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.
Tags !MOD BOX WARNING!

Reply
Old Today, 03:37 PM   #3241
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,898
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Here, I'm trying to communicate a concept that occurs to me but that I've never heard anyone else address. Maybe, I just didn't recognize it at the time, or maybe it's just an illusion of my own. If it's an illusion, I can't seem to shake it. It keeps coming back.
- And then, there's math. How far up on the current mathematical tower can you get before getting sick to your stomach? Where does it quit communicating to you? Where do you begin to lose your hold?
- Here, I'm trying to describe part of my personal tower (whether rational or not) of metaphysics.

- Anyway, that's my claim. I claim that if there is no limited pool of potential whatevers -- but there are, in fact, some whatevers -- there has to be an unlimited pool of them.
- So far, I think that it's some organic state that produces a bit of consciousness, which inherently brings with it, or creates, a brand new self. If the self is a "process" and cannot be considered a "thing," it's still a process that includes its very own "identity." If unimpeded by a limited pool of potential identities, the number of potential selves must be unlimited.
- Surely, this won't communicate either, but -- just maybe -- it'll get things started.
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
..Why do you think it includes an identity?
- You and I are two of the identities.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico Ť probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 03:41 PM   #3242
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,957
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- You and I are two of the identities.
Your brain generates that identity while it is functioning normally. When it stops functioning it stops generating that identity. Thatís how processes work.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 03:51 PM   #3243
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,044
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- You and I are two of the identities.
We're two different people, but it seems to me that identity is something people assign to things, not a property things have.
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 04:22 PM   #3244
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,259
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- You and I are two of the identities.
That's because you're two different entities. You both have a sense of self. The notion of whether that's the "same" sense of self is simply inoperative in materialism because the sense of self is a property, not an entity. If I'm going down the freeway neck-and-neck with another car, we both exhibit the property of "going 60 mph." Does that mean we're exhibiting the same "going 60 mph" or different "going 60 mph?"

I feel this has been explained to you enough times in enough ways. Your inability to understand what it means to be a property seems fairly intentional at this point. But no, there's no magical tap dance of words you can do that makes a property seem like a discrete entity for purposes of countability.
JayUtah 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 04:22 PM   #3245
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,636
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- You and I are two of the identities.
I wish you would produce evidence of immortality or shut up.
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 04:33 PM   #3246
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,156
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
....Before the big bang, what are the odds that reality would ultimately produce me?
Said the puddle of water to the hole it was in.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 04:38 PM   #3247
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,284
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Again, something difficult to express effectively.
No, it really isn't. Everybody understand exactly what you mean, and what everyone means.

Quote:
- Determinism only makes sure that before the big bang, nothing was determined.
No, it makes sure that after the big band, EVERYTHING was determined. There is no random chance involved in your existence, ergo your calculation of the odds is irrelevant, on top of being invalid and unsound.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 04:49 PM   #3248
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,259
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Before the big bang, what are the odds that reality would ultimately produce me?
In astrophysics there is no "before the Big Bang."
JayUtah 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 05:15 PM   #3249
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,044
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post


- Again, something difficult to express effectively. To me, at least, "pool" at least implies a limitation, so an ''unlimited" pool really means no pool. And, in that case the whatever comes out of nowhere.
It comes out of the cells your brain is made of. Those are made out of matter which mostly comes from the food you eat (and food your mother ate).
__________________
"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; Today at 05:17 PM.
godless dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 05:31 PM   #3250
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,557
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
No, it really isn't. Everybody understand exactly what you mean, and what everyone means.



No, it makes sure that after the big band, EVERYTHING was determined. There is no random chance involved in your existence, ergo your calculation of the odds is irrelevant, on top of being invalid and unsound.
It's true. Once Benny Goodman hit the stage Delta Blues, Elvis, Dylan, Pink Floyd, Marley, Elvis (the Costello one), and even Eminem were unavoidable.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 05:47 PM   #3251
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,898
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
So, the argument as it stands is:
  1. The odds of Jabba's soul existing is essentially zero under materialism (true!)
  2. And yet, Jabba is pretty sure it exists.
  3. Therefore, materialism is false.
  4. Since materialism is false, Jabba's specific theory must be true.

I don't know why we're getting off on all sorts of other tangents, the above is far more concise than most versions that Jabba posts. It still has several fatal flaws, but it has *less* than Jabba's long version so it's a move in the right direction...
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
SOdhner.
- I basically agree with #s 1, 2 and 3 -- though as usual, I would rather use "self" than "soul" as I think that using "soul" begs the question. Would you accept #1 as true if it referred to "self" instead of "soul"?
- If we can get past that issue, I'll move on to #4.
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
I don't see why you would want to use a less precise term. You're clearly referring to a soul. I guess I could get behind it if you want to give it a new and unique word to avoid confusion like "Jabbasoul" or something, but then you'd still need to define it and, lets' be honest, the definition is "soul" so why don't we just call it a soul?

The underlying problem is that, as stated in #1 of my summary, you're looking at whether or not a soul exists under materialism and we actually all agree that it doesn't! If you really did just call it a soul and then say "Under materialism, that's not a thing that exists!" we would all totally be on the same page - and that's what you keep saying you want.

Of course then you'd have to deal with the fact that you *feeling* like you have a soul isn't evidence for one, you *feeling* like science must be wrong isn't evidence that it is, you *feeling* like this should make sense in a mathematical model doesn't mean that it does...
Sodhner,
- I'm not looking at whether or not a soul exists under materialism. I'm claiming that a self exists under materialism, and I'm arguing that materialism is wrong about the self's mortality.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico Ť probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 05:55 PM   #3252
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,284
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Sodhner,
- I'm not looking at whether or not a soul exists under materialism. I'm claiming that a self exists under materialism, and I'm arguing that materialism is wrong about the self's mortality.
Who do you think you're fooling, here?
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 06:02 PM   #3253
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 8,117
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Sodhner,
- I'm not looking at whether or not a soul exists under materialism. I'm claiming that a self exists under materialism, and I'm arguing that materialism is wrong about the self's mortality.
YOU'VE ALREADY ADMITTED THAT YOU THINK YOUR "SELF" IS A SOUL!

What are you doing? Who are you talking to?
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Hating a bad thing does not make you good." - David Wong
JoeBentley is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 06:05 PM   #3254
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,636
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Sodhner,
- I'm not looking at whether or not a soul exists under materialism. I'm claiming that a self exists under materialism, and I'm arguing that materialism is wrong about the self's mortality.

STOP TELLING US WHAT YOU ARE ARGUING, AND START PROVIDING SUPPORTING EVIDENCE.

Your claims and arguments these last 5 years are worthless. You have demonstrated neither evidence nor compelling argument to support them.

Quote:
[...] materialism is wrong about the self's mortality.
You've had 5 years to start proving this. Why have you never made any attempt to do it?
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.

Last edited by John Jones; Today at 06:13 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 06:28 PM   #3255
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 8,117
Jabba is waiting for us to have the "Doctor House in the cafeteria / Star Trek character talks to the bartender" moment where all the nonsensical stuff he's been saying suddenly "clicks" for us for no reason.

Again he's not making an argument, he's writing a story. He's waiting for his "students" to have the big "Eureka" moment because that's how it happens in the movies.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Hating a bad thing does not make you good." - David Wong
JoeBentley is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 06:42 PM   #3256
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,636
But Jabba hasn't gained a 'student' in all these years with one possible exception -- whose name rhymes with Vixen. She can't make a decent argument of Jabba's ideas any better than Jabba can.
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 06:50 PM   #3257
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,259
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I'm not looking at whether or not a soul exists under materialism. I'm claiming that a self exists under materialism...
Materialism already has a definition for the self. You're trying to rewrite it to make it look like a soul, rather than using the definition that's already there, and you've essentially admitted that's what you're doing.

Quote:
... and I'm arguing that materialism is wrong about the self's mortality.
You don't get to argue that materialism is wrong as a premise of reckoning P(E|H). In fact you have to take it as if it were axiomatically true, including its propositions about the duration of the sense of self. Under materialism the sense of self is an emergent property of the physical organism. As with all emergent properties, it endures only as long as the organism endures -- by definition. You don't get to say, "Well, I don't agree with that" and make up something on your own.

This is what we're talking about when we say you don't have the faintest idea how to properly formulate a statistical inference. How many statisticians have to detail your ignorance before you will take heed and stop blaming your critics or the situation for the effects of that ignorance?

It's extremely annoying to your critics that you have now blatantly confessed to arguing a straw man. They realize this is immediately fatal to your argument. But you will carry on as if nothing has happened. You have been given so many opportunities to prove you're not just an attention-seeking crackpot. Why do you always fail them?
JayUtah 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:24 PM   #3258
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,079
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Sodhner,
- I'm not looking at whether or not a soul exists under materialism. I'm claiming that a self exists under materialism, and I'm arguing that materialism is wrong about the self's mortality.
That's about as nonsensical as anything else you've said. Why are you talking about the self as being mortal or immortal as if it were a thing? The self, as you've agreed, is a process. Is going 60 mph immortal?

You've been admonished numerous times about dishonestly switching the two.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:36 PM   #3259
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,860
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Determinism only makes sure that before the big bang, nothing was determined. Before the big bang, what are the odds that reality would ultimately produce me?

How many universes were there before this one?

Assume that the chance that a universe would produce your physical body is 1 in 8.6*1098. This may be the 8.61*1098 universe. You don't know and you can't know.

In any case, the odds of you finding yourself in a universe where you exist are 1 in 1.

Your understanding of probability is desperately wrong.
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

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 07:58 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.