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 21st October 2016, 11:54 AM   #721
HighRiser
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: High above Indianapolis
Posts: 1,793
I, for one, admit to having a credulity deficiency.

This horrible condition prevents me from believing many things.

Weep not, for I am well adjusted to the deficiency.

Thank you.
__________________
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 21st October 2016, 01:48 PM   #722
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,903
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,
- This was the easiest quote to find. I can come back with more if this isn't enough to explain what I meant and establish its legitimacy.

The delicate and complicated instruments of modern experimental physics penetrate deep into the submicroscopic world, into realms of nature far removed from our macroscopic environment, and make this world accessible to our senses. However, they can do so only through a chain of processes ending, for example, in the audible click of a Geiger counter, or in a dark spot on a photographic plate. What we see, or hear, are never the investigated phenomena themselves but always their consequences. The atomic and subatomic world itself lies beyond our sensory perception.

It is, then, with the help of modern instrumentation that we are able to “observe” the properties of atoms and their constituents in an indirect way, and thus to “experience” the subatomic world to some extent. This experience, however, is not an ordinary one, comparable to that of our daily environment. The knowledge about matter at this level is no longer derived from direct sensory experience, and therefore our ordinary language, which takes its images from the world of the senses, is no longer adequate to images which takes its images from the world of the senses, is no longer adequate to describe the observed phenomena. As we penetrate deeper and deeper into nature, we have to abandon more and more of the images and concepts of ordinary language. On this journey to the world of the infinitely small, the most important step, from a philosophical point of view, was the first one: the step into the world of atoms. Probing inside the atom and investigating its structure, science transcended the limits of our sensory imagination. From this point on, it could no longer rely with absolute certainty on logic and common sense. Atomic physics provided the scientists with the first glimpses of the essential nature of things. Like the mystics, physicists were now dealing with a nonsensory experience of reality and, like the mystics, they had to face the paradoxical aspects of this experience. From then on therefore, the models and images of modern physics became akin to those of Eastern philosophy.

Capra, Fritjof. The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism (Kindle Locations 831-838). Shambhala. Kindle Edition.
__________________
"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
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico č probabilmente corretto." 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, 02:27 PM   #723
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,527
Good grief, I read that book decades ago. It was nonsense then, it is nonsense now.

Just because we can't sense it directly, doesn't mean we should distrust the instruments designed to sense it for us. If that were the case, we wouldn't be able to use telephones (are you *sure* you are my mom?).
__________________
"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 21st October 2016, 02:31 PM   #724
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,312
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
This was the easiest quote to find.
Handwaving about quantum mechanics. Do I win a prize for predicting this? And predictably framed in "Eastern mysticism." We already investigated the many ways your mystic authors misunderstand and misuse theoretical physics, even those who started out as physicists. The last few sentences of your quote are pure weapons-grade balonium.

Sorry, but this quote doesn't help you. It mentions a disconnection between intuitive concepts of observation and the detection and description of subatomic phenomena. But the interpretation your physicist-turned-mystic puts on it is the only part that justifies your intent to use this to claim essential obfuscation as an impediment to proceeding with your proof. In fact scientists aren't the least bothered by the nature of measurement at the subatomic and quantum levels, and they have a rich and precise mathematical vocabulary for discussing it. It isn't akin to intuition because it was invented to pick up where intuition left off.

You don't have that rich and precise vocabulary. But the real reason you can't describe a soul is not because the vocabulary lacks, but because you have no freaking clue what you want a soul to be. Nothing in physics (even as badly warped by "mysticism" as you've presented it) cures that, or excuses 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 21st October 2016, 02:32 PM   #725
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,048
Originally Posted by Fritjof Capra
From this point on, it could no longer rely with absolute certainty on logic and common sense.
Well, that's half right.

So what instruments can detect souls? What detectable phenomena suggest the existence of souls?

Scientists had reasons for positing the existence of atoms, electrons, neutrons, protons, and all those other things we can't experience directly. They had experimental results they could point to and invite other scientists to try to replicate. What are the corresponding reasons for us to think souls are real?
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm

Last edited by godless dave; 21st October 2016 at 02:34 PM.
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 21st October 2016, 02:33 PM   #726
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,312
Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
Good grief, I read that book decades ago. It was nonsense then, it is nonsense now.
And it follows Jabba's well-established pattern of quoting scientists only as quoted and interpreted by these crackpots. No wonder Jabba has such a hard time accurately representing the scientific model. He probably hasn't read any actual science.
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 21st October 2016, 02:35 PM   #727
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,312
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
So what instruments can detect souls? What detectable phenomena suggest the existence of souls?
Indeed, if we lay aside for a moment the fact that this is pseudoscientific garbage, the gist of the quote seems to be that where human senses and perception leave off, we have tools that probe deeper and discover more, even if what they present doesn't appeal directly to the senses or allude to a macroscale analogue.

Yet Jabba has told us science is powerless to detect his soul. What gives?
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 21st October 2016, 03:22 PM   #728
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,527
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
And it follows Jabba's well-established pattern of quoting scientists only as quoted and interpreted by these crackpots. No wonder Jabba has such a hard time accurately representing the scientific model. He probably hasn't read any actual science.

I am shocked that he couldn't find an actual theoretical physicist to quote regarding the difficulty in communicating concepts in normal language.

Oh wait, I meant "not shocked at all"...
__________________
"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 21st October 2016, 08:19 PM   #729
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,900
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
LL,
- This was the easiest quote to find. I can come back with more if this isn't enough to explain what I meant and establish its legitimacy. <snip>

Jabba,

I'm always glad to talk to you, but we're either having a conversation or we're not. I stated in my last post (which you saw and quoted):

Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
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.

And even though I asked you not to quote any such book, you chose to do it anyway - as if I had never posted.

In any case, as people more able than I have said above, this quote doesn't help your case:

First, nowhere does it say that physicists lacked the language to convey their ideas. It just says that old language was insufficient and new terms needed to be coined. It doesn't even say that these terms cannot be communicated to lay people. It doesn't say anything about lay people at all.

Second, the passage clearly states that science is done by experimentation. Well, designed experiments may only observe phenomena indirectly, but they still observe something that would not have happened if the particle wasn't there. At no point does it say that scientists had to give up experimenting and just sit in a circle and philosophize.

Most importantly, as I've said, it does not excuse you from explaining your ideas. You have posited the existence of a "soul" or something "more than" a functioning neurosystem. You must define this "more" in a testable way. If you need to use complicated math or physics to discuss your subject, please do so. If we people don't understand something, they'll ask.

Define your terms. Please.
__________________
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 21st October 2016, 10:02 PM   #730
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,229
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- This was the easiest quote to find.
Four years in, you'd think any serious student of the subject would be well beyond "the easiest" material.
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 22nd October 2016, 12:22 AM   #731
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,646
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
My claim is that there is more to it than that, and that effective description of this "more" is somewhere between difficult and impossible.

Jabba,
- A reminder: you are trying to prove something here.
- So this is your problem.
- If you can't explain your proof, you don't have a proof.
__________________
"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; 22nd October 2016 at 12:26 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 22nd October 2016, 01:16 AM   #732
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
 
wollery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,772
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
The delicate and complicated instruments of modern experimental physics penetrate deep into the submicroscopic world, into realms of nature far removed from our macroscopic environment, and make this world accessible to our senses. However, they can do so only through a chain of processes ending, for example, in the audible click of a Geiger counter, or in a dark spot on a photographic plate. What we see, or hear, are never the investigated phenomena themselves but always their consequences. The atomic and subatomic world itself lies beyond our sensory perception.



It is, then, with the help of modern instrumentation that we are able to “observe” the properties of atoms and their constituents in an indirect way, and thus to “experience” the subatomic world to some extent. This experience, however, is not an ordinary one, comparable to that of our daily environment. The knowledge about matter at this level is no longer derived from direct sensory experience, and therefore our ordinary language, which takes its images from the world of the senses, is no longer adequate to images which takes its images from the world of the senses, is no longer adequate to describe the observed phenomena. As we penetrate deeper and deeper into nature, we have to abandon more and more of the images and concepts of ordinary language. On this journey to the world of the infinitely small, the most important step, from a philosophical point of view, was the first one: the step into the world of atoms. Probing inside the atom and investigating its structure, science transcended the limits of our sensory imagination. From this point on, it could no longer rely with absolute certainty on logic and common sense. Atomic physics provided the scientists with the first glimpses of the essential nature of things. Like the mystics, physicists were now dealing with a nonsensory experience of reality and, like the mystics, they had to face the paradoxical aspects of this experience. From then on therefore, the models and images of modern physics became akin to those of Eastern philosophy.


Capra, Fritjof. The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism (Kindle Locations 831-838). Shambhala. Kindle Edition.

Utter bollocks from start to finish.

Wollery, BSc, CertEd, PhD (astrophysics)

Quote that!
__________________
"You're a sick SOB. You know that, Wollery?" - Roadtoad

"Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!" --George Carlin
wollery 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 22nd October 2016, 02:02 AM   #733
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 8,183
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Indeed, if we lay aside for a moment the fact that this is pseudoscientific garbage, the gist of the quote seems to be that where human senses and perception leave off, we have tools that probe deeper and discover more, even if what they present doesn't appeal directly to the senses or allude to a macroscale analogue.

Yet Jabba has told us science is powerless to detect his soul. What gives?
It's the same claptrap being arguing in the "Atheist really know there is a God" thread. Jabba's "Soul" is like the God being argued for in that thread; 100% perfectly totally obvious and impossible for anyone to not be aware of... right up until the point where any of it's proponents is asked to give the tinniest, tiniest shred of evidence for and it and it turns into "He's so vaguely vague with his vagueness and stuff!"

Even if there was some magically Woo-woo realm "Beyond the realm of science" *eyeroll* that doesn't mean any random "Functionally Indistinguishable from making stuff up at random" methodology automatically becomes valid by default.

Even if science reaches a point where it doesn't work you would have to prove that your new method does work and no one has even attempted to do that.

It's always the same nonsense, yet another variation on "Science doesn't know everything therefore my Woo is true!"
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Hating a bad thing does not make you good." - David Wong
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 22nd October 2016, 02:03 AM   #734
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 8,183
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Four years in, you'd think any serious student of the subject would be well beyond "the easiest" material.
Seriously. You could have just invented a new language to describe it by now.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Hating a bad thing does not make you good." - David Wong
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 22nd October 2016, 04:09 AM   #735
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,709
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tao_of_Physics

Quote:
Even now, Capra's book [The Tau of Physics], with its nutty denials of what has happened in particle theory, can be found selling well at every major bookstore. It has been joined by some other books on the same topic, most notably Gary Zukav's The Dancing Wu-Li Masters. The bootstrap philosophy, despite its complete failure as a physical theory, lives on as part of an embarrassing New Age cult, with its followers refusing to acknowledge what has happened.
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 22nd October 2016, 05:49 AM   #736
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,903
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.
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Jabba,

I'm always glad to talk to you, but we're either having a conversation or we're not. I stated in my last post (which you saw and quoted):


And even though I asked you not to quote any such book, you chose to do it anyway - as if I had never posted.

In any case, as people more able than I have said above, this quote doesn't help your case:

First, nowhere does it say that physicists lacked the language to convey their ideas. It just says that old language was insufficient and new terms needed to be coined. It doesn't even say that these terms cannot be communicated to lay people. It doesn't say anything about lay people at all.

Second, the passage clearly states that science is done by experimentation. Well, designed experiments may only observe phenomena indirectly, but they still observe something that would not have happened if the particle wasn't there. At no point does it say that scientists had to give up experimenting and just sit in a circle and philosophize.

Most importantly, as I've said, it does not excuse you from explaining your ideas. You have posited the existence of a "soul" or something "more than" a functioning neurosystem. You must define this "more" in a testable way. If you need to use complicated math or physics to discuss your subject, please do so. If we people don't understand something, they'll ask.

Define your terms. Please.
LL,

- You raised several points that I would like to answer. Unfortunately, as you know, I'm slow and can only deal with one "point" at a time (maybe, two). In this case, Capra was one of the physicists expressing the "language" idea that I was trying to express. That was my attempt to explain my position.

#2. This is a skeptical forum, and the physicists on it are committed skeptics. As we know (from the American elections, at least) that two intelligent voters can look at the same sentence, from different perspectives, and perceive totally different intentions. The same goes for physicists. I assume that none of the physicists here is looking from my (or Capra's) perspective.
__________________
"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
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico č probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor

Last edited by Jabba; 22nd October 2016 at 05:50 AM.
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 22nd October 2016, 05:54 AM   #737
Filippo Lippi
Master Poster
 
Filippo Lippi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,738
Constant 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 22nd October 2016, 06:03 AM   #738
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,962
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
LL,

- You raised several points that I would like to answer. Unfortunately, as you know, I'm slow and can only deal with one "point" at a time (maybe, two). In this case, Capra was one of the physicists expressing the "language" idea that I was trying to express. That was my attempt to explain my position.

#2. This is a skeptical forum, and the physicists on it are committed skeptics. As we know (from the American elections, at least) that two intelligent voters can look at the same sentence, from different perspectives, and perceive totally different intentions. The same goes for physicists. I assume that none of the physicists here is looking from my (or Capra's) perspective.
The perspective the physicists have makes no difference here, Jabba. What we're talking about are the facts, which is what you keep running away from. You really should read the link I posted, as it very clearly points out the problems your non-physical notions have.
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 22nd October 2016, 06:22 AM   #739
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,709
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
LL,



#2. This is a skeptical forum, and the physicists on it are committed skeptics. As we know (from the American elections, at least) that two intelligent voters can look at the same sentence, from different perspectives, and perceive totally different intentions. The same goes for physicists. I assume that none of the physicists here is looking from my (or Capra's) perspective.
It sounds like you're trying to say that all ideas are equally valid. They aren't.
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 22nd October 2016, 06:52 AM   #740
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,900
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
#2. This is a skeptical forum, and the physicists on it are committed skeptics. As we know (from the American elections, at least) that two intelligent voters can look at the same sentence, from different perspectives, and perceive totally different intentions. The same goes for physicists. I assume that none of the physicists here is looking from my (or Capra's) perspective.

Sorry, Jabba, but I don't buy this excuse. Physicists can interpret data differently (some might see superstrings while others see only particles), except that the physicists hase two things you don't: Data and coherence.

You refuse to provide any falsifiable data for he existence of a "soul," let alone any actual functional definition of what you might be trying to observe. You refuse to even elucidate a coherent worldview in which your idea exists without being self-contradictory.

Until you define what you mean be "soul" or something "more," there is no possible reason to believe its existence. Arguing that the chance of your birth was exceedingly small is nothing more than admiring the drunkard's walk.
__________________
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 22nd October 2016, 07:58 AM   #741
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,646
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
As we know (from the American elections, at least) that two intelligent voters can look at the same sentence, from different perspectives, and perceive totally different intentions.

Indeed, but this doesn't mean that any two people who disagree both have valid viewpoints.
__________________
"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 22nd October 2016, 08:00 AM   #742
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,646
And remember, Jabba, the longer you try to argue about irrelevancies the longer you fail to prove immortality. The more you complain that you can't explain your "proof", the more obvious it is that you don't have a proof.
__________________
"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; 22nd October 2016 at 08:02 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 22nd October 2016, 08:37 AM   #743
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,366
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
LL,

- You raised several points that I would like to answer. Unfortunately, as you know, I'm slow and can only deal with one "point" at a time (maybe, two).
As we know, you like to pretend that this is true so you can avoid actually addressing points. If you spent nearly as much time addressing these point rather than telling us that you will, we'd have been done years ago.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

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 22nd October 2016, 08:45 AM   #744
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,175
Quote:
I'm sure that very soon Jabba will tell us how he's planning to post something at some point in the future. That will be followed by another post explaining why he hasn't posted anything on-topic in his own thread yet. That will then be followed by another post telling us that it's taking him longer than he thought it would to post something, but that such a posting will be forthcoming at some point.

I imagine we've got about 20-40 pages to go before he actually posts something beyond what he already has.
Guess the date and poster?

Squeegee Beckenheim
23rd November 2012

Yet it could be plugged anywhere into the last 4 years, because exactly zero progress has been made. Zero.
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 22nd October 2016, 09:02 AM   #745
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 8,183
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
You raised several points that I would like to answer. Unfortunately, as you know, I'm slow and can only deal with one "point" at a time (maybe, two).
Jabba we are all sick of your "Tired befuddled old man" routine and we don't buy it for a second. We're not going to let you Gish Gallop all over us and force us to spoon feed you our responses. You have enough time and energy to post paragraph after paragraph of numbered nonsense, you have enough to respond in kind.

Your habit of having two sets of nearly polar opposite standards; one for yourself and one for your critics, is massively rude.

Quote:
This is a skeptical forum, and the physicists on it are committed skeptics.
Your continued attempts to find some way to demonize "The big meanies aren't just believing me without evidence" are equally played out.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Hating a bad thing does not make you good." - David Wong
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 22nd October 2016, 09:40 AM   #746
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,312
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Unfortunately, as you know, I'm slow and can only deal with one "point" at a time (maybe, two).
Befuddled Old Man shuffles out onto the stage to play his scene. You have a whole bill of these characters and plot devices whose sole purpose seems to be to convince your critics to throttle themselves back so your argument doesn't look so meager. They aren't very believable characters or plot devices. You're not tired, you're evasive. You exhaust the patience of reasonable people by ignoring them, then claim victory when they give up on you in frustration.

Quote:
That was my attempt to explain my position.
It doesn't clarify or explain anything that's relevant to your inability to define a soul and prove it exists.

Quote:
This is a skeptical forum, and the physicists on it are committed skeptics.
...
I assume that none of the physicists here is looking from my (or Capra's) perspective.
That's half right, because his "perspective," and yours, is just sciency-sounding nonsense. You keep presenting this sort of pop-science garbage as if it's what real science is or should be. It's becoming increasingly clear you are not competent in scientific methodology or thought, so your P(E|H) has absolutely no useful knowledge behind it. You don't get to foist your pseudo-science pseudo-mysticism onto your critics and demand they accept it as their position.

BLATANT STRAW MAN

However, in your rush to push all the blame onto your allegedly stubborn critics, you neglected to address where godless dave and I both explained how, even if we take your author seriously, it still doesn't support your claim. Can you explain your choice of response?

Quote:
As we know (from the American elections, at least) that two intelligent voters can look at the same sentence, from different perspectives, and perceive totally different intentions.
And if politics had anything to do with mathematics, this would matter. Your failure to construct a testable argument has absolutely nothing to do with the alleged bias or entrenchment of your 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 22nd October 2016, 11:14 AM   #747
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,527
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- You raised several points that I would like to answer. Unfortunately, as you know, I'm slow and can only deal with one "point" at a time (maybe, two).

I would suggest you aren't slow, just wrong, and well aware of the fact. You are simply buying time and hoping people will focus on something other than the wrongness.

Guess what? That doesn't work here.
__________________
"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 22nd October 2016, 11:45 AM   #748
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,646
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Unfortunately, as you know, I'm slow and can only deal with one "point" at a time (maybe, two).

I suggest, then, that you should concentrate on "points" relevant to your "proof" rather than trying to sidetrack the discussion into irrelevancies.
__________________
"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; 22nd October 2016 at 11:49 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 22nd October 2016, 01:33 PM   #749
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,900
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
LL,

- You raised several points that I would like to answer. Unfortunately, as you know, I'm slow and can only deal with one "point" at a time (maybe, two). In this case, Capra was one of the physicists expressing the "language" idea that I was trying to express. That was my attempt to explain my position.

#2. This is a skeptical forum, and the physicists on it are committed skeptics. As we know (from the American elections, at least) that two intelligent voters can look at the same sentence, from different perspectives, and perceive totally different intentions. The same goes for physicists. I assume that none of the physicists here is looking from my (or Capra's) perspective.

Jabba, the source you quoted does not require any "perspective." It says the subatomic world is unlike the atomic one and scientists needed to invent a new vocabulary. It did not day that falsifiable tests could not be run. In fact, it did say falsifiable tests are being run.

None of this excuses you. Either you can describe the soul in a testable way or.you can't. Don't give me excuses, give me definition.
__________________
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 22nd October 2016, 02:38 PM   #750
sackett
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 5,075
Jabba, you've stated your case. To you, it's firmly definitive, & you're going to.stick w/ it for the rest of your ooflam.

Are we finally done? Say yes, c'mon, be a buddy.
__________________
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 22nd October 2016, 03:40 PM   #751
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 8,183
This trend of proponents of Woo arguing about how world changing and obvious their beliefs are out of one side of their mouths and how undetectable and non-explainable they are out the other has really, really lost it's luster with me.

I'm done. Put up or shut up. If you can't even begin to try and explain it, don't promote it.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Hating a bad thing does not make you good." - David Wong
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 22nd October 2016, 06:38 PM   #752
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: 17,348
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
LL,
- This was the easiest quote to find. I can come back with more if this isn't enough to explain what I meant and establish its legitimacy.

The delicate and complicated instruments of modern experimental physics penetrate deep into the submicroscopic world, into realms of nature far removed from our macroscopic environment, and make this world accessible to our senses. However, they can do so only through a chain of processes ending, for example, in the audible click of a Geiger counter, or in a dark spot on a photographic plate. What we see, or hear, are never the investigated phenomena themselves but always their consequences. The atomic and subatomic world itself lies beyond our sensory perception.

It is, then, with the help of modern instrumentation that we are able to “observe” the properties of atoms and their constituents in an indirect way, and thus to “experience” the subatomic world to some extent. This experience, however, is not an ordinary one, comparable to that of our daily environment. The knowledge about matter at this level is no longer derived from direct sensory experience, and therefore our ordinary language, which takes its images from the world of the senses, is no longer adequate to images which takes its images from the world of the senses, is no longer adequate to describe the observed phenomena. As we penetrate deeper and deeper into nature, we have to abandon more and more of the images and concepts of ordinary language. On this journey to the world of the infinitely small, the most important step, from a philosophical point of view, was the first one: the step into the world of atoms. Probing inside the atom and investigating its structure, science transcended the limits of our sensory imagination. From this point on, it could no longer rely with absolute certainty on logic and common sense. Atomic physics provided the scientists with the first glimpses of the essential nature of things. Like the mystics, physicists were now dealing with a nonsensory experience of reality and, like the mystics, they had to face the paradoxical aspects of this experience. From then on therefore, the models and images of modern physics became akin to those of Eastern philosophy.

Capra, Fritjof. The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism (Kindle Locations 831-838). Shambhala. Kindle Edition.
My Dear Mr. Savage:

Quoting the pseudophilosophical Tao of Physics as an authority on actual physics is exactly the same as quoting de Clari about the cloth "...that every Friday raised itself upright..." as an actual authority about the nature of the CIQ. Seriously, Tao was dismissed as "New Age Woo"...in the late '70s.

It is not, in any way, a representation of the "scientific position" on the existence of the "soul" (nor on its "immortality").

I remain disappointedly yours, &ct.
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is 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 22nd October 2016, 06:44 PM   #753
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: 17,348
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
LL,

- You raised several points that I would like to answer. Unfortunately, as you know, I'm slow and can only deal with one "point" at a time (maybe, two). In this case, Capra was one of the physicists expressing the "language" idea that I was trying to express. That was my attempt to explain my position.

#2. This is a skeptical forum, and the physicists on it are committed skeptics. As we know (from the American elections, at least) that two intelligent voters can look at the same sentence, from different perspectives, and perceive totally different intentions. The same goes for physicists. I assume that none of the physicists here is looking from my (or Capra's) perspective.
My Dear Mr. Savage:

Your (or Capra's) "perspective" requires ignoring factual realities and inventing non-factual "explanations" tailored to pitch the woo! you are selling.

This is why it is "so hard" for you to provide support for the existence of "soul" (and its "immortality") you so desperately wish for--it is (charitably) a clumsy invention.

I remain unimpressedly yours, &ct.
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is 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 23rd October 2016, 10:43 AM   #754
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,903
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
LL,
- You raised several points that I would like to answer. Unfortunately, as you know, I'm slow and can only deal with one "point" at a time (maybe, two). In this case, Capra was one of the physicists expressing the "language" idea that I was trying to express. That was my attempt to explain my position.
#2. This is a skeptical forum, and the physicists on it are committed skeptics. As we know (from the American elections, at least) that two intelligent voters can look at the same sentence, from different perspectives, and perceive totally different intentions. The same goes for physicists. I assume that none of the physicists here is looking from my (or Capra's) perspective.

Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
1) Sorry, Jabba, but I don't buy this excuse. Physicists can interpret data differently (some might see superstrings while others see only particles), except that the physicists hase two things you don't: Data and coherence.
2) You refuse to provide any falsifiable data for he existence of a "soul," let alone any actual functional definition of what you might be trying to observe. 3)You refuse to even elucidate a coherent worldview in which your idea exists without being self-contradictory.
4) Until you define what you mean be "soul" or something "more," there is no possible reason to believe its existence. 5) Arguing that the chance of your birth was exceedingly small is nothing more than admiring the drunkard's walk.
LL,
- I numbered the points I would like to address. In the future, please indicate which of your points you wish me to address first. For now, I'll start with my number 1.
- I'll keep trying to be more coherent -- but as you know, I believe that for a different audience (of physicists even), what I'm saying would be plenty coherent. It depends upon the audience.
- In regard to data -- for Bayesian inference, I'm allowed to use estimates of data percentages of which the audience can judge for accuracy. I've provided my estimates, it's up to you to accept or reject them. If you reject them, you need to explain why.
__________________
"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
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico č probabilmente corretto." 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 23rd October 2016, 10:52 AM   #755
Agatha
Winking at the Moon
Moderator
 
Agatha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 11,969
Wow! Breathtaking rudeness to the only person to whom you're condescending to respond, an appeal to the lurkers, and a reversal of the burden of proof.

Congratulations on the new depths to which this thread has sunk.
__________________
Not to put too fine a point on it, say I'm the only bee in your bonnet. Make a little birdhouse in your soul.

Vodka kills salmonella and all other enemies of freedom for sure - Nationalcosmopolitan
Agatha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2016, 11:11 AM   #756
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 8,183
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
LL,
- I numbered the points I would like to address. In the future, please indicate which of your points you wish me to address first. For now, I'll start with my number 1.
- I'll keep trying to be more coherent -- but as you know, I believe that for a different audience (of physicists even), what I'm saying would be plenty coherent. It depends upon the audience.
- In regard to data -- for Bayesian inference, I'm allowed to use estimates of data percentages of which the audience can judge for accuracy. I've provided my estimates, it's up to you to accept or reject them. If you reject them, you need to explain why.
You are unbelievable.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Hating a bad thing does not make you good." - David Wong
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 23rd October 2016, 11:14 AM   #757
Filippo Lippi
Master Poster
 
Filippo Lippi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,738
If only someone, anyone, had thought to give reasons why they rejected the numbers Jabba pulls out of his arse.
__________________
"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 23rd October 2016, 11:23 AM   #758
HighRiser
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: High above Indianapolis
Posts: 1,793
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
LL,
- I numbered the points I would like to address. In the future, please indicate which of your points you wish me to address first. For now, I'll start with my number 1.
Round and round we go...
Quote:
- I'll keep trying to be more coherent -- but as you know, I believe that for a different audience (of physicists even), what I'm saying would be plenty coherent. It depends upon the audience.
You haven't made a coherent point in this conversation yet. The entire premise is baseless, unsupported, undefined twaddle.

Quote:
- In regard to data -- for Bayesian inference, I'm allowed to use estimates of data percentages of which the audience can judge for accuracy. I've provided my estimates, it's up to you to accept or reject them. If you reject them, you need to explain why.
Time and time again, you've been told that your estimates are rejected because you can't support them with anything substantial. They're made up, by you, out of whole cloth.

Horse hockey!
__________________
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 23rd October 2016, 11:50 AM   #759
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,312
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I numbered the points I would like to address. In the future, please...
Oh, shut up. Just shut up. You are acting like such a prima donna. Your critics have filled four threads with points they'd like you to address, and you just merrily ignore them.

Quote:
I believe that for a different audience (of physicists even), what I'm saying would be plenty coherent. It depends upon the audience.
Nonsense.

You said you could prove the existence of a soul mathematically. There is no better audience than physicists to which to attempt to convey something via mathematics. If you're so convinced that the problem here is the audience, then just go away. But when you come here voluntarily, claiming to be able to do something in a way that would have special appeal to this audience -- i.e., a mathematical proof -- then at least do your audience the courtesy of not insulting them and blaming them for your ongoing ineptitude.

Quote:
In regard to data -- for Bayesian inference, I'm allowed to use estimates of data percentages of which the audience can judge for accuracy. I've provided my estimates, it's up to you to accept or reject them. If you reject them, you need to explain why.
It's colossally rude of you to insinuate this hasn't been done countless times already. I and many others have given you detailed and correct reasons for why your P(E|H) is wrong.

You simply don't care.

Now stop behaving like a spoiled child and address your 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 23rd October 2016, 12:32 PM   #760
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,048
We've already explained why we reject your estimates.

Your only explanation for why we should accept the existence of souls is that you feel like you have a soul. You can't expect that to convince anyone.
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm
godless dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post 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 04:02 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.