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 11th October 2016, 04:36 AM   #401
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 64,939
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Would you accept that the self is an emergent property?
Hilarious. You're trying to make it sound as if that's your proposal, when in fact you've been fighting against it since the beginning.
__________________
"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"
Argumemnon 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 11th October 2016, 04:46 AM   #402
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 7,306
Jabba a few months ago you didn't know what an emergent property was and we spent the better part of a week explaining it to you, now you're invoking as another magic word.
__________________
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 11th October 2016, 04:52 AM   #403
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,874
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
Jabba a few months ago you didn't know what an emergent property was and we spent the better part of a week explaining it to you, now you're invoking as another magic word.
I suspect it's a lame attempt to trick his critics into agreeing with him by adopting their terminology.
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 11th October 2016, 05:23 AM   #404
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,752
Originally Posted by jond View Post
Everyone has been telling you that. The problem is that you don't understand what an emergent property is.
jond,
- From Wikipedia under "emergence":

The term "emergent" was coined by philosopher G. H. Lewes, who wrote:
"Every resultant is either a sum or a difference of the co-operant forces; their sum, when their directions are the same -- their difference, when their directions are contrary. Further, every resultant is clearly traceable in its components, because these are homogeneous and commensurable. It is otherwise with emergents, when, instead of adding measurable motion to measurable motion, or things of one kind to other individuals of their kind, there is a co-operation of things of unlike kinds. The emergent is unlike its components insofar as these are incommensurable, and it cannot be reduced to their sum or their difference."[5][6]
__________________
"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 11th October 2016, 05:26 AM   #405
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,856
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
jond,
- From Wikipedia under "emergence":

The term "emergent" was coined by philosopher G. H. Lewes, who wrote:
"Every resultant is either a sum or a difference of the co-operant forces; their sum, when their directions are the same -- their difference, when their directions are contrary. Further, every resultant is clearly traceable in its components, because these are homogeneous and commensurable. It is otherwise with emergents, when, instead of adding measurable motion to measurable motion, or things of one kind to other individuals of their kind, there is a co-operation of things of unlike kinds. The emergent is unlike its components insofar as these are incommensurable, and it cannot be reduced to their sum or their difference."[5][6]
So tell me where that indicates that an emergent property can exist without the co-operant forces.
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 11th October 2016, 05:30 AM   #406
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,743
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
jond,
- From Wikipedia under "emergence":

The term "emergent" was coined by philosopher G. H. Lewes, who wrote:
"Every resultant is either a sum or a difference of the co-operant forces; their sum, when their directions are the same -- their difference, when their directions are contrary. Further, every resultant is clearly traceable in its components, because these are homogeneous and commensurable. It is otherwise with emergents, when, instead of adding measurable motion to measurable motion, or things of one kind to other individuals of their kind, there is a co-operation of things of unlike kinds. The emergent is unlike its components insofar as these are incommensurable, and it cannot be reduced to their sum or their difference."[5][6]
Did you have any point to make besides that you have mastered the task of "copy and paste"?

Did you read what you pasted with any modicum of understanding?

Did you figure out why that quote torpedoes your notion of a discarnate soul of any sort being in any way necessary?
__________________
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 11th October 2016, 05:35 AM   #407
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,874
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
jond,
- From Wikipedia under "emergence":

The term "emergent" was coined by philosopher G. H. Lewes, who wrote:
"Every resultant is either a sum or a difference of the co-operant forces; their sum, when their directions are the same -- their difference, when their directions are contrary. Further, every resultant is clearly traceable in its components, because these are homogeneous and commensurable. It is otherwise with emergents, when, instead of adding measurable motion to measurable motion, or things of one kind to other individuals of their kind, there is a co-operation of things of unlike kinds. The emergent is unlike its components insofar as these are incommensurable, and it cannot be reduced to their sum or their difference."[5][6]
The term at hand is 'emergent property', not emergence.
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 11th October 2016, 05:39 AM   #408
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,752
- I'm still working on the appropriateness of the current existence of my self as being the E in P(E|H) when trying to determine P(H|E).
- Here, I'm claiming that P(E|H) is 7 billion divided by infinity -- or, virtually zero... If P(E|H) were zero, this E would clearly be appropriate. What should we think of H when an appropriate E is virtually zero?
__________________
"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 11th October 2016, 05:40 AM   #409
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,856
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I'm still working on the appropriateness of the current existence of my self as being the E in P(E|H) when trying to determine P(H|E).
- Here, I'm claiming that P(E|H) is 7 billion divided by infinity -- or, virtually zero... If P(E|H) were zero, this E would clearly be appropriate. What should we think of H when an appropriate E is virtually zero?
So now you're running away from your misunderstanding of emergent properties? How surprising!
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 11th October 2016, 06:09 AM   #410
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,952
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Would you accept that the self is an emergent property?
For the sake of argument, yes. And my point is the same - the explanation of where the pile of parts come from is the same as the explanation of where the self comes from. The self comes from the interaction of those parts, as the definition you posted says.
__________________
"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 11th October 2016, 06:15 AM   #411
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,016
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
For the sake of argument, yes. And my point is the same - the explanation of where the pile of parts come from is the same as the explanation of where the self comes from. The self comes from the interaction of those parts, as the definition you posted says.
This!

Think of a bic lighter. take it apart into pieces.
The thumbwheel striker - does the flame come from that?
The red plastic valve holder opener thingy - does the flame come from that?
How about the flint - does the flame come from that?
Maybe the resevoir - does the flame come from that?
How about the butane? - does the flame come from that?
HOw about the oxygen in the air - does the flame come from that?

But put them all together and......voila.
You are trying to suggest flames exist in the neither void, waiting to be actualized into existence because the lighter mechanics provide a receptacle for a flame to 'actualize' into.
Further, the immense complexity possible for the arrangement of the particular atoms in the flame most likely make each flame unique, therefore the likelyhood of any particular flame existing is so low as to be 7 billion over infinity, therefore.......flames are immortal.

Last edited by The Sparrow; 11th October 2016 at 06:17 AM.
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 11th October 2016, 06:30 AM   #412
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,648
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
From Wikipedia under "emergence":
Second time you've copypasted from Wikipedia. Second time it fails to support your egregious misappropriation of the term.
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 11th October 2016, 06:37 AM   #413
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,648
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I'm still working on the appropriateness of the current existence of my self as being the E in P(E|H)...
You're working very hard on redefining H to be not the scientific model of consciousness but rather a fairly blatant straw man. Nobody's buying. Nor should they.

Quote:
Here, I'm claiming that P(E|H) is 7 billion divided by infinity...
Godless dave showed you the error of drawing that conclusion based on that number. The only way you could sidestep it was special pleading: the numbers only apply to souls, not to anything else that could be considered "improbable" by such numerological shenanigans.

Quote:
What should we think of H when an appropriate E is virtually zero?
But H in this case is not the scientific hypothesis. That is, you very much want everyone to accept that it is. But in this case it's a frankenpothesis wherein you foist the notion that consciousness should work in the scientific model the same way you envision it to work in your belief system that includes an immortal soul. You are apparently unable of thinking that the self might arise any other way than what you preconceived.
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 11th October 2016, 06:56 AM   #414
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,952
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Godless dave showed you the error of drawing that conclusion based on that number. The only way you could sidestep it was special pleading: the numbers only apply to souls, not to anything else that could be considered "improbable" by such numerological shenanigans.
Even for souls the 7 billion makes no sense. Jabba's existence didn't start now, it started some years ago.
__________________
"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 11th October 2016, 07:06 AM   #415
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,648
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Even for souls the 7 billion makes no sense. Jabba's existence didn't start now, it started some years ago.
And in another sense it doesn't matter since whatever number he comes up with will just end up being zeroed in the division by infinity. He just needs a number that sounds like he thought about it a little, like all the rest of the made-up numbers in the wall of screed we're probably going to see again before the end of the year.
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 11th October 2016, 07:15 AM   #416
MetalPig
Master Poster
 
MetalPig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 22, Acacia Avenue
Posts: 2,782
Originally Posted by jond View Post
So tell me where that indicates that an emergent property can exist without the co-operant forces.
They emerge from the Pool of Potentials, obviously.
__________________
Just drive.
MetalPig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th October 2016, 07:19 AM   #417
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 23,096
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
jond,
- From Wikipedia under "emergence":

The term "emergent" was coined by philosopher G. H. Lewes, who wrote:
"Every resultant is either a sum or a difference of the co-operant forces; their sum, when their directions are the same -- their difference, when their directions are contrary. Further, every resultant is clearly traceable in its components, because these are homogeneous and commensurable. It is otherwise with emergents, when, instead of adding measurable motion to measurable motion, or things of one kind to other individuals of their kind, there is a co-operation of things of unlike kinds. The emergent is unlike its components insofar as these are incommensurable, and it cannot be reduced to their sum or their difference."[5][6]

Ha ha! Lewes wrote that in 1875, a hundred and forty-one years ago. Is it your contention that this definition of emergence, which predates almost all of neuroscience, has something to do with our current understanding of neurosystems? Staining microscopy wasn't even invented until the lates 1890's.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th October 2016, 09:55 AM   #418
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,648
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
...therefore the probability of any single one occurring is zero.
Especially when one of them has been typing posts for four years relying upon this precise confusion.
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 11th October 2016, 09:58 AM   #419
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,839
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I'm still working on the appropriateness of the current existence of my self as being the E in P(E|H) when trying to determine P(H|E).

If you are, it isn't.
__________________
"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 11th October 2016, 01:00 PM   #420
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,752
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Would you accept that the self is an emergent property?
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
For the sake of argument, yes. And my point is the same - the explanation of where the pile of parts come from is the same as the explanation of where the self comes from. The self comes from the interaction of those parts, as the definition you posted says.
Dave,
- This is like the debates between Bohr and Einstein. These ideas are really hard to put into normal words.
- My claim: if you were able to reproduce the exact chemistry of your brain, you would get an identical brain, but you would not get an identical self. There is something about the self that is not determined by the chemistry.
__________________
"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 11th October 2016, 01:11 PM   #421
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,952
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- This is like the debates between Bohr and Einstein. These ideas are really hard to put into normal words.
- My claim: if you were able to reproduce the exact chemistry of your brain, you would get an identical brain, but you would not get an identical self. There is something about the self that is not determined by the chemistry.
Then you're not talking about a scientific model of consciousness. You're talking about some model that includes souls.
__________________
"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 11th October 2016, 01:13 PM   #422
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,441
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- This is like the debates between Bohr and Einstein. These ideas are really hard to put into normal words.
- My claim: if you were able to reproduce the exact chemistry of your brain, you would get an identical brain, but you would not get an identical self. There is something about the self that is not determined by the chemistry.

It is very easy to put into normal words:

An emergent property is a property of a collection of objects which is not seen in any single object of that collection on its own.

Please answer me, if someone was to make a copy of you right now, would you know whether or not you were the original?
__________________
"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 11th October 2016, 01:14 PM   #423
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,856
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- This is like the debates between Bohr and Einstein. These ideas are really hard to put into normal words.
- My claim: if you were able to reproduce the exact chemistry of your brain, you would get an identical brain, but you would not get an identical self. There is something about the self that is not determined by the chemistry.
The part that isn't determined by chemistry is the fact that the self is an on-going process that begins with the development of the brain, grows with every experience that you have, and ends when the brain stops working.

What part of an emergent property cannot exist without it's component parts working together do you not understand?
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 11th October 2016, 01:14 PM   #424
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,839
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- My claim: if you were able to reproduce the exact chemistry of your brain, you would get an identical brain, but you would not get an identical self.

Why not?
__________________
"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 11th October 2016, 01:16 PM   #425
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,874
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- This is like the debates between Bohr and Einstein. These ideas are really hard to put into normal words.
- My claim: if you were able to reproduce the exact chemistry of your brain, you would get an identical brain, but you would not get an identical self. There is something about the self that is not determined by the chemistry.
I hope you're not assigning yourself the role of either of those esteemed persons- that would be one sign of a crackpot.
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 11th October 2016, 01:17 PM   #426
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,016
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
.... There is something about the self that is not determined by the chemistry.
Right, go pound 6 beers and tell me that.
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 11th October 2016, 01:18 PM   #427
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,648
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
These ideas are really hard to put into normal words.
Nonsense. You base all your arguments on equivocation and other word games. Your critics here are simply well attuned to that and don't let you get away with it.

You're trying to make H something you can more easily falsify by trying to obfuscate it. If you would just knock that off, the discussion could proceed. Instead we have to watch you endlessly embarrass yourself by trying to slip in the notion of soul where it doesn't belong.

Quote:
My claim: if you were able to reproduce the exact chemistry of your brain, you would get an identical brain, but you would not get an identical self.
That may be your claim, but that is not the scientific hypothesis. Remember, if you are discussing P(E|H), then you must use H as it is actually constituted, not H as you fervently wish it to be.

Quote:
There is something about the self that is not determined by the chemistry.
That is not true according to the scientific hypothesis. You're trying to sneak in the notion of a soul badly disguised as "something about the self." Once you realize that no one is going to let you rewrite the scientific hypothesis to allow your tautology and begged questions, then maybe we can wind this discussion up before the end of the decade.
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 11th October 2016, 01:25 PM   #428
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,752
- I need to revise the following a little.
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I'm still working on the appropriateness of the current existence of my self as being the E in P(E|H) when trying to determine P(H|E).
- Here, I'm claiming that P(E|H) is 7 billion divided by infinity -- or, virtually zero... If P(E|H) were zero, this E would clearly be appropriate. What should we think of H when an appropriate E [has a likelihood of] is virtually zero?
- Anyone have an answer to that? And, what if there is a reasonably possible alternative hypothesis to the hypothesis that has the likelihood of E being virtually zero?
__________________
"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 11th October 2016, 01:27 PM   #429
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,952
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Anyone have an answer to that?
Neither the 7 billion nor the infinity are justified, nor have you presented a reasonably possible alternative hypothesis.

The H you're trying to disprove is a model that includes souls. I don't believe in souls.
__________________
"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; 11th October 2016 at 01:33 PM.
godless dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th October 2016, 01:28 PM   #430
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,856
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I need to revise the following a little.
- Anyone have an answer to that? And, what if there is a reasonably possible alternative hypothesis to the hypothesis that has the likelihood of E being virtually zero?
Why would anyone care given that your H includes something completely outside of the scientific hypothesis?
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 11th October 2016, 02:00 PM   #431
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
 
wollery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,768
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- This is like the debates between Bohr and Einstein.
No it is not.

It is not even remotely like them.

Bohr and Einstein both knew what they were talking about, they both contributed original ideas to the discussion, neither of them made stuff up about the other's position, neither of them pulled numbers out of the rear orifices, and both had great respect for the other.
__________________
"You're a sick SOB. You know that, Wollery?" - Roadtoad

"Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!" --George Carlin
wollery 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 11th October 2016, 02:08 PM   #432
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,648
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I need to revise the following a little.
It looks to me like you just added an unnecessary conditional. The history of your arguments suggests you are now going to try to convert the conditional, grovel for agreement, and declare victory.

Nice try, but we know that trick of yours too.

Quote:
Anyone have an answer to that?
An answer to what part, exactly? You've been told in extreme detail exactly what is wrong with your argument. You simply don't care.

The E in P(E|H) cannot be your current existence because it is preconceived. That's the Texas sharpshooter's fallacy.

Your formulation for estimating P(E|H) is simply made-up. It has no numerical or statistical validity. Everything else you surmise from there is based upon this as a premise and therefore fails as does the premise.

Quote:
And, what if there is a reasonably possible alternative hypothesis to the hypothesis that has the likelihood of E being virtually zero?
Asked and answered. You haven't come up with anything for ~H that is reasonably possible. You equivocate the ponens arguendo principle to pretend you have.

You have completely mishandled P(E|~H) and refuse to correct it.

And we still have the classic false dilemma. Your statement above is just every fringe argument ever, only expressed in something approaching mathematics: "I've proven that the conventional narrative is impossible, so you have to believe my cockamamie claim no matter how farfetched it is."

As usual, godless dave has told you in a nutshell exactly what's wrong. You say H is the scientific hypothesis that explains the self. But your wholly fabricated expression of that model includes the show-stopper statement, "There is something about the self that is not determined by the chemistry." You're trying to beg the question of a soul.

That's not H.

Your seven billion figure is simply plucked out of the air. Ostensibly it's the number of places on the barn wall where you could draw a target, but it's moot because you already drew the target around the bullet hole.

Your infinity figure is just a numerical abomination -- it's your frantic attempt to establish cardinality, under H, of a concept in that hypothesis for which cardinality is conclusively meaningless under H -- more question-begging. You assiduously need a huge number as the divisor so that the number comes out the way you planned. Your number comes from that need, not from any viable mathematical line of reasoning.

Yes, I have an answer. We all have an answer to your claim. When are you going to start pretending they don't exist?
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 11th October 2016, 02:53 PM   #433
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 7,306
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
My claim: if you were able to reproduce the exact chemistry of your brain, you would get an identical brain, but you would not get an identical self. There is something about the self that is not determined by the chemistry.
And this is false. It is wrong. It is untrue. It is counter to reality. It is not accurate.

This has been explained to you so many times if we counted up the times the number would be so large you would just call it infinite and put into a made up equation.

When know what your claim is Jabba. We're asking you to actually argue it.
__________________
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 11th October 2016, 03:37 PM   #434
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,874
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I need to revise the following a little.
- Anyone have an answer to that? And, what if there is a reasonably possible alternative hypothesis to the hypothesis that has the likelihood of E being virtually zero?
I have one: You have presented no empirical evidence to support your claims, and no proof of immortality after 4+years
.
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 11th October 2016, 03:43 PM   #435
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,874
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- This is like the debates between Bohr and Einstein. These ideas are really hard to put into normal words.
- My claim: if you were able to reproduce the exact chemistry of your brain, you would get an identical brain, but you would not get an identical self. There is something about the self that is not determined by the chemistry.
Lest we forget, Jabba has already tarred scientists as both incompetent and dishonest. Now he yet again makes false appeals to them.

Last edited by John Jones; 11th October 2016 at 03:48 PM.
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 11th October 2016, 09:43 PM   #436
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,743
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I need to revise the following a little.
- Anyone have an answer to that? And, what if there is a reasonably possible alternative hypothesis to the hypothesis that has the likelihood of E being virtually zero?
Yes. Your 7 billion figure is nonsense. You alone have 1,267,650,600,228,229,401,496,703,205,376 direct antecedents in the last 100 generations.

That is more people than have ever existed in total over all of the c. 200,000 years of human history.

Kindly explain this oddity.
__________________
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 12th October 2016, 12:54 AM   #437
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,023
Plus the basic invalud claim: That the a priori probability of anything is in any way connected to any probability of immortality.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
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 12th October 2016, 05:29 AM   #438
Monza
Alta Viro
 
Monza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,857
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- My claim: if you were able to reproduce the exact chemistry of your brain, you would get an identical brain, but you would not get an identical self.
But you've been saying that the self is an emergent property of a working brain. If you made an identical brain you would get an identical self, by definition.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
And, what if there is a reasonably possible alternative hypothesis to the hypothesis that has the likelihood of E being virtually zero?
E being virtually zero is another way of saying "E is not zero."
Monza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th October 2016, 05:52 AM   #439
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,752
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Neither the 7 billion nor the infinity are justified, nor have you presented a reasonably possible alternative hypothesis.

The H you're trying to disprove is a model that includes souls. I don't believe in souls.
Dave,
-Why do you think that 7 billion is not justified?
__________________
"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 12th October 2016, 06:03 AM   #440
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,016
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
-Why do you think that 7 billion is not justified?
It's a loaded condition.

7 billion implies you are only counting those alive today, not those that ever lived.
The reason you don't include those that ever lived is you are already trying to sneak in re-incarnation, that those previous lives are included in the 7 billion.

As someone else here more deftly stated, what about each of our ancestors, back into the primorial ooze. Why not include those numbers? At what stage of evolution do we start having 'selves'?
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
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 03:38 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.