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 30th December 2016, 03:55 AM   #2921
CriticalThanking
Designated Hitter
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: On in memory
Posts: 2,899
Jabba,

Do you agree you are unable to jump 4 miles high (from the surface of the earth using only your muscles)? You seem to be claiming there is therefore no limit to the number of times you can jump 4 miles high. Do you agree there is a problem with that?
CriticalThanking 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 30th December 2016, 05:17 AM   #2922
The Sparrow
Muse
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 788
Jabba, we had a conversation going in posts 2804, 2812, 2814, 2838. Are you abandoning that now?

It ended with:

Jabba:

Sparrow,
- Are you asking for evidence that there is an aspect of a person that cannot be reproduced -- or, are you asking for evidence that there is no such aspect in a banana?


Sparrow:

The former.
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 30th December 2016, 05:46 AM   #2923
wea
Critical Thinker
 
wea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: EU
Posts: 305
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Why are you simply repeating them as if it was the first time you'd ever made them?
Originally Posted by jond View Post
his father's direction to never give up
Hamilcar Barca did less damage having Hannibal swear
wea 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 30th December 2016, 07:34 AM   #2924
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,169
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
No, because your existence depends on the existence of people who were alive at the same time Cleopatra was. Impossible selves aren't potential selves.
Dave,
- Yes they are -- it's just that the words are confusing.
- Two human reproductive cells of the opposite sex generally react with each other to produce a new self if they merge. If any two do not merge, the particular self they represent -- would have created -- will be left behind. Almost all possible combinations of human reproductive cells represents a potential human 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
"Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." Jabba's Razor
Jabba 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 30th December 2016, 07:36 AM   #2925
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,644
Would you say the 1938 Brooklyn Dodgers are potential winners of the 2017 World Series?
__________________
"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 30th December 2016, 08:07 AM   #2926
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,066
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Yes they are -- it's just that the words are confusing.
- Two human reproductive cells of the opposite sex generally react with each other to produce a new self if they merge. If any two do not merge, the particular self they represent -- would have created -- will be left behind. Almost all possible combinations of human reproductive cells represents a potential human self.

Would you count all potential selves from people who could have reproduced by merging cells with a banana? Why or why not?
__________________
"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 30th December 2016, 08:27 AM   #2927
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 22,320
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Yes they are -- it's just that the words are confusing.
- Two human reproductive cells of the opposite sex generally react with each other to produce a new self if they merge. If any two do not merge, the particular self they represent -- would have created -- will be left behind. Almost all possible combinations of human reproductive cells represents a potential human self.

You are equating "self" with "genetic code." The genetic code tells you a lot about a person physically, but not a lot about who that person is. Think of all the sets of twins you know who are, gasp, completely different people.

The self is a process. No two people, even twins, are running the same process.

Hell, it doesn't even have to be people. I have the exact same computer upstairs as downstairs - bought them two-for-one. Yet each one has its own quirks. And the older they get, the more they diverge.
__________________
- I haven't refused to answer it; I just haven't been able to answer it...
Jabba

Do not pretend I support your argument and do not PM me.
- Nick Terry
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 30th December 2016, 08:49 AM   #2928
The Sparrow
Muse
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 788
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Yes they are -- it's just that the words are confusing.
- Two human reproductive cells of the opposite sex generally react with each other to produce a new self if they merge. If any two do not merge, the particular self they represent -- would have created -- will be left behind. Almost all possible combinations of human reproductive cells represents a potential human self.
How can something that is not yet 'created' be 'left behind'. The latter tries to imply that in fact it is created and is "waiting". Once again you try to sneak something in, and...........fail.
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 30th December 2016, 09:02 AM   #2929
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,644
Originally Posted by The Sparrow View Post
How can something that is not yet 'created' be 'left behind'. The latter tries to imply that in fact it is created and is "waiting". Once again you try to sneak something in, and...........fail.
Not to mention, when was it "left behind"? In Cleopatra's lifespan, or Jabba's?
__________________
"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 30th December 2016, 09:17 AM   #2930
Peregrinus
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 486
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
... Almost all possible combinations of human reproductive cells represents a potential human self.
A potential human BEING; "self" is of another order entirely - as has been pointed out so often the dead horse got up and left the scene.
Peregrinus 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 30th December 2016, 09:38 AM   #2931
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,644
Originally Posted by Peregrinus View Post
A potential human BEING; "self" is of another order entirely - as has been pointed out so often the dead horse got up and left the scene.
I've been treating human being and self as the same thing. The latter is part of the former.
__________________
"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 30th December 2016, 09:43 AM   #2932
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 13,988
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Yes they are -- it's just that the words are confusing.
- Two human reproductive cells of the opposite sex generally react with each other to produce a new self if they merge. If any two do not merge, the particular self they represent -- would have created -- will be left behind. Almost all possible combinations of human reproductive cells represents a potential human self.
There is all manner of weirdness folded up into that post.

The egg has no gender at all, it has an X chromosome and never anything else. How that can be defined as a "gender" is anyone's guess. The sperm carries either of an X or a Y chromosome. If the lucky one happens to carry a Y chromosome, under jabba rules the "opposite" gender, then you get male progeny. Again under jabba rules, if the sperm carries an X, then they are not "opposite genders" and nothing happens. Conclusion: Women do not exist.

Moving along to the whole "will be left behind" nonsense, we have an assertion that an event which never happened somehow actually exists as a real event/object/entity/housecat.

It is trivial. It is no different than arguing that every lottery ticket issued in every country in the world is a potential winner. I have a lottery ticket. Since the total possible number of tickets worldwide is effectively infinite, therefore MY ticket is proven to be a winner.
__________________
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 30th December 2016, 10:34 AM   #2933
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,187
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Two human reproductive cells of the opposite sex generally react with each other to produce a new self if they merge.

Are you now claiming that human zygotes are conscious?

Quote:
If any two do not merge, the particular self they represent -- would have created -- will be left behind.

They don't produce a consciousness when they merge. They produce a single cell, without the sort of nervous system necessary to produce consciousness.

It is this sort of comment that makes it obvious that your definition of the "self" is metaphysical in nature, and corresponds to nothing real.

Quote:
Almost all possible combinations of human reproductive cells represents a potential human self.

Many of them are not even compatible with life.
__________________
"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

Last edited by Mojo; 30th December 2016 at 10:38 AM.
Mojo 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 31st December 2016, 08:35 AM   #2934
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,187
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Two human reproductive cells of the opposite sex generally react with each other to produce a new self if they merge. If any two do not merge, the particular self they represent -- would have created -- will be left behind.

And remember, Jabba: the human genome has a finite number of base pairs. Claiming that the "self" is produced by the fusion of the genetic material of two human gametes is therefore inconsistent with your claim of an infinite number of potential "selves".
__________________
"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 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 31st December 2016, 02:07 PM   #2935
fibbermcgee
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 64
Jabba I am totally confused. Now you say that the merger of an egg and a sperm creates a self. Therefore every child conceived has a soul. How does this jell with your theory of an immortal soul that goes from old body to a new one? Are you saying that the soul and the self are different entities?
fibbermcgee 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 31st December 2016, 02:09 PM   #2936
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: 7,343
No, he's just playing by ear.
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs (drinkers) and other addicts, be gone and get treated!
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 31st December 2016, 02:36 PM   #2937
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 22,320
Originally Posted by fibbermcgee View Post
Jabba I am totally confused. Now you say that the merger of an egg and a sperm creates a self. Therefore every child conceived has a soul. How does this jell with your theory of an immortal soul that goes from old body to a new one? Are you saying that the soul and the self are different entities?

I can clear this up. He's saying that the scientific model has new selves being created with every birth, amounting to a vast number of selves and an even greater number of "potential" selves.

BUT, if each self is immortal then the chance of any one self occurring is one and thus the scientific model is wrong.

At least one of the many thousand mistakes he's making is ascribing to the scientific model beliefs that don't exist so that he can then negate them. It's a kind of a strawman thing in that it's exactly a strawman thing.
__________________
- I haven't refused to answer it; I just haven't been able to answer it...
Jabba

Do not pretend I support your argument and do not PM me.
- Nick Terry
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 31st December 2016, 02:45 PM   #2938
caveman1917
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,153
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
if each self is immortal then the chance of any one self occurring is one
Why? Immortal or not, the number of selfs is still limited by the number of bodies.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
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 1st January 2017, 07:44 PM   #2939
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,036
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I basically agree with your part that I hilited. Scientifically speaking, we cannot reproduce the particular self. IOW, there are no potential selves in the sense that specific chemistry would produce the same self each time.
If you are presuming to speak on behalf of the discipline of science, then you ought to shut the hell up right about now.
__________________
"Want to debate effectively in any format? Pay attention to your critics" -JayUtah

Last edited by John Jones; 1st January 2017 at 07:47 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 1st January 2017, 08:03 PM   #2940
Dabop
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Oz
Posts: 153
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
At least one of the many thousand mistakes he's making is ascribing to the scientific model beliefs that don't exist so that he can then negate them. It's a kind of a strawman thing in that it's exactly a strawman thing.
Can I pinch this???? sig worthy :-)
Dabop 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 1st January 2017, 08:22 PM   #2941
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 22,320
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Why? Immortal or not, the number of selfs is still limited by the number of bodies.

Don't ask me. I was just trying to trace Jabba's argument, not defend it.


Originally Posted by Dabop View Post
Can I pinch this???? sig worthy :-)

My pleasure. Both of the quotes in my sig come from this thread.
__________________
- I haven't refused to answer it; I just haven't been able to answer it...
Jabba

Do not pretend I support your argument and do not PM me.
- Nick Terry
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 2nd January 2017, 04:59 AM   #2942
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,187
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Why? Immortal or not, the number of selfs is still limited by the number of bodies.

Because Jabba needs there to be an infinite number of "selves". For an example of similar reasoning, see here.
__________________
"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 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 2nd January 2017, 05:08 AM   #2943
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,187
Incidentally, I think there may only be one "potential self" under Jabba's definition of the self:
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
However, in my kind of self, the self, itself, has no characteristics (intelligence, skin color, whatever). Does your kind of self, itself, have characteristics?

If the "self" has no characteristics, all "selves" are identical, and there is only one "potential self".
__________________
"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 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 2nd January 2017, 10:42 AM   #2944
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,169
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Would you say the 1938 Brooklyn Dodgers are potential winners of the 2017 World Series?
Dave,
- No. But, I'm sure that's different...
- You certainly ask some difficult questions.

- One point is that I don't see a problem with our sense of self being a process, illusion or delusion. Whatever it is, I do experience something, wish it to continue and certainly do not wish it to cease forever (that isn't to say that I would mind a break here and there).
- It isn't that my wishes are evidence -- though, they do constitute meaning and my experience is evidence.

- So far, I assume that you guys are right, in that we could produce an identical sense of self by using the same chemistry, but we wouldn't produce the same sense of self. In other words, as long as the necessary matter is available, the universe can keep producing new and different selves. Then, there's conservation of matter and energy. Each new organism should bring with it a brand new sense of self. Scientifically speaking, there should be an infinity of potential senses of selves.
- Again, if opposite reproductive cells of the same species join they naturally create a new and specific organism. And then, any two such reproductive cells represent a potential self. I wonder how I can say that better.

- In a sense, there must be levels of potential selves. There are the approximately septillion possible combinations from my Mom and Dad that never joined, the approximately septillion possible combinations from me and the lady next door that will never join, the same from me and cleopatra, etc.
__________________
"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
"Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." Jabba's Razor
Jabba 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 2nd January 2017, 11:08 AM   #2945
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,066
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- No. But, I'm sure that's different...
- You certainly ask some difficult questions.

- One point is that I don't see a problem with our sense of self being a process, illusion or delusion. Whatever it is, I do experience something, wish it to continue and certainly do not wish it to cease forever (that isn't to say that I would mind a break here and there).
- It isn't that my wishes are evidence -- though, they do constitute meaning and my experience is evidence.

- So far, I assume that you guys are right, in that we could produce an identical sense of self by using the same chemistry, but we wouldn't produce the same sense of self. In other words, as long as the necessary matter is available, the universe can keep producing new and different selves. Then, there's conservation of matter and energy. Each new organism should bring with it a brand new sense of self. Scientifically speaking, there should be an infinity of potential senses of selves.
- Again, if opposite reproductive cells of the same species join they naturally create a new and specific organism. And then, any two such reproductive cells represent a potential self. I wonder how I can say that better.

- In a sense, there must be levels of potential selves. There are the approximately septillion possible combinations from my Mom and Dad that never joined, the approximately septillion possible combinations from me and the lady next door that will never join, the same from me and cleopatra, etc.

No, because the self, the sense of self, or the sense that you have a self is not a thing.

Self is a verb, not a noun.
__________________
"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 2nd January 2017, 11:32 AM   #2946
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,644
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- No. But, I'm sure that's different...

How is it different?
__________________
"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 2nd January 2017, 11:35 AM   #2947
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,187
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- One point is that I don't see a problem with our sense of self being a process, illusion or delusion.

It matters to your argument. Your "self", as far as the model you are arguing against is concerned, is just what your brain happens to be doing. The issue of "who" yourself is is meaningless under this hypothesis, and you cannot use your concept of the "self" in assessing the likelihood of your existence under this hypothesis. I think you may have been told this already.

Quote:
Whatever it is, I do experience something, wish it to continue and certainly do not wish it to cease forever (that isn't to say that I would mind a break here and there).
- It isn't that my wishes are evidence -- though, they do constitute meaning and my experience is evidence.

Yes, it had been apparent for several years that your augment is based on nothing beyond wishful thinking.

Quote:
- So far, I assume that you guys are right, in that we could produce an identical sense of self by using the same chemistry, but we wouldn't produce the same sense of self. In other words, as long as the necessary matter is available, the universe can keep producing new and different selves.



What people are saying is that if two completely identical brains could somehow be produced then their "selves" or "senses of self", or whatever you're calling it today, would be identical because they are properties of the brain. You are still trying to beg the question by implying that the "self" is a thing.


Stop trying to misrepresent other posters. It is uncivil.

Quote:
Then, there's conservation of matter and energy. Each new organism should bring with it a brand new sense of self.

What has that got to do with conservation of matter and energy?

Quote:
Scientifically speaking, there should be an infinity of potential senses of selves.

Not according to your own definition of the "self". And not according to any "scientific hypothesis" other than your strawman.


Quote:
- Again, if opposite reproductive cells of the same species join they naturally create a new and specific organism. And then, any two such reproductive cells represent a potential self.

No, because consciousness is a process. The "self", as you use the term, doesn't exist.

Quote:
I wonder how I can say that better.

You can't. It's going to be wrong however you rephrase it.

Stop pretending that everyone else doesn't understand your argument.

Quote:
- In a sense, there must be levels of potential selves. There are the approximately septillion possible combinations from my Mom and Dad that never joined, the approximately septillion possible combinations from me and the lady next door that will never join, the same from me and cleopatra, etc.

There are no "potential selves" in the hypothesis you are arguing against. If you include "selves" or "potential selves" in your argument it is only relevant to hypotheses that include them, such as your preferred hypothesis. In other words you can use them to assess the likelihood of an event under your preferred hypothesis, but not under the hypothesis you oppose. Do you really want to invoke an infinite number of "selves", potential or otherwise?
__________________
"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

Last edited by Mojo; 2nd January 2017 at 11:50 AM.
Mojo 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 2nd January 2017, 01:38 PM   #2948
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 13,988
NVM. Abstruse syntax error.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?

Last edited by abaddon; 2nd January 2017 at 01:43 PM.
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 2nd January 2017, 01:42 PM   #2949
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 13,988
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- One point is that I don't see a problem with our sense of self being a process, illusion or delusion. Whatever it is, I do experience something, wish it to continue and certainly do not wish it to cease forever (that isn't to say that I would mind a break here and there).
- It isn't that my wishes are evidence -- though, they do constitute meaning and my experience is evidence.
Baloney. Very few want to die. Most accept that they will.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
So far, I assume that you guys are right, in that we could produce an identical sense of self by using the same chemistry, but we wouldn't produce the same sense of self. In other words, as long as the necessary matter is available, the universe can keep producing new and different selves.
So you say, I don't think your assumption is sincere because you follow it up with...

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Then, there's conservation of matter and energy. Each new organism should bring with it a brand new sense of self. Scientifically speaking, there should be an infinity of potential senses of selves.
Which is the exact opposite of your previous concession.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Again, if opposite reproductive cells of the same species join they naturally create a new and specific organism. And then, any two such reproductive cells represent a potential self. I wonder how I can say that better.
Nonsense. Provide any example of a species mating with a different species. You cannot. It is definitional for species. Could you do the dirty deed with a horse and produce a centaur? There are no "opposite reproductive cells", that is a violation of basic biology. There are no "potential selves". I have no idea how one might better express that level of wrong.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- In a sense, there must be levels of potential selves.
Holy crap. Now we have a claim of "levels" of selves out of whole cloth.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
There are the approximately septillion possible combinations from my Mom and Dad that never joined, the approximately septillion possible combinations from me and the lady next door that will never join, the same from me and cleopatra, etc.
And we come right back to the question you dodged before. You had two parents, those had your four grandparents, who in turn had your eight great-grandparents and if you work back to the year 0 BCE results in more people that have existed throughout the entire 2 million history of mankind. Explain that. You continue to dodge that.
__________________
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 2nd January 2017, 01:45 PM   #2950
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 22,320
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- One point is that I don't see a problem with our sense of self being a process, illusion or delusion. Whatever it is, I do experience something, wish it to continue and certainly do not wish it to cease forever (that isn't to say that I would mind a break here and there).
- It isn't that my wishes are evidence -- though, they do constitute meaning and my experience is evidence.

- So far, I assume that you guys are right, in that we could produce an identical sense of self by using the same chemistry, but we wouldn't produce the same sense of self. In other words, as long as the necessary matter is available, the universe can keep producing new and different selves. Then, there's conservation of matter and energy. Each new organism should bring with it a brand new sense of self. Scientifically speaking, there should be an infinity of potential senses of selves.
- Again, if opposite reproductive cells of the same species join they naturally create a new and specific organism. And then, any two such reproductive cells represent a potential self. I wonder how I can say that better.

- In a sense, there must be levels of potential selves. There are the approximately septillion possible combinations from my Mom and Dad that never joined, the approximately septillion possible combinations from me and the lady next door that will never join, the same from me and cleopatra, etc.

Utter gibberish. You say that you understand that the sense of self is an illusion created by a working neurosystem but then you immediately equate the sense of self with the biological DNA map created by procreation. The self is not a thing. The mere fact that identical twins exist is all that is needed to completely dismantle this very poorly reasoned portion of your argument.

We don't have to wonder what happens when two people are born with the same DNA. We just have to interview a couple of them.

The self is a process that is always changing. I can prove this to your satisfaction with one question: What aspect of the self survives the death of the body? What are its characteristics? If you can't define it, then it doesn't exist.
__________________
- I haven't refused to answer it; I just haven't been able to answer it...
Jabba

Do not pretend I support your argument and do not PM me.
- Nick Terry
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 2nd January 2017, 03:52 PM   #2951
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,066
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Utter gibberish. You say that you understand that the sense of self is an illusion created by a working neurosystem but then you immediately equate the sense of self with the biological DNA map created by procreation. The self is not a thing. The mere fact that identical twins exist is all that is needed to completely dismantle this very poorly reasoned portion of your argument.

We don't have to wonder what happens when two people are born with the same DNA. We just have to interview a couple of them.

The self is a process that is always changing. I can prove this to your satisfaction with one question: What aspect of the self survives the death of the body? What are its characteristics? If you can't define it, then it doesn't exist.

In addition, Jabba is claiming that "selfhood" happens at conception.

I wonder how this affects identical twins, since they separate well after conception...
__________________
"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 2nd January 2017, 03:55 PM   #2952
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,036
Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
In addition, Jabba is claiming that "selfhood" happens at conception.

I wonder how this affects identical twins, since they separate well after conception...
I'd like to hear about this myself, being the father of so-called identical twins.
__________________
"Want to debate effectively in any format? Pay attention to your critics" -JayUtah
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 2nd January 2017, 04:00 PM   #2953
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: 7,343
Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
In addition, Jabba is claiming that "selfhood" happens at conception.

I wonder how this affects identical twins, since they separate well after conception...
So Jabba agrees that 60-70% of "selfhoods" perish quickly, and I'm not talking of provoked abortion.

That's the problem when one tries to add even more Cataholicism to one's twisted pseudo-reasoning. But, you know, with Jabba it's a free-for-all.
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs (drinkers) and other addicts, be gone and get treated!
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 3rd January 2017, 05:45 AM   #2954
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,561
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- No. But, I'm sure that's different...
- You certainly ask some difficult questions.

- One point is that I don't see a problem with our sense of self being a process, illusion or delusion. Whatever it is, I do experience something, wish it to continue and certainly do not wish it to cease forever (that isn't to say that I would mind a break here and there).
- It isn't that my wishes are evidence -- though, they do constitute meaning and my experience is evidence.

- So far, I assume that you guys are right, in that we could produce an identical sense of self by using the same chemistry, but we wouldn't produce the same sense of self. In other words, as long as the necessary matter is available, the universe can keep producing new and different selves. Then, there's conservation of matter and energy. Each new organism should bring with it a brand new sense of self. Scientifically speaking, there should be an infinity of potential senses of selves.
- Again, if opposite reproductive cells of the same species join they naturally create a new and specific organism. And then, any two such reproductive cells represent a potential self. I wonder how I can say that better.

- In a sense, there must be levels of potential selves. There are the approximately septillion possible combinations from my Mom and Dad that never joined, the approximately septillion possible combinations from me and the lady next door that will never join, the same from me and cleopatra, etc.
Jabba: Happy New Year. Please be so good as to read the many good responses to your post. Especially, but not limited to, Mojo's excellent point by point rebuttal.
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 3rd January 2017, 09:13 AM   #2955
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,262
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
One point is that I don't see a problem with our sense of self being a process, illusion or delusion. Whatever it is...
That's the problem. You don't know what it means to be a "process" or "illustion" or "emergent property." The way you seem to understand it, those are all just synonyms for "thing" -- and it results in all sorts of error on your part. These errors have been explained at length to you, and you simply don't care. So the only remaining thing is for you to explain why you deserve any serious attention.

Quote:
It isn't that my wishes are evidence -- though, they do constitute meaning and my experience is evidence.
No. Your experience is not evidence that your interpretation of events and circumstances is the right one. You're very much trying to make your wishes evidence.

Quote:
So far, I assume that you guys are right, in that we could produce an identical sense of self by using the same chemistry, but we wouldn't produce the same sense of self.
Still trying to think of the self under H as a "thing." That's just wrong.

Quote:
I wonder how I can say that better.
How about, "After four years of trying, I concede that I am unable to prove the existence of an immortal soul using mathematics." We all know that's the truth; you've even admitted it in not quite as many words. The only thing now is for you to stop wasting everyone else's time trying to save face in defeat.

Quote:
In a sense, there must be levels of potential selves.
No. H contains no concept of "potential selves." Speculating what properties a made-up, foisted concept must possess is just desperate.

Last edited by JayUtah; 3rd January 2017 at 10:53 AM.
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 3rd January 2017, 01:42 PM   #2956
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 6,553
I hit on this during one of the many, many, many, many, far more then is reasonable under the most liberally applied argumentative standards, many, many ways this has been tried to be explained to Jabba through every possible way, metaphor, comparison etc.

On a linguistic level we assign words and phrases to meaningful concepts on a day to day level. We don't generally create a word or phrase to label massively unlikely or esoteric concepts we don't need to communicate.

When it comes to personal identity this is a loose collection of words, phrases and concepts like "self" and "identity" and similar. We have those because applying an easy to use word or phrase to the continuing mental process of a singular entity is just handy and useful in a day to day level.

"Joe Bentley" isn't a thing. It's not a singular concrete thing. It's a continuous but constantly changing process. There's a continuity with the "Joe Bentley" of tens years ago, but surprisingly little shared qualities beyond that. And I'm okay with that. It hardly cheapens my own personal concept of "me."

We don't have an easy linguistic way to describe, say two identical mental process inhabiting two separate physical bodies because we don't need them and people, outside of navel gazers and pedantic twits (but I repeat myself) don't waste time splitting linguistic hairs over distinctions without difference. Right now all human consciousnesses are linked to a physical human body because the emergent property of the sensory input and mental processing of a human brain is the only methodology that currently exists for creating and maintaining the process we call "self."

If tomorrow some way of creating or maintaining a "self" was invented, we'd adjust the language to compensate.
__________________
Hemingway once wrote that "The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.
JoeBentley 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 3rd January 2017, 05:40 PM   #2957
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 22,320
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
On a linguistic level we assign words and phrases to meaningful concepts on a day to day level. We don't generally create a word or phrase to label massively unlikely or esoteric concepts we don't need to communicate.

You are right and I have said so before. Words are created ad-hoc with little thought as to the exact boundaries of their meanings. They are expediencies and nothing more. Believing that "Loss Leader" or some mountain are unchanging things because they share the same words year after year is like believing that "pineapple" is a cross between a pine tree and an apple.
__________________
- I haven't refused to answer it; I just haven't been able to answer it...
Jabba

Do not pretend I support your argument and do not PM me.
- Nick Terry
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 4th January 2017, 10:22 AM   #2958
CriticalThanking
Designated Hitter
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: On in memory
Posts: 2,899
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
You are right and I have said so before. Words are created ad-hoc with little thought as to the exact boundaries of their meanings. They are expediencies and nothing more. Believing that "Loss Leader" or some mountain are unchanging things because they share the same words year after year is like believing that "pineapple" is a cross between a pine tree and an apple.
Cue Euell Gibbons and his famous commercial.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XJMIu18I8Y

Apologies if that does not play correctly. I'm at work and can't check.
CriticalThanking 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 January 2017, 11:22 AM   #2959
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 13,988
Originally Posted by CriticalThanking View Post
Cue Euell Gibbons and his famous commercial.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XJMIu18I8Y

Apologies if that does not play correctly. I'm at work and can't check.
It works. It's daft. It's irrelevant.

Not sure where you were aiming.

Little help? (I concede that jabberish may color this)
__________________
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 4th January 2017, 01:26 PM   #2960
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 6,553
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
You are right and I have said so before. Words are created ad-hoc with little thought as to the exact boundaries of their meanings. They are expediencies and nothing more. Believing that "Loss Leader" or some mountain are unchanging things because they share the same words year after year is like believing that "pineapple" is a cross between a pine tree and an apple.
Exactly. Language is a tool for communicating ideas. It certainly doesn't create reality, doesn't mirror it to some 1:1 ratio, hell language doesn't even "describe" reality really, just the parts of it we need to communicate about to our fellow humans.

Any time a discussion degrades to argument via language instead of argument using language it's reached an intellectual dead end.

Which is what I think that CriticalThinking's link was about. Grape Nuts is a silly name for a cereal that contains neither grapes or nuts. It would be silly to argue that Grape Nuts has to have grape and nuts in it or to redefine what grapes or nuts were because a cereal used the terms in its name but if you get right down to it that's what a lot of Woo Apologetics and philosophy boil down to, something on the intellectual level of "But Applejacks don't even taste like Apples!"
__________________
Hemingway once wrote that "The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.
JoeBentley 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
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 05:19 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.