Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

 International Skeptics Forum Proof of Immortality, the IV league

 Notices Sadly I have to announce that Locknar is leaving the moderating team. He's contributed massively to keeping this place going over the years. Thanks for all your hard work especially dealing with the new registrations (yeah really thanks for leaving me with that!)

 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.
 6th January 2017, 02:30 PM #3001 godless dave Great Dalmuti     Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 8,266 Originally Posted by Jabba Mojo, - If we reproduced your exact set of base pairs, would we reincarnate you? Why do you keep asking questions that we've already answered? Two is more than one. If you make a copy of something, you now have two of that thing and you can't tell them apart. __________________ "If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm Last edited by godless dave; 6th January 2017 at 02:35 PM.
 6th January 2017, 02:35 PM #3002 godless dave Great Dalmuti     Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 8,266 Originally Posted by Jabba Dave, - They all violate causality. Do they? If I'm about to throw a dart at a board, you can make predictions about where that dart might possibly hit. Anywhere on the board is a possibility, as is anywhere on the wall surrounding the board and anywhere on the floor between me and the board. A dart board in a pub in 17th Century Ireland is not a possible landing point for the dart. You could try to assign probabilities to all those locations, and the probability for that last one would be zero. After the dart has already hit the board there are no longer multiple possible landing locations. Originally Posted by Jabba - 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. I'm not sure you understand what causality means. Events in the present can affect the future. Events in the present cannot effect the past. __________________ "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
 6th January 2017, 02:47 PM #3003 JayUtah Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 15,480 Originally Posted by abaddon No. It is bizarre that you might even suggest such a thing. No more bizarre than when he suggested it previously, in conjunction with the cloning thought experiment. It seems he's too ham-fistedly eager to cram the notion of reincarnation into scientific hypotheses.
 6th January 2017, 02:49 PM #3004 JayUtah Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 15,480 Originally Posted by Jabba 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. That's not what science means by causality.
 6th January 2017, 02:56 PM #3005 Loss Leader Do you want to date my Avatar?Moderator     Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Florida Posts: 25,243 Originally Posted by Jabba Mojo, - If we reproduced your exact set of base pairs, would we reincarnate you? Have you never met a pair of twins? __________________ I have the honor to be Your Obdt. St L. Leader
 6th January 2017, 03:00 PM #3006 Peregrinus Graduate Poster   Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 1,213 Originally Posted by Loss Leader Have you never met a pair of twins? Then there're triplets - quadruplets - from personal recollection I think 6 is the upper limit.
 6th January 2017, 06:19 PM #3007 Hokulele Deleterious Slab of Damnation     Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: The Biggest Little City in the World Posts: 29,565 Originally Posted by Jabba Mojo, - If we reproduced your exact set of base pairs, would we reincarnate you? Is there a master self that looks out of two sets of eyes when a single fertilized egg results in identical twins? __________________ "Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
 6th January 2017, 07:51 PM #3008 abaddon Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 17,663 Originally Posted by Peregrinus Then there're triplets - quadruplets - from personal recollection I think 6 is the upper limit. Try the Suleman octuplets. __________________ Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes...
 7th January 2017, 03:49 AM #3009 zooterkin Nitpicking dilettanteDeputy Admin     Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 40,231 Originally Posted by abaddon Try the Suleman octuplets. Well, since two of them are girls and six are boys, that doesn't increase the limit for identical siblings. I don't know how many of the boys are from the same egg. __________________ 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 Ezekiel 23:20
 7th January 2017, 05:27 AM #3010 Mojo Mostly harmless     Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 30,151 Originally Posted by Loss Leader Have you never met a pair of twins? I suspect that he'll come back with, "well, then there must be something else besides genetics that makes each self unique". Yes, there is, Jabba: environment. It still doesn't get you your infinite number of "selves", or any evidence against consciousness being a brain process. __________________ "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; 7th January 2017 at 05:29 AM.
 7th January 2017, 07:28 AM #3011 Jabba Philosopher     Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 5,613 Originally Posted by Mojo Jabba, the human genome has a finite number of base pairs. There are therefore a finite number of possible combinations. Originally Posted by Jabba Mojo, - If we reproduced your exact set of base pairs, would we reincarnate you? Originally Posted by godless dave Why do you keep asking questions that we've already answered? Two is more than one. If you make a copy of something, you now have two of that thing and you can't tell them apart. Dave, - But that's my point. There is a finite number of base human pairs, but there is not a finite number of selves (or senses of selves). __________________ "The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski "Most good ideas don't work." Jabba "Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
 7th January 2017, 07:36 AM #3012 jond Illuminator     Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 3,228 Originally Posted by Jabba Dave, - But that's my point. There is a finite number of base human pairs, but there is not a finite number of selves (or senses of selves). And everyone else's point, which you refuse to understand, is that the self is not a thing which could be numbered. It's a process which is ongoing while the brain is functioning.
 7th January 2017, 07:42 AM #3013 zooterkin Nitpicking dilettanteDeputy Admin     Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 40,231 Originally Posted by Jabba there is not a finite number of selves (or senses of selves). When did you establish this? __________________ 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 Ezekiel 23:20
 7th January 2017, 07:42 AM #3014 Jabba Philosopher     Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 5,613 Originally Posted by Jabba Dave, - They all violate causality... Originally Posted by godless dave Do they? If I'm about to throw a dart at a board, you can make predictions about where that dart might possibly hit. Anywhere on the board is a possibility, as is anywhere on the wall surrounding the board and anywhere on the floor between me and the board. A dart board in a pub in 17th Century Ireland is not a possible landing point for the dart. Dave, - Do you accept that determinism might be true? __________________ "The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski "Most good ideas don't work." Jabba "Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
 7th January 2017, 07:47 AM #3015 zooterkin Nitpicking dilettanteDeputy Admin     Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 40,231 Originally Posted by Jabba There is a finite number of base human pairs, Given the way you've mangled that, I suspect that, like "emergent property", "base pair" is a term the meaning of which has eluded you. There is no shame in asking for clarification of a term you're unfamiliar with. Bluffing it out will likely end with making a fool of oneself. Imagine what would happen if someone pretended to understand some statistical formula, in the face of explanations from those more knowledgeable than they were... __________________ 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 Ezekiel 23:20
 7th January 2017, 08:05 AM #3016 Mojo Mostly harmless     Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 30,151 Originally Posted by Mojo I suspect that he'll come back with, "well, then there must be something else besides genetics that makes each self unique". Yes, there is, Jabba: environment. It still doesn't get you your infinite number of "selves", or any evidence against consciousness being a brain process. Originally Posted by Jabba Dave, - But that's my point. There is a finite number of base human pairs, but there is not a finite number of selves (or senses of selves). I win 1 internets (and Jabba still loses). __________________ "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; 7th January 2017 at 08:06 AM.
 7th January 2017, 08:10 AM #3017 The Sparrow Graduate Poster     Join Date: Sep 2015 Location: Central Canada Posts: 1,401 hmmmm, I think I get Jabba's reasoning now. If you have an infinite number of anything, its impossible for any of that thing to actually exist. Ie, if you have an infinite number of grains of sand, you actually cannot actually have any of those specific grains of sand existing.
 7th January 2017, 08:14 AM #3018 Mojo Mostly harmless     Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 30,151 Originally Posted by Jabba Dave, - Do you accept that determinism might be true? Jabba, - Do you accept that this has nothing to do with whether or not you are mortal? __________________ "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
 7th January 2017, 08:17 AM #3019 Jabba Philosopher     Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 5,613 Originally Posted by Jabba Dave, - But that's my point. There is a finite number of base human pairs, but there is not a finite number of selves (or senses of selves). Originally Posted by zooterkin Given the way you've mangled that, I suspect that, like "emergent property", "base pair" is a term the meaning of which has eluded you. There is no shame in asking for clarification of a term you're unfamiliar with. Bluffing it out will likely end with making a fool of oneself. Imagine what would happen if someone pretended to understand some statistical formula, in the face of explanations from those more knowledgeable than they were... Zoo, - I assume you're right. I thought I knew what I was talking about. - But, isn't there a finite number of DNA possibilities that will produce a human? __________________ "The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski "Most good ideas don't work." Jabba "Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
 7th January 2017, 08:21 AM #3020 Peregrinus Graduate Poster   Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 1,213 Originally Posted by Jabba - But, isn't there a finite number of DNA possibilities that will produce a human? No. Some of them produce parrots & some produce politicians. But I repeat myself.
 7th January 2017, 08:22 AM #3021 The Sparrow Graduate Poster     Join Date: Sep 2015 Location: Central Canada Posts: 1,401 Originally Posted by Jabba Zoo, - But, isn't there a finite number of DNA possibilities that will produce a human? Maybe. So what. The emergent property of "self" depends on both genetic and environmental factors. That's one of the reasons twins have different personalities.
 7th January 2017, 09:19 AM #3022 MRC_Hans Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 21,159 Originally Posted by Jabba Zoo, - I assume you're right. I thought I knew what I was talking about. - But, isn't there a finite number of DNA possibilities that will produce a human? Weren't you just recently trying to argue that under OOFLam, the potential selves were infinite, and thus OOFLam had to be false? Could you please make up your mind about what you are arguing? Hans __________________ If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
 7th January 2017, 09:45 AM #3023 zooterkin Nitpicking dilettanteDeputy Admin     Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 40,231 Originally Posted by Jabba - But, isn't there a finite number of DNA possibilities that will produce a human? Ooh, I don't know; I've an idea someone might have said something about that recently. Oh, yes, here it is: Originally Posted by zooterkin 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. So, anyway, what are the implications of the number of possible DNA combinations that would be human being finite? __________________ 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 Ezekiel 23:20
 7th January 2017, 10:16 AM #3024 JayUtah Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 15,480 Originally Posted by Jabba But that's my point. There is a finite number of base human pairs, but there is not a finite number of selves (or senses of selves). There is no sense of self until a set of base pairs meets another one. There is no pool of them waiting to win the lottery. You still don't get what it means to be a property or a process. You still think it's a "thing." There is no such "thing" under H, so stop trying to make it happen.
 7th January 2017, 10:20 AM #3025 jond Illuminator     Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 3,228 Originally Posted by JayUtah There is no sense of self until a set of base pairs meets another one. There is no pool of them waiting to win the lottery. You still don't get what it means to be a property or a process. You still think it's a "thing." There is no such "thing" under H, so stop trying to make it happen. Indeed, there is no sense of self until the child's brain develops sufficiently for the sense of self to emerge.
 7th January 2017, 10:21 AM #3026 JayUtah Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 15,480 Originally Posted by Jabba But, isn't there a finite number of DNA possibilities that will produce a human? Twins, Jabba. You still haven't figured that out. I can take Mommy's set of base pairs and Daddy's set of base pairs, combine them to extract the same Timmy set of base pairs, and I can do that as many times as I want and each Timmy will be an exact biological duplicate of his siblings and each would have its own sense of self. That's because a sense of self is a property of the organism, and so there are ever only as many manifestations of the sense of self as there are organisms presently living. It's a process (or the product of a process) that lasts Timmy's whole life. Under the scientific hypothesis H there is no pool of souls waiting to win the lottery and inhabit a physical organism. That's the religious concept you believe in, and which you're desperately (and increasingly ham-fistedly) trying to foist onto the scientific hypothesis in a different guise. Zooterkin is right: you need to get it into your head that consciousness works entirely differently in the scientific hypothesis than it does in religion
 7th January 2017, 10:36 AM #3027 Sideroxylon Featherless biped     Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Aporia Posts: 18,781 How many years has that point been made for? No sound of pennys dropping. __________________ 'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman
 7th January 2017, 10:37 AM #3028 John Jones Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Iowa USA Posts: 12,131 Originally Posted by Jabba Dave, - Do you accept that determinism might be true? Jabba, - Are you attempting to put words in another person's mouth again? - I'll be back. __________________ "Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave Last edited by John Jones; 7th January 2017 at 10:47 AM.
 7th January 2017, 11:14 AM #3029 godless dave Great Dalmuti     Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 8,266 Originally Posted by Jabba Dave, - But that's my point. There is a finite number of base human pairs, but there is not a finite number of selves (or senses of selves). There are only infinite possible selves if you allow duplicates and if you have infinite matter and time. Think of it like this: there are a finite number of banana bread recipes, and if you had infinite ingredients you could make an infinite number of loaves of banana bread using those recipes. Of course none of this matters because at any given time there are only a finite number of possible selves. __________________ "If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm Last edited by godless dave; 7th January 2017 at 11:20 AM.
 7th January 2017, 11:18 AM #3030 godless dave Great Dalmuti     Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 8,266 Originally Posted by Jabba Dave, - Do you accept that determinism might be true? I'm pretty confident it is but that doesn't matter. Probability is about predicting possible outcomes before they happen. Only one of them will happen, but we use probability when we don't have enough information to know for sure what the outcome will be. __________________ "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
 7th January 2017, 11:19 AM #3031 Loss Leader Do you want to date my Avatar?Moderator     Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Florida Posts: 25,243 Originally Posted by Jabba Dave, - But that's my point. There is a finite number of base human pairs, but there is not a finite number of selves (or senses of selves). Jabba, how many "going 60 mph" are there? How many "adding sugar to the cake mix" are there? A process is not a thing. It cannot be counted. __________________ I have the honor to be Your Obdt. St L. Leader
 7th January 2017, 11:19 AM #3032 godless dave Great Dalmuti     Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 8,266 Originally Posted by zooterkin When did you establish this? He didn't. __________________ "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
 7th January 2017, 11:25 AM #3033 Mojo Mostly harmless     Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 30,151 Originally Posted by The Sparrow So what. ^ This. __________________ "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
 7th January 2017, 11:47 AM #3034 The Sparrow Graduate Poster     Join Date: Sep 2015 Location: Central Canada Posts: 1,401 Originally Posted by Mojo ^ This. I'm here all week.
 9th January 2017, 10:16 AM #3035 Jabba Philosopher     Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 5,613 Originally Posted by godless dave There are only infinite possible selves if you allow duplicates and if you have infinite matter and time. Think of it like this: there are a finite number of banana bread recipes, and if you had infinite ingredients you could make an infinite number of loaves of banana bread using those recipes. Of course none of this matters because at any given time there are only a finite number of possible selves. Dave, - I would agree with you about "possible" selves (that the only way to have an infinity of possible selves, would be to have the possibility of duplicate organisms and to have infinite time (though, we shouldn't need infinite matter, as we should be able to recycle). - Though, I would disagree with you about "potential" selves -- and, I'm pretty sure that it's potential selves that should count in this case. Again, 1) wouldn't you say that all combinations of viable sperm and ovum of the same species would produce new organisms, if somehow brought together (perhaps, by freezing over time)? And, 2) wouldn't such potential combinations represent potential organisms? And 3), wouldn't they be left out if they were not brought together? - And then, scientifically speaking, it's difficult postulating there being only finite time, or one finite universe or even a finite set of finite universes? - I'll be back. __________________ "The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski "Most good ideas don't work." Jabba "Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor Last edited by Jabba; 9th January 2017 at 10:18 AM.
 9th January 2017, 10:26 AM #3036 godless dave Great Dalmuti     Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 8,266 Originally Posted by Jabba Dave, - I would agree with you about "possible" selves (that the only way to have an infinity of possible selves, would be to have the possibility of duplicate organisms and to have infinite time (though, we shouldn't need infinite matter, as we should be able to recycle). - Though, I would disagree with you about "potential" selves -- and, I'm pretty sure that it's potential selves that should count in this case. Again, 1) wouldn't you say that all combinations of viable sperm and ovum of the same species would produce new organisms, if somehow brought together (perhaps, by freezing over time)? And, 2) wouldn't such potential combinations represent potential organisms? And 3), wouldn't they be left out if they were not brought together? - And then, scientifically speaking, it's difficult postulating there being only finite time, or one finite universe or even a finite set of finite universes? There are numerous problems with this but it didn't even address my post. You are saying it's a contradiction to have a finite number of potential human DNA sequences but an infinite number of potential human selves. It's not, because you could have multiple identical (at conception) humans from one human DNA sequence. Just as you could theoretically make an infinite number of identical loaves of banana bread from the same recipe. __________________ "If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm Last edited by godless dave; 9th January 2017 at 10:30 AM.
 9th January 2017, 10:35 AM #3038 JayUtah Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 15,480 Originally Posted by godless dave There are numerous problems with this... Let's mention the obvious one, which is an all-too-typical attempt to split linguistic hairs. There's no material difference between "possible" and "potential." In their plain meanings they are functionally identical words, and Jabba doesn't appeal to any putative nuance to make his point. I suppose he's just trying, as usual, to keep his language vague and circumspect so he doesn't get pinned down. Quote: You are saying it's a contradiction to have a finite number of possible human DNA sequences but an infinite number of possible human selves. It's not, because you could have multiple identical (at conception) humans from one human DNA sequence. Jabba has been hung up on "the chemistry" straw man for weeks now. The way biology works, replicating the same DNA sequence in perpetuity doesn't work. But in theory there's nothing preventing the same DNA sequence from generating the same organism out of the same recycled matter for as long as the contraption that does this continues to function. This doesn't result in reincarnation, or any of the other mystical foolishness Jabba is trying to paste into the scientific model of self.
 9th January 2017, 12:38 PM #3039 Loss Leader Do you want to date my Avatar?Moderator     Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Florida Posts: 25,243 Originally Posted by Jabba - Though, I would disagree with you about "potential" selves -- and, I'm pretty sure that it's potential selves that should count in this case. Again, 1) wouldn't you say that all combinations of viable sperm and ovum of the same species would produce new organisms, if somehow brought together (perhaps, by freezing over time)? And, 2) wouldn't such potential combinations represent potential organisms? And 3), wouldn't they be left out if they were not brought together? Jabba, all of this is gibberish and, in any case, entirely beside the point. "Selves," either actual or potential, cannot be counted. They are processes. How many potential "going 60 MPH" are there? You have never answered this question. You have never even pretended to address it and then refused to. You just keep ignoring it. But that won't change the fact that non-things cannot be counted. __________________ I have the honor to be Your Obdt. St L. Leader
 9th January 2017, 02:12 PM #3040 The Sparrow Graduate Poster     Join Date: Sep 2015 Location: Central Canada Posts: 1,401 Originally Posted by Loss Leader Jabba, all of this is gibberish and, in any case, entirely beside the point. "Selves," either actual or potential, cannot be counted. They are processes. How many potential "going 60 MPH" are there? You have never answered this question. You have never even pretended to address it and then refused to. You just keep ignoring it. But that won't change the fact that non-things cannot be counted. Agreed. Might I suggest we all hold off on responding to any other side branch that is raised until this particular one is answered?

International Skeptics Forum

 Bookmarks Digg del.icio.us StumbleUpon Google Reddit