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 15th October 2016, 12:03 PM   #601
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,211
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
jond,
- Are there potential brains?

Who cares? This is all irrelevant, because "the scientific model" does not include "selves".
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

Last edited by Mojo; 15th October 2016 at 12:12 PM. Reason: Typo.
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, 12:06 PM   #602
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,211
Originally Posted by Akhenaten View Post
So, what have I missed?

Nothing, but welcome back, Pharaoh!
__________________
"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, 12:11 PM   #603
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,569
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
jond,
- Are there potential brains?
What difference does it make?
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 15th October 2016, 12:11 PM   #604
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,655
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
jond,
- Are there potential brains?
In the same way that there are potential bananas.
__________________
"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 15th October 2016, 12:19 PM   #605
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 6,573
What even is a "potential thing" that isn't a totally abstract concept?
__________________
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, 12:20 PM   #606
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,313
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
jond,
- Are there potential brains?
The scientific model -- and science in general -- does not enumerate "potential" anything for the purpose of determining whether they can 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 15th October 2016, 12:32 PM   #607
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: 23,078
Originally Posted by Akhenaten View Post
So, what have I missed?
A stimulating argument about higher mathematics. Jabba posted some stuff too.

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, 01:34 PM   #608
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,655
Originally Posted by Akhenaten View Post
So, what have I missed?
Apparently 1+1 can either equal 2 or 1, depending on what kind of entities you are adding.
__________________
"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 15th October 2016, 02:01 PM   #609
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,073
Originally Posted by Akhenaten View Post
So, what have I missed?

Welcome back!
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele 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, 02:59 PM   #610
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 59,974
Originally Posted by Agatha View Post
Don't put words into people's mouths.
I move to change the title of the thread to the quoted. Or perhaps Jabba's own subtitle.
__________________
"What is best in life?"
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 15th October 2016, 03:14 PM   #611
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 20,370
Originally Posted by Akhenaten View Post
So, what have I missed?
Welcome back.

According to science, selves are a process, not an object, and therefore not possibly immortal. But if selves were an object, then it's unlikely they would be mortal, and science would be wrong about immortality. Can you at least agree that science could be wrong about immortality?
theprestige 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, 03:28 PM   #612
The Sparrow
Muse
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 792
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
In the same way that there are potential bananas.
I thank you sir.

Bows and steps back.
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, 05:57 PM   #613
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 22,364
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
2. What we call “selves” may be things, processes or illusions.

No, Jabba. The "self" is a process. It appears to the experiencer as an illusion of coherence, but it is a process. It is not a thing. "Going 65 mph" is not a thing. It is not an illusion. It's a process of a working car.


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.

Jabba -

By your logic (and in actuality) we are all producing new "selves" every second. Whatever LossLeader is, the organism functioned slightly differently before typing this. It's mind had not been exposed to your latests posts. Its lack of eating dinner had not yet made him grumpy. I have most of his memories, but I've forgotten a few things he remembered and I've gained memories and experiences he never had. There is no limit to potential selves, you are right about that. But the reason there is no limit is that the self is an ever-changing process.

If you disagree, just tell me what characteristics of your "self" have been constant since the development of the Jabba organism. What characteristics will be reincarnated?
__________________
- I haven't refused to answer it; I just haven't been able to answer it...
Jabba

Do not pretend I support your argument and do not PM me.
- Nick Terry
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th October 2016, 06:26 PM   #614
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,057
Originally Posted by Akhenaten View Post
So, what have I missed?
Where have you been?
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, 06:49 PM   #615
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 20,370
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
Where have you been?
The pool of potential Members, awaiting a suitable receiver for his "self".
theprestige 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 16th October 2016, 06:36 AM   #616
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,181
- One step at a time.

- The sub-issue I'm trying to focus on now is the appropriateness of the current existence of my self as E in the Bayesian formula I'm using.
- I'm claiming that this sub-issue is analogous to the Texas Sharpshooter issue -- i.e., is the current existence of my self a legitimate "target" (E) in the formula?

- Do you guys agree that the two issues are analogous?
__________________
"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 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 16th October 2016, 06:53 AM   #617
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,569
You still haven't dealt with how your E is defined. Until you do there is nothing to discuss.
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 16th October 2016, 07:25 AM   #618
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,211
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- One step at a time.

- The sub-issue I'm trying to focus on now is the appropriateness of the current existence of my self as E in the Bayesian formula I'm using.
- I'm claiming that this sub-issue is analogous to the Texas Sharpshooter issue -- i.e., is the current existence of my self a legitimate "target" (E) in the formula?

It isn't because it had already happened. That's your Texas sharpshooter.

But even if it hadn't already happened, it still wouldn't be a legitimate target because under H consciousness is the result of brain processess, and your "self" does not exist in the sense that you are using the term.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

Last edited by Mojo; 16th October 2016 at 07:27 AM.
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 16th October 2016, 07:53 AM   #619
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,313
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- One step at a time.

- The sub-issue I'm trying to focus on now is the appropriateness of the current existence of my self as E in the Bayesian formula I'm using.
- I'm claiming that this sub-issue is analogous to the Texas Sharpshooter issue -- i.e., is the current existence of my self a legitimate "target" (E) in the formula?

- Do you guys agree that the two issues are analogous?
Stop groveling for agreement. We've told you exactly what's wrong with your argument and why, including where your analogies fail. No, your current existence is not a "target" under H, not only because it commits the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, but also because the scientific model has no concept of such a "target." You or anyone else being alive today is not analogous to winning a lottery.

Last edited by JayUtah; 16th October 2016 at 07:56 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 Back to Top
Old 16th October 2016, 07:54 AM   #620
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,313
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
...your "self" does not exist in the sense that you are using the term.
...under the scientific model. That's what's important. P(E|H) must be reckoned according to the model of the self that is the scientific conclusion, not the handwaving stuff Jabba is trying to foist into 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 Back to Top
Old 16th October 2016, 08:24 AM   #621
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,211
Jabba, when you turn a light on, what is the likelihood that the light that the light bulb produces is the light that it produces?
__________________
"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 16th October 2016, 09:21 AM   #622
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,655
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- One step at a time.

- The sub-issue I'm trying to focus on now is the appropriateness of the current existence of my self as E in the Bayesian formula I'm using.
- I'm claiming that this sub-issue is analogous to the Texas Sharpshooter issue -- i.e., is the current existence of my self a legitimate "target" (E) in the formula?

- Do you guys agree that the two issues are analogous?
Do you agree that if you make a copy of something, you now have two of that thing, including any emergent properties of that thing?
__________________
"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 16th October 2016, 05:03 PM   #623
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 22,364
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- One step at a time.

- The sub-issue I'm trying to focus on now is the appropriateness of the current existence of my self as E in the Bayesian formula I'm using.
- I'm claiming that this sub-issue is analogous to the Texas Sharpshooter issue -- i.e., is the current existence of my self a legitimate "target" (E) in the formula?

- Do you guys agree that the two issues are analogous?

No, because you are using the concept of "self" as a thing. The self is an ever-changing process. It can even be non-continuous. It definitely exists in animals other than humans. In one experiment, dolphins were given a mirror. They mugged and made faces at it, even though there is no mirror in their natural environment. This indicates a sense of self.

Monkeys communicate danger (and food) to other monkeys who cannot yet see it. This requires a strong sense of self v. others.

None of this is included in your philosophy, threadbare as it is.
__________________
- I haven't refused to answer it; I just haven't been able to answer it...
Jabba

Do not pretend I support your argument and do not PM me.
- Nick Terry
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th October 2016, 05:38 PM   #624
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 59,974
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- One step at a time.
You mean, one sub-sub-sub-sub-issue at a time. Fractal shuffle engaged!

Quote:
- Do you guys agree that the two issues are analogous?
And there we go again. You've managed to find a sub-issue to your sub-issue, which is very convenient as it allows you to forever ignore anything you don't want to address. If people find an answer to this sub-issue, you'll just further subdivide it, ad infinitum.
__________________
"What is best in life?"
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 16th October 2016, 05:41 PM   #625
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 20,370
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
You mean, one sub-sub-sub-sub-issue at a time. Fractal shuffle engaged!
I like to call it Zeno's Gish Gallop.
theprestige 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 16th October 2016, 06:27 PM   #626
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 6,573
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- One step at a time.
No. No. No. We aren't going to let you perpetually subdivide your ill supported argument into more and more splinter topics that you have zero intentions of ever tying back to anything that you then grovel and beg for someone to agree with so you can claim some level of "win."

Jabba you simply have got to stop acting like everyone else in this thread doesn't see through your tactics.
__________________
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 16th October 2016, 08:55 PM   #627
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 20,370
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- One step at a time.
Why? Are you unable to keep up?
theprestige 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 17th October 2016, 01:27 AM   #628
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 19,557
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.
This is false. Scientifically speaking, the number of potential selves is equal to the number of potential functional brains. There are no (functional) human brains without a self, and there is no self without a brain.

Quote:
- 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.
Mmm, in the meaning 'this exact self', correct. You could say the same about snowballs, however.

Quote:
None of us required any specific chemical precursor -- we were simply brand new. We did not not come from any existing pool.
Absolutely and fundamentally wrong. We needed a human body to be evolved, conceived, born, and living through some part of its life to exist and become what we perceive as our 'self'.

Quote:
- That's how I get P(E|H) equals 7.5 billion divided by infinity.
That simply does not compute. Even given your premises, it should be 7.5 billion multiplied with infinity: Each body might acquire any of an infinite number of selves.

Hans
__________________
Don't. Just don't.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th October 2016, 02:18 AM   #629
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: 17,033
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I like to call it Zeno's Gish Gallop.
__________________
"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 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 17th October 2016, 04:34 AM   #630
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 59,974
Boo! I liked my Fractal Shuffle better.
__________________
"What is best in life?"
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 17th October 2016, 06:16 AM   #631
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 19,963
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Boo! I liked my Fractal Shuffle better.
You should have said "Mandelbrot Meander". It has more curb appeal.

__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group.

"He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost
jsfisher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th October 2016, 06:42 AM   #632
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 6,573
I'm reminded of the Woo Apologist tactic of infinite recursion where every answer you give them is simply amended with a (always purely semantic and linguistic) "And then" and lobbed back at you.

This seems to be a similar tactic just with infinite subdivisions of argumentatives vice infinite recursion.
__________________
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 17th October 2016, 08:49 AM   #633
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 13,987
Originally Posted by Akhenaten View Post
So, what have I missed?
I am waitching this thread once per month.

Basically you got to check the date twice to make sure you are not re-reading something previously mentionned.

You missed nothing in your 6 month away.
Aepervius 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 17th October 2016, 09:04 AM   #634
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,313
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
This seems to be a similar tactic just with infinite subdivisions of argumentatives vice infinite recursion.
And the infinite subdivision idiom is itself fairly common, especially when you have scientific, philosophical, or theological premises that can be quibbled with ad nauseam, or when there is legitimate controversy or ambiguity in that finely divided point.

Remember the aim of fringe argumentation is to prolong the debate, not necessarily even to win it. Where the motive is ego reinforcement for the claimant, winning would be nice. But it's rarely objectively possible, so the claimant aims to maintain an ongoing stalemate during which he can argue he has not lost. The reductionist approach has a few notable prongs. Sometimes it's to find a premise of the argument that's inarguably true. The claimant then uses this to argue that his theory is at least a tiny bit true. Jabba has previously tried to extend such trivial truths to support his entire argument; as we've seen, he solicits agreement on a premise and then jumps back to his conclusion. At other times reductionism arrives at an esoteric point of philosophy such as, in this case, the nature of existence over which debate can rage endlessly and thus maintain the illusion of progress while actually remaining mired in minutia.
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 17th October 2016, 10:13 AM   #635
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,181
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Jabba -
By your logic (and in actuality) we are all producing new "selves" every second. Whatever LossLeader is, the organism functioned slightly differently before typing this. It's mind had not been exposed to your latests posts. Its lack of eating dinner had not yet made him grumpy. I have most of his memories, but I've forgotten a few things he remembered and I've gained memories and experiences he never had. There is no limit to potential selves, you are right about that. But the reason there is no limit is that the self is an ever-changing process.
If you disagree, just tell me what characteristics of your "self" have been constant since the development of the Jabba organism. What characteristics will be reincarnated?
- I can't keep up, so I'll go back to one opponent at a time. If it's ok with you, Loss Leader, I'll go back to you, and try to address each of your questions and comments, one at a time.
- For now, if you other guys want me to address something, you'll have to go through Loss leader.
- Whomever, I need to deal with just one opponent for now.

- So LL,
- Remember, I'm not saying that any of my current characteristics will be reincarnated (if reincarnation is how I continue). I'm saying that my self-awareness would be reincarnated. That's certainly what the Eastern religions mean by "reincarnation" (though, at least some do expect that some characteristics will come 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 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 17th October 2016, 10:20 AM   #636
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 59,974
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I can't keep up
We've known for quite some time, now.

Quote:
so I'll go back to one opponent at a time.
Do you even realise how tired this has become? I wonder.

Quote:
- For now, if you other guys want me to address something, you'll have to go through Loss leader.
No. You don't get to direct how the conversation goes.

Quote:
- Whomever, I need to deal with just one opponent for now.
You have no opponent. Having an opponent implies that you have some sort of chance of victory.
__________________
"What is best in life?"
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 17th October 2016, 10:34 AM   #637
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: 23,078
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Remember, I'm not saying that any of my current characteristics will be reincarnated (if reincarnation is how I continue). I'm saying that my self-awareness would be reincarnated.
Self-awareness is one of your current characteristics; however, it's one you share with everyone else. Are you claiming that you will have continuity of memory between this and the next life? If not, how do you define the reincarnated you as you?

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 17th October 2016, 10:35 AM   #638
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,655
If an individual self-awareness doesn't have any characteristics, doesn't that mean all self-awarenesses are identical?
__________________
"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 17th October 2016, 10:35 AM   #639
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 19,557
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I can't keep up, so I'll go back to one opponent at a time.
Don't mean to be nasty, but you can't keep up with even one opponent, Jabba.

Hans
__________________
Don't. Just don't.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 17th October 2016, 10:35 AM   #640
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,313
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I can't keep up, so I'll go back to one opponent at a time.
No. Not while you're maintaining the pretense of having achieved a stalemate.

You said you had "2-3 hours" a day to devote to this forum, which is far more than most of us have available. Further, you admitted in some cases that you ignored criticism because it was too challenging for you to address. You may certainly make whatever excuse you want to attempt to justify your near-total avoidance of your critics, but nothing compels the readers here to believe it or obey your selfish requests.

As so many have noticed, you seem to think your critics don't see through your tricks. Every so often, usually about the time you get backed into a corner over something, you whimper about being overworked and plead that you are therefore somehow entitled to a legitimate abatement of criticism. You are not so burdened as to deserve special treatment.

Quote:
For now, if you other guys want me to address something, you'll have to go through Loss leader.
No.

The forum provides no such recourse for you. While you may certainly continue to ignore your critics, as you have assiduously been doing for years, you may not pretend that this is some sort of practice or posture condoned by the forum or imposable upon your critics.

Nor does the record show that reducing your critics to one achieves any resulting improvement in the quality or quantity of your answers. The record shows you are just as derelict in dealing with one respondent as you are with many. So whatever silly reason you want to proffer for avoiding public criticism doesn't matter. It won't have the effect you imply is required.

Quote:
Whomever, I need to deal with just one opponent for now.
Cry me a river.

You are making your claims in a public forum in which you have voluntarily participated for more than four years. You are well acquainted with the nature and the volume of posting here, and you choose to continue your participation notwithstanding. You have absolutely no rationale from which to whine -- as you have done from time to time -- about the workload you imagine responding to your critics would impose upon you.

You are likely aware that this forum is one of the more widely read on the subject, and therefore that what you post will reach a larger audience than you could reach using your own means. Hence your desire to keep posting as much as you want, but to neglect responding to any criticism, suggests that you intend simply to use ISF as your personal pulpit, not as a forum for the skeptical analysis of claims it was intended to be.

None of your critics is obliged to agree to that. You have put your theory out in a public forum and invited comment on it. If you wanted it addressed by only a few chosen reviewers, you should have published it only to them. It is childishly rude of you to ignore the efforts that several well-spoken and well-educated critics have made to correct your errors. You are not so entitled as to place yourself above their criticism.

Now stop acting like a spoiled child and address the problems with your argument.
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
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 05:43 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.