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 5th October 2016, 08:23 AM   #281
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,093
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
For one thing, while the brain is made up of emergent properties...
No. That's not what "emergent property" means.

Quote:
...the brain is not an emergent property in itself (like Mt Rainier is not). But then, the self is.
The brain is an object. More appropriately, the brain is a collection of objects working in concert to compose a complex system. Objects and systems exhibit properties. A property is not necessarily an object. An emergent property is one that is vested in systems as opposed to individually in their components. You are drowning in equivocation here, Jabba. What's worse, this has all been explained to you before.

Quote:
For another thing, the brain was not created out of nowhere -- the self was.
An individual brain comes about according to the principles of vertebrate development. The self is a property of that brain. Because of how we understand the brain to work, the self is an emergent property of a functioning brain. It's not something that exists or can exist separately from it.

The scientific hypothesis no more difficult or mystical than that. Stop trying to muddy up the waters and then pin the mud on your critics.

Now if you want to prove that the self is something else, then that is your burden of proof. You don't get to prove it by circularly falsifying the scientific hypothesis. You can't say that because the scientific hypothesis doesn't explain the purported causations in your modek, science must therefore be wrong. That's the essence of circular argumentation.
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 5th October 2016, 08:34 AM   #282
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,538
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
No. That's not what "emergent property" means.



The brain is an object. More appropriately, the brain is a collection of objects working in concert to compose a complex system. Objects and systems exhibit properties. A property is not necessarily an object. An emergent property is one that is vested in systems as opposed to individually in their components. You are drowning in equivocation here, Jabba. What's worse, this has all been explained to you before.



An individual brain comes about according to the principles of vertebrate development. The self is a property of that brain. Because of how we understand the brain to work, the self is an emergent property of a functioning brain. It's not something that exists or can exist separately from it.

The scientific hypothesis no more difficult or mystical than that. Stop trying to muddy up the waters and then pin the mud on your critics.

Now if you want to prove that the self is something else, then that is your burden of proof. You don't get to prove it by circularly falsifying the scientific hypothesis. You can't say that because the scientific hypothesis doesn't explain the purported causations in your modek, science must therefore be wrong. That's the essence of circular argumentation.
Jabba, read this entire post. Then read it again until you understand 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 5th October 2016, 08:50 AM   #283
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 19,819
Just checking:

Do we have a null hypothesis (H) defined yet? Do we have an operational definition for Jabba's "existence" (E) yet? Have P(H|E) and P(~H|E) been recalculated in light of those definitions?
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group.

"He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost
jsfisher 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 5th October 2016, 08:52 AM   #284
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 19,979
And mountains are an emergent property of certain geological conditions. Does that mean they come out of nowhere?
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 5th October 2016, 08:53 AM   #285
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 58,998
Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
Just checking:

Do we have a null hypothesis (H) defined yet? Do we have an operational definition for Jabba's "existence" (E) yet? Have P(H|E) and P(~H|E) been recalculated in light of those definitions?
He'll be back.
__________________
"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 5th October 2016, 08:53 AM   #286
HighRiser
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: High above Indianapolis
Posts: 1,661
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- For one thing, while the brain is made up of emergent properties, the brain is not an emergent property in itself (like Mt Rainier is not). But then, the self is.
- For another thing, the brain was not created out of nowhere -- the self was.
The brain is meat. The mind is an emergent property of the functioning of the meat. Neither came from nowhere.
__________________
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 5th October 2016, 09:35 AM   #287
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,595
Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
Just checking:

Do we have a null hypothesis (H) defined yet? Do we have an operational definition for Jabba's "existence" (E) yet? Have P(H|E) and P(~H|E) been recalculated in light of those definitions?
H is the scientific model of consciousness and E is the existence of Jabba's body, until Jabba realizes the numbers don't work, in which case H is a model where souls are real but each soul is mortal and only exists once, and E is Jabba's soul, until we point out to Jabba that nobody here subscribes to such a model, and then we're back to H is the scientific model of consciousness and E is the existence of Jabba's body. Repeat.
__________________
"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; 5th October 2016 at 10:59 AM.
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 5th October 2016, 10:51 AM   #288
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 22,144
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- For one thing, while the brain is made up of emergent properties, the brain is not an emergent property in itself (like Mt Rainier is not). But then, the self is.
- For another thing, the brain was not created out of nowhere -- the self was.
Jabba -

I went offline for the Jewish holidays only to come back to four more pages of wrong.

First, the shape of Mt. Rainier is in fact an emergent property. The ongoing processes of geology, wind erosion, water cycles, underground biomass, plants and animals all working together create Mt. Rainier and change its shape every minute of every day.

Second, there is no difference between the brain and the self. The "self" changes every minute of every day as the chemistry, inputs, and memories of the brain and body change. Are you the same person you were 30 years ago? Do you look like him? Talk like him? Have the same memories? Care about the same people?

I, for example, am much different now that I'm a father. I'm less selfish, more irritable, and more caring. I consider Loss Leader of 20 years ago to be a jerk. He was terrible to women, exceptionally fond of alcohol, allergic to hard work, and I don't think he ever worried about anything. I am not the "self" that I was.

If you disagree, please offer a working definition of the self - something we can test for. Otherwise, your concept of an immaterial self should be abandoned. Frankly, I'm not sure what it has to do with your proof of immortality anyway.
__________________
- I haven't refused to answer it; I just haven't been able to answer it...
Jabba

Do not pretend I support your argument and do not PM me.
- Nick Terry
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th October 2016, 11:47 AM   #289
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 37,050
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
What do you understand the phrase "emergent property" to mean?
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- For one thing, while the brain is made up of emergent properties, the brain is not an emergent property in itself (like Mt Rainier is not). But then, the self is.
- For another thing, the brain was not created out of nowhere -- the self was.
You might want to revisit my question, you seem to be labouring under a misapprehension.
__________________
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 5th October 2016, 02:34 PM   #290
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,080
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- For one thing, while the brain is made up of emergent properties, the brain is not an emergent property in itself (like Mt Rainier is not). But then, the self is.
- For another thing, the brain was not created out of nowhere -- the self was.



The brain is a thing. Mount Rainier is a thing. Things have properties. This does not mean that they are "made up of" properties. Properties are not components. "White" is a property of snow, not something snow is made of. Mount Rainier is made up of rock, earth, water, etc., but its shape is a property, not something it is made of. When snow melts it no longer has a colour, because colour is a property of the snow. If Mount Rainier ceased to exist it would no longer have a shape, and when a brain ceases to function the consciousness which is a property of it ends.
__________________
"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 5th October 2016, 02:41 PM   #291
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,080
This idea that Jabba has suddenly adopted that things are composed of their properties looks like some sort of humoral theory of matter, in which, for example, snow might be composed of 'cold' and 'wet'. Like a throwback to the prescientific idea of the four elements.
__________________
"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 5th October 2016, 02:55 PM   #292
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,093
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
This idea that Jabba has suddenly adopted...
...is academically interesting but naturally problematic in his argument. He's trying to describe his understanding of the scientific hypothesis, especially in contrast to whatever blob of pseudo-philosophical goo he's spewing. But goo nothwithstanding, he commits the straw-man fallacy unless he gets his opponent's claim right. And he can't do it. He's flopping about, throwing out a semblance of philosophical nonsense that he wants to characterize as the scientific hypothesis, and he has every incentive not to get it right.
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 6th October 2016, 08:03 AM   #293
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,080
The concept he is now trying to foist on science is so distinctively prescientific that it is hard to see how he can have misunderstood in this way. It's also hard to see where he is trying to go with this, unless he's going to try to argue that if things are made up of their properties then their properties must be capable of existing independently, therefore souls. And he can only do that by ignoring all the responses to his last post. I expect he'll do it any time now.
__________________
"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 6th October 2016, 08:16 AM   #294
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,093
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
The concept he is now trying to foist on science is so distinctively prescientific that it is hard to see how he can have misunderstood in this way. It's also hard to see where he is trying to go with this...
He may not be going anywhere. For example, the "souls have no characteristics" argument was clearly intended to winch him out of the pitfall du jour, but after people pointed out to him its impossibility -- not the least of which its contradiction to earlier claims he made -- he abandoned it and won't entertain further discussion on it.

In other words, you perhaps err in thinking Jabba has a plan that goes beyond simply surviving to prolong the debate another day.
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 6th October 2016, 08:18 AM   #295
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 19,435
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post


The brain is a thing. Mount Rainier is a thing. Things have properties. This does not mean that they are "made up of" properties. Properties are not components. "White" is a property of snow, not something snow is made of. Mount Rainier is made up of rock, earth, water, etc., but its shape is a property, not something it is made of. When snow melts it no longer has a colour, because colour is a property of the snow. If Mount Rainier ceased to exist it would no longer have a shape, and when a brain ceases to function the consciousness which is a property of it ends.

Tough when you have to teach a dualist about qualia.


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 6th October 2016, 08:33 PM   #296
John Jones
Philosopher
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,929
So Jabba,
You haven't made a single successful point these last four years.

Is there some reason you keep posting here?

Last edited by John Jones; 6th October 2016 at 08:37 PM.
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th October 2016, 05:59 AM   #297
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,125
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- For one thing, while the brain is made up of emergent properties, the brain is not an emergent property in itself (like Mt Rainier is not). But then, the self is.
- For another thing, the brain was not created out of nowhere -- the self was.
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Why would that make a difference?
But the self wasn't created out of nowhere. A brain produced it. Everything about the self is determined by the brain.
Dave,

- Sorry for the extra tardiness, but I've been especially busy and what I'm currently trying to convey seems especially opaque(?).

- But anyway, emergence is like a unifying factor. It allows us to deal with the whole, rather than the sum of its parts. My claim is that Mt Rainier, and the physical brain, are just a bunch of parts thrown together, and consequently do not produce legitimate "targets." IOW, without that, their likelihoods are not appropriate as any P(E|H) in the Bayesian formula.

- Then, I'm claiming that the self IS a whole and does meet that particular P(E|H) requirement.

- From Wikipedia:
In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence is a process whereby larger entities arise through interactions among smaller or simpler entities such that the larger entities exhibit properties the smaller/simpler entities do not exhibit.
Emergence is central in theories of integrative levels and of complex systems. For instance, the phenomenon of life as studied in biology is an emergent property of chemistry and psychological phenomena emerge from the neurobiological phenomena of living things. Likewise, economic and legal phenomena emerge from psychology.
In philosophy, emergence typically refers to emergentism. Almost all accounts of emergentism include a form of epistemic or ontological irreducibility to the lower levels.[1]
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th October 2016, 06:04 AM   #298
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,595
That doesn't answer my question. The Wikipedia definition does not say emergent properties come out of 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 7th October 2016, 06:35 AM   #299
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,093
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
But anyway, emergence is like a unifying factor. It allows us to deal with the whole, rather than the sum of its parts.
No.

Emergence is something that can only be considered at the scale of the system. It is explicitly not something, say, common, congruent, or coherent among all the parts such that they are unified by or along its lines. Your concept of emergence is exactly the opposite of what emergence really is.

Quote:
My claim is that Mt Rainier, and the physical brain, are just a bunch of parts thrown together, and consequently do not produce legitimate "targets."
Your claim is wrong, at least as far as the scientific hypothesis goes. "Thrown together" may be your disparaging attitude toward complex genesis, but it aptly describes systems from which properties emerge.

Quote:
IOW, without that, their likelihoods are not appropriate as any P(E|H) in the Bayesian formula.
Begging the question. You just "claimed" something that magically makes your theory hold. You're assuming what you set out to prove.

Quote:
Then, I'm claiming that the self IS a whole and does meet that particular P(E|H) requirement.
No. You're just "claiming" the proposition you desperately want to be true so your numbers work out in your favor. In the scientific model the self is an emergent property of the organism. Nothing else. Don't try to foist your homemade definitions on your critics. They will tell you what their proposition is.

Quote:
From Wikipedia:
How on Earth did you think any of that supported your half-baked straw man?
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 7th October 2016, 06:37 AM   #300
The Sparrow
Muse
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 769
Quote:
- But anyway, emergence is like a unifying factor. It allows us to deal with the whole, rather than the sum of its parts. My claim is that Mt Rainier, and the physical brain, are just a bunch of parts thrown together, and consequently do not produce legitimate "targets." IOW, without that, their likelihoods are not appropriate as any P(E|H) in the Bayesian formula.

- Then, I'm claiming that the self IS a whole and does meet that particular P(E|H) requirement.
Why. Why are you claiming the self is different and meets your qualification but they physical brain or mount rainer does not.

you are special pleading for they 'self' to be something special.
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 7th October 2016, 06:44 AM   #301
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,093
Originally Posted by The Sparrow View Post
you are special pleading for they 'self' to be something special.
Special pleading is the only approach Jabba has ever taken to any analogy, especially to a complex system like geological formation. The analogy doesn't hold because he "claims" otherwise.

Under H the self is not a "whole." Under his presumption of an immortal soul it may be, but under the scientific hypothesis self is to organism as white is to snow, or as conical is to mountain. It appears Jabba lacks the capacity for abstract thought that would allow him to consider the self as anything other than an object of some sort.
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 7th October 2016, 06:45 AM   #302
sackett
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 4,820
Jabba: When you begin with "anyway," that's a giveaway that you're going to disregard everything that's gone before and start all over with the same old unsupported assertions.

Betcha didn't realize that, now didja?

Don't ever try to play poker.
__________________
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 7th October 2016, 06:46 AM   #303
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,125
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
That doesn't answer my question. The Wikipedia definition does not say emergent properties come out of nowhere.
Dave,
- The question I was trying to answer was, "Why would that make a difference?"
- Did I not answer that question?
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th October 2016, 06:59 AM   #304
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,595
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- The question I was trying to answer was, "Why would that make a difference?"
- Did I not answer that question?
You did not.
__________________
"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 7th October 2016, 07:05 AM   #305
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,093
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Did I not answer that question?
Not at all. You spewed a bunch of pseudo-philosophical nonsense, the effect of which was to answer "Because I say so."

Keep in mind that you're discussing H. That is, you're discussing the hypothesis you say your critics hold, should hold, or must hold. Despite your clear desire to make H seem as improbable as possible, you still have the obligation to get H right such that your critics agree it's what the scientific hypothesis is. You don't get to short-circuit a debate to victory by attacking a straw man.
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 7th October 2016, 07:52 AM   #306
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,080
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
My claim is that Mt Rainier, and the physical brain, are just a bunch of parts thrown together, and consequently do not produce legitimate "targets." IOW, without that, their likelihoods are not appropriate as any P(E|H) in the Bayesian formula.

If the brain is not a legitimate target, then neither is the "self", because the self is just a property of the brain, not a thing with an independent existence.

You wouldn't be trying to beg the question again, would you?*



*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

Last edited by Mojo; 7th October 2016 at 07:55 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 7th October 2016, 08:18 AM   #307
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,093
Jabba wants very much for the self to have independence, even under H. When his critics tell him that under H (the scientific hypothesis for the self) the self is an emergent property of the organism (i.e., the brain), then Jabba's only recourse to justify his wildly fanciful guess for P(E|H) is to redefine "emergent property" to mean something that fits his preconception, regardless of whether it really is the scientific hypothesis. Jabba has the audacity to tell his critics essentially, "No, this is what you must really 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 7th October 2016, 09:16 AM   #308
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 6,415
I'm not sure how many ways there are left to simply restate.

X exists.
X exists because of Property Y.
X is defined as having Property Y.
If you say X I'll assume you mean X plus Y and refuse to believe otherwise.
20 GOTO 10.
__________________
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 7th October 2016, 09:21 AM   #309
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,093
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
20 GOTO 10.
This must be why Jabba claims he has achieved a stalemate.
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 7th October 2016, 09:38 AM   #310
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,595
Consider a match. A strike-anywhere match, for the sake of simplicity (you can still buy these).

A match has no flame. None of the components that make up the match are on fire.

Strike it, and a flame appears where there was no flame before. Where did it come from?

It burns down, and the flame disappears. Where did it go?

Take out an identical match. Strike it. A flame appears. Is it the same flame?
__________________
"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 7th October 2016, 10:49 AM   #311
John Jones
Philosopher
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,929
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
This must be why Jabba claims he has achieved a stalemate.
Did he really claim to achieve a stalemate?


Jabba, did you really claim that? Do you know what a stalemate means?
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 7th October 2016, 11:37 AM   #312
The Sparrow
Muse
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 769
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
Did he really claim to achieve a stalemate?


Jabba, did you really claim that? Do you know what a stalemate means?
It means he gets to tell himself, his religious friends, his blog etc that the most hardcore skeptics could not counter his arguments, therefore he is immortal.
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 7th October 2016, 12:03 PM   #313
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,093
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
Did he really claim to achieve a stalemate?
Yep
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 7th October 2016, 12:08 PM   #314
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,093
Originally Posted by The Sparrow View Post
It means he gets to tell himself, his religious friends, his blog etc that the most hardcore skeptics could not counter his arguments...
And from his perspective that's true, albeit with his fingers firmly jammed in his ears.

He may have meant his "stalemate" claim to apply only to him and godless dave, and only on the point of Mt. Ranier. But even in that context it's still laughably untrue. Jabba's one and only counter to godless-dave's analogy has been to insist that selves must somehow be magically different. It's no stalemate. When your argument blatantly begs the question, you've lost whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.
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 7th October 2016, 02:54 PM   #315
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 37,050
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
Do you know what a stalemate means?
I think it's an emergent property of this thread.
__________________
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 8th October 2016, 05:45 AM   #316
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,125
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Sorry for the extra tardiness, but I've been especially busy and what I'm currently trying to convey seems especially opaque(?).
1) - But anyway, emergence is like a unifying factor. It allows us to deal with the whole, rather than the sum of its parts. My claim is that Mt Rainier, and the physical brain, are just a bunch of parts thrown together, and consequently do not produce legitimate "targets." IOW, without that, their likelihoods are not appropriate as any P(E|H) in the Bayesian formula.
1) - Then, I'm claiming that the self IS a whole and does meet that particular P(E|H) requirement.
- From Wikipedia:
In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence is a process whereby larger entities arise through interactions among smaller or simpler entities such that the larger entities exhibit properties the smaller/simpler entities do not exhibit.
Emergence is central in theories of integrative levels and of complex systems. For instance, the phenomenon of life as studied in biology is an emergent property of chemistry and psychological phenomena emerge from the neurobiological phenomena of living things. Likewise, economic and legal phenomena emerge from psychology.
In philosophy, emergence typically refers to emergentism. Almost all accounts of emergentism include a form of epistemic or ontological irreducibility to the lower levels.[1]
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
That doesn't answer my question. The Wikipedia definition does not say emergent properties come out of nowhere.
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- The question I was trying to answer was, "Why would that make a difference?"
- Did I not answer that question?
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
You did not.
Dave,
- I'm claiming that by 'unifying' the parts, an emergent property creates a "whole," and thereby avoids being just a bunch of pieces thrown together and not, therefore, a legitimate E in the Bayesian P(E|H).
- That was my last claim re Mt Ranier. And, that's how (I claim that) being an emergent property makes a difference.

- I'm don't mean to say that being such a 'unit,' by itself, makes the current existence of my self a valid E in the formula -- I'm just saying that it's one of the necessary conditions.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th October 2016, 05:57 AM   #317
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 37,050
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I'm claiming that by 'unifying' the parts, an emergent property creates a "whole," and thereby avoids being just a bunch of pieces thrown together and not, therefore, a legitimate E in the Bayesian P(E|H).
- That was my last claim re Mt Ranier. And, that's how (I claim that) being an emergent property makes a difference.

- I'm don't mean to say that being such a 'unit,' by itself, makes the current existence of my self a valid E in the formula -- I'm just saying that it's one of the necessary conditions.
I'll repeat, what do you understand "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 8th October 2016, 06:15 AM   #318
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,080
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I'm claiming that by 'unifying' the parts, an emergent property creates a "whole," and thereby avoids being just a bunch of pieces thrown together and not, therefore, a legitimate E in the Bayesian P(E|H).

Nope. The "whole" creates the emergent property.
__________________
"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 8th October 2016, 06:29 AM   #319
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,125
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
That doesn't answer my question. The Wikipedia definition does not say emergent properties come out of nowhere.
Dave,
- I think that it does (in a sense), but I'm just saying that according to the scientific model, my self comes out of nowhere. Science would say that there is no pool of potential selves, and reproducing the exact chemistry would produce a copy of me, but not Me. Where in the hell did I come from? Nowhere!
- I was created. But, I wasn't created by any God. Each new consciousness just brings with it a brand new self.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th October 2016, 06:42 AM   #320
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,080
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I think that it does (in a sense), but I'm just saying that according to the scientific model, my self comes out of nowhere.

You're wrong.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:52 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.