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 4th January 2017, 01:56 PM   #2961
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,178
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Would you say the 1938 Brooklyn Dodgers are potential winners of the 2017 World Series?
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- No. But, I'm sure that's different...
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
How is it different?
Dave,
- I hate to say it (my father in law was a big dodger fan and gave up baseball when the Dodgers left Brooklyn), but the 38 Brooklyn Dodgers weren't any good -- and also, average Dodger weight in 38 was 181, while in 2015 (for instance) it was 225...
- But seriously, scientifically speaking, every possible combination of egg and sperm cell from the same species does represent a potential organism and (probably) sense of self. If a homosapien egg from 2000 years ago was, somehow, able to join with a homosapien sperm cell from today, the two should create a brand new human. Two particular time-stamped baseball teams do represent a potential game Ė so, I suppose itís possible that the 38 Dodgers could beat the 2017 American League Champion, but then no one is claiming that they can only have one game over all of time -- and the Bayesian logic doesnít apply.
__________________
"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 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, 02:03 PM   #2962
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,653
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I hate to say it (my father in law was a big dodger fan and gave up baseball when the Dodgers left Brooklyn), but the 38 Brooklyn Dodgers weren't any good -- and also, average Dodger weight in 38 was 181, while in 2015 (for instance) it was 225...
- But seriously, scientifically speaking, every possible combination of egg and sperm cell from the same species does represent a potential organism and (probably) sense of self. If a homosapien egg from 2000 years ago was, somehow, able to join with a homosapien sperm cell from today, the two should create a brand new human. Two particular time-stamped baseball teams do represent a potential game Ė so, I suppose itís possible that the 38 Dodgers could beat the 2017 American League Champion, but then no one is claiming that they can only have one game over all of time -- and the Bayesian logic doesnít apply.
There will only ever be one 2017 World Series over all time.

If you define the potential to include the impossible, then "potential" loses all meaning.
__________________
"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 4th January 2017, 02:28 PM   #2963
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,566
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I hate to say it (my father in law was a big dodger fan and gave up baseball when the Dodgers left Brooklyn), but the 38 Brooklyn Dodgers weren't any good -- and also, average Dodger weight in 38 was 181, while in 2015 (for instance) it was 225...
- But seriously, scientifically speaking, every possible combination of egg and sperm cell from the same species does represent a potential organism and (probably) sense of self. If a homosapien egg from 2000 years ago was, somehow, able to join with a homosapien sperm cell from today, the two should create a brand new human. Two particular time-stamped baseball teams do represent a potential game Ė so, I suppose itís possible that the 38 Dodgers could beat the 2017 American League Champion, but then no one is claiming that they can only have one game over all of time -- and the Bayesian logic doesnít apply.
How long does a sperm live? How long does an egg live? The only possible combinations are those alive at the same time. This is a large but finite number.

Further, because the self is a process (which changes with every bit of information the brain receives), the only possible self you could be is you. *Unless you've had an operation severing your corpus collosum. There are cases of people demonstrating two different streams of consciousness post operation. Which is a further indication that it is indeed the brain generating the process.
jond 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 4th January 2017, 02:48 PM   #2964
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,306
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
But seriously, scientifically speaking, every possible combination of egg and sperm cell from the same species does represent a potential organism and (probably) sense of self.
No, that's not speaking scientifically. That's you, once again, foisting your homebrew notion of a countable set of "infinite potential" imaginary whatevers and attempting to sneak it under the radar by prefixing it with "scientifically..." Do you you really think that astute skeptics aren't going to see through the hundredth time you've attempted this stunt?

If an human organism arises, it has a sense of self. A sense of self is an emergent property of a functioning brain and nervous system. If there are two human organisms, each has a sense of self. That doesn't mean there are two senses of self. It means there is a sense of self that is a property of a functioning organism, and it is exhibited in each example of the organism. That it may said to be exhibited "differently" in each does not create two discrete things that you may count and therefore say are infinite in their "potential" cardinality.

A property is not a thing.

Quote:
-- and the Bayesian logic doesn’t apply.
This isn't a problem with Bayes. This is a problem with your proposed use of Bayes. You have latched onto it as your savior in this and so many other contexts in which you've tried to prove your spiritual/religious beliefs. And in all those cases you try to use Bayes not to prove your point, but to disprove a straw man you think is your critics' belief. Then yours is insinuated to hold by default. In order to (mis)use Bayes to do this, you manipulate the likelihood ratio to suggest it is nigh unto impossible for the straw man to produce the observed results. Since the results are observed, it must mean that what you say your critics believe must be essentially impossible.

This in turn requires a Big Denominator. In order to make the numbers come out in the way you've preordained them, you need to compute a probability that has as big a number as you can get away with for the potential outcomes, so that any finite number of outcomes is insignificant if those outcomes are detrimental to your belief. You've tried and failed a number of times to do this. All your trials consist of inventing some new concept you insist must have infinite cardinality and further insisting it must be part of the scientific hypothesis of self. For months you've been peddling this notion of "infinite potential X," whose error has been shown to you more times than I can count.

Stop trying to insist that science must accept your foisted imaginary concepts. It's never going to work.

Last edited by JayUtah; 4th January 2017 at 04:01 PM.
JayUtah 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 4th January 2017, 02:51 PM   #2965
The Sparrow
Muse
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 792
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
...
- But seriously, scientifically speaking, every possible combination of egg and sperm cell from the same species does represent a potential organism and (probably) sense of self. If a homosapien egg from 2000 years ago was, somehow, able to join with a homosapien sperm cell from today, the two should create a brand new human. Two particular time-stamped baseball teams do represent a potential game Ė so, I suppose itís possible that the 38 Dodgers could beat the 2017 American League Champion, but then no one is claiming that they can only have one game over all of time -- and the Bayesian logic doesnít apply.
Just.......stop.
We all know what you are going to do now. Just like the dog with 3 legs you will try to spin this off into 100s of posts, and then convince yourself there is a 'gap' and you are almost almost there to proving something.

You have nothing. You have always had nothing. Give it up.
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 4th January 2017, 03:04 PM   #2966
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,224
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Wouldn't you say that one of Cleopatra's ova and one of my sperm cells would represent a potential self that never had a chance? And, in determining the number of potential selves, shouldn't we count potential selves that never had a chance?
Does that mean we should count people not being able to crossbreed with dogs as well?
__________________
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 4th January 2017, 03:09 PM   #2967
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,306
Originally Posted by The Sparrow View Post
We all know what you are going to do now. Just like the dog with 3 legs you will try to spin this off into 100s of posts, and then convince yourself there is a 'gap' and you are almost almost there to proving something.
Indeed this speaks to what was said above about the vagary of language. Jabba always complains that he lacks the words to accurately express his ideas. The problem is that when others entertain his circumspect verbiage and succeed in pinning it down, he flees to a whole new nomenclature. "These are hard concepts" is his mantra, but what he's really saying is, "I need these to seem like hard concepts so that I can continue waffling about and never get to any testable point." Jabba thinks people can't tell the difference between grappling with philosophy and avoiding accountability. He wants the argument to stay vague because as long as it's vague, he doesn't have to admit he's lost.
JayUtah 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 4th January 2017, 03:35 PM   #2968
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 22,357
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
Grape Nuts is a silly name for a cereal that contains neither grapes or nuts.

And the commercial's attempt to justify the name of the cereal is even more absurd than the name itself.


Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- But seriously, scientifically speaking, every possible combination of egg and sperm cell from the same species does represent a potential organism and (probably) sense of self.

Jabba, you're just wrong. You keep trying to equate a DNA sequence with a "self." But the self is not a thing. It is not continuous even within one person. Twins share the same DNA but tend to be different from each other. Jabba today does not have the same cares, loves, taste in food, or memories of Jabba 30 years ago. The self is not a thing. It isn't. Every time you start to suspect it is, you should stop yourself and remember that it isn't.
__________________
- 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, 03:55 PM   #2969
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
 
ferd burfle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Just short of Zeta II Reticuli
Posts: 1,038
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
-But seriously, scientifically speaking, every possible combination of egg and sperm cell from the same species does represent a potential organism and (probably) sense of self. If a homosapien egg from 2000 years ago was, somehow, able to join with a homosapien sperm cell from today, the two should create a brand new human.

Jabba, if you think you're speaking scientifically you're fooling only yourself. Impossible scenarios are not evidence of anything or even meaningful.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
__________________
Chicken is a vegetable-James May, vegetarian
Does it matter? it's all just a mathamatical construct and has no bearing on reality!-Sol88, on the subject of General Relativity
ferd burfle 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, 04:25 PM   #2970
The Sparrow
Muse
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 792
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
.... But the self is not a thing. It is not continuous even within one person. .....
True dat.

Those of us who have dabbled in buddhism, and probably many other folks as well, can even become fairly efficient in dropping the egos futile attempt to preserve some sort of continuous distinct, unchanging "self".
On a good day, I can sit, and within 20 minutes or so, completely and willfully change my interior climate away from the bitchy mood I was in.
Very often I fail, but occasionally I get it right. The "self" I arrive at is most certainly not the "self" I left behind.

No.

It isn't.

No, really, it isn't.
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 4th January 2017, 04:40 PM   #2971
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,653
Jabba, if you light a match does it draw from a pool of potential flames?

After the flame burns out, can you ever get the same flame again?
__________________
"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 4th January 2017, 04:49 PM   #2972
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,306
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Jabba, if you light a match does it draw from a pool of potential flames?
He's already answered this with a paradox he hasn't resolved. He says there is no pool of "potential selves," therefore there are an infinite number of such "potential selves." In his model a pool would only provide a limit on the number of potential such souls. He doesn't agree with the limit, so he repudiates the notion of a pool. He doesn't see that there is no significant difference between his concept of a "pool of potential selves" (which he says doesn't exist) and the ordinary mathematical concept of a set. And so he wants to discuss the cardinality of a non-existent set.

That's a mathematical non-starter.
JayUtah 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 5th January 2017, 12:18 AM   #2973
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,053
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
[...]
- But seriously, scientifically speaking, every possible combination of egg and sperm cell from the same species does represent a potential organism and (probably) sense of self. [...]
Hold it right there. You are no spokesperson for the discipline of science. You have gone on record as saying that scientists are incompetent and liars.
__________________
"Want to debate effectively in any format? Pay attention to your critics" -JayUtah
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th January 2017, 05:41 AM   #2974
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 19,554
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
*snip*
- But seriously, scientifically speaking, every possible combination of egg and sperm cell from the same species does represent a potential organism and (probably) sense of self. If a homosapien egg from 2000 years ago was, somehow, able to join with a homosapien sperm cell from today, the two should create a brand new human. *snip*
No, that is false. The key is in the word "possible".

Obviously, a combination of two people who have never met is not possible.

Two cars going in opposite directions in the same road during the same time hold a potential collision, but if they are on different roads or at different times, they are not. Not for any meaningful definition of 'possible'.

Not that it matters because, although you choose to ignore it, the number of possible people has no relevance. What HAS relevance is the actual number of people. How they turned out or which of them you happen to be has not.

Hans
__________________
Don't. Just don't.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th January 2017, 06:04 AM   #2975
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: 7,357
I see many have decided to jump with Jabba into the fringe...
__________________
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 5th January 2017, 06:34 AM   #2976
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 37,178
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- But seriously, scientifically speaking, every possible combination of egg and sperm cell from the same species does represent a potential organism and (probably) sense of self.
Even if you take every possible DNA sequence that would produce a recognisable human, regardless of whether the gametes that would give rise to them were available at the same time, what you would have would be a very large number, it would not be infinity.

Even if you then multiply by the environmental factors that might affect development (explaining why twins are different individuals, for example), you have an even bigger number, which is still not infinity.

The self is an emergent property (could you favour us with your understanding of that term, please, Jabba?) of a functioning human brain. It is not a thing, but a property of a thing.
__________________
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 5th January 2017, 08:13 AM   #2977
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: 7,357
A 2,000-year old spermatozaurious and a teenage virginal ovum would certainly conceive Godzilla.

The latter Jabbasic epistemological gambits are to be call off, not to play with.

Jabba's pseudo epistemological algorithm works this way:
  • He has a pre-conclusion he wants others to positively confirm for him.
  • He offers some infantile evidence and some clumsy analysis
  • He gets a lot of disapproving posts
  • He skims those posts and quickly shoves to his mental recycling bin those who are not convenient for him. He also puts their authors in his quarantine zone which is located about his blind spot. No need of ignore function to do this. That part of his intellect is firing all cylinders.
  • He select one or two posters who are: a) nice, and b) apparently giving him an acknowledgement of receipt of some random element he argued.
  • He continues his dialogue only with those posters.
  • If there is no poster matching the above description, he takes some element of some suitable poster -someone either nice, or who condescended once or twice before- and says to them "But you agree that such and such is such".
  • He sieves out all the responses saying "tit and tat is squat" and continues with replies that match the above criteria.
  • If nothing and nobody match those criteria, he takes some element of one pacific poster and says "I don't understand this ... are you saying (insert anything Jabba wants, related or unrelated)
  • In the event everything goes against Jabba's wishes, a fringe reset is made, meaning something like "I hear what you say about eternity but let me fix you some of this Mococoa drink, all natural cocoa beans from the upper slopes of Mount Nicaragua, no artificial sweeteners!"
  • As his fringe resets have increasingly being called off, he has recently discover some interesting Alzheimer-inspired techniques. One of them is object-oriented-BS, which consists in mixing up an object, one of its properties and one of its methods. For instance: a die has a colour and can be thrown to read the value in its upper side. Jabba will say that "red is eternal because throwing it may give you 6, 5, 4 ... which is convergent to 0".
This Alzheimer-inspired techniques are the only breakthrough of this long-winded chain of threads.
__________________
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 5th January 2017, 08:35 AM   #2978
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,178
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
...
If you define the potential to include the impossible, then "potential" loses all meaning.
Dave,
- That sounds right, but not under the circumstances we're talking about...
- Nothing is possible that doesn't happen. In that sense, there is no such thing as potential. If my parents hadn't had intercourse MY day, I would NEVER be here. Something is either going to happen, or it isn't. In neither case is it potential. If something doesn't happen, it was impossible (for some reason). In the case of Cleopatra and myself, there were NUMEROUS reasons -- but, that's the case for most everything that doesn't happen...
__________________
"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 offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th January 2017, 08:39 AM   #2979
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,653
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- That sounds right, but not under the circumstances we're talking about...
- Nothing is possible that doesn't happen. In that sense, there is no such thing as potential. If my parents hadn't had intercourse MY day, I would NEVER be here. Something is either going to happen, or it isn't. In neither case is it potential. If something doesn't happen, it was impossible (for some reason). In the case of Cleopatra and myself, there were NUMEROUS reasons -- but, that's the case for most everything that doesn't happen...
If that's the case, we can drop the whole idea of potential selves from the calculation, since the only things that were possible were the things that happened.
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm
godless dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th January 2017, 08:50 AM   #2980
The Sparrow
Muse
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 792
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
...
- Nothing is possible that doesn't happen....
BZZZZZZZZT WRONG.

I for example have never drank my own urine, and likely never will.
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 5th January 2017, 08:50 AM   #2981
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,224
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- That sounds right, but not under the circumstances we're talking about...
- Nothing is possible that doesn't happen. In that sense, there is no such thing as potential. If my parents hadn't had intercourse MY day, I would NEVER be here. Something is either going to happen, or it isn't. In neither case is it potential. If something doesn't happen, it was impossible (for some reason). In the case of Cleopatra and myself, there were NUMEROUS reasons -- but, that's the case for most everything that doesn't happen...
Hoist : petard
__________________
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 5th January 2017, 08:54 AM   #2982
Peregrinus
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 492
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- That sounds right, but not under the circumstances we're talking about...
- Nothing is possible that doesn't happen. In that sense, there is no such thing as potential. If my parents hadn't had intercourse MY day, I would NEVER be here. Something is either going to happen, or it isn't. In neither case is it potential. If something doesn't happen, it was impossible (for some reason). In the case of Cleopatra and myself, there were NUMEROUS reasons -- but, that's the case for most everything that doesn't happen...
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
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 5th January 2017, 09:11 AM   #2983
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: 7,357
Originally Posted by Peregrinus View Post
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
Like PhDr. Daniel Bhoy put it:"Tweedledee-dee!!! Potatoes!!!!"

[aleCcowaN: proud to be in Jabba's "ignore" list]
__________________
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 5th January 2017, 09:18 AM   #2984
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,306
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Something is either going to happen, or it isn't. In neither case is it potential.
Good for you. Perhaps at this point you realize why "potential selves" is not a mathematical justification for your elusive Big Denominator.

Now that we've dispensed with that particular bit of nonsense, do you have any new arguments? If not, let's call the game. You don't have a proof, and after four years of repeating the same failed arguments, it's clear you never will have one.
JayUtah 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 5th January 2017, 09:58 AM   #2985
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 14,005
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- That sounds right, but not under the circumstances we're talking about...
- Nothing is possible that doesn't happen. In that sense, there is no such thing as potential. If my parents hadn't had intercourse MY day, I would NEVER be here. Something is either going to happen, or it isn't. In neither case is it potential. If something doesn't happen, it was impossible (for some reason). In the case of Cleopatra and myself, there were NUMEROUS reasons -- but, that's the case for most everything that doesn't happen...
Wow. After years of arguing you are finally going to accept you are flat out wrong.

No you wont. You will simply fringe reset once again.

It's getting tedious.
__________________
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 5th January 2017, 11:17 AM   #2986
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,566
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- That sounds right, but not under the circumstances we're talking about...
- Nothing is possible that doesn't happen. In that sense, there is no such thing as potential. If my parents hadn't had intercourse MY day, I would NEVER be here. Something is either going to happen, or it isn't. In neither case is it potential. If something doesn't happen, it was impossible (for some reason). In the case of Cleopatra and myself, there were NUMEROUS reasons -- but, that's the case for most everything that doesn't happen...
Great: now you understand that it is impossible for you to have had children with Cleopatra, or be her daughter. And that your "potential selves" is a non-starter. (BTW, the highlighted is absolutely incorrect. There are myriad things that could happen but didn't. It was very possible that I could have hit a tree while driving this morning. But I didn't.)

Now, perhaps we can move on another the glaring problem with your math.
- The likelihood of your existence, being the same as the likelihood of your body's existence, might be a small number, but it is certainly not something over infinity. Now, whatever number we want to assign to it, you need to address the fact that the scientific model only has that number. (We'll call it B.)

- Your model includes B, plus a soul (however unlikely that is, we'll call that S), plus a means of having the soul control your brain (we'll call that C).

- B+S+C is always going to be larger than B alone. There is no getting around it: your model is far less likely than the scientific model.
jond 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 5th January 2017, 05:35 PM   #2987
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 19,959
Jabba, is this right:

I show you a bullet hole on the side of a barn. I draw a bulls-eye around it to emphasize its location. Now, since there are virtually an infinite number of places the bullet could have created that bullet hole on that side of the barn, the likelihood of it being where it actually is would be virtually zero.

Therefore, the scientific model of the bullet once fired must go somewhere, BOFMgs, is far less likely than the alternate hypothesis, the bullet has a soul.
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group.

"He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost
jsfisher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th January 2017, 07:39 PM   #2988
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 6,570
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Nothing is possible that doesn't happen. In that sense, there is no such thing as potential. If my parents hadn't had intercourse MY day, I would NEVER be here. Something is either going to happen, or it isn't. In neither case is it potential. If something doesn't happen, it was impossible (for some reason). In the case of Cleopatra and myself, there were NUMEROUS reasons -- but, that's the case for most everything that doesn't happen...
You see Jabba this is the problem. You say stuff like this... and then you keep arguing. You fringe reset or subdivide the argument again.
__________________
Hemingway once wrote that "The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.
JoeBentley 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 6th January 2017, 12:25 AM   #2989
Filippo Lippi
Master Poster
 
Filippo Lippi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,557
It's not a problem, it's a feature of effective debate
__________________
"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 6th January 2017, 09:10 AM   #2990
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,224
Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
Jabba, is this right:

I show you a bullet hole on the side of a barn. I draw a bulls-eye around it to emphasize its location. Now, since there are virtually an infinite number of places the bullet could have created that bullet hole on that side of the barn, the likelihood of it being where it actually is would be virtually zero.

Therefore, the scientific model of the bullet once fired must go somewhere, BOFMgs, is far less likely than the alternate hypothesis, the bullet has a soul.
Bingo!
__________________
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 6th January 2017, 09:20 AM   #2991
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,178
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
If that's the case, we can drop the whole idea of potential selves from the calculation, since the only things that were possible were the things that happened.
Dave,
- I'm claiming that in your model, there is no such thing as a potential self. If one of my sperm cells and one of Cleopatra's eggs don't count as a potential self, then neither do the sperm cell that produced me and the egg that produced my sister count as a potential self -- or even, would the egg that produced me and a different sperm cell from the same batch of sperm cells that produced me count as a potential self. Where do you draw the line?
- I'm claiming that the egg that produced me and a different sperm cell from the same batch that produced me do represent a different potential person, a different potential self -- and if so, it doesn't make sense to claim that the sperm cell that produced me and the egg that produced Cleopatra don't count as a different, potential person, a different potential 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 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 6th January 2017, 09:34 AM   #2992
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,306
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I'm claiming that in your model, there is no such thing as a potential self.
Correct; there is no "potential self" under H. But your Big Denominator for estimating P(E|H) is the number of "potential selves" under H that you now concede does not exist. Hence you have no basis for your estimate that P(E|H) must necessarily be very small. Therefore your proof fails.

Quote:
I'm claiming that the egg that produced me and a different sperm cell from the same batch that produced me do represent a different potential person, a different potential self...
No, you can't have your cake and eat it too. "Potential self" is not a concept under H in any form. The same egg hypothetically fertilized by a different sperm would produce a different organism owing to its different genetic makeup. But that doesn't set up or justify your insinuation that there's some countable pool of "potential selves" and that one sperm wins the lottery and another doesn't. You're trying to tack your personal beliefs onto H. You are scientifically wrong to do so because your notion of "potentiality" is simply not part of the model; you don't get to tack unnecessary things onto it simply so you can use those additions to disprove it (straw man). You are mathematically wrong to do so because if there's an infinite pool of "potential" anythings, then no example of anything stands a chance of existence under your model unless it has a soul. But things clearly do exist without souls, so your proof fails there too (reductio ad absurdum).

Quote:
...potential person, a different potential self.
None of this "potential" nonsense has the slightest bit of meaning under H. You conceded there was no "potential self," but now -- true to form -- you're trying to gingerly undo that concession because apparently you've realized it's absolutely essential to the latest incarnation of your proof.

Shame on you, Jabba. When you are proven wrong and concede, don't just try to commit the same error using different words. Your critics see right through that. You conceded your major premise yesterday. It's over.
JayUtah 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 6th January 2017, 09:45 AM   #2993
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,653
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I'm claiming that in your model, there is no such thing as a potential self. If one of my sperm cells and one of Cleopatra's eggs don't count as a potential self, then neither do the sperm cell that produced me and the egg that produced my sister count as a potential self -- or even, would the egg that produced me and a different sperm cell from the same batch of sperm cells that produced me count as a potential self. Where do you draw the line?
I would draw the line at scenarios that don't involve time travel or violate causality.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I'm claiming that the egg that produced me and a different sperm cell from the same batch that produced me do represent a different potential person, a different potential self -- and if so, it doesn't make sense to claim that the sperm cell that produced me and the egg that produced Cleopatra don't count as a different, potential person, a different potential self.
You seriously don't see the difference between those two scenarios?
__________________
"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 6th January 2017, 11:06 AM   #2994
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 14,005
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I'm claiming that in your model, there is no such thing as a potential self. If one of my sperm cells and one of Cleopatra's eggs don't count as a potential self, then neither do the sperm cell that produced me and the egg that produced my sister count as a potential self -- or even, would the egg that produced me and a different sperm cell from the same batch of sperm cells that produced me count as a potential self. Where do you draw the line?
Kindly describe how exactly one of your sperm cells could in any way meet up with one of Cleopatra's ova. Bet you can't. Therefore it follows that this is impossible. Therefore it follows that a Jabba/Cleo union is not a potential self in any way. Not even a Jabba dad/Cleo union is possible by any stretch of the imagination.

Given that we can clearly see that most unions are not possible, your claim of an infinite number of possible selves must be false. An infinite number of selves must perforce include ALL possible selves. If even one Possible self can be excluded, then your proposed infinite set of selves cannot exist. We can demonstrate that the you/Cleo progeny cannot exist. Ergo, your proposed infinite number of selves must be false. It isn't rocket magic.
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I'm claiming that the egg that produced me and a different sperm cell from the same batch that produced me do represent a different potential person, a different potential self -- and if so, it doesn't make sense to claim that the sperm cell that produced me and the egg that produced Cleopatra don't count as a different, potential person, a different potential self.
They don't. Can you mate with Cleo? Of course not. If some possibilities are eliminated straight out of the box, you have a finite set. You are straight away eliminating all of the women that you have not had sex with over the course of 2 million years or so.

All you have is your lifetime record of ejaculations and whatever partners ova. Not infinity. Nowhere near it.

Now, in all fairness, You could, of course, prove me wrong by seducing Cleo and producing a progeny. Somehow, that seems unlikely.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?

Last edited by abaddon; 6th January 2017 at 11:07 AM.
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 6th January 2017, 12:22 PM   #2995
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,209
Jabba, the human genome has a finite number of base pairs. There are therefore a finite number of possible combinations.
__________________
"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 6th January 2017, 01:46 PM   #2996
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 19,554
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Jabba, the human genome has a finite number of base pairs. There are therefore a finite number of possible combinations.
And that number is far smaller than you might think, because most of the base pairs are identical for all humans. The number that might vary from individual to individual is only a few per cent.

Jabba, your argument has now failed on ALL angles, including a few you did not imagine. Now: Give up.

Hans
__________________
Don't. Just don't.
MRC_Hans 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 6th January 2017, 02:04 PM   #2997
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,178
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- That sounds right, but not under the circumstances we're talking about...
- Nothing is possible that doesn't happen. In that sense, there is no such thing as potential. If my parents hadn't had intercourse MY day, I would NEVER be here. Something is either going to happen, or it isn't. In neither case is it potential. If something doesn't happen, it was impossible (for some reason). In the case of Cleopatra and myself, there were NUMEROUS reasons -- but, that's the case for most everything that doesn't happen...
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
If that's the case, we can drop the whole idea of potential selves from the calculation, since the only things that were possible were the things that happened.
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I'm claiming that in your model, there is no such thing as a potential self. If one of my sperm cells and one of Cleopatra's eggs don't count as a potential self, then neither do the sperm cell that produced me and the egg that produced my sister count as a potential self -- or even, would the egg that produced me and a different sperm cell from the same batch of sperm cells that produced me count as a potential self. Where do you draw the line?
- I'm claiming that the egg that produced me and a different sperm cell from the same batch that produced me do represent a different potential person, a different potential self -- and if so, it doesn't make sense to claim that the sperm cell that produced me and the egg that produced Cleopatra don't count as a different, potential person, a different potential self.
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
I would draw the line at scenarios that don't involve time travel or violate causality.
Dave,
- They all violate causality.



Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
You seriously don't see the difference between those two scenarios?
- No. If the egg that produced me and a different sperm cell from the same batch that produced me did get together instead, causality would be violated. If the two germ cells that did produce me did get together but produced someone else, causality would again be violated.
__________________
"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

Last edited by Jabba; 6th January 2017 at 02:06 PM.
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 6th January 2017, 02:12 PM   #2998
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,178
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Jabba, the human genome has a finite number of base pairs. There are therefore a finite number of possible combinations.
Mojo,
- If we reproduced your exact set of base pairs, would we reincarnate you?
__________________
"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 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 6th January 2017, 02:16 PM   #2999
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,306
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
If we reproduced your exact set of base pairs, would we reincarnate you?
No. There would just be a duplicate organism. Do you understand twinning?
JayUtah 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 6th January 2017, 02:20 PM   #3000
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 14,005
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Mojo,
- If we reproduced your exact set of base pairs, would we reincarnate you?
No. It is bizarre that you might even suggest such a thing.
__________________
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
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 06:18 PM.
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.