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 2nd October 2016, 12:07 PM   #201
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,313
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Let's try a little at a time.
Don't be patronizing. The problem is not that people here don't understand your argument and need it to be spelled out a bit at a time. The problem here is that your argument is wrong, and reasons have been given why it's wrong. Repeating it doesn't fix it.

Quote:
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?
No, you aren't correct in claiming we all agree. You are correct that two things are more things than one thing. But you are still trying to foist a pseudo-philosophy argument that there's something magically ineffable that two identical items cannot share. Once again you're trying to impose the limits of your soul hypothesis on an explanation that does not require a soul and therefore does not suffer its limitations.

And we've been over this dozens of times.
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, 12:07 PM   #202
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,211
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Are we really back to 2>1 again?

Yup. And we're back to Jabba being brought back to life if a second identical Jabba is somehow created after his death. And then when someone brings up the scenario in which Jabba is replicated while he's still alive, we'll be back to the "one self looking through two sets of eyes" strawman.
__________________
"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, 12:43 PM   #203
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,073
Jabba, if you were to be exactly duplicated in a hospital, when you woke up, would you know that you are the original or the duplicate?
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2016, 12:52 PM   #204
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,313
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Are we really back to 2>1 again?
We're off in that direction again, yes. As always, look at where the discussion was before the abrupt subject change: P(E|H). Jabba just made up a number and assigned it an arbitrary precision and confidence interval. He knows he just made it up, and he knows his attempts at making it look rigorous don't fool anyone. And he knows it's one of the pillars of his argument -- if he can't make it seem like he wouldn't exist without a soul, then he can't prove "mathematically" that a soul exists. It's absolutely essential that he distract from this blatantly begged question.

So he's thrown another patio chair into the path of his critics as he flees. This discussion is simply his critics chasing him in a circle around his house, 70s cop-show fashion. We all just go in circles dodging the stuff he throws behind him.
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, 12:59 PM   #205
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 19,557
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?
That is merely semantics. Using pure logic, if you create a copy, it is not the original, no matter how perfect a copy it is.

But if I take away your computer and give you an exact replica, including an image of your hard-disk, would you say it was a different computer? If I didn't inform you of the swap, how could you find out?

Hans
__________________
Don't. Just don't.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2016, 01:25 PM   #206
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,313
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
That is merely semantics. Using pure logic, if you create a copy, it is not the original, no matter how perfect a copy it is.
And naturally Jabba wants his critics to just admit there'd be "two" of him without discussing those semantics. He's desperate for his "gotcha" moment.

Quote:
But if I take away your computer and give you an exact replica...
Then we're just back to Mt Ranier. Computers and mountains can be replicated without any problem because they don't have a soul. That's different than replicating people because people have souls. Or so Jabba attempts to defuse every such analogy.
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, 06:02 PM   #207
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 20,370
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?
Depends what you mean by "re-creating the same consciousness".
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 2nd October 2016, 06:19 PM   #208
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,313
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Depends what you mean by "re-creating the same consciousness".
That's his equivocal point. In the scientific world, consciousness and all other aspects of the self are emergent properties of the brain. There isn't some external bugaboo for which the brain merely serves as transcoder or symbiotic host. Not so in Jabba's world. He imagines that you can recreate the physical organism, but that there's some magical "thing" that wouldn't know which brain to tickle. Jabba claims -- with no evidence -- that all the properties of memory and observation are vested in this soul.

So any time the analogy is drawn, Jabba just says the analogy doesn't hold because the analogue doesn't have a soul. Therefore the soul exist.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2016, 06:57 PM   #209
Dabop
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Oz
Posts: 155
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
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.

I dont know if my responce to that sentence should be laughter, tears or a feeling of horror....

It certainly puts things in their proper perspective doesnt it?
Dabop 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 3rd October 2016, 05:57 AM   #210
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,181
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?
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.
Pixel,
- I'm not sure what you're saying, but, I think you're saying, "Yes."
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2016, 06:17 AM   #211
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,655
Jabba, remember the last time we had the "same self" conversation?
Originally Posted by Jabba
Originally Posted by godless dave
And the scientific explanation for that is that the memory and ability to observe are all done by a physical brain, and the identity - just like everything else's identity - just refers to which one it is.
We would have no idea how to do that because when you make a copy of something, you have two things, not one. This is true for everything in reality that we know of. I can't think of any case where we can follow the same steps twice and end up with one thing, not two.
The reason science has no explanation for such a phenomenon is because there is no evidence that phenomenon has ever happened. When you make a copy of something, the copy is always separate from the original, even if they are absolutely identical.
Why not? What would be the difference between the two observers? In what way would they be different from each other?
Dave,

- I finally see your point...

- Let's see if I can explain what I've been thinking.
- I've been thinking that science should be able to explain -- in biological, or chemical terms -- why the observers would not be the same observers (and not just absolutely identical). Now, I need to see if I can still make my case.
- I think I can -- but I do, all of a sudden, see one of your points...
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm
godless dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2016, 06:21 AM   #212
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 8,554
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Pixel,
- I'm not sure what you're saying, but, I think you're saying, "Yes."
Guess again.
__________________
"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 3rd October 2016, 06:36 AM   #213
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,313
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Pixel,
- I'm not sure what you're saying, but, I think you're saying, "Yes."
The groveling for agreement and the fairly blatant shoving of your words into other people's mouths as part of that groveling really gets old, Jabba. Your critics are lucky if they get two or three posts from you a day in the "2-3 hours" you say you have to devote to this forum. From now on it would be less insulting to your critics if you addressed their points rather than keep trying to pretend people agree with you.
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 3rd October 2016, 06:37 AM   #214
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,313
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Jabba, remember the last time we had the "same self" conversation?
Jabba's concessions are never meant to last.
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 3rd October 2016, 06:38 AM   #215
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 19,557
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Pixel,
- I'm not sure what you're saying, but, I think you're saying, "Yes."
Why do we shy back from this?

Yes, Jabba, if you make an identical copy of something, anything, it will not be the original, it will be the copy. While the two may be indistinguishable, they are two individual entities.

So what?

Hans
__________________
Don't. Just don't.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2016, 07:02 AM   #216
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,181
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?
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Are we really back to 2>1 again?
Dave,
- I guess so. I'm starting with a premise that I think we all agree upon. I just think that there are important implications attached to that premise -- i.e., the only way we could re-create me (according to toon, pixel, my science fiction story and modern science) is to travel back in time and run my film all over again...
- And, that being the case, there is no limited pool of potential selves that we came from -- each of us just "popped up," came from nowhere, was a "brand new" entity -- and any theoretical 'pool' of potential selves is infinite...
- This will take some discussion.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2016, 07:13 AM   #217
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,033
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
...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...
QFT
__________________
"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 3rd October 2016, 07:14 AM   #218
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,655
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I guess so. I'm starting with a premise that I think we all agree upon. I just think that there are important implications attached to that premise -- i.e., the only way we could re-create me (according to toon, pixel, my science fiction story and modern science) is to travel back in time and run my film all over again...
- And, that being the case, there is no limited pool of potential selves that we came from -- each of us just "popped up," came from nowhere, was a "brand new" entity -- and any theoretical 'pool' of potential selves is infinite...
There is no pool of selves at all. Science does not attempt to account for immaterial souls because there is no credible evidence they exist.

Selves don't come from nowhere, they come from the matter that makes up a physical brain. If you recreated a brain, you would have two brains, not one. For exactly the same reason, you would have two selves, not one.

I can imagine Superman flying. But wait! The scientific understanding of gravity does not account for people flying like Superman. Does that mean I should doubt the scientific understanding of gravity? No, because I've only encountered people flying like Superman in works of fiction. I don't expect science to account for phenomena that only occur in fiction. I don't expect science to account for souls for the same reason I don't expect science to account for people flying like Superman.
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm
godless dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2016, 07:14 AM   #219
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,073
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I guess so. I'm starting with a premise that I think we all agree upon. I just think that there are important implications attached to that premise -- i.e., the only way we could re-create me (according to toon, pixel, my science fiction story and modern science) is to travel back in time and run my film all over again...
- And, that being the case, there is no limited pool of potential selves that we came from -- each of us just "popped up," came from nowhere, was a "brand new" entity -- and any theoretical 'pool' of potential selves is infinite...
- This will take some discussion.

Is there a "pool" of potential blades of grass? A "pool" of potential stars?
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2016, 07:14 AM   #220
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,033
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Jabba's concessions are never meant to last.
Like Chinese food at a Texas High School football game...
__________________
"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 3rd October 2016, 07:16 AM   #221
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,313
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I'm starting with a premise that I think we all agree upon.
No. We don't agree that the "duplicated body" scenario poses any problem. You insist it does, but that's a problem with your hypothesis, not the scientific hypothesis.

Quote:
I just think that there are important implications attached to that premise...
There are, but they affect only your hypothesis, and only negatively.

Quote:
i.e., the only way we could re-create me (according to toon, pixel, my science fiction story and modern science) is to travel back in time and run my film all over again.
Equivocation. The scenario was originally a thought experiment to investigate how consciousness or the "self" would respond were it possible to make an exact duplicate or clone of you. It wasn't to investigate how such a thing might be done.

Do not attempt once again to conflate predictability with determinism. We went through this already several times. And you're still just re-committing the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

Quote:
And, that being the case, there is no limited pool of potential selves that we came from -- each of us just "popped up," came from nowhere, was a "brand new" entity -- and any theoretical 'pool' of potential selves is infinite...
Under the scientific hypothesis this is simply moot. The consciousness or self is simply an emergent property of the brain, and as such there are as many selves as there are brains. It's only under your hypothesis that this point even has relevance, since you're the one trying to argue that there is something separate from the body that creates consciousness or self and can't be shared.

Quote:
This will take some discussion.
You don't discuss. You ignore most of the discussion in favor of rambling over the same points over and over, and "forgetting" that you lost those points the last time we debated them.
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 3rd October 2016, 07:33 AM   #222
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 59,974
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- This will take some discussion.
How many years are we looking at?
__________________
"What is best in life?"
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2016, 07:48 AM   #223
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,057
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I guess so. I'm starting with a premise that I think we all agree upon. I just think that there are important implications attached to that premise -- i.e., the only way we could re-create me (according to toon, pixel, my science fiction story and modern science) is to travel back in time and run my film all over again...
- And, that being the case, there is no limited pool of potential selves that we came from -- each of us just "popped up," came from nowhere, was a "brand new" entity -- and any theoretical 'pool' of potential selves is infinite...
- This will take some discussion.
No.
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 3rd October 2016, 07:52 AM   #224
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,569
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I guess so. I'm starting with a premise that I think we all agree upon. I just think that there are important implications attached to that premise -- i.e., the only way we could re-create me (according to toon, pixel, my science fiction story and modern science) is to travel back in time and run my film all over again...
- And, that being the case, there is no limited pool of potential selves that we came from -- each of us just "popped up," came from nowhere, was a "brand new" entity -- and any theoretical 'pool' of potential selves is infinite...
- This will take some discussion.
Until you finally understand that science does not consider the "self" to be a separate entity, you're never going to get anywhere. We don't "pop up from nowhere", we are an emergent property of a functioning brain. Every experience you have contributes to your self from the moment you're born to the moment you die. And when you die, the brain stops and your "self" stops. You've been told this countless times, and you've ignored it every time and keep returning to this argument as though it had never been addressed. And you're going to ignore it again, because you know it completely stops your whole theory in its tracks.
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 3rd October 2016, 08:23 AM   #225
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,181
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
There is no pool of selves at all. Science does not attempt to account for immaterial souls because there is no credible evidence they exist...
Dave,
- There is something (perhaps an illusion) that we call the self. Whatever it is, that's what I'm talking about.
- And, OK. There is no pool of selves at all -- yet, these selves I'm talking about keep popping up. There must be no limitation on how many selves there could be.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2016, 08:26 AM   #226
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,033
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- There is something (perhaps an illusion) that we call the self. Whatever it is, that's what I'm talking about.
- And, OK. There is no pool of selves at all -- yet, these selves I'm talking about keep popping up. There must be no limitation on how many selves there could be.
Good Morning, Mr Savage!

That "something" to which you refer, above, is an emergent property of a functioning brain. I am sorry not to have pointed that out to you before.

I remain, patiently,

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 3rd October 2016, 08:31 AM   #227
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,655
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- There is something (perhaps an illusion) that we call the self. Whatever it is, that's what I'm talking about.
And the scientific hypothesis is that this self is activity of a living physical brain.

Some people postulate that the self is the brain in its entirety. Some postulate that it is localized to one part of the brain, the fronto-parietal cortex. It could be decades or centuries before we really understand it. But there is nothing suggesting that anything except the physical brain is involved.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- And, OK. There is no pool of selves at all -- yet, these selves I'm talking about keep popping up. There must be no limitation on how many selves there could be.
They keep popping up in exactly the same way that physical brains keep popping up. Is there a pool of brains?
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm
godless dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2016, 08:34 AM   #228
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 23,078
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
They keep popping up in exactly the same way that physical brains keep popping up. Is there a pool of brains?
Yes, Igor. It's in the brain depository. Make sure you don't pick an abnormal one.

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 3rd October 2016, 08:50 AM   #229
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,313
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
There is something (perhaps an illusion) that we call the self. Whatever it is, that's what I'm talking about.
But we're talking about two different explanations for that phenomenon. In the scientific hypothesis the self is an emergent property of a functioning brain. In your hypothesis it's separate from the organism, or requires elements that are separate from the organism.

The problem is that you can't keep those two explanations segregated properly in your argument. You correctly note that estimating P(E|~H) can be reasoned as if ~H were true, and therefore as if consciousness involved a separate entity. But then you incorrectly apply the limitations of that separation when thinking about P(E|H). You can't do that and still have a valid proof.

Under H, and therefore under everything that is contingent upon H, consciousness or the self may not be connected to anything other than the physical brain. Hypothetically, under H, if you duplicate the brain you duplicate the self and the duplicate self is identical to the first at the instant that occurs.
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 3rd October 2016, 09:00 AM   #230
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 59,974
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- There is something (perhaps an illusion) that we call the self. Whatever it is, that's what I'm talking about.
Ah, so you're talking about brain processes, then.
__________________
"What is best in life?"
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2016, 09:10 AM   #231
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,033
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Ah, so you're talking about brain processes, then.
And, finally, NOT a "soul"...
__________________
"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 3rd October 2016, 09:12 AM   #232
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,181
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
And the scientific hypothesis is that this self is activity of a living physical brain.

Some people postulate that the self is the brain in its entirety. Some postulate that it is localized to one part of the brain, the fronto-parietal cortex. It could be decades or centuries before we really understand it. But there is nothing suggesting that anything except the physical brain is involved...
Dave,
- No problem. According to modern science, whatever this thing is, it never existed before, it will never exist again and didn't have to exist in the first place. My claim is that such leads to the conclusion that there is no pool of potential selves, that I came from nowhere and that there is no limit on the number of selves possible.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2016, 09:16 AM   #233
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 59,974
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
According to modern science, whatever this thing is, it never existed before, it will never exist again and didn't have to exist in the first place.
How do you manage to be so consistently wrong in everything you post? The above is not true at all.
__________________
"What is best in life?"
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2016, 09:26 AM   #234
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,655
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- No problem. According to modern science, whatever this thing is, it never existed before, it will never exist again and didn't have to exist in the first place.
Exactly like your physical brain.


Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
My claim is that such leads to the conclusion that there is no pool of potential selves, that I came from nowhere and that there is no limit on the number of selves possible.
Did your brain come from nowhere?
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm
godless dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2016, 09:52 AM   #235
The Sparrow
Muse
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 792
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
..... that I came from nowhere and that there is no limit on the number of selves possible.
No, you came from a fertilized egg.

There is also no "limit" on the number of human left hands possible, other than bodies being conceived and born I guess. Is that what you mean?
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 3rd October 2016, 09:53 AM   #236
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,313
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
According to modern science, whatever this thing is...
No, science doesn't have to hide behind any sort of "whatever this thing is" equivocation. The scientific hypothesis is that the self, which is consciousness, is an emergent property of a functioning brain.

Quote:
it never existed before, it will never exist again and didn't have to exist in the first place.
"It" in the scientific hypothesis is a property of a thing. As such it doesn't and cannot exist without the thing. Just like the color of a car is a property of that car. If the car doesn't exist, it can't have a color. You're trying so very hard to make this more complicated than it is.

Quote:
My claim is that such leads to the conclusion that there is no pool of potential selves, that I came from nowhere and that there is no limit on the number of selves possible.
The scientific hypothesis does not claim you came from nowhere, nor does that follow from it. The organism that became you arose from your parents, in the customary progenitor fashion. As your brain developed, so therefore did your consciousness or sense of self -- not as a separate entity but as a property.

"Potential selves" has no meaning under the scientific hypothesis. The scientific hypothesis does not require it and therefore does not consider it. Your hypothesis involves the notion of a self that exists separately from the physical body. Dualism and all its attendant problems affect only your hypothesis.
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 3rd October 2016, 10:12 AM   #237
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,073
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- No problem. According to modern science, whatever this thing is, it never existed before, it will never exist again and didn't have to exist in the first place. My claim is that such leads to the conclusion that there is no pool of potential selves, that I came from nowhere and that there is no limit on the number of selves possible.

Your conclusion is unsupported by evidence.
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2016, 10:18 AM   #238
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 37,181
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- No problem. According to modern science, whatever this thing is, it never existed before, it will never exist again and didn't have to exist in the first place. My claim is that such leads to the conclusion that there is no pool of potential selves, that I came from nowhere and that there is no limit on the number of selves possible.
What do you understand the phrase "emergent property" to mean?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
zooterkin 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 3rd October 2016, 11:57 AM   #239
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,569
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- No problem. According to modern science, whatever this thing is, it never existed before, it will never exist again and didn't have to exist in the first place. My claim is that such leads to the conclusion that there is no pool of potential selves, that I came from nowhere and that there is no limit on the number of selves possible.
It's not a thing, it's a process that results from a thing working. When the thing stops working, the process stops. What happens to the running when the car's engine blows a gasket?
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 3rd October 2016, 12:53 PM   #240
The Sparrow
Muse
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 792
Originally Posted by jond View Post
It's not a thing, it's a process that results from a thing working. When the thing stops working, the process stops. What happens to the running when the car's engine blows a gasket?


What happens to the screen saver animation when you unplug the computer.

What happens to the breeze when you turn off a fan.

What happens to the flashing neon sign that says
"cold"......."beer"........."cold beer"......."cold"......
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
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:45 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.