't exist, the universe wouldn't change a bit.

You might also consider that the problem isn't that you're not making a sufficiently convincing argument. The problem is that you are wrong, and you are willfully ignoring all the points that demonstrate it so clearly.
jond 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 16th December 2016, 10:08 AM   #2714
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,011
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Would you be reincarnated if we produced an identical sense of self?
As far as everyone else, including the copy of Dave, was concerned, yes, because the duplicate self would be identical in every respect to the original.

An identical copy is separate from the original. I suspect you understand that, otherwise you would be confused every time you had two coins of the same denomination that were minted the same year at the same mint.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- My best guess, so far, as to why the current existence of MPSoCS (my particular sense of continuous self) makes for a legitimate Bayesian target, when other extremely unlikely 'events' (such as Mt Rainier) do not, is that in order to make for such a target, it needs to be set apart from other selves in a critical way (like the 2nd cousin of the controller of the lottery in regard to winning the lottery).
- And, at least in a sense, it is -- in that the other selves are only apparent -- mine is for sure. (Keep in mind that I accept that MPSoCS may be only a process or illusion -- just that, in such a sense, it is real.)
- Anyway, so far, I think that is the critical factor -- even though, I fully expect that your MPSoCS is also set apart...
How does that set it apart?

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- My sense of self, even if just a process or illusion, is still the only 'thing' that I know exists.
- And, if it didn't exist, there might as well be nothing -- it would be as if there were nothing because, this self is the only observer I have.
- And, if my self never exists, there might as well never be anything...
- See what I mean?
I don't see how any of that is relevant.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- And then, as there is no pool of potential selves, there is no limit as to the number of selves possible. I was, in that sense, brand new -- created out of nothing (an inherent part of an emergent property)-- and the likelihood of my self currently existing -- given OOFLam -- is only 7 billion over infinity.
That's not the likelihood of your current self existing. The likelihood of your current self existing has nothing to do with how many other people are alive now. Why would it? And the denominator certainly isn't infinity.

The likelihood of your current self existing is based on the likelihood of your parents meeting and producing offspring, and that offspring surviving until now.

I'm sure you understand that under OOFLam, your self is produced by your brain. It is not brought from anywhere. It is not drawn from a pool.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- My existence under OOFLam would be an ENORMOUS coincident.
It's not a coincidence at all. A coincidence requires two events happening. Your birth is only one event.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I would be DAMNED lucky! And, Im the only one I have!
Completely irrelevant.
__________________
"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 16th December 2016, 10:13 AM   #2715
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,771
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
...the current existence of MPSoCS (my particular sense of continuous self)
No, Jabba, devising another silly acronym does not suddenly give life to the nonsensical concept you're trying to foist on your critics.

Quote:
...it needs to be set apart from other selves in a critical way (like the 2nd cousin of the controller of the lottery in regard to winning the lottery).
No, there is no "lottery" for consciousness. There is no pre-existing prize of conscious existence that is won by being made to live.

And no, there is no "need[] to be set apart" in the scientific model. That is what you desperately need so that you can have a countable "thing" to give you the Big Denominator. But that's not how the scientific model works. Do you really think simply rewording your assumption of countability is going to sneak it somehow past your critics?

Quote:
MPSoCS may be only a process or illusion -- just that, in such a sense, it is real.)
It is a process. It is not ten billion (or any other number of) processes. Get over that error as quickly as you can.

Quote:
Clearly, we have spent a goodly amount of time dealing with this issue -- so, much of what I have to say I have said already. Hopefully, I can add something more convincing, or just say what I've already said more convincingly.
We have, and you simply refuse to address the other side of the argument. Simply rephrasing your claims, as from a pulpit, does absolutely nothing to fix the errors that others have pointed out in it. There is no "confusion." There is only your unwillingness to engage in the debate you asked for.

Quote:
-My sense of self, even if just a process or illusion, is still the only 'thing' that I know exists.
- And, if it didn't exist, there might as well be nothing -- it would be as if there were nothing because, this self is the only observer I have.
- And, if my self never exists, there might as well never be anything...
- See what I mean?
I see that you're trying to replay your existential crisis, which we have already dealt with. If you're talking about H, the scientific hypothesis, then your angsty feelings about whether you exist or not are simply irrelevant.

Quote:
And then, as there is no pool of potential selves, there is no limit as to the number of selves possible.
Asked and answered. The only way you can have a countable set of something, such that its cardinality can be countably infinite and give you your Big Denominator, is if there is a pool of it. There isn't, so there's no Big Denominator. That's something that goes right to the heart of mathematics.

You're simply wrong.

Quote:
I was, in that sense, brand new -- created out of nothing (an inherent part of an emergent property)-- and the likelihood of my self currently existing -- given OOFLam -- is only 7 billion over infinity.
No. "OOFLAM" (or rather, the scientific hypothesis) does not have the concept of anything to give you the Big Denominator. Please stop trying to foist your straw man onto your critics.

Quote:
My existence under OOFLam would be an ENORMOUS coincident.
Do not simply keep repeating your argument. We know what you claim. You have provided no viable proof that this is the case. You refuse to deal with the reasons why your proof is not viable. Since you are uninterested in the problems with your theory, there only remains for you to explain why a rational person should continue to give you attention.
JayUtah 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 16th December 2016, 10:53 AM   #2716
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 7,521
So far, Jabba's misconceptualization of "emergent property" goes so deep and far that he'd probably go back to the shroud's thread to tell the impression was made by an "emergent property" of the Jebus.
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!
These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.
aleCcowaN 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 16th December 2016, 12:23 PM   #2717
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,494
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
2. A particular sense of continuous self is inherent to each new consciousness.
Which is why you are the only one to have that unsubstantiated feeling. If someone else has that feeling it is not unique, now is it?

Do you know how many way consciousness can fail, amnesia, confabulation, delusion and blackouts?
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David 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 16th December 2016, 12:36 PM   #2718
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 7,521
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post

Do you know how many way consciousness can fail, amnesia, confabulation, delusion and blackouts?
...or oxygen deprivation during NDEs ... but the true believers will find there new evidence for their arbitrary "souls" to be eternal. What an immorality!
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!
These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.
aleCcowaN 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 16th December 2016, 01:52 PM   #2719
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,102
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- My best guess, so far, as to why the current existence of MPSoCS (my particular sense of continuous self) makes for a legitimate Bayesian target, when other extremely unlikely 'events' (such as Mt Rainier) do not, is that in order to make for such a target, it needs to be set apart from other selves in a critical way (like the 2nd cousin of the controller of the lottery in regard to winning the lottery).
- And, at least in a sense, it is -- in that the other selves are only apparent -- mine is for sure. (Keep in mind that I accept that MPSoCS may be only a process or illusion -- just that, in such a sense, it is real.)
- Anyway, so far, I think that is the critical factor -- even though, I fully expect that your MPSoCS is also set apart...
- Confusing, but...

- Clearly, we have spent a goodly amount of time dealing with this issue -- so, much of what I have to say I have said already. Hopefully, I can add something more convincing, or just say what I've already said more convincingly.

- My sense of self, even if just a process or illusion, is still the only 'thing' that I know exists.
- And, if it didn't exist, there might as well be nothing -- it would be as if there were nothing because, this self is the only observer I have.
- And, if my self never exists, there might as well never be anything...
- See what I mean?
- Probably not. But, Ill keep tryin.

- And then, as there is no pool of potential selves, there is no limit as to the number of selves possible. I was, in that sense, brand new -- created out of nothing (an inherent part of an emergent property)-- and the likelihood of my self currently existing -- given OOFLam -- is only 7 billion over infinity.
- My existence under OOFLam would be an ENORMOUS coincident. I would be DAMNED lucky! And, Im the only one I have!

Jabba,
- If your body produced a random consciousness, what would be the likelihood that that consciousness thought it was you?
__________________
"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 16th December 2016, 02:14 PM   #2720
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 23,268
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- My best guess, so far, as to why the current existence of MPSoCS (my particular sense of continuous self) makes for a legitimate Bayesian target, when other extremely unlikely 'events' (such as Mt Rainier) do not, is that in order to make for such a target, it needs to be set apart from other selves in a critical way (like the 2nd cousin of the controller of the lottery in regard to winning the lottery).
- And, at least in a sense, it is -- in that the other selves are only apparent -- mine is for sure. (Keep in mind that I accept that MPSoCS may be only a process or illusion -- just that, in such a sense, it is real.)
- Anyway, so far, I think that is the critical factor -- even though, I fully expect that your MPSoCS is also set apart...

Jabba -

I doubt I have ever read such a confusion of concepts in my life.

Let's examine the concept that you are the only thing you know exists. If that's true, then you don't know anything else exists - Mt. Rainier or anybody. Thus, you absolutely cannot determine the odds of you existing because you have no information whatsoever.

You cannot speculate as to how many possible people or arrangements of atoms there could be or how long the universe had to get any of it done because you don't know that the universe even exists. You cannot use this to devise odds of anything. And you certainly can't import an argument that nothing is knowable back into a structure where we agree things are knowable.

You cannot even state that you existed one minute ago. For all you know, you were fully formed just this moment complete with memories of things that never happened. Nor can you be certain you'll exist a minute from now. Because you know nothing other than that you exist.

Solipsism is nifty so long as you don't ask it to do anything, because it can't. It can just sit there being useless for describing any aspect of the universe - which is exactly what you are attempting to force it to do.


Quote:
- Confusing, but...

The confusion resides entirely within you. I'm not confused at all about what you are trying to say or why you're wrong.


Quote:
- My sense of self, even if just a process or illusion, is still the only 'thing' that I know exists.

Nope. A process is not a thing. An illusion is certainly not a thing. This becomes clear when we describe other bodily processes like, say, digestion. Is your digestion of the food you ate today the same digestion as yesterday or twenty years ago? Are there infinite possible digestions from which your digestion at this moment came to be, meaning that your digestion right now had an infinitely small chance of existing? Does this lead you to believe your digestion is immortal?

I hope you answered no. I hope you thought those questions were ridiculous. I hope you see that they are equally ridiculous when we substitute cognition for digestion.


Quote:
- And, if it didn't exist, there might as well be nothing -- it would be as if there were nothing because, this self is the only observer I have.
- And, if my self never exists, there might as well never be anything...

That leads to nothing other than you knowing you exist at this moment. You can't even know whether you existed when you started reading this post. You certainly can't bring that back into an argument which depends on the axiom that the universe exists.


Quote:
- And then, as there is no pool of potential selves, there is no limit as to the number of selves possible. I was, in that sense, brand new -- created out of nothing (an inherent part of an emergent property)-- and the likelihood of my self currently existing -- given OOFLam -- is only 7 billion over infinity.
- My existence under OOFLam would be an ENORMOUS coincident. I would be DAMNED lucky! And, Im the only one I have!

This is nonsense. You just argued that the opposite of this with your solipsism soliloquy.
__________________
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
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 11:44 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.