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 18th October 2016, 01:42 PM   #681
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,080
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
...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.

I see he's also back to his old trick of giving the same concept a series of different names in the hope that one of them will make it a different concept.
__________________
"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, 02:06 PM   #682
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,093
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
I see he's also back to his old trick of giving the same concept a series of different names in the hope that one of them will make it a different concept.
A big ball of wibbly wobbly souly wouly.
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 18th October 2016, 02:14 PM   #683
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,538
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
I see he's also back to his old trick of giving the same concept a series of different names in the hope that one of them will make it a different concept.
Shhh, he's hoping no one will notice.
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 19th October 2016, 03:25 AM   #684
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,125
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
None of this answers any of my questions.





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
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,
- Re #1, I accept that the self may be a process, or even a delusion. My claim is that there is more to it than that, and that effective description of this "more" is somewhere between difficult and impossible.
- Do you accept that modern physics cannot be described in normal language?
__________________
"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 19th October 2016, 03:54 AM   #685
Filippo Lippi
Master Poster
 
Filippo Lippi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,547
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
LL,
- Re #1, I accept that the self may be a process, or even a delusion. My claim is that there is more to it than that, and that effective description of this "more" is somewhere between difficult and impossible.
- Do you accept that modern physics cannot be described in normal language?
Evasion noted.

Your semantic games do not obscure your lack of any evidence
__________________
"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 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 19th October 2016, 04:16 AM   #686
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,538
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
LL,
- Re #1, I accept that the self may be a process, or even a delusion. My claim is that there is more to it than that, and that effective description of this "more" is somewhere between difficult and impossible.
- Do you accept that modern physics cannot be described in normal language?
Good morning, Jabba. Here's the thing: it's not a question of "may be". There is absolutely no question that there is brain function going on in all areas of consciousness. Modern neuro science has a very good idea of exactly what is going on where, and can make very specific changes chemically or electrically. They know exactly what to expect when certain regions are damaged. So, no, it's not "may be", it IS.

The only "may be" is your insistence on there being a separate entity called the self. Which, according to science, doesn't exist. So the burden lies with you to demonstrate it's existence. And that's not going to come from statistics, it's going to come from actual evidence.

As for statistics: consider two unlikely events, winning the lottery (A) and being struck by lightning (B). Obviously, both are unlikely but it is far less likely to have both events happen. (It's been over 30 years since my last stats class, so I'll let someone else who does this stuff show the formula.)

But the thing is: your scenario is exactly analogous. Your body's existence is (A) and your soul's existence is (B). And, you have to then show how the non physical soul can cause the physical actions that happen in your brain (as described above).

So, Jabba: please be so good as to start getting to the evidence, remembering of course that everything you've provided thus far (OBE, NDE) have been demonstrated to be brain functions.
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 19th October 2016, 04:31 AM   #687
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 58,986
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
LL,
- Re #1, I accept that the self may be a process, or even a delusion. My claim is that there is more to it than that
I accept that the moon may be made from basalt and other minerals. My claim is that there is cheese in it.

Quote:
- Do you accept that modern physics cannot be described in normal language?
My gods, that's annoying. Stop asking people to accept stuff just for your own sake.
__________________
"What is best in life?"

Last edited by Argumemnon; 19th October 2016 at 04:32 AM.
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 19th October 2016, 04:33 AM   #688
The Sparrow
Muse
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 769
It's not a question of the limitations of language, the folks here understand exactly what you are claiming.
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 19th October 2016, 04:37 AM   #689
John Jones
Philosopher
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,923
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
LL,
- Re #1, I accept that the self may be a process, or even a delusion. My claim is that there is more to it than that, and that effective description of this "more" is somewhere between difficult and impossible.
- Do you accept that modern physics cannot be described in normal language?
So you're saying you can't back-up your claims. Well, we knew that.

Physics can be described in the language of mathematics.
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 19th October 2016, 04:51 AM   #690
sackett
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 4,820
At the moment, Jabba, you seem to be asserting that there’s an irreducible you, and that it will live forever in some undefined way.

Know what? I don’t argue with the first part of that. I’m sure that you experience the sensation of having an inner kernel of being, a tiny part of yourself that outer events can’t touch and that you keep intact. Many of us, especially in childhood and youth, have that feeling.

Christ knows I did, and I can recall the mental and even the somatic sensations of often reminding myself, with some effort, of the conviction that I had an inner persona that They couldn’t take away, no matter how many deprivations, no matter how many assaults They worked – successfully – against what seemed at times to be my diminishing existence. I suppose that many here have felt that way; the disproportion between the size of the universe and the size of the individual calls for some such defense.

But even in the most self-absorbed phases of adolescence, I wasn’t dumb enough to think that I was onto anything immortal. I don’t suppose I was a particularly morbid youth, but when I thought about it (never more than briefly; we all have more interesting things to occupy our minds), I knew that death is our final sanctuary.

Have you read this far? I doubt it. But I could be wrong.
__________________
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 19th October 2016, 05:37 AM   #691
The Sparrow
Muse
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 769
Originally Posted by sackett View Post
At the moment, Jabba, you seem to be asserting that there’s an irreducible you, and that it will live forever in some undefined way.

Know what? I don’t argue with the first part of that. I’m sure that you experience the sensation of having an inner kernel of being, a tiny part of yourself that outer events can’t touch and that you keep intact. Many of us, especially in childhood and youth, have that feeling.

Christ knows I did, and I can recall the mental and even the somatic sensations of often reminding myself, with some effort, of the conviction that I had an inner persona that They couldn’t take away, no matter how many deprivations, no matter how many assaults They worked – successfully – against what seemed at times to be my diminishing existence. I suppose that many here have felt that way; the disproportion between the size of the universe and the size of the individual calls for some such defense.

But even in the most self-absorbed phases of adolescence, I wasn’t dumb enough to think that I was onto anything immortal. I don’t suppose I was a particularly morbid youth, but when I thought about it (never more than briefly; we all have more interesting things to occupy our minds), I knew that death is our final sanctuary.

Have you read this far? I doubt it. But I could be wrong.
I read that far. good post.
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 19th October 2016, 05:43 AM   #692
The Sparrow
Muse
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 769
Jabba, anyone who has experimented with hallucinogens, pot, RX meds, or even alcohol will attest how quickly the self is altered due to a change in chemistry.

I know, I know, you will claim something like it being the expression of the self into the real world is altered but the self remains intact or some such nonsense.

Your incredulity does not count as evidence. Slapping your thigh and declaring, well, I just can't explain it, but......gosh........I know its true! - That doesn't work.

We're stardust, that's it. Stardust that came together for a while and caused an overly self important consciousness to emerge, but that will ultimately return to stardust.
It's inescapable, and that very attribute causes us to love and use the life we have for as long as we can, and hopefully cherish each moment that we can.
Time to grow up and accept that. It hurts at first, but you'll live a better life in the long run.
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 19th October 2016, 05:54 AM   #693
sackett
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 4,820
Thankee kindly, Sparrow. You wrote a better and more compassionate post than I did.
__________________
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 19th October 2016, 05:56 AM   #694
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 58,986
Originally Posted by sackett View Post
Know what? I don’t argue with the first part of that. I’m sure that you experience the sensation of having an inner kernel of being, a tiny part of yourself that outer events can’t touch and that you keep intact. Many of us, especially in childhood and youth, have that feeling.
Indeed, but I've often had the opposite, having the impression that my distinctiveness from the world evaporates because I lose focus while not thinking about anything. And I wasn't even on drugs!
__________________
"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 19th October 2016, 06:46 AM   #695
sackett
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 4,820
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Indeed, but I've often had the opposite, having the impression that my distinctiveness from the world evaporates because I lose focus while not thinking about anything. And I wasn't even on drugs!
Those are just flashes of sanity. Nothing to worry about, they always go away.
__________________
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 19th October 2016, 06:58 AM   #696
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,093
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
My claim is that there is more to it than that
And that is your ~H, and your inability to determine what that is is your problem, not ours. As for H, there isn't any more to it than that. If you're talking about P(E|H), then the formulation is straightforward and it is an error to add things to it such as this ineffable, indescribable something you keep trying to tack onto it for the purpose of discrediting H.

Quote:
...and that effective description of this "more" is somewhere between difficult and impossible.
No.

You have claimed to be able to prove your "more than that" mathematically. Mathematics is a precise language. If you can't express your idea mathematically then your proof fails immediately.

You keep wanting to attribute your failure to win at your argument to some imaginary gulf in language between you and your critics. That is not your problem. The problem is that your argument is wrong.

Quote:
Do you accept that modern physics cannot be described in normal language?
Modern physics is described in normal language. Words such as "spin," "charge," "charm," and so forth are used extensively in the Standard Model. However, those words are given specific meanings and used consistently by those who take pains to learn. You are unable to describe anything in your argument in precise, consistent terms. The problem is not the limitation of language. The problem is your cumbersome use of language. And as I said, you aren't trying to describe something complicated in natural language. You're trying to express your belief in mathematical terms. I assure you we all speak mathematics just fine, so your inability to convey your argument according to the manner in which you say you would prove it is entirely your problem.

Your problem is not that some special as-yet unknown language is required to convey your meaning. The problem at first is that you have no idea what your meaning is. You have a vague feeling and you want to pretend it's something more than a vague feeling. The problem later is that you dishonestly employ language to try to trick your critics into agreement -- i.e., equivocation. You don't get to beg the question here that you argue in good faith. Your final problem is that your argument is simply wrong for the reasons already given. Your critics don't disagree because they don't understand. They disagree because, insofar as your argument has distinct form, they can show you're 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 19th October 2016, 07:03 AM   #697
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 58,986
Originally Posted by sackett View Post
Those are just flashes of sanity. Nothing to worry about, they always go away.
Well, that's reassuring. Thanks.
__________________
"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 19th October 2016, 07:12 AM   #698
Hokulele
Penultimate Amazing
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 28,941
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
LL,
- Re #1, I accept that the self may be a process, or even a delusion. My claim is that there is more to it than that, and that effective description of this "more" is somewhere between difficult and impossible.

If you can't describe it, how do you know that your "feelings" aren't based on something normal, rather than supernatural?

Quote:
- Do you accept that modern physics cannot be described in normal language?

No.

Many people learn modern physics every day, in many different countries and cultures. That would be impossible if it were to be understood only in some abnormal language or unique mode of thinking.
__________________
"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 19th October 2016, 02:36 PM   #699
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,080
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Re #1, I accept that the self may be a process, or even a delusion. My claim is that there is more to it than that, and that effective description of this "more" is somewhere between difficult and impossible.

Nonsense. Everyone here knows perfectly well what this "more" of yours is: it is the "soul". The problem is not that it is hard for you to define or describe; the problem is that it doesn't fit your argument.
__________________
"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 19th October 2016, 09:02 PM   #700
JimOfAllTrades
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 308
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
LL,
- Re #1, I accept that the self may be a process, or even a delusion. My claim is that there is more to it than that, and that effective description of this "more" is somewhere between difficult and impossible.
If you're trying to show how likely you are to have occurred under the standard scientific model, you have to show that using the scientific model's definitions, or prove that the scientific model is wrong or incomplete*. The scientific model says there is nothing else to consciousness except the chemical and electrical processes in a human brain. In other words, an emergent property. Use that in your calculation.

When you're trying to show how likely you might be under the Jabba model (I think you call this ~H) then you can factor in your "more". But then you’ll need to provide proof of your model.

*You can't just say it's wrong or incomplete based on your feelings, you actually have to show it.

Last edited by JimOfAllTrades; 19th October 2016 at 09:14 PM. Reason: added clarification
JimOfAllTrades is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th October 2016, 09:41 PM   #701
Loss Leader
Guilty With An Explanation
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 22,139
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
LL,
- Re #1, I accept that the self may be a process, or even a delusion. My claim is that there is more to it than that, and that effective description of this "more" is somewhere between difficult and impossible.
- Do you accept that modern physics cannot be described in normal language?

What? No. Of course I don't accept that.

The key is this: Either this "more" that you're talking about can be defined or it cannot. If it exists, it must have characteristics. Those characteristics must be discernable. If it is impossible to describe something, then it doesn't exist.

As an example: I show you a room wherein every surface is painted red. This is a red room. We both agree on that. But then I tell you there's a farblatt in there. It's painted the same red all over and the lighting is such that it is invisible.

You rightly say that the evidence of your eyeballs doesn't support the idea that there's a red farblatt in the red room. You ask me to define what I mean by farblatt and I say that:

1. It is difficult to impossible to describe because it has so few characteristics and our language is insufficient to describe it, anyway. You ask how you can test for the farblatt and I say that you can't. You then have no reason to believe there is a red farblatt in the red room; OR

2. I say that "farblatt" is another word for "table." I describe the table as having four legs and a large flat surface about waist high. I describe the test for a table: go wander into the room and see if you hit a table. If it's in there and you're thorough, you'll find it. You go into the room and, presently, walk smack into a table. You feel it and your senses perceive its four legs and flat top. You subsequently believe in the existence of a farblatt in the room.

Obviously, the only thing worth believing is that which has describable, testable characteristics. You've basically just admitted that it is impossible for you to describe the characteristics of the "self" that is somehow "more" than a functioning neurosystem.

In any case, physicists appear to have no problem communicating their ideas to other physicists. Thus, our language is obviously sufficient for the job.

If you believe that your personal grasp of the language of physics is lacking to the point where you cannot defend your own idea, I recommend that you visit your local library for textbooks that will teach you such skill.
__________________
- 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 20th October 2016, 12:48 AM   #702
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 14,977
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Do you accept that modern physics cannot be described in normal language?
Don't worry about normal language. Modern physics can be described. So, don't dumb it down for the laymen, describe exactly what you mean, and we can unpick the technical language and mathematics that you use to do so.

And don't forget what Einstein said - if you can't explain something, then you don't understand it.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim 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 20th October 2016, 12:49 AM   #703
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,080
Originally Posted by JimOfAllTrades View Post
When you're trying to show how likely you might be under the Jabba model (I think you call this ~H) then you can factor in your "more".

He doesn't want to do that, because it would make his existence impossible under his preferred hypothesis.
__________________
"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 20th October 2016, 11:43 AM   #704
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,125
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
What? No. Of course I don't accept that.

The key is this: Either this "more" that you're talking about can be defined or it cannot. If it exists, it must have characteristics. Those characteristics must be discernable. If it is impossible to describe something, then it doesn't exist.

As an example: I show you a room wherein every surface is painted red. This is a red room. We both agree on that. But then I tell you there's a farblatt in there. It's painted the same red all over and the lighting is such that it is invisible.

You rightly say that the evidence of your eyeballs doesn't support the idea that there's a red farblatt in the red room. You ask me to define what I mean by farblatt and I say that:

1. It is difficult to impossible to describe because it has so few characteristics and our language is insufficient to describe it, anyway. You ask how you can test for the farblatt and I say that you can't. You then have no reason to believe there is a red farblatt in the red room; OR

2. I say that "farblatt" is another word for "table." I describe the table as having four legs and a large flat surface about waist high. I describe the test for a table: go wander into the room and see if you hit a table. If it's in there and you're thorough, you'll find it. You go into the room and, presently, walk smack into a table. You feel it and your senses perceive its four legs and flat top. You subsequently believe in the existence of a farblatt in the room.

Obviously, the only thing worth believing is that which has describable, testable characteristics. You've basically just admitted that it is impossible for you to describe the characteristics of the "self" that is somehow "more" than a functioning neurosystem.

In any case, physicists appear to have no problem communicating their ideas to other physicists. Thus, our language is obviously sufficient for the job.

If you believe that your personal grasp of the language of physics is lacking to the point where you cannot defend your own idea, I recommend that you visit your local library for textbooks that will teach you such skill.
LL,
- Just to let you know that I'm still here.
- My standard PC is currently unavailable to me, and I haven't been able to find my kindle library (where I've read about the problem that physicists have in effectively describing the world we can't see and point to) on my available Mac. (Though I suspect that if you were here, you could find it for me -- the available computer is a Mac, and though the book I'm looking for has supposedly been sent to my Kendle for Mac, I can't find it...)
- I should have my standard PC back tomorrow.
__________________
"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 20th October 2016, 11:59 AM   #705
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 58,986
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Just to let you know that I'm still here.
This is my surprised face.

Quote:
- My standard PC is currently unavailable to me, and I haven't been able to find my kindle library (where I've read about the problem that physicists have in effectively describing the world we can't see and point to) on my available Mac.
Hopefully you can find your emergent consciousness in your available brain.
__________________
"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 20th October 2016, 12:27 PM   #706
The Sparrow
Muse
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 769
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
LL,
- Just to let you know that I'm still here.
- My standard PC is currently unavailable to me, and I haven't been able to find my kindle library (where I've read about the problem that physicists have in effectively describing the world we can't see and point to) on my available Mac. (Though I suspect that if you were here, you could find it for me -- the available computer is a Mac, and though the book I'm looking for has supposedly been sent to my Kendle for Mac, I can't find it...)
- I should have my standard PC back tomorrow.
So you're holding a position, but you really don't have any foundation for doing so, so now you're trying to find someone else's words that you can mash into "support".

I predict some bizarre quote somehow signifying that things are amazing and we don't know EVERYTHING, therefore............. souls and immortality.
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 20th October 2016, 12:28 PM   #707
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Kalbim Ankara'da.
Posts: 17,074
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
LL,
- Just to let you know that I'm still here.
- My standard PC is currently unavailable to me, and I haven't been able to find my kindle library (where I've read about the problem that physicists have in effectively describing the world we can't see and point to) on my available Mac. (Though I suspect that if you were here, you could find it for me -- the available computer is a Mac, and though the book I'm looking for has supposedly been sent to my Kendle for Mac, I can't find it...)
- I should have my standard PC back tomorrow.
The great triumph of science is in fact effectively describing the world we can't see and point to.
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman
Sideroxylon 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 20th October 2016, 12:45 PM   #708
John Jones
Philosopher
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,923
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
LL,
- Just to let you know that I'm still here.
- My standard PC is currently unavailable to me, and I haven't been able to find my kindle library (where I've read about the problem that physicists have in effectively describing the world we can't see and point to) on my available Mac. (Though I suspect that if you were here, you could find it for me -- the available computer is a Mac, and though the book I'm looking for has supposedly been sent to my Kendle for Mac, I can't find it...)
- I should have my standard PC back tomorrow.
What's that, another appeal to pity?

Last edited by John Jones; 20th October 2016 at 02:18 PM.
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th October 2016, 12:46 PM   #709
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,093
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
...the problem that physicists have in effectively describing the world we can't see and point to...
Sounds like we're back to handwaving about quantum mechanics again.
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 20th October 2016, 01:26 PM   #710
Loss Leader
Guilty With An Explanation
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 22,139
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I've read about the problem that physicists have in effectively describing the world we can't see and point to

Luckily, we have actual physicists in this thread and/or easy access to them.

Present your reasoning in as complicated a manner as you need. Someone will be able to review it.

There is absolutely no reason to quote some book that says communicating quantum mechanics to lay people is hard. First, someone here can deal with it on a professional level/ Second, and most importantly, it does not excuse you from explaining your ideas. Either something is describable or it isn't. If you can't describe it, you can't argue for its existence.
__________________
- 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 20th October 2016, 02:04 PM   #711
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,093
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Present your reasoning in as complicated a manner as you need. Someone will be able to review it.
My impression is that we're about to be treated to a superposition of a red herring and a straw man.

His argument du jour seems to be, "Things are sometimes hard to explain, therefore I'm off the hook." That's a subtle but important migration from last week's argument, which was, "Sometimes it's hard to explain things to people who don't already know what you're talking about." That makes the physics allusion problematic.

Explaining any complicated subject to someone who hasn't been taught the fundamentals is always difficult. It could be quantum mechanics, or medicine, or law, or motorcycle repair. But that's a momentary concern. If things were forever impossible to describe, we could never teach physics. Or medicine, law, or whatever. Two physicists can speak comfortably about issues in quantum mechanics because they share a common foundation and vocabulary. The problem of communicating to an untrained party is, tautologically speaking, because the party is untrained. The further problem is not that the party cannot be trained, but that it is not expedient to do so at the moment of communcation.

Conversely, the difficulty in communicating complex subjects in plain language is why standardized special vocabularies arise. It takes generally less than four years to apprehend the vocabulary of a complex pursuit, so that's not the problem here.

Jabba seems bent upon equivocating between the imprecision of plain language to express difficult concepts, and (in his case) the imprecision of the concepts themselves. He wants it believed that there is just no way to convey to someone else what his argument really is. In fact it's far more apparent that he can't convey it because he doesn't know what his argument really is.
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 20th October 2016, 04:06 PM   #712
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,080
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
...where I've read about the problem that physicists have in effectively describing the world we can't see and point to...

Physicists are, in fact, able to describe the world, including "the world we can't see and point to", with remarkable precision using mathematics.
__________________
"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 21st October 2016, 02:06 AM   #713
Filippo Lippi
Master Poster
 
Filippo Lippi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,547
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
LL,
- Just to let you know that I'm still here.
- My standard PC is currently unavailable to me, and I haven't been able to find my kindle library (where I've read about the problem that physicists have in effectively describing the world we can't see and point to) on my available Mac. (Though I suspect that if you were here, you could find it for me -- the available computer is a Mac, and though the book I'm looking for has supposedly been sent to my Kendle for Mac, I can't find it...)
- I should have my standard PC back tomorrow.
"Wishful thinking" is the phrase you are reaching for
__________________
"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 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 21st October 2016, 04:01 AM   #714
wea
Critical Thinker
 
wea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: EU
Posts: 303
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
... it's hard to explain things to people who don't already know what you're talking about...
wird vielleicht nur der verstehen, der die Gedanken, die darin ausgedrückt sind – oder doch ähnliche Gedanken – schon selbst einmal gedacht hat

ETA: after Bohr and Einstein, a quote by L.W. seems sensible

Last edited by wea; 21st October 2016 at 04:05 AM.
wea 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 21st October 2016, 05:38 AM   #715
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,125
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Luckily, we have actual physicists in this thread and/or easy access to them.

Present your reasoning in as complicated a manner as you need. Someone will be able to review it.

There is absolutely no reason to quote some book that says communicating quantum mechanics to lay people is hard. First, someone here can deal with it on a professional level/ Second, and most importantly, it does not excuse you from explaining your ideas. Either something is describable or it isn't. If you can't describe it, you can't argue for its existence.
LL,
- Not to worry. I just wanted to let you know that I'm still here. 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 21st October 2016, 06:13 AM   #716
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 58,986
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
LL,
- Not to worry. I just wanted to let you know that I'm still here. I'll be back.
In other words, just a waste of time.
__________________
"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 21st October 2016, 06:27 AM   #717
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,538
Jabba: you might get something from this page. Then again, you might not. Nevertheless, here you go.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Non-mat...t_neuroscience
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 21st October 2016, 06:38 AM   #718
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 8,477
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Jabba seems bent upon equivocating between the imprecision of plain language to express difficult concepts, and (in his case) the imprecision of the concepts themselves. He wants it believed that there is just no way to convey to someone else what his argument really is. In fact it's far more apparent that he can't convey it because he doesn't know what his argument really is.
I've noticed he has several times claimed that someone who believes in reincarnation would understand what he means, implying that we are missing something they get. In fact, of course, no-one who believes in reincarnation has an answer to our objections either. Only when you think it through does the incoherence of the concept become apparent, and those who buy in to the concept of reincarnation have no more thought it through than Jabba has.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 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 21st October 2016, 07:00 AM   #719
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,093
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
LL,
- Not to worry. I just wanted to let you know that I'm still here. I'll be back.
While the unavailability of your home computer any any reference materials it may hold would be a legitimate impediment were your claims based on references, you have many open issues that you have not addressed and which relate to things you can discuss without references. It's more likely this is just another ploy -- like restricting your attention to one person -- to let criticism die down and critics lose interest so that you can begin the next repetitive cycle again.
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 21st October 2016, 07:03 AM   #720
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,093
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
...those who buy in to the concept of reincarnation have no more thought it through than Jabba has.
Agreed, but those why buy into reincarnation are more apt to accept handwaving pseudo-mathematical proofs of it without objection, thereby validating Jabba's effort. Jabba has always said that were it not for the many deficiencies of ISF respondents, his claims would get more traction. He has said there are places on the web where his arguments on this and similar topics would be better received. And that's likely true. Most people fare better with poor arguments when the audience is like-minded and less likely to question.
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
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 12:20 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.