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 14th October 2016, 06:09 PM   #561
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,435
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.

If this is "according to science", you should have no problem providing a citation to back up this claim. Unless you can do so, there is absolutely no reason to believe 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 Back to Top
Old 15th October 2016, 12:08 AM   #562
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,835
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.

Jabba, it has been explained to you repeatedly that the "self", as you define it, is not part of the hypothesis you are trying to disprove.

It is, however, part of your favoured hypothesis. Do you see the problem this gives you?
__________________
"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 15th October 2016, 05:28 AM   #563
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,751
Originally Posted by jond View Post
And yet you continue to ignore the mathematics that demonstrate that you are very wrong.
jond,
- But, to what specific math are you referring?
__________________
"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 15th October 2016, 05:42 AM   #564
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,854
The math that shows conclusively that no matter how unlikely your body is, it is more unlikely that you have a body and a "self" and that the "self" somehow physically interacts with your body.
jond is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th October 2016, 06:01 AM   #565
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,751
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.
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.
Dave,


1. This is hard stuff to communicate.
2. What we call “selves” may be things, processes or illusions.
3. According to modern science, you and I (as selves)
a. Never existed before,
b. Will never exist again, and
c. Never had to exist in the first place
d. (Whatever exactly we are).
4. IOW, there is no natural limitation on the number of selves possible…

5. Do you see the logic for #4?
__________________
"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 15th October 2016, 06:02 AM   #566
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 7,302
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
jond,
- But, to what specific math are you referring?
*Sighs* Read the thread.

Stop asking like we haven't been clear in our criticism of your "math."
__________________
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 15th October 2016, 06:03 AM   #567
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: 24,106
(3) is a false premise. Science claims no such thing.

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 Back to Top
Old 15th October 2016, 06:11 AM   #568
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,868
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,


1. This is hard stuff to sell to critical thinkers. communicate.

FIFY
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 15th October 2016, 06:53 AM   #569
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,854
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,


1. This is hard stuff to communicate.
2. What we call “selves” may be things, processes or illusions.
3. According to modern science, you and I (as selves)
a. Never existed before,
b. Will never exist again, and
c. Never had to exist in the first place
d. (Whatever exactly we are).
4. IOW, there is no natural limitation on the number of selves possible…

5. Do you see the logic for #4?
How surprising that you once again ran away.

As for #4, the limitation is the number of functioning brains. The brain and the self are the same thing. Period. There is nothing difficult to communicate, it's just that you keep insisting that the self somehow exists separately from the brain.
jond is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th October 2016, 07:01 AM   #570
HighRiser
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: High above Indianapolis
Posts: 1,775
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,


1. This is hard stuff to communicate.
That's because you haven't been able to form a rational description of your irrational premise.
Quote:
2. What we call “selves” may be things, processes or illusions.
What you call "selves" are what philosophy calls "souls" and science calls "conciousnesses".
Quote:
3. According to modern science, you and I (as selves)
a. Never existed before,
b. Will never exist again, and
c. Never had to exist in the first place
d. (Whatever exactly we are).
Parts a and b are trivial, part c is religious claptrap, and part d is undefined.
Quote:
4. IOW, there is no natural limitation on the number of selves possible…
How does this follow from 1-3? Which other words indicate there is no natural limit on the number of selves? Are selves souls? Perhaps there is no philosophical limit to the number of souls floating around in philosopher's minds? Are selves conciousnesses? There is definitely a limit on the number of physical brains that produce that particular emergent process.
Quote:
5. Do you see the logic for #4?
There's no logic in your unfounded notions.

You're not gonna reason your way out of your unreasoned position.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 15th October 2016, 07:06 AM   #571
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,835
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,


1. This is hard stuff to communicate.
2. What we call “selves” may be things, processes or illusions.
3. According to modern science, you and I (as selves)
a. Never existed before,
b. Will never exist again, and
c. Never had to exist in the first place
d. (Whatever exactly we are).
4. IOW, there is no natural limitation on the number of selves possible…

5. Do you see the logic for #4?

Jabba,
- Under the scientific model you oppose, consciousness is a brain process. The likelihood of a particular brain producing the consciousness that it produces is one.
- Under the model you favour, in which "selves" exist as independent entities which must somehow attach to a body, it is very unlikely that your particular "self" will attach to your particular body.
- Therefore your current existence is very much less likely under the hypothesis you favour than it is under the the hypothesis you oppose. Indeed, if your claim about the infinite number of "selves" is valid, your existence is impossible under your favoured hypothesis.
- Given that you exist, which hypothesis is more likely to be true?
__________________
"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 15th October 2016, 07:13 AM   #572
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,013
There is no natural limit on the number of bananas possible.
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 15th October 2016, 07:45 AM   #573
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,951
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,


1. This is hard stuff to communicate.
2. What we call “selves” may be things, processes or illusions.
3. According to modern science, you and I (as selves)
a. Never existed before,
b. Will never exist again, and
c. Never had to exist in the first place
d. (Whatever exactly we are).
4. IOW, there is no natural limitation on the number of selves possible…

5. Do you see the logic for #4?
At any given point in time there is a natural limititation on the number of new selves possible based on how many humans capable of reproduction there are and all the different ways they could combine. At the time you were conceived there were a finite number of such possibilities and you were one of them.
__________________
"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 online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th October 2016, 07:54 AM   #574
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,751
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
At any given point in time there is a natural limititation on the number of new selves possible based on how many humans capable of reproduction there are and all the different ways they could combine. At the time you were conceived there were a finite number of such possibilities and you were one of them.
Dave,
- As I said, this is hard stuff to communicate.
- 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
"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 15th October 2016, 07:58 AM   #575
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,951
Originally Posted by The Sparrow View Post
There is no natural limit on the number of bananas possible.
Jabba, The Sparrow's post is more concise than mine. There is no natural limit on the number of bananas possible. Yet we have no problem believing that individual bananas exist or accepting the scientific explanation for their existence.

If you think the math would be different for a banana than a self, then you aren't talking about the scientific model of 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
godless dave is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th October 2016, 08:09 AM   #576
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,751
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
1. This is hard stuff to communicate.
2. What we call “selves” may be things, processes or illusions.
3. According to modern science, you and I (as selves)
a. Never existed before,
b. Will never exist again, and
c. Never had to exist in the first place
d. (Whatever exactly we are).
4. IOW, there is no natural limitation on the number of selves possible…
5. Do you see the logic for #4?
Originally Posted by jond View Post
How surprising that you once again ran away.

As for #4, the limitation is the number of functioning brains. The brain and the self are the same thing. Period. There is nothing difficult to communicate, it's just that you keep insisting that the self somehow exists separately from the brain.
jond,
- It may not exist separately from the brain, but if we kept reproducing our brains forever, we would never reproduce you or me. If we could keep reproducing a specific brain forever, we would create new selves forever.
- There's no pool from which our selves came -- and therefor, theoretically, there is no limit on the number of different selves possible.
__________________
"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 15th October 2016, 08:22 AM   #577
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,854
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
jond,
- It may not exist separately from the brain, but if we kept reproducing our brains forever, we would never reproduce you or me. If we could keep reproducing a specific brain forever, we would create new selves forever.
- There's no pool from which our selves came -- and therefor, theoretically, there is no limit on the number of different selves possible.
That's because your self is a process that your brain does, fed by every experience you have while your brain is functioning. There is no pool!!!
jond is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th October 2016, 08:23 AM   #578
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,835
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- It may not exist separately from the brain, but if we kept reproducing our brains forever, we would never reproduce you or me. If we could keep reproducing a specific brain forever, we would create new selves forever.

If a brain, as it was at a particular point in time, could somehow be perfectly reproduced the copy would, initially, produce an identical consciousness. Consciousness is a property of the brain; identical brains have identical properties.

Quote:
- There's no pool from which our selves came -- and therefor, theoretically, there is no limit on the number of different selves possible.

And, of course, all this is irrelevant to the hypothesis you are trying to disprove, because the idea of the "self" as an independent entity is not part of that hypothesis. Your "7 billion divided by infinity" can only undermine hypotheses under which the "self" is an entity in its own right, such as the hypothesis you favour. If I were you I would stop mentioning it.
__________________
"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 15th October 2016, 08:23 AM   #579
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 20,652
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- It may not exist separately from the brain, but if we kept reproducing our brains forever, we would never reproduce you or me. If we could keep reproducing a specific brain forever, we would create new selves forever.
Not true. Make an exact copy of you (including your brain), and you will have two of you.

Neither will be the original nor will either be the copy. They will both be you. Identical. And then, after the instant of cloning, they will diverge through differences in experience and environment, but they would continue to both be you.
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group.

"He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost

Last edited by jsfisher; 15th October 2016 at 08:24 AM.
jsfisher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th October 2016, 08:24 AM   #580
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,854
Jabba:
- A child was born this morning. His parents called him Steve.
- what is the likelihood that he will grow up to be Steve?
- what is the likelihood that he will grow up to be Napoleon?
jond is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th October 2016, 08:25 AM   #581
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,951
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
jond,
- It may not exist separately from the brain, but if we kept reproducing our brains forever, we would never reproduce you or me. If we could keep reproducing a specific brain forever, we would create new selves forever.
We most certainly could - using the standard definition of "reproduce". If we could keep reproducing a specific brain forever, we would be reproducing a specific self forever. Just as there would be separate copies of the brain, there would be separate copies of the self.


Notice how when you wrote of reproducing a brain, you meant creating a separate, identical copy of the brain. You tried to use "reproduce" to mean two different things in the same sentence.
__________________
"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 online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th October 2016, 08:29 AM   #582
HighRiser
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: High above Indianapolis
Posts: 1,775
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
jond,
- It may not exist separately from the brain, but if we kept reproducing our brains forever, we would never reproduce you or me. If we could keep reproducing a specific brain forever, we would create new selves forever.
- There's no pool from which our selves came -- and therefor, theoretically, there is no limit on the number of different selves possible.
Great... Now you want an unlimited number of yourselves arguing pointlessly in prepetuem?

I won't have it! All clones must report to the nearest reconditioning center immediately.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 15th October 2016, 08:30 AM   #583
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,854
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
We most certainly could - using the standard definition of "reproduce". If we could keep reproducing a specific brain forever, we would be reproducing a specific self forever. Just as there would be separate copies of the brain, there would be separate copies of the self.


Notice how when you wrote of reproducing a brain, you meant creating a separate, identical copy of the brain. You tried to use "reproduce" to mean two different things in the same sentence.
This has been explained to Jabba so many times, so many ways. And it has been ignored every single time, just as it will be today. Gosh, it's almost as if he doesn't want to understand this basic concept!
jond is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th October 2016, 08:43 AM   #584
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 64,924
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- As I said, this is hard stuff to communicate.
No it's not. It's just that you understand nothing of it, not even your own ideas.

Just admit that and let this thread die.
__________________
"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"
Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th October 2016, 09:02 AM   #585
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,637
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
3. According to modern science
No.

You don't get to prefix your nonsense with "According to science..." or "Scientifically speaking..." and pretend that you are actually expounding the scientific hypothesis.

BLATANT STRAW MAN

Quote:
5. Do you see the logic for #4?
Have you addressed the many times you've been told why #4 is wrong? No, you have not.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th October 2016, 09:07 AM   #586
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,637
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
As I said, this is hard stuff to communicate.
When your "communication" consists of foisting nonsense onto your critics and implying they need to accept it because you've labeled it "scientific," the problem with the communication is entirely you.

You have been told innumerable times what's wrong with your argument and why it doesn't represent the scientific model of the self. There is no excuse for your assiduous avoidance of it. You simply don't care whether you're right or wrong.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th October 2016, 09:15 AM   #587
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,637
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
There's no pool from which our selves came -- and therefor, theoretically, there is no limit on the number of different selves possible.
This has nothing to do with the scientific hypothesis. Properties, emergent or otherwise, have nothing to do with "pools". Properties are not discretes. In the abstract, a property isn't quantifiable in any way. Stated in reverse, the concept of pools simply has no meaning when applied to the concept of properties, even to say that a property doesn't come from one. You simply declare that a property is a discrete and therefore that it has cardinality.

The reason you're having "difficulty" trying to communicate this is that it doesn't make a lick of sense. It has no meaning to consider something in the abstract and declare that it is somehow a set of discretes and that it has infinite cardinality.

You seem to think you have to keep repeating your claim because your critics don't understand it. We do. It doesn't stick not due to lack of comprehension, but because it's simply wrong. So stop simply repeating your claim and start addressing the reasons given why it's wrong.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th October 2016, 09:18 AM   #588
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,013
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
jond,
- It may not exist separately from the brain, but if we kept reproducing our brains forever, we would never reproduce you or me.
If we kept breeding banana trees forever we would never produce this particular banana.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
If we could keep reproducing a specific brain forever, we would create new selves forever.
If we kept planting this banana seed forever, we would create new bananas forever

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- There's no pool from which our selves came -- and therefor, theoretically, there is no limit on the number of different selves possible.
There's no pool from which bananas came -- and therefore theoretically, there is no limit on the number of different bananas possible.

1.the likelyhood of this banana existing is 66 billion over infinity, therefore its essentially zero, therefore so unlikely that ................um.........
nananas.........must come from......um.........some sort of massive banana tree in the spiritual world............so........there are only so many bananas..........because there has to be a limited pool otherwise the odds of this banana are zero, so................bananas are kind of.........recycled!

IMMORTALITY!!!!!!!!!!!

Last edited by The Sparrow; 15th October 2016 at 09:21 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 15th October 2016, 09:48 AM   #589
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,637
Indeed the sheer folly of this "logic" should be apparent. For any item X, there is no pool of potential Xs, therefore the number of potential Xs is infinite, therefore the chance that any number of Xs arise is that number divided by infinity, or zero. Therefore no Xs exist.

Reductio ad absurdum
.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th October 2016, 10:10 AM   #590
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,868
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- As I said, this is hard stuff to communicate.
- I'll be back.
-It's not hard to communicate. It's just wrongness whipped to a froth with nonsense.
-You will claim to come back, but will never address critical points.
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 15th October 2016, 10:47 AM   #591
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,751
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,


1. This is hard stuff to communicate.
2. What we call “selves” may be things, processes or illusions.
3. According to modern science, you and I (as selves)
a. Never existed before,
b. Will never exist again, and
c. Never had to exist in the first place
d. (Whatever exactly we are).
4. IOW, there is no natural limitation on the number of selves possible…

5. Do you see the logic for #4?
Originally Posted by jond View Post
How surprising that you once again ran away.

As for #4, the limitation is the number of functioning brains. The brain and the self are the same thing. Period. There is nothing difficult to communicate, it's just that you keep insisting that the self somehow exists separately from the brain.
jond,
- I would say that the possible number of selves is not the number of functioning brains, but rather the number of possible brains.
__________________
"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 15th October 2016, 10:59 AM   #592
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,854
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
jond,
- I would say that the possible number of selves is not the number of functioning brains, but rather the number of possible brains.
No, the brains need to function to generate a self. A dead brain cannot generate a self. And the number of possible brains is limited to the number of existing humans at a given time who are capable of producing offspring. So, while this is a large number, it is certainly not infinite.

ETA: furthermore, it's irrelevant. The only possible self you have is the one your brain generates. You could not have been Napoleon. You could not have been jond. You could only have been Jabba, because your brain generates your self as a process, which is ongoing from conception to death. Your self is not a separate entity which exists apart from your brain.

Last edited by jond; 15th October 2016 at 11:05 AM.
jond is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th October 2016, 11:14 AM   #593
Agatha
Winking at the Moon
Moderator
 
Agatha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 11,478
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.
Don't put words into people's mouths. We cannot reproduce a particular person, but if we could, their 'self', their consciousness, would be identical. The emergent property, the self, of both of those identical functioning brains would be identical.

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 are describing bears absolutely no resemblance to science; you seem to be thinking of emergent properties as things. Emergent properties are not attachments, they are processes. In the case of consciousness, a person's 'self' is something that the brain does. Not something that can be described or thought of as separate to the brain.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
jond,
- It may not exist separately from the brain, but if we kept reproducing our brains forever, we would never reproduce you or me. If we could keep reproducing a specific brain forever, we would create new selves forever.
- There's no pool from which our selves came -- and therefor, theoretically, there is no limit on the number of different selves possible.
No, this is wrong in several respects. If we could reproduce your brain, we would reproduce you. And neither the 'original' or the 'reproduced' you would know which was the original and which the copy. If we kept reproducing your specific brain, we'd have lots and lots of identical yous.

Because the self is something that the brain does, your idea of potential selves and pools is inapplicable. You still seem to be thinking of the self/consciousness as a thing which is somehow separate and attached to the brain.


Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- As I said, this is hard stuff to communicate.
- I'll be back.
It's only hard for you to communicate because your concepts are as muddled as your logic. If your understanding of "what science says" matched reality, you wouldn't have this difficulty in either understanding or communicating.
__________________
London, Hamburg, Paris, Rome, Rio, Hong Kong, Tokyo; L.A., New York, Amsterdam, Monte Carlo, Shard End and...

Vodka kills salmonella and all other enemies of freedom for sure - Nationalcosmopolitan
Agatha 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 15th October 2016, 11:35 AM   #594
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,435
Originally Posted by Jabba
2. What we call “selves” may be things, processes or illusions.

No, "selves" are definitely not things.
__________________
"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 15th October 2016, 11:39 AM   #595
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,835
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.

No, if two "selves" have the same characteristics, they will be identical, but there will be two of them.

You are still trying to equivocate between different meanings if words. And it is still irrelevant, because the "self", as you define it, is not part of the hypothesis you are trying to disprove.
__________________
"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 15th October 2016, 11:46 AM   #596
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 7,302
X = Made up number.
Y = Made up number.

If I put X and Y into a meaningless equation I can prove something totally unrelated to anything else I've been saying.

So if X is the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin and Y is how much wood a woodchuck would chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood it's simple math (X^2 / Y!) - X + Y(C^2) times Pi minus the Capital Gains tax, adjusted for wind, convert to metric, 10% tithe for the Church, rotated 90 degrees, translate it into binary and back..... and you get absolute proof that the Cubs will win the Series this year!
__________________
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 15th October 2016, 11:49 AM   #597
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,655
So, what have I missed?
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon

The Australasian Skeptics Forum
Akhenaten 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 15th October 2016, 11:56 AM   #598
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,854
Originally Posted by Akhenaten View Post
So, what have I missed?
Absolutely nothing. Exactly what you'd expect!

But you, mighty one, have been missed!
jond is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th October 2016, 11:58 AM   #599
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 7,302
Originally Posted by Akhenaten View Post
So, what have I missed?
37 fringe resets, 134 stalling tactics, 234 "I'll be backs", 18 begging someone to agree with any part of an argument, 97 "It seems we agree" on things that absolutely no one is agreeing with, and two random heated side arguments about the proper use of statistics that have nothing to do with how statistics are actually being used in this thread.
__________________
Hemingway once wrote that "The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.

Last edited by JoeBentley; 15th October 2016 at 12:00 PM.
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 15th October 2016, 11:59 AM   #600
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,751
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
jond,
- It may not exist separately from the brain, but if we kept reproducing our brains forever, we would never reproduce you or me. If we could keep reproducing a specific brain forever, we would create new selves forever.
- There's no pool from which our selves came -- and therefor, theoretically, there is no limit on the number of different selves possible.
Originally Posted by jond View Post
No, the brains need to function to generate a self. A dead brain cannot generate a self. And the number of possible brains is limited to the number of existing humans at a given time who are capable of producing offspring. So, while this is a large number, it is certainly not infinite.

ETA: furthermore, it's irrelevant. The only possible self you have is the one your brain generates. You could not have been Napoleon. You could not have been jond. You could only have been Jabba, because your brain generates your self as a process, which is ongoing from conception to death. Your self is not a separate entity which exists apart from your brain.
jond,
- Are there potential brains?
__________________
"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
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 10:16 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.