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.
Reply
Old 14th October 2016, 12:40 AM   #521
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,000
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- In the current case, I'm just claiming that the likelihood of me currently existing is the result of the number of selves currently existing divided by the number of potential selves, and the number of potential selves is unlimited.

Jabba, this applies to your alternative hypothesis, in which the "self" is an entity with an independent existence and which must somehow attach to a body, but not to H, under which consciousness is a brain process.

That would mean that the likelihood of your existence under your preferred hypothesis is zero, and (if your argument is valid) you have essentially proved mortality.
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2016, 12:45 AM   #522
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,000
Originally Posted by jond View Post
What is the likelihood that Jabba will address this?

The forum servers have finite capacity, but the number of potential responses is infinite, therefore the likelihood of any particular response being posted is zero.
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2016, 03:38 AM   #523
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,097
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I think we're still passing in the night.
- My model H is that each human "self," be it a thing, process or illusion, will exist only once, at most. Isn't that exactly what you believe?
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Yes, but that's not how you most recently defined H. This is the part I don't believe:
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.
Dave,
- This is the part that I am claiming is so difficult.
- You do accept that we cannot reproduce a particular self via chemistry. It is this emergent property that would not be identical. If the self has characteristics, they would be identical in the two selves -- but, the self, itself, would be different.
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2016, 04:20 AM   #524
The Sparrow
Muse
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 742
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- This is the part that I am claiming is so difficult.
Only you are

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- You do accept that we cannot reproduce a particular self via chemistry.
He does?

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
It is this emergent property that would not be identical.
It wouldn't?

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
If the self has characteristics, they would be identical in the two selves -- but, the self, itself, would be different.
Ain't this a twisted way of saying 2 nickels have identical characteristics, that they are made of the same metal, have the same symbols stamped on them, are worth the same amount in currency, but are 2 seperate nickels?
So what???
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2016, 04:20 AM   #525
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,506
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- This is the part that I am claiming is so difficult.
- You do accept that we cannot reproduce a particular self via chemistry. It is this emergent property that would not be identical. If the self has characteristics, they would be identical in the two selves -- but, the self, itself, would be different.
Maybe if you read some of the responses that have explained this to you many hundreds of times you would understand. I'm going to try one more time: if you duplicated your brain at a given point, say right now, both "selves" would think they were Jabba. And no one, including Jabba A and Jabba B, would be able to tell the difference. However: because the "self" is, in fact, a process, Jabba A & Jabba B would diverge from that moment because they would experience different things from that moment.

What is so difficult to understand about this???
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2016, 04:22 AM   #526
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 22,580
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- You do accept that we cannot reproduce a particular self via chemistry. It is this emergent property that would not be identical. If the self has characteristics, they would be identical in the two selves -- but, the self, itself, would be different.
This is just an attempt at splitting non-existent hairs. Two hydrogen atoms may be so identical - in fact, must be, under most circumstances - that it is fundamentally impossible to determine which is which, yet are two distinct objects. Two lottery tickets may contain the same number, in which case both of them may be winning tickets. Functionally, they are identical, so both represent the same outcome. If you accept that it's possible to create another you that is in every respect identical, then the odds of that particular you existing have doubled - which I think isn't the answer you were hoping to get.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2016, 05:33 AM   #527
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,568
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- This is the part that I am claiming is so difficult.
You're claiming it's difficult but it really isn't. I don't believe in souls. I don't believe in any kind of life after death because I don't believe in souls.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- You do accept that we cannot reproduce a particular self via chemistry.
I do not accept that, I just use the standard definition of "reproduce", not the one you're using. Two identical things, including two identical emergent properties, such as two identical selves, are two things, not one thing.

2>1 is not a difficult concept.
__________________
"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; 14th October 2016 at 05:34 AM.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2016, 05:37 AM   #528
John Jones
Philosopher
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,704
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- This is the part that I am claiming is so difficult.
- You do accept that we cannot reproduce a particular self via chemistry. It is this emergent property that would not be identical. If the self has characteristics, they would be identical in the two selves -- but, the self, itself, would be different.
It's not difficult. You're trying to put words in someone else's mouth again.

This never works for you. Why do you keep trying it?
John Jones is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2016, 06:32 AM   #529
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 11,940
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
If the self has characteristics, they would be identical in the two selves -- but, the self, itself, would be different.
Under the scientific hypothesis that's just a meaningless word game. Again, you're simply making cardinality do all the work. It's a mistake of applying cardinality where it doesn't belong that gives you your infinite denominator. And here it is a necessary (but irrelevant) property of cardinality that gives you the illusion of distinction where there is none.

The property itself is indivisible and innumerable no matter how many items exhibit it. Two snowballs are both white. There are not two whites. What's ironic is that someone who likely believes in the Catholic notion of the Holy Trinity has such a problem with this concept.

Last edited by JayUtah; 14th October 2016 at 06:34 AM.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2016, 07:09 AM   #530
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,568
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
It's not difficult. You're trying to put words in someone else's mouth again.

This never works for you. Why do you keep trying it?
We keep replying so I guess in a sense it "works". I'm as guilty of playing into it as anyone.
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2016, 07:18 AM   #531
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 11,940
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
We keep replying so I guess in a sense it "works". I'm as guilty of playing into it as anyone.
Jabba's apparent aim is to prolong this debate as long as possible in order to postpone the inevitable and maintain his sense of hope. Any reply feeds that goal. The content does not matter, as Jabba ignores it.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2016, 08:18 AM   #532
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,097
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- This is the part that I am claiming is so difficult.
- You do accept that we cannot reproduce a particular self via chemistry. It is this emergent property that would not be identical. If the self has characteristics, they would be identical in the two selves -- but, the self, itself, would be different.
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
You're claiming it's difficult but it really isn't. I don't believe in souls. I don't believe in any kind of life after death because I don't believe in souls...
Dave,
- I understand that you don't believe in souls -- or, in life after death.
- I'm trying to show that there is reason, in fact, to believe in souls -- and, in life after death.
- Here specifically, I'm claiming that the reasoning is correct, just difficult to communicate.
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2016, 08:23 AM   #533
John Jones
Philosopher
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,704
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I understand that you don't believe in souls -- or, in life after death.
- I'm trying to show that there is reason, in fact, to believe in souls -- and, in life after death.
- Here specifically, I'm claiming that the reasoning is correct, just difficult to communicate.
What are the reasons to believe in souls? In 4 years you have come up with almost nothing.

It's not difficult to communicate, it just doesn't stand up to rational scrutiny.
John Jones is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2016, 08:27 AM   #534
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,568
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I understand that you don't believe in souls -- or, in life after death.
- I'm trying to show that there is reason, in fact, to believe in souls -- and, in life after death.
- Here specifically, I'm claiming that the reasoning is correct, just difficult to communicate.
I invite you to consider the possibility that the reasoning is difficult for you to communicate because it's not correct.
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2016, 08:28 AM   #535
sackett
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 4,803
Okay, Jabba, let's see your evidence for souls. Not proof, just a speck of a fact.

Come on, my fellow old-timer. You'n me, we haven't got time to waste anymore.
__________________
Fill the seats of justice with good men; not so absolute in goodness as to forget what human frailty is. -- Thomas Jefferson

What region of the earth is not filled with our calamities? -- Virgil
sackett is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2016, 08:31 AM   #536
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,000
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I'm trying to show that there is reason, in fact, to believe in souls --

You are failing. All you have provided is an unsupported assertion that they exist.
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2016, 08:38 AM   #537
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 11,940
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I understand that you don't believe in souls -- or, in life after death.
What you don't understand is that you can't reckon P(E|H) so as to require either of those propositions. H does not incorporate a soul. H does not incorporate life after death. Your estimation for P(E|H) attempts to write into H the notion that there is something aside from "the chemistry" that produces the self. For P(E|H) you may not add your own elements to H to artificially reduce the probability. You must use H as it is actually formulated, not as you rewrite it to be.

Quote:
I'm trying to show that there is reason, in fact, to believe in souls -- and, in life after death.
Well, no. "Show[ing] that there is reason ... to believe in souls" is another attempt to soften your claim. You said you thought you could prove that claim mathematically. That's a specific standard of proof. If you cannot meet it, say so and take your lumps. Don't attempt to save face by arguing a lesser claim and pretending you are at least at a stalemate in your effort. You're claiming you can score a touchdown. You don't get to ask, on the fourth down, if it's good enough just to make it to the 10 yard line and expect the other team to oblige you.

To prove immortality mathematically was your stated goal, and that's an accurate description of your overall approach. However, the method you have chosen -- a probabilistic model using Bayesian inference -- still has rules that you must follow, and you are not following them. You have been given an exhaustive list of your violations many times, and you simply ignore it.

The salient error among many now, as I state above, is your improper inclusion in H of components that are not part of it. You have obviously included them to make your likelihood ratio come out the way you want. But you may not simply declare what you want the scientific hypothesis to be in order to make it seem improbable. That's cheating. It's a

BLATANT STRAW MAN

Quote:
Here specifically, I'm claiming that the reasoning is correct, just difficult to communicate.
There is no difficulty. There is only reluctance on your part to realize your typical word games and stone-walling aren't working and that your critics have a point. You may not beg the question. You may not cram straw-man arguments into your critics' mouths. You may not ignore all but one player and pretend to have bested the team. Once you stop trying to manipulate the debate dishonestly in this fashion, you'll find the communication goes a lot easier.

As for me, I've had to resort to very large red letters in an attempt to communicate with you. That doesn't seem to be working, so perhaps an eye exam is also in order for you.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2016, 08:39 AM   #538
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 11,940
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
It's not difficult to communicate, it just doesn't stand up to rational scrutiny.
But it's so much easier to believe that your critics simply don't understand you than it is to accept that you're wrong.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2016, 08:40 AM   #539
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,097
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
...
- You do accept that we cannot reproduce a particular self via chemistry. It is this emergent property that would not be identical. If the self has characteristics, they would be identical in the two selves -- but, the self, itself, would be different.
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
...I do not accept that, I just use the standard definition of "reproduce", not the one you're using. Two identical things, including two identical emergent properties, such as two identical selves, are two things, not one thing...
Dave,
- I'm saying that scientifically speaking, you and I would not be attached to the chemical copies of our selves -- and, in that way, these copies would not be identical to the originals. I'm saying that these emergent properties are like attachments, and they are not identical to each other.
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2016, 08:44 AM   #540
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,097
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
I invite you to consider the possibility that the reasoning is difficult for you to communicate because it's not correct.
Dave,
- That is certainly a possibility...
- But then, just think about how difficult it is to communicate certain mathematics.
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2016, 08:46 AM   #541
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,506
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- That is certainly a possibility...
- But then, just think about how difficult it is to communicate certain mathematics.
And yet you continue to ignore the mathematics that demonstrate that you are very wrong.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2016, 08:47 AM   #542
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,568
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I'm saying that scientifically speaking, you and I would not be attached to the chemical copies of our selves -- and, in that way, these copies would not be identical to the originals. I'm saying that these emergent properties are like attachments, and they are not identical to each other.
There's nothing scientific about that.

My self is produced by my brain. My self is "attached" to my brain in the sense that it comes from my brain. It's something my brain is doing. It occupies the same physical space as my brain. It sees through my eyes because it is physically attached to my eyes. It feels what my hands feel because it is physically attached to my hands by a whole bunch of nerves.

If there were an exact copy of my brain, it would produce an exact copy of my self, which would be "attached" to that brain in exactly the same way my self is "attached" to mine. The only difference between them would be their physical location.
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2016, 09:10 AM   #543
JimOfAllTrades
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 302
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I'm saying that scientifically speaking, you and I would not be attached to the chemical copies of our selves -- and, in that way, these copies would not be identical to the originals. I'm saying that these emergent properties are like attachments, and they are not identical to each other.
The copies would be identical at the moment the copy was created. Both would think they were the original, and both would think the other was wrong. Emergent properties are not attachments, they are the result of a functioning system.

Is the music coming from my stereo some immortal thing that is mysteriously "attached" to the hardware? Is the result of the program running on my computer some separate thing that is "attached" to the hardware? Is the photographic print of my wife somehow "attached" to the chemicals, trays, and enlarger in my darkroom? Did any of these come from some unlimted "pool" of music, programs, and pictures? No.

Face it: what we think of as ourselves, the entity that looks out from our eyes, the "thing" that sits somewhere inside us and observes the world, is just the music playing on the stereo of our brains. There is NO outside thing involved.

At least that is the scientific hypothesis. Until you address the probability of yourself existing under that scenario, without the extra outside "thing" you're to shoehorn in, you can't even begin to make an argument, let alone try to prove it.
JimOfAllTrades is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2016, 09:12 AM   #544
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 11,940
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I'm saying that scientifically speaking, you and I would not be attached to the chemical copies of our selves
No, that is not the scientific model.

Quote:
I'm saying that these emergent properties are like attachments...
No, that is not what it means to be a property, emergent or otherwise.

Quote:
...and they are not identical to each other.
That's just cardinality again.

Try to make an argument that doesn't involve blatantly trying to shove desired arguments into your critics' mouths.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2016, 09:15 AM   #545
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 22,580
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I'm saying that scientifically speaking, you and I would not be attached to the chemical copies of our selves -- and, in that way, these copies would not be identical to the originals. I'm saying that these emergent properties are like attachments, and they are not identical to each other.
You are continuing to mangle the definition of emergent properties by trying to equate them to your definition of a soul. They are not an optional attachment to an object; they are properties of the object. What you're saying is like saying that the white of one snowball isn't the same colour as the white of another snowball because the colour of a snowball is like an attachment and these two colours are attached to different snowballs. It's a nonsensical non sequitur.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2016, 09:16 AM   #546
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 11,940
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
But then, just think about how difficult it is to communicate certain mathematics.
Your communication problems have nothing to do with mathematics. They have everything to do with linguistics and logic.

Linguistically you're trying every trick in your book -- equivocation, ambiguity, etc. -- to avoid a precise and enduring statement of your claim. You do this in every thread you start. You employ language in a way that gives you "wiggle room" to avoid refutations.

Logically you're simply not even in the running. Your argument, while expressed in mathematical terms, is based entirely on a small set of very common fallacies that have been brought endlessly to your attention.

The "difficulty" in language is, in one sense, your obvious intent. As long as you can tap-dance linguistically, you can prolong the debate endlessly. In another sense your "difficulty" in language is moot. There is no way to express a straw man or a begged question or a false dilemma in different language that suddenly makes it logically valid.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2016, 09:21 AM   #547
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,506
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
There's nothing scientific about that.

My self is produced by my brain. My self is "attached" to my brain in the sense that it comes from my brain. It's something my brain is doing. It occupies the same physical space as my brain. It sees through my eyes because it is physically attached to my eyes. It feels what my hands feel because it is physically attached to my hands by a whole bunch of nerves.

If there were an exact copy of my brain, it would produce an exact copy of my self, which would be "attached" to that brain in exactly the same way my self is "attached" to mine. The only difference between them would be their physical location.
Jabba, pay attention to the sentence "It's something my brain is doing." Read it over and over until you understand it.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2016, 09:23 AM   #548
John Jones
Philosopher
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,704
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- That is certainly a possibility...
- But then, just think about how difficult it is to communicate certain mathematics.
I suppose anything you don't understand would be difficult to communicate. Take your example of what you call the scientific model.
John Jones is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2016, 09:45 AM   #549
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 11,940
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
I suppose anything you don't understand would be difficult to communicate. Take your example of what you call the scientific model.
Jabba is clearly trying to foist something of his own devising and call it the scientific method. It's not working. So he has to make it sound like an innocent "difficuly" in communication. It's not that the concepts are difficult. It's that he can't fool people into accepting his version of their claims.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2016, 09:50 AM   #550
HighRiser
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: High above Indianapolis
Posts: 1,655
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I'm saying that scientifically speaking, you and I would not be attached to the chemical copies of our selves -- and, in that way, these copies would not be identical to the originals. I'm saying that these emergent properties are like attachments, and they are not identical to each other.
What you need to explain is how separate and identical things are somehow not separate and identical.

At the moment of conception, an identical copy of you would have all the properties of you. He would love your wife and kids, remember your parents and childhood, remember your SSN, bank accounts, driver's license number, and secret stash of next Christmas presents, all as his own. Same fingerprints. Same retinal pattern. Same DNA profile. Same legal and practical access to every aspect of your life.

I expect there would be no small amount of tension between you over which bed you're going to be sleeping in that night.

What doesn't matter is the weird idea that you wouldn't be seeing through his eyes. Or he through yours. What does matter is that he would have the same claim to his soul as you do with yours!

Good luck to you and your copy getting that nightmare of socio-economics sorted out.
__________________
Congratulations, you have successfully failed to model something that you assert "isn't noticeable". -The Man

Science is not hopelessly hobbled just because it knows the difference between fact and imagination. -JayUtah
HighRiser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2016, 02:14 PM   #551
Pooneil
Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 153
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
I'm claiming that the reasoning is correct, just difficult to communicate.
Delurking. How did you come to the conclusion your reasoning was correct if you hadn't thought it through enough to communicate the idea in an intelligible form? That is a classic cart before the horse.
Pooneil is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2016, 02:27 PM   #552
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 11,940
Originally Posted by Pooneil View Post
Delurking. How did you come to the conclusion your reasoning was correct if you hadn't thought it through enough to communicate the idea in an intelligible form? That is a classic cart before the horse.
Indeed it's one thing to falter in the initial expression of an idea and quite another thing to still be faltering four years later. As I previously put this in perspective, in the time it has taken Jabba to work through the "difficulty" in communicating his claim, a real student could have earned a bachelor's degree in English.

As nearly as I can tell, Jabba writes it off as miscommunication when his rather transparent word games fail to ensnare anyone.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2016, 02:42 PM   #553
Hokulele
Penultimate Amazing
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 28,789
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I'm saying that scientifically speaking, you and I would not be attached to the chemical copies of our selves -- and, in that way, these copies would not be identical to the originals. I'm saying that these emergent properties are like attachments, and they are not identical to each other.

You and I aren't attached to our selves, we are our selves. You cannot separate one from the other, just as you can't separate "wet" from the rain. Without the rain, there would be no wet. Without a brain, there is no you.
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2016, 04:38 PM   #554
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 15,954
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I understand that you don't believe in souls -- or, in life after death.
- I'm trying to show that there is reason, in fact, to believe in souls -- and, in life after death.
- Here specifically, I'm claiming that the reasoning is correct, just difficult to communicate.
A "reason to believe in souls" would need to be based upon (you know) evidence.
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2016, 04:40 PM   #555
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 15,954
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I'm saying that scientifically speaking, you and I would not be attached to the chemical copies of our selves -- and, in that way, these copies would not be identical to the originals. I'm saying that these emergent properties are like attachments, and they are not identical to each other.
My Dear Mr. Savage:

What is your evidence for these assertions?

I remain baconially yours, &ct.
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2016, 05:06 PM   #556
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,097
- My main point at this point is that, scientifically speaking, there is no limit to the number of potential selves.
- I say that because: according to science, your self and my self never existed before, will never exist again and never had to exist in the first place. None of us required any specific chemical precursor -- we were simply brand new. We did not not come from any existing pool.
- That's how I get P(E|H) equals 7.5 billion divided by infinity.
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2016, 05:26 PM   #557
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 11,940
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- My main point at this point is that, scientifically speaking, there is no limit to the number of potential selves.
- I say that because: according to science, your self and my self never existed before, will never exist again and never had to exist in the first place. None of us required any specific chemical precursor -- we were simply brand new. We did not not come from any existing pool.
- That's how I get P(E|H) equals 7.5 billion divided by infinity.
You can say the word "science" all you want, but none of this has any basis in the scientific hypothesis. It has been addressed dozens of times. You're just making crap up and trying to make your critics agree to it.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2016, 05:35 PM   #558
JimOfAllTrades
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 302
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- My main point at this point is that, scientifically speaking, there is no limit to the number of potential selves.
- I say that because: according to science, your self and my self never existed before, will never exist again and never had to exist in the first place. None of us required any specific chemical precursor -- we were simply brand new. We did not not come from any existing pool.
- That's how I get P(E|H) equals 7.5 billion divided by infinity.
Since the scientific theory is that the consciousness is a result of a functioning brain, then there is a limit to the number of "potential selves". It's the number of functioning brains. What probability do you get when you plug that number into your equation?
JimOfAllTrades is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2016, 05:43 PM   #559
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,568
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- My main point at this point is that, scientifically speaking, there is no limit to the number of potential selves.
- I say that because: according to science, your self and my self never existed before, will never exist again and never had to exist in the first place. None of us required any specific chemical precursor...
Science says we did.
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2016, 06:05 PM   #560
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,506
Your self and my self a process in our brains. There is no such thing as potential selves.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:56 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.