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 1st October 2016, 06:55 AM   #161
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 24,378
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I'm not quite sure what you're saying, but my best guess so far is that I have other numerical entries that need support. OK?
No, it's that your whole approach is a non-starter.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st October 2016, 06:58 AM   #162
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,335
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
For instance, the controller of the lottery would be a much more obvious target as lottery winner than would be one of his 5th cousins.
Once again: your existence is not analogous to the controller of the lottery winning it, or even to the controller's ninth cousin twice removed winning it. It's analogous to a random ticket buyer winning it. You have been asked many times to justify assuming otherwise and have never even attempted to do so.

Quote:
- Also, it's my only camera/observer -- and, according to OOFLam, it never existed before, it will never exist again and it never had to exist in the first place. And then, if it didn’t exist, there might as well be nothing; and if it never existed, there might as well have never been anything.
Are you seriously suggesting that the existence of the universe might be contingent on your particular existence?

Quote:
Something’s wrong here; and, my current existence seems really important. Like a General for a drone strike.
Your existence is not at all important, and what's wrong is your inability to accept this simple fact. If you did not exist the universe would be very little different, as it will be after you cease to exist.

I've several times come across people who were convinced that the world would end in their lifetimes whose delusional belief seemed to be a consequence of their inability to conceive of it continuing to exist after their own existence had ended. Perhaps Jabba has the same problem but has come up with a different solution.
__________________
"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 1st October 2016, 07:12 AM   #163
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,908
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Anyway, one thought is that there are "shades" of target-ness.
- For instance, the controller of the lottery would be a much more obvious target as lottery winner than would be one of his 5th cousins.
- And, whereas the likelihood of my current existence may not be obviously appropriate for P(E|H), there are some red flags waving (or maybe, orange lights flashing). For instance:
- The current existence of my "self," whether thing, process or illusion is all that I know for sure. If it's an illusion, it's a real illusion -- everything else could be my imagination. I don't know what I am -- but, I know I am.
- Also, it's my only camera/observer -- and, according to OOFLam, it never existed before, it will never exist again and it never had to exist in the first place. And then, if it didn’t exist, there might as well be nothing; and if it never existed, there might as well have never been anything. Something’s wrong here; and, my current existence seems really important. Like a General for a drone strike.
- I’ll be back.
Jabba, the universe does not revolve around your existence. It really doesn't, and you really aren't that important except to yourself, and a handful of other people. Not to the universe, nor even to the bulk of the human population.

And: the only thing that we can confirm exists is your body. If you have any evidence of souls existing, you would do well to stop playing statistical games and start presenting it.
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 1st October 2016, 07:14 AM   #164
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,847
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
No, it's that your whole approach is a non-starter.

Dave
OK.
__________________
"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 è 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 1st October 2016, 07:23 AM   #165
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,847
Originally Posted by jond View Post
Jabba, the universe does not revolve around your existence. It really doesn't, and you really aren't that important except to yourself, and a handful of other people. Not to the universe, nor even to the bulk of the human population.

And: the only thing that we can confirm exists is your body. If you have any evidence of souls existing, you would do well to stop playing statistical games and start presenting it.
jond,
- You probably don't consider the opinion of credible scientists as evidence, but take a look at what Einstein said about spirituality.
http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/einstein/
__________________
"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 è 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 1st October 2016, 07:28 AM   #166
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,908
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
jond,
- You probably don't consider the opinion of credible scientists as evidence, but take a look at what Einstein said about spirituality.
http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/einstein/
Opinions are not evidence, no matter whose opinion it is.
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 1st October 2016, 07:52 AM   #167
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,103
"Some people are on the pitch. They think it's all over."

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
OK.
__________________
"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 1st October 2016, 07:53 AM   #168
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,847
Originally Posted by jond View Post
Opinions are not evidence, no matter whose opinion it is.
jond,
- I disagree. Credible scientists tend to take seriously the opinion of other credible scientists, and use what each other believe in their algorithmic thinking; especially when the scientists involved are visionaries (like Einstein and Heisenberg).
__________________
"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 è 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 1st October 2016, 07:57 AM   #169
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,103
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
jond,
- I disagree. Credible scientists tend to take seriously the opinion of other credible scientists, and use what each other believe in their algorithmic thinking; especially when the scientists involved are visionaries (like Einstein and Heisenberg).

Einstein didn't like the implications of quantum mechanics. Other scientists followed the evidence, not his opinion.
__________________
"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 1st October 2016, 08:00 AM   #170
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,908
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
jond,
- I disagree. Credible scientists tend to take seriously the opinion of other credible scientists, and use what each other believe in their algorithmic thinking; especially when the scientists involved are visionaries (like Einstein and Heisenberg).
Mojo answered perfectly. But I'll ask this question: do you think the universe would be different had Einstein not existed? (I don't mean our understanding of the universe, I mean the universe itself.)
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 1st October 2016, 08:06 AM   #171
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,103
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
jond,
- You probably don't consider the opinion of credible scientists as evidence, but take a look at what Einstein said about spirituality.
http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/einstein/

We can add appeal to inappropriate authority to Jabba's growing list of fallacies. We should have had bingo cards printed up.
__________________
"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 1st October 2016, 08:09 AM   #172
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 7,546
I think I might have mentioned it before there's a Night Vale Quote that is oddly perfect for this.

"Death is only the end if you assume the story is about you."
__________________
Hemingway once wrote that "The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.
JoeBentley is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st October 2016, 08:11 AM   #173
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,771
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
jond,
- You probably don't consider the opinion of credible scientists as evidence, but take a look at what Einstein said about spirituality.
http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/einstein/
You have a long history of misquoting and misinterpreting scientists. Evey fringe claimant eventually resorts to sound bites from famous theoretical physicists spun to appear to support woo. No, Einstein's offhand musings aren't science or evidence.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st October 2016, 08:15 AM   #174
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,771
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
jond,
- I disagree. Credible scientists tend to take seriously the opinion of other credible scientists, and use what each other believe in their algorithmic thinking; especially when the scientists involved are visionaries (like Einstein and Heisenberg).
Hogwash. You don't know a damned thing about physics or physicists. The thing Heisenberg was most famous for is taking his colleagues and the general public to task for exactly the sort of pseudo mystical nonsense you're trying to paste on him and them. Just stop embarrassing yourself. This line of "reasoning" is a non-starter.

Last edited by JayUtah; 1st October 2016 at 08:17 AM.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st October 2016, 08:17 AM   #175
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,118
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
jond,
- I disagree. Credible scientists tend to take seriously the opinion of other credible scientists, and use what each other believe in their algorithmic thinking; especially when the scientists involved are visionaries (like Einstein and Heisenberg).
Don't ever presume to speak for scientists. You are not qualified. Besides, you said we scientists were a dishonest and incompetent lot.
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.

Last edited by John Jones; 1st October 2016 at 08:20 AM.
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 1st October 2016, 08:23 AM   #176
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,771
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
Don't ever presume to speak for scientists. You are not qualified. Besides, you said we scientists were a dishonest and incompetent lot.
And apparently they can only think "algorithmically." Whatever that's supposed to mean.
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 1st October 2016, 08:27 AM   #177
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,335
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
jond,
- You probably don't consider the opinion of credible scientists as evidence, but take a look at what Einstein said about spirituality.
http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/einstein/
Instead of throwing out random irrelevant quotes, why not actually address some of the points made in the responses to your latest musings?
__________________
"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 1st October 2016, 08:36 AM   #178
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,103
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Instead of throwing out random irrelevant quotes, why not actually address some of the points made in the responses to your latest musings?

There's a rather obvious answer to that, so I'm guessing it's rhetorical.
__________________
"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 1st October 2016, 09:32 AM   #179
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,771
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
OK.
OK what?

Jabba, does it even enter your head that you might be wrong? You have had a number of clearly qualified professionals tell you your approach is wrong. You have had four years' worth of people explaining the errors in your logic. Yet you just plod along as if the rest of the world didn't exist, content in your belief that you have an immortal soul and that you have proved that belief objectively and rigorously in the face of robust opposition.

Unless you want to be laughed away as the crackpot it increasingly seems you are, you really need to follow up that "OK" with a sincere effort to understand and engage your critics. Otherwise your exercise is just pseudo-intellectual self-gratification.

OK what?
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 1st October 2016, 09:43 AM   #180
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,771
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
For instance, the controller of the lottery would be a much more obvious target as lottery winner than would be one of his 5th cousins.
But there's no analogue to the controller in the problem of determining the probability of existence.

Quote:
Something’s wrong here; and, my current existence seems really important. Like a General for a drone strike.
No, there's no analogue to the general in the problem of determining the probability of existence.

The properties that make you the "target" in the lottery of your existence did not arise prior to your existence. Therefore you're drawing a target around a bullet that already hit the wall. You're drawing a target around one of billions of bullet holes in the barn. Your misleading analogies above are to targets drawn before the shot.

What's really really sad is that you have obviously decided not to recall that this lottery analogy, properly cast, convinced you that you had committed the Texas sharpshooter's fallacy. I don't know how you can sleep at night knowing that you make concessions you have no intention of keeping, and then claiming stalemate. Is it really that easy for you to lie to yourself? Can you give any reason why you deserve grown-up attention when you pull stunts like that?

Last edited by JayUtah; 1st October 2016 at 10:10 AM.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st October 2016, 09:45 AM   #181
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,118
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
And apparently they can only think "algorithmically." Whatever that's supposed to mean.
I take it as just another scurrilous assault against his better-informed interlocutors.

The Dunning-Kruger(sp?) effect and all that.
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.
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 1st October 2016, 10:47 AM   #182
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,771
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Instead of throwing out random irrelevant quotes...
Not only irrelevant but ripped bleeding from their contexts (the ones that aren't just blatantly made up). Albert Einstein is one of the most misquoted people on this planet. Even if we concentrate on the stuff he actually said, as opposed to the many things merely attributed to him, it almost never means in context what the religious miscreants use it for.

The era of the celebrity physicist has given rise to all manner of nonsense that lay people want to shove under the umbrella of science. Science is not whatever comes out of the mouths of scientists. Science is what arises from the scientific method. There is no method to television appearances, lectures, and pithy essays on "religiosity." And in blatant contrast to what Jabba claims above, I've seen the celebrity scientists are sometimes actually held in a bit of contempt by their more hardworking yet lesser known colleagues. Albert Einstein made some key breakthroughs, to be sure. But no, all his rampant philosophizing was generally either ignored or frowned upon by his colleagues.
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 1st October 2016, 10:54 AM   #183
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,771
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
I take it as just another scurrilous assault against his better-informed interlocutors.
Given Jabba's frequent reliance on the unfounded assertion that he is the master of some magical mode of thinking that gives him insight his critics can't possibly achieve, I think this is a suitable position until Jabba clarifies his argument.

Now I pay people -- very smart people -- to think algorithmically. Which is to say, to model the solutions to problems in terms of processes and data elements. I know what I mean if I were to say algorithmic thinking. But to suggest that the people I pay to do that are somehow limited to that mode of thinking is imbecilic. Outside of work they are also actors, musicians, photographers, writers, and so forth.

In any case Jabba has promised us a mathemtical argument. If he has to invent some new foggy way of thinking in order for his argument to hold, then it sure isn't mathematical.
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 1st October 2016, 02:52 PM   #184
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,011
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Anyway, one thought is that there are "shades" of target-ness.
- For instance, the controller of the lottery would be a much more obvious target as lottery winner than would be one of his 5th cousins.
- And, whereas the likelihood of my current existence may not be obviously appropriate for P(E|H), there are some red flags waving (or maybe, orange lights flashing). For instance:
- The current existence of my "self," whether thing, process or illusion is all that I know for sure. If it's an illusion, it's a real illusion -- everything else could be my imagination. I don't know what I am -- but, I know I am.
- Also, it's my only camera/observer -- and, according to OOFLam, it never existed before, it will never exist again and it never had to exist in the first place. And then, if it didn’t exist, there might as well be nothing; and if it never existed, there might as well have never been anything. Something’s wrong here; and, my current existence seems really important. Like a General for a drone strike.
- I’ll be back.
That does not wave any red flags or flash any amber lights. Your existence seems important to you because it's yours. My existence seems important to me because it's mine. The reality is that the universe would go right on existing if neither of us were here. All we are is dust in the wind.
__________________
"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; 1st October 2016 at 02:55 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 1st October 2016, 09:06 PM   #185
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 23,276
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
I think I might have mentioned it before there's a Night Vale Quote that is oddly perfect for this.

"Death is only the end if you assume the story is about you."

Parenthetically, I've always adopted a very literary interpretation of my life. I like to think I'm learning things useful in some huge showdown. Then my children were born and I had the most horrible thought: What if I'm just someone else's backstory?
__________________
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 2nd October 2016, 02:42 AM   #186
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 65,903
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
OK.
OK you'll change your approache and try logic next time, or OK you'll ignore the criticism and go on your merry way as you've done so far?
__________________
<Roar!>
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2016, 02:44 AM   #187
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 65,903
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Something’s wrong here; and, my current existence seems really important. Like a General for a drone strike.
I assure you, your existence is totally unimportant.
__________________
<Roar!>
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2016, 06:32 AM   #188
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,847
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
That does not wave any red flags or flash any amber lights. Your existence seems important to you because it's yours. My existence seems important to me because it's mine. The reality is that the universe would go right on existing if neither of us were here. All we are is dust in the wind.
Dave,
- Yeah. That's why I question the appropriateness of the likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam, as P(E|H) in the Bayesian formula... But yet, I'm still 99% sure that it is appropriate...
- Ineffable?
- I'm workin on it.
__________________
"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 è 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 2nd October 2016, 07:16 AM   #189
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,118
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Yeah. That's why I question the appropriateness of the likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam, as P(E|H) in the Bayesian formula... But yet, I'm still 99% sure that it is appropriate...
More numbers you pulled out of your backside.
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 2nd October 2016, 08:58 AM   #190
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,771
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Yeah. That's why I question the appropriateness of the likelihood of my current existence, given OOFLam, as P(E|H) in the Bayesian formula... But yet, I'm still 99% sure that it is appropriate...
But you can't explain to anyone else why it's appropriate in a way that convinces them. That's what a proof is -- a line of reasoning designed to persuade someone to believe something he wasn't already predisposed to believe in. In the mathematical sense a proof is a connected series of expressions that shows something must follow from the starting conditions.

You can't do any of that, and it's high time you admitted it once and for all.

Oh sure, you want to chalk up your lack of progress to some imagined sin on the part of your critics. Our posts are too long, or we don't molly-coddle you, or we distract you from your goal. I'm sure believing that gives you great comfort, but the fact is that in the time it has taken you to tap-dance around one formula, a real student could have earned a bachelor's degree in mathematics.

Your numbers are made up. You just pulled them out of your hindquarters. Your "estimate" for P(E|H) has nothing behind it except your fervent desire to have a soul and your fervent goal to believe you have proven to the unwashed heathens that you have one. If you want to demonstrate otherwise you'll have to prove otherwise.

Quote:
I'm workin on it.
No, you're not. As I said, you're repeatedly defibrillating a dead corpse and trying to convince the people around you that its resulting flopping about is signs of life.
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 2nd October 2016, 09:04 AM   #191
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,103
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
But yet, I'm still 99% sure that it is appropriate...

A splendid thing to post above this sig: "The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence."
__________________
"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 2nd October 2016, 09:59 AM   #192
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,847
- Let's try a little at a time.
- We seem to all agree that science would allow the possibility of creating an identical consciousness -- but, science would not allow for re-creating the same consciousness. Am I correct?
__________________
"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 è 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 2nd October 2016, 10:06 AM   #193
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,103
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
-- but, science would not allow for re-creating the same consciousness. Am I correct?

Yes, if you have two identical things there are two of them, not one.
__________________
"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; 2nd October 2016 at 10:07 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 2nd October 2016, 10:13 AM   #194
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,103
Jabba, here's something I posted in part II:

Quote:
Here's a laughing dog:



We'll call him Fido.

Fido is producing a laugh: "HAHAHAHAHA".

Here's another laughing dog:



We'll call this one Rover. Rover is entirely identical to, but separate from, Fido.

Rover is also producing a laugh: "HAHAHAHAHA".

The laugh Rover produces is identical to the laugh Fido produces, but it is produced by Rover, not Fido. That is the only difference between the laughs. You cannot distinguish between the laughs, but if Rover and Fido are laughing at the same time there will be two laughs, not one.

Here are the two laughs:

"HAHAHAHAHA".
"HAHAHAHAHA".

Note that while they are entirely identical, there are two of them.

If we created Rover after the complete destruction of Fido (perhaps as a result of gravitational stress) we would not be recreating Fido; we would be creating another identical dog.
__________________
"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; 2nd October 2016 at 10:19 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 2nd October 2016, 10:24 AM   #195
sackett
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 4,968
Jabba and the Time Cube

Somewhere up above, JayUtah introduced the word “crank,” the first time it’s been used in this thread. I’m very glad he did; if I’d said it, the Mods (Peas and Bacon Be Upon them) would likely have given a taste of their knuckles.

A crank is somebody who obsesses on only one foolishly labored and pointless postulate, never taking in others’ views and never admitting that he might be all wet.

Jabba: If you had to do it (you don’t, of course, but I wish you would), how could you demonstrate that you’re not a crank?

“Obsesses on only one foolishly labored and pointless postulate.” Gosh, that’s a long phrase. Can somebody reduce it to an acronym for me? Thanks.
__________________
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 2nd October 2016, 10:59 AM   #196
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 17,925
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Let's try a little at a time.
- We seem to all agree that science would allow the possibility of creating an identical consciousness -- but, science would not allow for re-creating the same consciousness. Am I correct?
Science here is some vague authority that you distrust but begrudgingly conceded to. Much easier to paint the situation this way than outlining the arguments against this idea. That kind of honesty opens a whole can of worms for your claim.
__________________
'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 2nd October 2016, 11:02 AM   #197
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,335
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Let's try a little at a time.
- We seem to all agree that science would allow the possibility of creating an identical consciousness -- but, science would not allow for re-creating the same consciousness. Am I correct?
The two consciousnesses are distinguished only by their spacetime co-ordinates. The second one, if identical, would be a recreation of the first one, just at a different point in space and time. We've been through this before.
__________________
"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 2nd October 2016, 11:10 AM   #198
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,908
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
The two consciousnesses are distinguished only by their spacetime co-ordinates. The second one, if identical, would be a recreation of the first one, just at a different point in space and time. We've been through this before.
We've been through it an infinite number of times, and he's ignored it every time.
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 2nd October 2016, 11:46 AM   #199
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 65,903
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Let's try a little at a time.
You mean, go even slower?
__________________
<Roar!>
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2016, 11:48 AM   #200
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,011
Are we really back to 2>1 again?
__________________
"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 10:32 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.