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 17th October 2016, 10:37 AM   #641
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,602
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.
Your self-awareness has characteristics. It also is a characteristic. We went through this. Existence, even in the abstract and intangible sense, cannot be divorced from characteristics. To imply somehow that existence is possible without them is simply nonsensical.
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, 10:39 AM   #642
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,635
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- 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.
In other words, "my argument has been demolished by everyone, so I'm going to ignore all of it and pretend like I still have something to offer."

Originally Posted by Jabba
- 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).
As you are very well aware, the scientific hypothesis is that self awareness is a process that happens in the brain, not a separate entity that can exist separately from the brain. But:

Suppose "your" self awareness were to be reincarnated into a new person named Albatross. How would you distinguish between Albatross having his own self awareness generated by his brain (you know, the scientific hypothesis) and Albatross having Jabba's self awareness? After all, according to you it carries with it no characteristics of Jabba.

Further, how do you imagine your self awareness, being as you insist a non physical entity, can interact with your brain to produce the very physical reactions that we know happen in the brain when self awareness is happening?
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 17th October 2016, 10:42 AM   #643
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,602
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Don't mean to be nasty, but you can't keep up with even one opponent, Jabba.
It's not mean or nasty. When cornered, Jabba's arguments devolve into these desperate attempts to curry sympathy, curry favor, or claim special privilege. It's all a part of his years-long pattern of evasion.

Most fringe claimants try to dictate inordinately favorable terms of debate. Jabba is not unique in that, but certainly a well-practice player of trying to prevail by trying to foist ground rules that almost guarantee his success before he tries. Recall in the Shroud debate he wouldn't let the debate proceed unless all his critics agreed to let speculation and innuendo count as evidence. He was all butthurt because his critics "wouldn't accept [his] evidence."
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, 12:50 PM   #644
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,179
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- 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.
Translation: 'I can't keep up and I have no business in this end of the pool. I'll stay in the shallow waters.'

PS You don't run the show here.
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 17th October 2016, 12:58 PM   #645
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,602
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
Translation: 'I can't keep up and I have no business in this end of the pool. I'll stay in the shallow waters.'

PS You don't run the show here.
He does, effectively. Or should I say, ineffectively. He simply refuses to respond to any critic he can't answer, thereby somehow excusing himself from having to address the content. His latest pretentious effort to control the debate doesn't differ much from his present stone-walling approach. However, he is asking for his laziness and neglect to be excused, and that will not do.
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, 01:01 PM   #646
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 19,643
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
It's not mean or nasty. When cornered, Jabba's arguments devolve into these desperate attempts to curry sympathy, curry favor, or claim special privilege. It's all a part of his years-long pattern of evasion.

Most fringe claimants try to dictate inordinately favorable terms of debate. Jabba is not unique in that, but certainly a well-practice player of trying to prevail by trying to foist ground rules that almost guarantee his success before he tries. Recall in the Shroud debate he wouldn't let the debate proceed unless all his critics agreed to let speculation and innuendo count as evidence. He was all butthurt because his critics "wouldn't accept [his] evidence."
I know, I know. Still worth pointing out, though.

- Unlike the Shroud debate, here he hasn't even presented bad evidence.


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, 02:37 PM   #647
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,602
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
...here he hasn't even presented bad evidence.
I think that depends on how you want to interpret Jabba's request that his critics Google for qualitative evidence of a soul as he has done, generally resulting in the typical near-death or out-of-body anecdotes.
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, 07:00 PM   #648
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 22,517
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. That's certainly what the Eastern religions mean by "reincarnation" (though, at least some do expect that some characteristics will come back).

Jabba,

I was going to respond to you, but jond did a much better job than I could have. I adopt his words as my own:

Originally Posted by jond View Post
As you are very well aware, the scientific hypothesis is that self awareness is a process that happens in the brain, not a separate entity that can exist separately from the brain. But:

Suppose "your" self awareness were to be reincarnated into a new person named Albatross. How would you distinguish between Albatross having his own self awareness generated by his brain (you know, the scientific hypothesis) and Albatross having Jabba's self awareness? After all, according to you it carries with it no characteristics of Jabba.

Further, how do you imagine your self awareness, being as you insist a non physical entity, can interact with your brain to produce the very physical reactions that we know happen in the brain when self awareness is happening?

To repeat:

1. What evidence do you have that self-awareness is a thing, and not a process of a living neurosystem?

2. What is your definition of self-awareness? If you die and your self-awareness transfers to another person, what does that mean? What evidence would there be that he has your old self-awareness?
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th October 2016, 06:41 AM   #649
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,312
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Jabba,

I was going to respond to you, but jond did a much better job than I could have. I adopt his words as my own:


To repeat:

1. What evidence do you have that self-awareness is a thing, and not a process of a living neurosystem?

2. What is your definition of self-awareness? If you die and your self-awareness transfers to another person, what does that mean? What evidence would there be that he has your old self-awareness?
LL,

- I guess this is where the rubber meets the road...
- This is where this discussion becomes so difficult -- where normal language just isn't sufficient. Every word that captures the meaning for me, captures something different for you.
- This is where we keep passing in the night
- This is where it seems perhaps impossible to communicate a concept to someone who doesn't already possess it.
- This is where Bohr and Einstein had to describe things that couldn't be pointed to.
- We're talking about the ineffable here.
- I think I'm becoming a Hindu...

- Anyway, the self could be just a process. The self could be a "delusion" even -- but if it is, it's a real delusion. It lasts, and we care about it. And those who believe in reincarnation, know what I'm talking about. I wouldn't need to explain (or, try to explain) what I'm talking about to them.

- And LL, I'll be back with a response to #2, unless you pose a new question or comment first.
__________________
"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 18th October 2016, 06:44 AM   #650
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,635
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
LL,

- I guess this is where the rubber meets the road...
- This is where this discussion becomes so difficult -- where normal language just isn't sufficient. Every word that captures the meaning for me, captures something different for you.
- This is where we keep passing in the night
- This is where it seems perhaps impossible to communicate a concept to someone who doesn't already possess it.
- This is where Bohr and Einstein had to describe things that couldn't be pointed to.
- We're talking about the ineffable here.
- I think I'm becoming a Hindu...

- Anyway, the self could be just a process. The self could be a "delusion" even -- but if it is, it's a real delusion. It lasts, and we care about it. And those who believe in reincarnation, know what I'm talking about. I wouldn't need to explain (or, try to explain) what I'm talking about to them.

- And LL, I'll be back with a response to #2, unless you pose a new question or comment first.
No, it's very simple. If it is a process, or a delusion (which is itself a process), it cannot continue when the brain stops functioning. That is the part that you REFUSE to acknowledge. The only person having an issue here is you, Jabba.
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 18th October 2016, 06:47 AM   #651
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,174
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Anyway, the self could be just a process. The self could be a "delusion" even -- but if it is, it's a real delusion. It lasts, and we care about it. And those who believe in reincarnation, know what I'm talking about. I wouldn't need to explain (or, try to explain) what I'm talking about to them.

Loss Leader asked for evidence. What you posted here isn't evidence, but merely a restatement of the delusion you are trying to push on us.
__________________
"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 18th October 2016, 07:01 AM   #652
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 60,838
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- This is where this discussion becomes so difficult -- where normal language just isn't sufficient. Every word that captures the meaning for me, captures something different for you.
Beautiful poetry, and it has the added benefit of allowing you to avoid ever learning anything.

Quote:
- Anyway, the self could be just a process. The self could be a "delusion" even -- but if it is, it's a real delusion. It lasts, and we care about it.
I care about the plight of Luke Skywalker but he doesn't exist.
__________________
"What is best in life?"
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 18th October 2016, 07:14 AM   #653
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 6,708
*Headdesk* And we're back to the "I'm only going to talk to one person at a time" nonsense.
__________________
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 18th October 2016, 07:32 AM   #654
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 60,838
You mean:
__________________
"What is best in life?"
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 18th October 2016, 07:41 AM   #655
sackett
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 4,858
TBD is my Yoda

Rule of Anyway, Jabba!

So you lose.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 18th October 2016, 07:43 AM   #656
CriticalThanking
Designated Hitter
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: On in memory
Posts: 2,911
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
LL,

- I guess this is where the rubber meets the road...
- This is where this discussion becomes so difficult -- where normal language just isn't sufficient. Every word that captures the meaning for me, captures something different for you.
- This is where we keep passing in the night
- This is where it seems perhaps impossible to communicate a concept to someone who doesn't already possess it.
- This is where Bohr and Einstein had to describe things that couldn't be pointed to.
- We're talking about the ineffable here.
- I think I'm becoming a Hindu...

- Anyway, the self could be just a process. The self could be a "delusion" even -- but if it is, it's a real delusion. It lasts, and we care about it. And those who believe in reincarnation, know what I'm talking about. I wouldn't need to explain (or, try to explain) what I'm talking about to them.
Jabba, I understand you are currently only responding to LossLeader, but I ask if you are really saying you have no evidence explainable to someone who does not already believe?

I mean this with no disrespect, but you came onto a skeptic site where evidence along with logic is supposed to be everything. Your logic could be impeccable (for the sake of argument), but without evidence, you will sway no one, even one who had no opinion to begin with. It's not a question of naysayers - it's a lack of any evidence.

I won't suggest you quit, but my $0.02 is to focus on just the evidence bit. The rest is meaningless without it. Even the logic problems don't matter. "Proper logic" applied to something meaningless is still meaningless.

YMDoesV

CT
CriticalThanking 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 18th October 2016, 07:44 AM   #657
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,602
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
This is where this discussion becomes so difficult -- where normal language just isn't sufficient. Every word that captures the meaning for me, captures something different for you.
Because you assiduously wish it to be so. Your argument are almost entirely based on twisting the meaning of words other people use.[quote]

Quote:
Anyway, the self could be just a process. The self could be a "delusion" even -- but if it is, it's a real delusion.
See how you twisted the meaning of "delusion" just then?

Quote:
It lasts, and we care about it.
You haven't proven that it lasts, and it doesn't matter to science whether we have emotional feelings about it. For P(E|H) you must use the scientific formulation of the self, not your made-up angsty crap.

Quote:
And those who believe in reincarnation, know what I'm talking about. I wouldn't need to explain (or, try to explain) what I'm talking about to them.
No, your critics are not closed minded or otherwise incapable of the magic mode of thought that gives you the precious insight you need to see how true your beliefs are. You claimed you could prove immortality mathematically. There is no need to adopt wishy-washy beliefs in order to assess the validity of a mathematical proof.

Now stop with the veiled insults and argue like an adult.
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 18th October 2016, 07:49 AM   #658
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 60,838
Originally Posted by sackett View Post
Rule of Anyway, Jabba!

So you lose.
That's as close as an admission of defeat as we'll ever get frmo Jabba.

I say we call it quits and move on, never to return.
__________________
"What is best in life?"
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 18th October 2016, 08:30 AM   #659
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,602
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
This is where it seems perhaps impossible to communicate a concept to someone who doesn't already possess it.
So you can't prove it mathematically. Is that what you're trying to say?
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 18th October 2016, 08:37 AM   #660
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 60,838
Did Jabba just claim that learning is impossible?
__________________
"What is best in life?"
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 18th October 2016, 08:40 AM   #661
HighRiser
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: High above Indianapolis
Posts: 1,694
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Did Jabba just claim admit that learning is impossible?
FTFY
__________________
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 18th October 2016, 08:50 AM   #662
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,602
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Did Jabba just claim that learning is impossible?
I doubt it. I'm sure he's referring back to the same old "holistic thinking" nonsense. As I'm sure you're aware, his argument is a cycle through several acts. Some of which would be considered on-topic, such as the actual attempts to quantify and formulate the elements of his theory. But when those fail -- as they habitually do for the reason that they are eminently fallacious -- he has a series of meta-debate acts he pulls. I won't go through them all just now, as that would be off-topic. But the one that's peeking out from the wings today is the claim that there exists a special mode of thinking that enables you to see what he's taking about and how true it is. He claims he's mastered this special "holistic thinking" while none of his critics have.

In other words, the most special of special pleading. He knows I've refuted it four times already, and he knows he's utterly unable to address the refutation. For that reason maybe he won't go full steam on it today, but don't hold your breath.
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 18th October 2016, 08:53 AM   #663
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 60,838
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
As I'm sure you're aware, his argument is a cycle through several acts.
If I had missed that the fourth time, I'm sure I would've caught on after the 26th.
__________________
"What is best in life?"
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 18th October 2016, 09:13 AM   #664
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,602
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
That's as close as an admission of defeat as we'll ever get frmo Jabba.
Except that it's not really an admission of defeat. It's a veiled charge that he can't get his point across because his critics are all too unholy unholistic to grasp the concept. Jabba has never really been shy about admitting he can't prove what he set out to prove, as long as he can find some way to blame it on his critics.
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 18th October 2016, 09:19 AM   #665
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,334
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.

If some future person is self-aware but has none of your current characteristics, then they are aware of themselves, not you. It is not your self-awareness, it is theirs.
__________________
"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 18th October 2016, 09:35 AM   #666
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,602
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
If some future person is self-aware but has none of your current characteristics, then they are aware of themselves, not you. It is not your self-awareness, it is theirs.
Indeed, reincarnation is fundamentally meaningless if actual properties don't persist from one incarnation to another. The anecdotal evidence allegedly in favor of reincarnation alludes to remembrance of prior lifetimes. And Jabba has more than once said that his notion of a soul would at least have the capacity of memory from incarnation to incarnation. It seems he made that statement in order to invoke the anecdotes of past-life remembrance in his favor, but now it seems he's stepping away from it in his haphazard tap-dance among the soul as a property, the soul as an entity exhibiting properties, or the soul as a property-less abstraction.
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 18th October 2016, 09:46 AM   #667
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,312
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Jabba,

I was going to respond to you, but jond did a much better job than I could have. I adopt his words as my own:


To repeat:

1. What evidence do you have that self-awareness is a thing, and not a process of a living neurosystem?

2.[1.] What is your definition of self-awareness? [2.2.] If you die and your self-awareness transfers to another person, what does that mean? [2.3.]What evidence would there be that he has your old self-awareness?
LL,
- Re 2.1.
- Suspecting that no term fully communicates the concept that I'm calling the "self," "self-awareness" was probably not especially helpful...
- But anyway, from Wikipedia:
Self-awareness is the capacity for introspection and the ability to recognize oneself as an individual separate from the environment and other individuals.[1] It is not to be confused with consciousness in the sense of qualia. While consciousness is a term given to being aware of one’s environment and body and lifestyle, self-awareness is the recognition of that awareness.[2
- I am a self. YOU are a self. A certain physical state produces, or receives, something we call consciousness. Consciousness, itself, seems to be non-physical (at least, to a lot of us). If it is purely physical, it seems to be different than anything else we call physical.
- Whatever, consciousness must naturally come with a self -- a specific observer. YOU and I are such observers.
__________________
"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 18th October 2016, 09:50 AM   #668
Filippo Lippi
Master Poster
 
Filippo Lippi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,563
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
LL,

- I guess this is where the rubber meets the road...
- This is where this discussion becomes so difficult -- where normal language just isn't sufficient. Every word that captures the meaning for me, captures something different for you.
- This is where we keep passing in the night
- This is where it seems perhaps impossible to communicate a concept to someone who doesn't already possess it.
- This is where Bohr and Einstein had to describe things that couldn't be pointed to.
- We're talking about the ineffable here.
- I think I'm becoming a Hindu...

- Anyway, the self could be just a process. The self could be a "delusion" even -- but if it is, it's a real delusion. It lasts, and we care about it. And those who believe in reincarnation, know what I'm talking about. I wouldn't need to explain (or, try to explain) what I'm talking about to them.

- And LL, I'll be back with a response to #2, unless you pose a new question or comment first.
Evasion noted
__________________
"You may not know anything about the issue but I bet you reckon something.
So why not tell us what you reckon? Let us enjoy the full majesty of your uninformed, ad hoc reckon..."
David Mitchell
Filippo Lippi 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 18th October 2016, 09:55 AM   #669
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,715
In what way does it seem to be non-physical?
__________________
"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 18th October 2016, 10:00 AM   #670
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,635
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
LL,
A certain physical state produces, or receives, something we call consciousness. Consciousness, itself, seems to be non-physical (at least, to a lot of us). If it is purely physical, it seems to be different than anything else we call physical.
- Whatever, consciousness must naturally come with a self -- a specific observer. YOU and I are such observers.
No, a certain physical PROCESS produces what we call consciousness. See, once again, the things you missed about emergent properties the last time around. Specifically, how the *interaction* of component parts gives rise to something that doesn't exist without it. (You've been given myriad examples of this phenomena.)

Nothing about consciousness suggests that it "must naturally come with a self." Consciousness is a process. As observation is a process. Recognizing our bodies relationship to our environment is something our brains do, as do many other animals. As brains have evolved, some animals have greater skills in this regard than others. The process of consciousness gives rise to the notion of the self, but in no way must it come with an entity that is separate from the process.
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 18th October 2016, 10:00 AM   #671
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 60,838
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Except that it's not really an admission of defeat. It's a veiled charge that he can't get his point across because his critics are all too unholy unholistic to grasp the concept.
Yes but we know what it hides.
__________________
"What is best in life?"
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 18th October 2016, 10:27 AM   #672
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,602
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Consciousness, itself, seems to be non-physical (at least, to a lot of us).
What do you think separates that lot from those who don't agree? Do you have a non-tautological response to that question? Do you have evidence that would support that answer.

You were asked what your formulation is of the soul. Therefore it's fair play for you to lay out what you think the soul entails. That's what you need to do in order to nail down ~H. However, the preceding question -- the one you avoided -- is more in line with how the discussion has been going this past week, which is your rationale for attributing to the scientific hypothesis, H, of the self things that simply don't belong there. Can you at least concede that the scientific hypothesis of the self is vastly different from yours?
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 18th October 2016, 10:34 AM   #673
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 60,838
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Consciousness, itself, seems to be non-physical (at least, to a lot of us).
The earth seems to be flat (at least, to a lot of us).
__________________
"What is best in life?"
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 18th October 2016, 11:02 AM   #674
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 22,517
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
LL,

- I guess this is where the rubber meets the road...
- This is where this discussion becomes so difficult -- where normal language just isn't sufficient. Every word that captures the meaning for me, captures something different for you.
- This is where we keep passing in the night
- This is where it seems perhaps impossible to communicate a concept to someone who doesn't already possess it.
- This is where Bohr and Einstein had to describe things that couldn't be pointed to.
- We're talking about the ineffable here.
- I think I'm becoming a Hindu...

None of this answers any of my questions.


Quote:
- Anyway, the self could be just a process. The self could be a "delusion" even -- but if it is, it's a real delusion. It lasts, and we care about it. And those who believe in reincarnation, know what I'm talking about. I wouldn't need to explain (or, try to explain) what I'm talking about to them.

I'm thrilled that you think there are some people somewhere who agree with you. Some people agree with me that Star Wars is a children's movie. However, you have not remotely answered anything I asked.

The self is a delusion. However, I don't know how a "real" delusion transmogrifies into a thing instead of a process. Millions of children believe in Santa Claus. This is a delusion. However, it lasts and they care about it. For them, Santa Claus is real. This, however, does not mean there is a Santa Claus or that any evidence for his existence could be found that differs from our "scientific" explanation.

My questions, which you avoided by decrying how hard they were:


Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
1. What evidence do you have that self-awareness is a thing, and not a process of a living neurosystem?

2. What is your definition of self-awareness? If you die and your self-awareness transfers to another person, what does that mean? What evidence would there be that he has your old self-awareness?
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th October 2016, 11:27 AM   #675
Monza
Alta Viro
 
Monza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,794
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.

So if a plague wipes out half of the human population tomorrow, the chance of your current existence would be cut in half? The probability of Jabba existing fluctuates with the death/birth rate of earth's population?
Monza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th October 2016, 11:35 AM   #676
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,602
Originally Posted by Monza View Post
So if a plague wipes out half of the human population tomorrow, the chance of your current existence would be cut in half?
Not really, because the population of the Earth has very little actually to do with his guess for P(E|H). It's the numerator in an expression whose denominator infinity. Since the result of that division under some rules for any non-zero real number is zero, it doesn't matter at all what the numerator is or what real-world measurement it allegedly corresponds to.

But insofar as Jabba's rationale for that expression considers the seven billion people currently living to have won some sort of lottery to get there, you could say the lottery just continues and incorporates plagues as factors in the win-loss rate. Numerically moot and qualitatively distracting.
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 18th October 2016, 12:31 PM   #677
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 19,643
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Consciousness, itself, seems to be non-physical (at least, to a lot of us). If it is purely physical, it seems to be different than anything else we call physical.
So, if someone knocks you on the head with a half-brick, where is your self till you wake up again?

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 18th October 2016, 12:50 PM   #678
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,334
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
So, if someone knocks you on the head with a half-brick, where is your self till you wake up again?

In the brick.
__________________
"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 18th October 2016, 01:25 PM   #679
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,334
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Whatever, consciousness must[citation needed] naturally come with a self -- a specific observer. YOU and I are such observers.

FTFY.
__________________
"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 18th October 2016, 01:32 PM   #680
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,334
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I am a self. YOU are a self. A certain physical state produces, or receives, something we call consciousness. Consciousness, itself, seems to be non-physical (at least, to a lot of us). If it is purely physical, it seems to be different than anything else we call physical.
- Whatever, consciousness must naturally come with a self -- a specific observer. YOU and I are such observers.

Consciousness, the "self", the "observer", "self-consciousness", are different labels for the same phenomenon. None of them exists independently of the brain.
__________________
"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
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 02:54 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.