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 March 2017, 01:30 AM   #201
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,637
Originally Posted by Toontown View Post
I was still editing the post when you posted. The finished version is a little different from your quote.

"The probability that I exist is 1" is either a red herring or a non-sequitur, in terms of the formula, depending on the intent of the claimant.

The probability that any observed evidence exists is always 1. Even if the evidence takes the form of the absence of something, the absence of that something exists.

If the hypothesis that Jabba's consciousness is what his brain is doing is correct, what is the probability that Jabba's consciousness exists once he has a functioning brain?
__________________
"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 March 2017 at 01:33 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 March 2017, 03:52 AM   #202
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,195
This series of threads must be the most patient act of trolling in history.
__________________
"The presidentís voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesnít exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba 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 March 2017, 06:18 AM   #203
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,590
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Where I differ with many of you is that I'm willing to call a working brain a conscious thing. That doesn't help Jabba's math though.
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- But each brain has a different consciousness, its own consciousness -- that it does not share with any other brain, that never existed before the existence of this brain, and will never exist after the existence of this brain.
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Yes, because each brain is a different brain, that is not connected to any other brain, that never existed before and will never exist again after it dies.
- But, each brain has a particular consciousness, self awareness, 'identity' (whether thing or process) somehow attached to it that keeps coming back each time the brain wakes up, but, would not come back after death of the brain -- even if we were able to duplicate the brain itself.
- That's the thing or process to which I'm referring -- and, I think, it's the same thing or process to which you're referring.
- Whatever, it is the thing or process to which my math is referring. And, since this specific thing or process cannot be reproduced but there is no limit on the number of duplicate brains produceable (like Volkswagons), there should be no limit on the number of different examples of this thing or process.
__________________
"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 2nd March 2017, 06:20 AM   #204
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,778
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- But, each brain has a particular consciousness, self awareness, 'identity' (whether thing or process) somehow attached to it that keeps coming back each time the brain wakes up, but, would not come back after death of the brain -- even if we were able to duplicate the brain itself.
- That's the thing or process to which I'm referring -- and, I think, it's the same thing or process to which you're referring.
- Whatever, it is the thing or process to which my math is referring. And, since this specific thing or process cannot be reproduced but there is no limit on the number of duplicate brains produceable (like Volkswagons), there should be no limit on the number of different examples of this thing or process.
Generates, not has. Big difference, and one which you continually ignore.
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 March 2017, 06:49 AM   #205
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,524
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- But, each brain has a particular consciousness, self awareness, 'identity' (whether thing or process) somehow attached to it that keeps coming back each time the brain wakes up, but, would not come back after death of the brain -- even if we were able to duplicate the brain itself.
- That's the thing or process to which I'm referring -- and, I think, it's the same thing or process to which you're referring.
- Whatever, it is the thing or process to which my math is referring. And, since this specific thing or process cannot be reproduced but there is no limit on the number of duplicate brains produceable (like Volkswagons), there should be no limit on the number of different examples of this thing or process.
Dealt with before. Go back and read all the posts and threads that came before this one.
__________________
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 2nd March 2017, 06:54 AM   #206
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,848
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- But, each brain has a particular consciousness, self awareness, 'identity' (whether thing or process) somehow attached to it that keeps coming back each time the brain wakes up, but, would not come back after death of the brain -- even if we were able to duplicate the brain itself.
So what? Each particular brain is a separate brain. Each particular brain is conscious.

Quote:
- That's the thing or process to which I'm referring -- and, I think, it's the same thing or process to which you're referring.
- Whatever, it is the thing or process to which my math is referring. And, since this specific thing or process cannot be reproduced but there is no limit on the number of duplicate brains produceable (like Volkswagons), there should be no limit on the number of different examples of this thing or process.
As we've discussed repeatedly, a duplicate brain would also be conscious in exactly the same way as the original. The fact that we could hypothetically have an infinite number of duplicate consciousness is no more significant than the fact that we could hypothetically have an infinite number of duplicate brains, or an infinite number of duplicate Volkswagens. Each Volkswagen would have its own particular engine noise. So what?
__________________
"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 2nd March 2017, 07:50 AM   #207
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 22,789
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Whatever, it is the thing or process to which my math is referring. And, since this specific thing or process cannot be reproduced but there is no limit on the number of duplicate brains produceable (like Volkswagons), there should be no limit on the number of different examples of this thing or process.

Leaving aside the fact that you're still trying to conflate "process" and "thing" despite ignoring necessary questions on the subject:

There Is A Limit.

The limit may be very high. It may change over time. There are only so many people the planet can sustain. There are only so many ways genes can mix. There is only so much time before the heat death of the universe.

Even if no two DNA strands are ever the same, there will never be an infinite number of people, let alone possible people. You cannot count to infinity.

The chance that the person typing was the person being born will always be some non-zero number. And that gives you a very small fraction - but not so small as to be zero. And without zero, your equation is meaningless.

But you knew that. You've had it explained for over four years. Your insistence on rehashing it is very rude to those who have posted before. Instead, go back an reread your own thread.
__________________
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 March 2017, 07:50 AM   #208
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,267
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- But, each brain has a particular consciousness...
A process is not particular. Look up what "particular" means.

Quote:
-- even if we were able to duplicate the brain itself.
A brain is particular because it is a thing. A well formed brain, like all well formed brains, exhibits consciousness as a property. The property is not divisible or enumerable. It does not somehow exist in discrete quantities aside from the nouns that manifest it.

Quote:
That's the thing or process to which I'm referring --
Things and processes differ according to whether they can be particular. A speeding car is a particular car. Speeding is not particular. Speeding does not exist separately in any countable way from things that speed.

Quote:
...and, I think, it's the same thing or process to which you're referring.
No, it isn't. You have spent years trying to foist the notion that it is. Listen to your critics instead of frantically cramming words in their mouths. You don't get to dictate what the scientific hypothesis is.

Quote:
Whatever, it is the thing or process to which my math is referring.
Then your math does not accurately describe the scientific hypothesis, for this reason and also the other reasons godless dave mentions. And as such, it does not pertain to P(H|E).

Quote:
...there should be no limit on the number of different examples of this thing or process.
There is no essential limit on the detailed ways the process can actually operate in organisms that actually, physically arise. That doesn't mean there is an "infinite number of potential" examples that has any meaning in a statistical model. Nor does it mean anything you compute by such a model has the slightest to do with the likelihood that some individual may arise.

This has been explained to you countless times. Your recent confession to having deliberately ignored most or all of that explanation does not relieve you of the responsibility to answer it.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2017, 08:09 AM   #209
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,234
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- But, each brain has a particular consciousness, self awareness, 'identity' (whether thing or process) somehow attached to it that keeps coming back each time the brain wakes up, but, would not come back after death of the brain -- even if we were able to duplicate the brain itself.
- That's the thing or process to which I'm referring -- and, I think, it's the same thing or process to which you're referring.
- Whatever, it is the thing or process to which my math is referring. And, since this specific thing or process cannot be reproduced but there is no limit on the number of duplicate brains produceable (like Volkswagons), there should be no limit on the number of different examples of this thing or process.

There is no "or". Consciousness, self awareness, and identity aren't things. You are simply wrong. Get rid of the notion completely, remove it from your argument, and you will be halfway there.
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2017, 09:59 AM   #210
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,590
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
So what? Each particular brain is a separate brain. Each particular brain is conscious.



As we've discussed repeatedly, a duplicate brain would also be conscious in exactly the same way as the original. The fact that we could hypothetically have an infinite number of duplicate consciousness is no more significant than the fact that we could hypothetically have an infinite number of duplicate brains, or an infinite number of duplicate Volkswagens. Each Volkswagen would have its own particular engine noise. So what?
Dave,

- It sounds like you accept that there is an infinite number of different potential self-awarenesses (including only human self-awarenesses)...

- If there is, the likelihood of the current existence of your particular self-awareness is 7 billion (there being about 7 billion humans currently existing) over infinity -- or, virtually zero.
__________________
"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 2nd March 2017, 10:03 AM   #211
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,848
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,

- It sounds like you accept that there is an infinite number of different potential self-awarenesses (including only human self-awarenesses)...
In exactly the same way there are an infinite number of different potential brains, for exactly the same reasons.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- If there is, the likelihood of the current existence of your particular self-awareness is 7 billion (there being about 7 billion humans currently existing) over infinity -- or, virtually zero.
Why? What does the number of potential self-awarenesses over all time have to do with the likelihood of my self-awareness existing?
__________________
"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 2nd March 2017, 10:05 AM   #212
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,267
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
It sounds like you accept...
Groveling for agreement. Nothing new here. Befuddled Old Man failed to convince your critics that you had a change of heart, so back to the same old rhetorical stunts.

Quote:
If there is, the likelihood of the current existence of your particular self-awareness is 7 billion (there being about 7 billion humans currently existing) over infinity -- or, virtually zero.
No. And whatever godless dave may parse differently than the rest of us, this part of the argument he has clearly and fully repudiated. He has told you on numerous occasions that this math has nothing to do with the actual likelihood that a person exists. And we have told you the same thing. Further, this part of the argument has been entirely refuted by reductio ad absurdum many times. Oh, but you don't read those posts, so I guess they just magically don't 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 March 2017, 10:07 AM   #213
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,267
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
In exactly the same way there are an infinite number of different potential brains, for exactly the same reasons.
Or bananas. Don't forget the bananas. Oh right -- bananas don't have a soul, so this math doesn't work on 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 2nd March 2017, 10:11 AM   #214
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,848
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Or bananas. Don't forget the bananas. Oh right -- bananas don't have a soul, so this math doesn't work on them.
Also Volkswagens and literally everything else in existence.

The last time we got to this point Jabba claimed this:

Originally Posted by Jabba
I think that I finally have a satisfactory answer for the Mt Rainier, Texas Sharp Shooter, bucket of sand issue. The simple answer is that we have no real reason to doubt their scientific explanations -- whereas, we do have real reasons to doubt the scientific explanation for my existence.
I asked him what those "real reasons" are here but he never answered.
__________________
"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 2nd March 2017, 10:12 AM   #215
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 21,090
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Groveling for agreement. Nothing new here. Befuddled Old Man failed to convince your critics that you had a change of heart, so back to the same old rhetorical stunts.
Stunt Rhetors is the name of my TMBG cover band.
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 March 2017, 10:34 AM   #216
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,267
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
I asked him what those "real reasons" are here but he never answered.
I recall he did, but the answer just begged again the question of a soul. There is reason, according to him, to doubt the scientific explanation of his sense of self because he just feels in his heart that he has a consciousness that's just too marvelous than anything science could explain. In other words, the same old woo-woo notion that science -- being based on careful observation and testing -- is therefore too staid and regimented to grasp what people of extraordinary intuition can fathom. I'll bet it won't be too long before Jabba tries once more to shame people away from rightly asking for evidence by claiming he's a more "holistic" thinker than they.
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 March 2017, 12:04 PM   #217
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,590
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,

- It sounds like you accept that there is an infinite number of different potential self-awarenesses (including only human self-awarenesses)...

- If there is, the likelihood of the current existence of your particular self-awareness is 7 billion (there being about 7 billion humans currently existing) over infinity -- or, virtually zero.
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
...
Why? What does the number of potential self-awarenesses over all time have to do with the likelihood of my self-awareness existing?
Dave,
- I'm still claiming that you and I are analogous to two of the 7 billion lottery winners chosen from an infinity of lottery tickets. Our chances were virtually zero.
__________________
"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 2nd March 2017, 12:05 PM   #218
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,848
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I'm still claiming that you and I are analogous to two of the 7 billion lottery winners chosen from an infinity of lottery tickets. Our chances were virtually zero.
Why are you claiming that?
__________________
"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 2nd March 2017, 12:08 PM   #219
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,637
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Why are you claiming that?

Because his 'proof' relies on it.
__________________
"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 March 2017, 12:11 PM   #220
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,637
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I'm still claiming that you and I are analogous to two of the 7 billion lottery winners chosen from an infinity of lottery tickets. Our chances were virtually zero.

I'll ask Jabba this question.

Jabba, if the hypothesis that your consciousness is what your brain is doing is correct, what is the likelihood that, once it exists, your brain produces your consciousness?
__________________
"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 March 2017, 01:23 PM   #221
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,267
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I'm still claiming that you and I are analogous to two of the 7 billion lottery winners chosen from an infinity of lottery tickets. Our chances were virtually zero.
No. How many ways must both godless dave and everyone else explain to you why the scientific hypothesis for consciousness is not like a lottery. You can postulate that an "infinite number" of "potential" anythings might exist, but that abstract handwaving has absolutely nothing to do with the actual likelihood of something coming into existence in a particular way. You're not reading the important parts of godless dave's posts. You're just cherry-picking away whatever word or phrase you can spin to seem like agreement.

And no, 7 billion divided by infinity is not "virtually" zero. If it's anything, it is zero.
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 March 2017, 01:24 PM   #222
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,267
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Because his 'proof' relies on it.
The proof, we'll remind ourselves, stemming from angsty belief in a soul coupled with massive logical flaws, enabled by a model Jabba admits he doesn't understand, refuted dozens if not hundreds of times over by thousands of posts Jabba admits he will not read.
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 March 2017, 01:38 PM   #223
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,524
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I'm still claiming that you and I are analogous to two of the 7 billion lottery winners chosen from an infinity of lottery tickets. Our chances were virtually zero.
Jabba, go back and read the posts in the multiple threads.
__________________
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 2nd March 2017, 01:40 PM   #224
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,778
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
I'll ask Jabba this question.

Jabba, if the hypothesis that your consciousness is what your brain is doing is correct, what is the likelihood that, once it exists, your brain produces your consciousness?
Yeah, I tried asking that question (or at least a variation on the theme) once or twice and shockingly it was ignored.
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 March 2017, 03:21 PM   #225
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,405
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- But, each brain has a particular consciousness, self awareness, 'identity' (whether thing or process) somehow attached to it that keeps coming back each time the brain wakes up, but, would not come back after death of the brain -- even if we were able to duplicate the brain itself.
- That's the thing or process to which I'm referring -- and, I think, it's the same thing or process to which you're referring.
- Whatever, it is the thing or process to which my math is referring. And, since this specific thing or process cannot be reproduced but there is no limit on the number of duplicate brains produceable (like Volkswagons), there should be no limit on the number of different examples of this thing or process.
Please demonstrate that it is a 'particular consciousness', you assume that but haven't shown it to be true.

Are you really having the same 'particular consciousness' when you are sleepy or drunk?
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David 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 March 2017, 03:45 PM   #226
The Sparrow
Muse
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 898
Jabba, how many "going 60 mph" are there?
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 2nd March 2017, 08:23 PM   #227
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 22,789
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I'm still claiming that you and I are analogous to two of the 7 billion lottery winners chosen from an infinity of lottery tickets. Our chances were virtually zero.

And you're still wrong. And you've still learned nothing. And you still come back. And you still ignore the thousands of posts explaining it to you in as rude a manner as I have ever seen.

Why should any post from anyone say anything other than, "Go back an read your own thread"?
__________________
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 March 2017, 09:55 PM   #228
Toontown
Philosopher
 
Toontown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,827
Originally Posted by Toontown View Post
I was still editing the post when you posted. The finished version is a little different from your quote.

"The probability that I exist is 1" is either a red herring or a non-sequitur, in terms of the formula, depending on the intent of the claimant.

The probability that any observed evidence exists is always 1. Even if the evidence takes the form of the absence of something, the absence of that something exists.
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
If the hypothesis that Jabba's consciousness is what his brain is doing is correct, what is the probability that Jabba's consciousness exists once he has a functioning brain?
Read what you quoted.

What is the probability that Jabba's consciousness is part of the universe?
__________________
"I did not say that!" - Donald Trump

Last edited by Toontown; 2nd March 2017 at 10:32 PM.
Toontown 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 March 2017, 11:25 PM   #229
Toontown
Philosopher
 
Toontown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,827
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Or bananas. Don't forget the bananas. Oh right -- bananas don't have a soul, so this math doesn't work on them.
Souls have nothing to do with it. A banana simply lacks the ability to recognize the ridiculously unlikely coincidence of it's particular existence.

And you are correct about one thing. The formula really cannot apply to a banana, for the simple reason that a banana cannot use the formula, and the formula only applies to the user.

And, for much the same reason, the formula cannot apply to you, because you are not using it. Nor can you correctly use the formula on Jabba, because the formula does not apply to anyone other than the user.

Nor can the formula be used to convince you that Jabba has a soul.

Nor can the formula be used to prove or disprove the science. The formula can only be correctly applied to some interpretation of some implication of the science.

So, bottom line, everything you've all been doing with the formula for the past 4 years is stuff the formula does not even apply to.

Which makes all of you "not even wrong". You've all been not even wrong all along. Which has been my contention pretty much from day 1. And I, like every other one of you, am not backing off. I am as stubborn a bastard as any of you. But not as fixatedly stubborn as some.

I will continue to intermittently troll this thread until hell freezes over.
__________________
"I did not say that!" - Donald Trump

Last edited by Toontown; 2nd March 2017 at 11:59 PM.
Toontown 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 March 2017, 07:24 AM   #230
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,590
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Why are you claiming that?
Dave,

- For whatever reason(s), it seems to me obvious that the existence of our "particular self-awarenesses" is analogous to us winning the lottery; it's hard for me to understand why that isn't obvious to you or our colleagues; and for that reason, I have trouble explaining why I think that we're analogous to lottery winners...
- My best guess at this point is that you see the lottery as simple chance, and our existence as clearly due to cause and effect (in fact, I'm beginning to think that you already told me that...), whereas and whatever, I suspect that they are both the result of cause & effect, but that in neither case is the cause & effect traceable -- and consequently, chance is reasonably applied to both.
- I claim that while our particular characteristics are largely traceable to cause and effect, this process that I'm calling our particular self-awareness is not at all traceable to cause and effect -- we cannot reproduce it chemically -- and our particular processes, scientifically speaking, can never exist again.
__________________
"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

Last edited by Jabba; 3rd March 2017 at 07:27 AM.
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2017, 07:34 AM   #231
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,778
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,

- For whatever reason(s), it seems to me obvious that the existence of our "particular self-awarenesses" is analogous to us winning the lottery; it's hard for me to understand why that isn't obvious to you or our colleagues; and for that reason, I have trouble explaining why I think that we're analogous to lottery winners...
- My best guess at this point is that you see the lottery as simple chance, and our existence as clearly due to cause and effect (in fact, I'm beginning to think that you already told me that...), whereas and whatever, I suspect that they are both the result of cause & effect, but that in neither case is the cause & effect traceable -- and consequently, chance is reasonably applied to both.
- I claim that while our particular characteristics are largely traceable to cause and effect, this process that I'm calling our particular self-awareness is not at all traceable to cause and effect -- we cannot reproduce it chemically -- and our particular processes, scientifically speaking, can never exist again.
Maybe it would be a good idea to actually read the responses you get?
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 March 2017, 07:38 AM   #232
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,848
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,

- For whatever reason(s), it seems to me obvious that the existence of our "particular self-awarenesses" is analogous to us winning the lottery; it's hard for me to understand why that isn't obvious to you or our colleagues; and for that reason, I have trouble explaining why I think that we're analogous to lottery winners...
- My best guess at this point is that you see the lottery as simple chance, and our existence as clearly due to cause and effect (in fact, I'm beginning to think that you already told me that...),
Several times.


Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
whereas and whatever, I suspect that they are both the result of cause & effect, but that in neither case is the cause & effect traceable -- and consequently, chance is reasonably applied to both.
- I claim that while our particular characteristics are largely traceable to cause and effect, this process that I'm calling our particular self-awareness is not at all traceable to cause and effect -- we cannot reproduce it chemically -- and our particular processes, scientifically speaking, can never exist again.
In scientific models for consciousness, it is exactly as traceable as the cause and effect that led to a particular brain existing, because they are the same thing. My particular brain can never exist again. If you somehow made an exact copy of my brain, It would exhibit an exact copy of my consciousness.
__________________
"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 March 2017, 07:45 AM   #233
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,267
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
For whatever reason(s), it seems to me obvious that the existence of our "particular self-awarenesses" is analogous to us winning the lottery; it's hard for me to understand why that isn't obvious to you or our colleagues;
Begging the question. If you find it hard to understand how someone can disagree with your foist, it can only be because you admit to not having read their posts. Unlike you, who cannot articulate good reasoning for your belief, your critics have been clear and cogent in explaining just exactly in what way the scientific hypothesis of life is unlike a lottery. They are not obliged to repeat themselves endlessly in the face of your slothful denial.

Quote:
My best guess at this point is that you see...
Why are you guessing? Don't put words in your critics' mouths. They have put thousands upon thousands of words from their own mouths at your disposal to explain themselves. And yet you seem to think it's almost a point in your favor that you have ignored them. Go back and read these threads in their entirety, paying special attention to the parts that discuss the failure of the lottery analogy. Don't just "guess" at what you wish your critics' rebuttals to have been.

Quote:
I claim that while our particular characteristics are largely traceable to cause and effect, this process that I'm calling our particular self-awareness is not at all traceable to cause and effect -- we cannot reproduce it chemically
You can "claim" anything you want, but in this case, in the sense of the scientific hypothesis, you are just plain wrong. You don't get to pretend that the scientific hypothesis must be wrong because it cannot produce what, in your wild imagination, you suppose that consciousness ought to be under that theory. If you are going to falsify the scientific hypothesis, you must falsify what it actually is, not some handwaving 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 3rd March 2017, 07:46 AM   #234
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 14,928
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,

- For whatever reason(s), it seems to me obvious that the existence of our "particular self-awarenesses" is analogous to us winning the lottery; it's hard for me to understand why that isn't obvious to you or our colleagues; and for that reason, I have trouble explaining why I think that we're analogous to lottery winners...
Seriously Jabba, it is your analogy. It cannot be a good analogy if nobody else gets it and when asked for an explanation, you cannot provide one beyond "I believe it is".

Can you not see the problem? You have no clue how your own analogy works.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- My best guess at this point is that you see the lottery as simple chance,
Because it is. Disagree? What do you think it is?

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
and our existence as clearly due to cause and effect (in fact, I'm beginning to think that you already told me that...),
You might be able to figure that out if you read your own threads.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
whereas and whatever, I suspect that they are both the result of cause & effect, but that in neither case is the cause & effect traceable -- and consequently, chance is reasonably applied to both.
Actually, cause, effect and chance all apply at the same time.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I claim that while our particular characteristics are largely traceable to cause and effect, this process that I'm calling our particular self-awareness is not at all traceable to cause and effect
All three apply. If, by chance, you had been born a muslim in a muslim country, you would be a muslim. You already agreed to that.

In that case you would not be the same person that you are today even though the hardware would be the same. The software i.e the process, would be different due to pure chance.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
-- we cannot reproduce it chemically -- and our particular processes, scientifically speaking, can never exist again.
We cannot reproduce many things. That's a limit of available technology and/or relevant knowledge. We cannot say with absolute certainty why exactly the Egyptians just up and decided to build pyramids for thousands of years. What you are claiming is tantamount to stating that when you switch off your computer, the Microsoft Word process from your computer discarnates and wanders the world in search of another fresh computer straight off the production line.

Note relevant analogy, Jabba. I can explain it, too.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?

Last edited by abaddon; 3rd March 2017 at 07:48 AM. Reason: fix quotes
abaddon 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 March 2017, 07:51 AM   #235
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,590
Originally Posted by Toontown View Post
Jabba, since you can't stop trying to "essentially prove" immortality, and I am nothing if not helpful, here are my poorly worded suggestions:

(1) Drop the "soul" assumption. It is a multiplication of entities, is non-explanatory, and is just plain unlikely. Why does the particular soul that is "you" exist, out of an infinite set of "possible" souls? To "explain" that, you have to make even more unlikely assumptions. And the longer your list of unlikely assumptions gets, the less likely it is that they are all correct.

(2) Drop the "OOFlam" assumption that one particular body is the only "you" that can ever exist. This may require defining sentient experience in a way that will be unpopular in this venue. So be it. A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do.

(3) Stop letting your opponents derail you with the "Texas Sharpshooter" nonsense. You did not "cherry pick" a "you" from a group of yous. That "you" is the only one available. Nor is a hypothesis invalid simply because it is post ante, if the observation upon which the hypothesis is based is sufficiently compelling. My poker nemesis, whose style of play I know nothing about, just went all in on the river. It could be an all-in river bluff, but I'm leaning toward the hypothesis that he has my top pair beaten. That's a post ante hypothesis, based on a single data point. Is it invalid? A guy could learn a series of costly lessons about how reliable a post ante hypothesis based on a single data point can be.

Hint: the correct anthropic assumption is that what you are experiencing is typical, rather than anomalous.

Drop (1) and (2), and what you are left with is your best shot at making a case for any semblance of "immortality". Hold on to (1) and/or (2) and you've got no shot at all.

But "prove" it you will not.
Toontown,
- I wish I could understand more of what you're saying...
- I'll be thinking along and suddenly recognize -- and agree with -- something you're saying, but quickly slip back into neutral, or even reverse...
- When I try to explain why my existence is so special, I keep running into "my perspective." But then,...

- This will sound pretty syrupy, but maybe you should change your name to "Yoda."
__________________
"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 3rd March 2017, 07:56 AM   #236
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,590
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Several times.




In scientific models for consciousness, it is exactly as traceable as the cause and effect that led to a particular brain existing, because they are the same thing. My particular brain can never exist again. If you somehow made an exact copy of my brain, It would exhibit an exact copy of my consciousness.
- But, it wouldn't exhibit your particular self-awareness. "You" would not be reincarnated.
__________________
"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 3rd March 2017, 08:00 AM   #237
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,267
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
When I try to explain why my existence is so special, I keep running into "my perspective."
Because that's all it is -- your perspective. You are not special in the scientific sense, and you've all but admitted that the only reason you can give for the supposed profundity of your existence is your subjective sense of wonder and your deep emotional need to believe you must have a soul that will persist after you die. You're trying to fault science for not being able to explain your angsty identity crisis in straightforward chemical terms.
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 March 2017, 08:02 AM   #238
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,267
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- But, it wouldn't exhibit your particular self-awareness. "You" would not be reincarnated.
There is no "particular" self-awareness under H. You're back to arguing the meaningless cardinality argument. If you will consult this and previous threads, you will discover that was refuted several 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 3rd March 2017, 08:09 AM   #239
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,848
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- But, it wouldn't exhibit your particular self-awareness. "You" would not be reincarnated.
For exactly the same reason it wouldn't be my particular brain. It would be a copy.

If two separate brains could produce the same self-awareness that would mean the scientific explanation for self-awareness is wrong.
__________________
"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; 3rd March 2017 at 08:10 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 3rd March 2017, 10:16 AM   #240
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 6,856
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- For whatever reason(s), it seems to me obvious that the existence of our "particular self-awarenesses" is analogous to us winning the lottery; it's hard for me to understand why that isn't obvious to you or our colleagues; and for that reason, I have trouble explaining why I think that we're analogous to lottery winners...
Read your own thread, already answered and/or addressed multiple times. You are being insulting by asking the same questions over and over.

Quote:
My best guess at this point is that you see the lottery as simple chance, and our existence as clearly due to cause and effect (in fact, I'm beginning to think that you already told me that...), whereas and whatever, I suspect that they are both the result of cause & effect, but that in neither case is the cause & effect traceable -- and consequently, chance is reasonably applied to both.
Read your own thread, already answered and/or addressed multiple times. You are being insulting by asking the same questions over and over.

Quote:
I claim that while our particular characteristics are largely traceable to cause and effect, this process that I'm calling our particular self-awareness is not at all traceable to cause and effect -- we cannot reproduce it chemically -- and our particular processes, scientifically speaking, can never exist again.
Read your own thread, already answered and/or addressed multiple times. You are being insulting by asking the same questions over and over.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
When I try to explain why my existence is so special, I keep running into "my perspective." But then,...
Read your own thread, already answered and/or addressed multiple times. You are being insulting by asking the same questions over and over.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- But, it wouldn't exhibit your particular self-awareness. "You" would not be reincarnated.
Read your own thread, already answered and/or addressed multiple times. You are being insulting by asking the same questions over and over.
__________________
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
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 10:26 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.