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 13th November 2017, 10:28 AM   #3121
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,284
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
You aren't going to do a dishonest bait and switch on the meaning, are you?
Certainly the last time we recited this same scene in Jabba's comedy of errors, that's what Jabba tried to do. Rather than answer his critics on what precisely he meant by "different," he just vigorously applied textual apparatus to the word without resolving the demonstrated ambiguity. "It wouldn't be me, it would be different." (Mojo ninja'ed me on this, but I'll let my post stand to illustrate that Jabba's tricks are easily seen through.)

Oh, to be sure we tried to steer him away from ambiguity and toward such words as "distinct" and "separate" -- to denote when items are discretely particular -- and "similar" and "dissimilar" and "identical" to describe degrees of likeness based on properties. We tried to sever those concepts and resolve what Jabba was claiming regarding materialism and the alleged infidelity of the copy. But of course Jabba would have none of it. His ploy was evidently to get someone to agree to "different" based on the assumption it meant merely separate (albeit identical), and then spring the trap to claim agreement on the meaning of "dissimilar." The dishonestly agreed dissimilarity would clearly be the presence of a soul in one but not the other, or the presence of a different soul.

In like manner, godless dave perseveres in illustrating that phrases like "...bring me back to life" trade on equivocating "me" and maintaining the ambiguity of what that means under different models of consciousness. Dave has stuck to his guns and, as we did earlier, define clearly what he understands by the phrase. And Jabba, as ever, has abandoned the now-clarified terms in favor of yet another ambiguity. The shell game that has gone on for years, continues unabated.
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 13th November 2017, 10:49 AM   #3122
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 8,119
And it's the passive aggressive brilliance of splitting hairs far, far, far past the point where the language is really suited for to the point that every statement has been made "technically" wrong.

Jabba's trying to weasel some "gotcha" out of the fact that there's no reason to explain "sense of self" in the way he's demanding we explain it so the language doesn't have concise, ready made terms to describe the pointless distinctions without difference so in turn he gets to use terms in any manner he wishes.

Jabba's trying to force a term that means "A magical perfect and unreplicatable sense of self that equals you" by throwing terms against the wall hoping one of them will stick.

Ironically the closest thing to a term that does mean that, Soul, he refuses to use head on since that would tip his hand and bring his obvious subtext out.

I've dismissed a lot of Woo over the years as being meaningless word games, trying to prove a dog has 5 legs by calling a tail a leg, but this has taken it to new levels.
__________________
"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 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 13th November 2017, 10:50 AM   #3123
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,045
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I thought you had, but I wasn't sure, and figured that asking would be quicker than trying to track it down.
- I see what you mean about "identical." How about if I just say that the two selves are different -- in that the second self would not be you?
So it's different in the same way the second body would be different from the first body. So you could trace the cause and effect.
__________________
"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 13th November 2017, 10:55 AM   #3124
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,368
I feel that Jabba is really holding the debate hostage with endless discussions about an irrelevant point.

Jabba, you seem to agree *) that the self stops when the body dies (otherwise a copy WOULD bring it back to life), so .... obviously, we are not immortal?

Hans

*) What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2017, 11:07 AM   #3125
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,284
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Jabba, you seem to agree that the self stops when the body dies (otherwise a copy WOULD bring it back to life), so .... obviously, we are not immortal?
The thought experiment is meant to help us investigate what materialism says would happen if we could hypothetically duplicate the organism. In other words, Jabba's trying to tell us what materialism is. Therefore the implications of what he's trying to foist wouldn't necessarily apply to his side of the equation, which isn't materialism. He's trying to say that P(E|H) must be very, very small because H can't explain certain facets of E -- namely what he's trying to paste onto it with all these silly word games. If E is a particular person's existence wherein he has a sense of self, then H can't explain it according to Jabba because his notion of the "sense of self" in E is just a soul in disguise. Since the thought experiment illustrates that materialism can't effect an incarnation of the true vessel of the self, it can't be the mechanism by which some individual is produced.

Among the many things that are wrong with Jabba's proof is the pollution of E with theory. In a correct statistical inference, E is observable data and not theorized causes and effects.
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 13th November 2017, 11:36 AM   #3126
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,080
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I thought you had, but I wasn't sure, and figured that asking would be quicker than trying to track it down.
- I see what you mean about "identical." How about if I just say that the two selves are different -- in that the second self would not be you?
Maybe it would help if you tell us what your claim is again.
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 13th November 2017, 11:55 AM   #3127
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,636
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Maybe it would help if you tell us what your claim is again.
Mods, ban this man.
__________________
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 13th November 2017, 01:15 PM   #3128
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,285
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Maybe it would help if you tell us what your claim is again.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2017, 02:44 PM   #3129
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,164
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...
SOdhner 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 13th November 2017, 02:53 PM   #3130
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,592
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...

Point 1 is not quite what has been argued. What Jabba is actually arguing is that the odds of his soul existing is essentially zero under some hypothesis that includes the existence of souls. While he claims that this is materialism, it is not.
__________________
"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; 13th November 2017 at 02:54 PM.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2017, 02:58 PM   #3131
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 8,119
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...
The irony is at any point Jabba could have just said "I believe in a soul" and while it would (hardly) ended the argument it would have put Jabba on the same level as literally most of mankind.

I've never seen a human being put so much effort into manufacturing a bad, dishonest reason to justify something that another established and largely accepted bad, dishonest reason for already exists.

The "issue" such as it is isn't that Jabba believes in a soul. Literally billions of people believe in a soul. The issue is that Jabba for some reason has to create the illusion that he can A) believe in a soul without calling it a soul and B) mathematically prove a soul, making it a scientific fact and and not a religious belief and he seems to be doing this by writing some unholy hybrid of self insert fan fiction and passion play and casting us all in it against our wills.
__________________
"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 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 13th November 2017, 03:29 PM   #3132
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,866
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...


This isn't completely correct, but it points out one of Jabba's most serious flaws: Bayesian probability. His argument is just a basic syllogism. There's no reason to torture pure Mr. Bayes.

The only purpose for using Bayes' theorem is specifically because it overcomplicates matters. That gives Jabba more places to hide his errors. He's never actually fooled anybody with this intellectual dishonesty except, maybe, himself.
__________________
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
Old 13th November 2017, 04:06 PM   #3133
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,284
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!)
Eh, sorta. It's probably more accurate to say he claims the odds of his existence as presently constituted are very low if arrived at by purely materialistic means. The proviso is that "as presently constituted" hides a soul-like concept that he's trying to foist by giving it different names from day to day. There's a cloud of related equivocation around that and around why this can supposedly be reckoned as a probability, then a huge shoal of special pleading about why the probability is low.

Quote:
2. And yet, Jabba is pretty sure it exists.
3. Therefore, materialism is false.
Well, he's pretty sure he exists in his present constitution. He takes it as read that the odds of him existing in this form are much higher if he has an immortal soul.

Quote:
4. Since materialism is false, Jabba's specific theory must be true.
Essentially yes, by false dilemma. He knows he can't prove immortality directly, so he tries to prove the opposite false. Originally his formulation was that ~H was immortality and therefore H was everything else. One of the tricks he pulls, but which you might not have seen yet, is to hop between H being a singular hypothesis and ~H being everything else, and ~H being a singular hypothesis and H being everything else. In other words, Jabba plays another whole word game just involved in hiding the false dilemma.

Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
His argument is just a basic syllogism. There's no reason to torture pure Mr. Bayes.

The only purpose for using Bayes' theorem is specifically because it overcomplicates matters. That gives Jabba more places to hide his errors.
Agreed. It has been made abundantly clear that Jabba hasn't the faintest clue how to properly formulate a statistical inference, or even what one really is. Bayes' theorem is simply a tool Jabba is using deliberately to obfuscate an otherwise clearly wrong proof.
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 13th November 2017, 04:26 PM   #3134
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,284
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
The "issue" such as it is isn't that Jabba believes in a soul.
Technically Jabba is trying to prove immortality. We just all stipulated that such a thing wouldn't be possible without something like a soul. Unless he can prove the existence of a soul, his proof fails on its premise. We his critics are content to let it fail there, since he admits he has no appropriate evidence. But in his conversion of the conditional he has neglected to reckon necessity against sufficiency correctly. It is necessary to his claim that a soul exist; it is not, however, sufficient to his claim. Jabba grabbed hold of that one early on and tried to lower the bar. It's unclear whether he is still moving that goalpost.

Quote:
Literally billions of people believe in a soul.
And literally billions of people believe in some form of afterlife or post-mortem renewal. As you said, if he had said simply that he believes in immortality he wouldn't be any worse off than billions of other people. And that's what tips us off to what's really going on here. He wouldn't be any better off either.

Quote:
The issue is that Jabba for some reason has to create the illusion that he can A) believe in a soul without calling it a soul and B) mathematically prove a soul, making it a scientific fact and and not a religious belief...
And that reason has got to be straightforward ego reinforcement. If he simply states a belief in immortality, there's no distinction in it for him personally. He'd just be one among billions. But recall that he set out to show those godless atheists over at ISF (ne JREF) the power of his reasoning. This is about Jabba's purported genius, not the actual question of immortality. He can't conceivably care any more about immortality than about any of the other topics he's started threads on, all based on this pseudo-mathematical style of argumentation. If he succeeds in proving immortality as a mathematical and scientific fact, he'd be a genius standing tall among other geniuses like Aristotle and Plato, who tried the same thing and failed. He even told us once why he thought he could succeed where those illustrious thinkers had failed: he had the notion of the infinite pool of "potential selves" for a denominator that let him think about it as a probability. That's one of the reasons he clings to Bayes even when, as Loss Leader correctly notes, there is nothing really statistical in his reasoning.

This is simply about Jabba groveling for recognition he doesn't deserve, and committing all manner of dishonestly with himself and others to convince himself that he either has got it, or is really close, or would have it already were it not for the disingenuity of his critics.
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 13th November 2017, 05:49 PM   #3135
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,164
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
I've never seen a human being put so much effort into manufacturing a bad, dishonest reason to justify something that another established and largely accepted bad, dishonest reason for already exists.
Yeah it's actually really impressive.

Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
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!)
Eh, sorta. It's probably more accurate to say he claims the odds of his existence as presently constituted are very low if arrived at by purely materialistic means. The proviso is that "as presently constituted" hides a soul-like concept that he's trying to foist by giving it different names from day to day. There's a cloud of related equivocation around that and around why this can supposedly be reckoned as a probability, then a huge shoal of special pleading about why the probability is low.
See, and I think we just said the same thing. I mean, he has acknowledged that he means a soul, and he has dismissed all physical properties as being irrelevant to it. He has repeatedly appealed to this (totally not a soul nudge nudge wink wink) soul when trying to define the probability on the (supposedly) materialist side of the equation. So, in essence, his argument is that under materialism the odds of his soul existing is too low.

Obviously you're right that that's not the way he presents it, but that's kinda what it boils down to.

Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
2. And yet, Jabba is pretty sure it exists.
3. Therefore, materialism is false.
Well, he's pretty sure he exists in his present constitution. He takes it as read that the odds of him existing in this form are much higher if he has an immortal soul.
I was more referring to his insistence that feeling like something is true is enough evidence to suggest that it is. He has said that if science doesn't "feel" right that's a good indication that it's wrong since his intuition trumps science. He has repeatedly implied that the soul sense of self must be a persistent thing that can exist as an immortal whatever because that just kinda FEELS right to him.

Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
He even told us once why he thought he could succeed where those illustrious thinkers had failed: he had the notion of the infinite pool of "potential selves" for a denominator that let him think about it as a probability. That's one of the reasons he clings to Bayes even when, as Loss Leader correctly notes, there is nothing really statistical in his reasoning.
Well gosh I guess it's good for him that that method has proved so robust... oh, wait. Honestly I don't know why he doesn't just declare success and move on. Five years of being told he's wrong and refusing to address the actual problems - deep, fatal, fundamental problems - can't possibly have given him much hope that he'll succeed. In fact, he should be worried that he'll die of old age before anyone has a chance to recognize his genius.

So... hey, Jabba! I have a suggestion!

Write a book. Don't worry about convincing us. We're never going to be convinced for lots of reasons we've already tried to explain to you. So don't bother. Just write a book, I promise that there are plenty of people in this world that don't care about whether or not an argument is logically sound. You're wasting your time here, go and be the next Deepak Chopra. You've heard of Deepak Chopra I'm sure - and guess what? Nobody here agrees with a word he says. We all think he's full of it and are annoyed that he doesn't understand what "quantum" means. And Deepak Chopra doesn't care that we don't like him or agree with him, he just laughs all the way to the bank.

So go, be free! Write a book and get famous and ignore the haters just like you ignore valid criticism in this thread! You can do it! I believe in you, Jabba. You're just spinning your wheels here, you can do so much more.

Last edited by SOdhner; 13th November 2017 at 05:51 PM.
SOdhner 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 13th November 2017, 06:12 PM   #3136
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,284
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
Obviously you're right that that's not the way he presents it, but that's kinda what it boils down to.
Yes, exactly.

Quote:
I was more referring to his insistence that feeling like something is true is enough evidence to suggest that it is.
Ah, yes. And he can't understand why his critics don't just feel in their own hearts that he's right.

Quote:
Honestly I don't know why he doesn't just declare success and move on.
Move on to where? I doubt anyone else will give him the kind of longstanding attention he's getting here. Plus, he's holding out for an expression of agreement. Sooner or later someone he thinks of as a skeptic will say, "Yes, I agree with that" to some bit of ambiguity and he can claim to have convinced someone -- i.e., won the argument.
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 13th November 2017, 06:22 PM   #3137
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 8,119
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Plus, he's holding out for an expression of agreement. Sooner or later someone he thinks of as a skeptic will say, "Yes, I agree with that" to some bit of ambiguity and he can claim to have convinced someone -- i.e., won the argument.
To use the "Director directing a play" framework that is the only way to make this WWE Royal Rumble of a thread to make sense in my head what Jabba is waiting for is the right "take."

He sees this thread as the rough cut of a film that's gonna be saved in editing.

In his brain it doesn't matter how much doesn't work, that's all gonna be left on the cutting room flow. He's Stanley Kubrick making Shelly Duval do take 127 to get the scene right. That's why he's repeating himself so much. He's not "Fringe resetting" he's starting the scene over.

It's legit scary how well all of this makes sense in that context.
__________________
"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 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 13th November 2017, 07:07 PM   #3138
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,164
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Plus, he's holding out for an expression of agreement. Sooner or later someone he thinks of as a skeptic will say, "Yes, I agree with that" to some bit of ambiguity and he can claim to have convinced someone -- i.e., won the argument.
Well hell, if that's what we're waiting for I'm not too proud to take one for the team. It won't be genuine, but after the mental and linguistic gymnastics he's done here I can't imagine he cares that much about honesty so...

Oh my goodness, Jabba! I get it now! Your formula is brilliant, and all those fatal flaws are irrelevant! I never imagined that you could prove immortality through these methods, but now I - a skeptic - am convinced that you are both correct and immortal. I concede.
SOdhner 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 13th November 2017, 07:09 PM   #3139
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 8,119
"I'm Commander Shepard, and this is my favorite immortality theorem on the Citadel."
__________________
"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 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 13th November 2017, 07:21 PM   #3140
jt512
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,660
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Jabba, even assuming this is true, why would immortality make you more likely to exist than immortality?

If there are an infinite number of potential souls, then the chance that you would come to exist is 1/inf. - that's zero.

You are attempting to put a uniform distribution on an infinite discrete (ie, countable) sample space, but that violates the laws of probability, which say that the probabilities of all the elements must sum to 1. When the sample space is countable, the probabilities of the elements cannot all be equal.

Originally Posted by The Sparrow View Post
I can field this one.

Because, as you correctly point out, the chance he would come to exist is zero, and he DOES exist, then the denominator must be wrong. There must be a finite number of souls.

Yes the denominator is wrong. No, the sample space need not be finite.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
<- click that

I think that section of the article is wrong. It violates countable additivity.
jt512 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 13th November 2017, 11:51 PM   #3141
jt512
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,660
<deleted>

Last edited by jt512; 14th November 2017 at 12:02 AM.
jt512 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 14th November 2017, 09:06 AM   #3142
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,899
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Still just trying to establish exactly where we diverge. I think you agree that the new brain would not bring you back to life. If so, doesn't that mean that the new self would not be you?
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
I already said it wouldn't be me. It would be an exact copy if me. It would be exactly like me in every respect. Just like the second load of bread would be exactly like the first loaf of bread. It would be identical to me.

Where we diverge is that you are using a different definition for the word "identical" when it's applied to selves than when applied to everything else. You seem to be implying that if two selves were identical then they would really be the same self in two locations.
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I thought you had, but I wasn't sure, and figured that asking would be quicker than trying to track it down.
- I see what you mean about "identical." How about if I just say that the two selves are different -- in that the second self would not be you?
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
So it's different in the same way the second body would be different from the first body. So you could trace the cause and effect.
Dave,
- What I'm trying to do right now is get us on the same page as to just how unlikely you and I are -- given OOFLam.
- As there is no pool of potential bodies, there is no basic limitation on the number of potential bodies. I assume that the same is true for potential selves.
- By "no basic limitation," I mean that to the extent that time and the right conditions are infinite, so are the potential number of "different" bodies and selves. If time and the right conditions are not infinite, chances are that you would never exist, let alone that "now" would be the time you exist.
__________________
"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 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 14th November 2017, 09:11 AM   #3143
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 8,119
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- What I'm trying to do right now is get us on the same page as to just how unlikely you and I are -- given OOFLam.
*Very slowly* We do not accept OOFLam as valid concept, therefore we will not "get on the same page." This is more "If you agree to agree with me you will agree with me" nonsense.
__________________
"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 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 14th November 2017, 09:18 AM   #3144
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,899
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...
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.
__________________
"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 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 14th November 2017, 09:20 AM   #3145
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 8,119
Jabba you do realize what when you OPENLY ADMIT THAT YOU ARE JUST CHANGING THE WORD it still begs the same question right?
__________________
"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 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 14th November 2017, 09:24 AM   #3146
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 25,079
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- What I'm trying to do right now is get us on the same page as to just how unlikely you and I are -- given OOFLam.
And there we go, straight back to the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. Roll a dice 100 times, and whatever outcome you get will have a probability that's got thirty zeroes after the decimal point; but that doesn't mean you didn't roll it, because every other possibility is just as unlikely, and you had to roll something.

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

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2017, 09:27 AM   #3147
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,080
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- What I'm trying to do right now is get us on the same page as to just how unlikely you and I are -- given OOFLam.
- As there is no pool of potential bodies, there is no basic limitation on the number of potential bodies. I assume that the same is true for potential selves.
And by "selves", you mean the process of a functioning organism, right? You've admitted previously that it is a process, not an entity. You don't want to dishonestly backslide now and switch to pretending it's an entity, do you?

Quote:
- By "no basic limitation," I mean that to the extent that time and the right conditions are infinite, so are the potential number of "different" bodies and selves.
So you're saying that bodies and their processes are potentially infinite in number just as the number of farts and their innate process of having smell. And? Are you claiming that farts have a soul?

Quote:
If time and the right conditions are not infinite, chances are that you would never exist, let alone that "now" would be the time you exist.
Which tells us nothing and gets you no closer to proving immortality or souls.
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 14th November 2017, 09:29 AM   #3148
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,636
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
*Very slowly* We do not accept OOFLam as valid concept, therefore we will not "get on the same page." This is more "If you agree to agree with me you will agree with me" nonsense.
This.
__________________
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 14th November 2017, 09:30 AM   #3149
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,080
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"?
Thank you for admitting that you are overtly and knowingly begging the question.

Quote:
- If we can get past that issue, I'll move on to #4.
We won't be getting past that issue.
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 14th November 2017, 09:30 AM   #3150
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,960
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.
Self is a process, soul is a thing. They are not the same.
jond 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 14th November 2017, 09:31 AM   #3151
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,284
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
What I'm trying to do right now is get us on the same page...
Clearly not. Dave and others spelled out their position with brilliant specificity, but you insisted on vague phrases like "...bring ME back to life," and then spent a day and a half trying to pretend Dave had agreed to that. This is the same tedious game you've played for five years. You are not trying to get everyone on the same page. You're trying to insist we all come en masse to yours, so that you can simply define yourself to have won the debate against those godless atheists.

And you know your argument fails spectacularly anyway. There's no "getting on the same page" that fixes that. You're stalling.

Quote:
...as to just how unlikely you and I are -- given OOFLam.
"OOFLAM" is something you made up, Jabba. It's a contrived straw man.

Quote:
As there is no pool of potential bodies, there is no basic limitation on the number of potential bodies. I assume that the same is true for potential selves.
In materialism there is no difference between "self" and "body." The sense of self is a property of the body. Any time you have a viable body, it exhibits the property of a sense of self. The sense of self is not discrete under materialism. It's not a thing.
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 14th November 2017, 09:32 AM   #3152
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,960
OOFLam has no bearing on the likelihood of your body existing.
jond 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 14th November 2017, 09:37 AM   #3153
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,284
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
...though as usual, I would rather use "self" than "soul" as I think that using "soul" begs the question.
"Soul" does beg the question, and the concept you're trying to foist is the soul. You've changed the name without changing the concept. And since it's the concept, not the name, that begs the question, this is tantamount to admitting that's what you're doing. Since you know you're begging the question, your task then becomes convincing a thinking person to engage with you. You're lying to yourself and others, and trying to blame those others for your failure to convince anyone with your proof.

As has been patiently explained to you several times, you're trying to attach all the theorized concepts of a soul -- which you disingenuously and equivocally rename the "self" -- to E, the data. And then you're trying to make H explain it. The data, E, are that a living person experiences consciously a sense of self. Your "I'm immortal" theory has one explanation for how that comes about. Materialism has a completely different explanation for how that comes about. You're trying to reckon the likelihood ratio for those explanations, but you can only make the answer come out the way you want by fudging the data.

This is made worse by your admission a few years ago that you had already worked out what the numbers needed to be and were just looking for a post-justification rationale for it. Really, Jabba, when you admit you're begging the question and you admit you're backfilling to a conclusion you've already drawn, you don't get blame your failure on your critics. You're just very, very poor at debate and critical thinking.
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 14th November 2017, 09:40 AM   #3154
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,045
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
If time and the right conditions are not infinite, chances are that you would never exist,
I don't see how that follows at all.


Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
let alone that "now" would be the time you exist.
This doesn't make sense. "Now" is the only time I could exist. My existence depends on my parents' existence. Their existence depends on their parents' existence.
__________________
"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; 14th November 2017 at 09:41 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2017, 09:49 AM   #3155
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 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.
Nobody with any brains is gong to get past your admission that you're using one word as a synonym for another to avoid a logical fallacy.
__________________
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 14th November 2017, 09:51 AM   #3156
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 8,119
Jabba why not just redefine "I lost the argument" into "I won the argument" and be done with it? Since you care so little about what anyone is actually saying or arguing what's the point?

I'm being 100% serious Jabba. Why not just ignore everything and up and declare yourself the winner?

If you don't actually care what anyone has to say what are you still listening?
__________________
"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 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 14th November 2017, 12:00 PM   #3157
Monza
Alta Viro
 
Monza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,925
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- What I'm trying to do right now is get us on the same page as to just how unlikely you and I are -- given OOFLam.
Why is this important? Astonishingly unlikely things happen all the time. You can even guarantee a highly unlikely event to take place. For example, what are the odds of winning a fair coin flip 10 times in a row? Isn't this very unlikely? Yet, you can guarantee it will happen. Just get 1024 people to pair off and have a single elimination tournament. By definition, the winner will have won a fair coin toss 10 times in a row.

What are the odds that a pocket full of sand thrown to the ground will be arranged as they fall? What are the odds of a deck of cards being in the order they fall after a shuffle?
Monza 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 14th November 2017, 12:19 PM   #3158
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,164
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- 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"?
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 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 14th November 2017, 12:52 PM   #3159
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,285
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
As there is no pool of potential bodies there is no basic limitation on the number of potential bodies. I assume that the same is true for potential selves.
Have you now changed your mind on the pool of potential selves?

By your logic, there's also a number of potential apples, but somehow I'm sure you don't argue that apples are immortal.

Frankly, you don't seem to understand your own argument.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2017, 01:04 PM   #3160
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,163
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
....
By your logic, there's also a number of potential apples, but somehow I'm sure you don't argue that apples are immortal......
Don't waste your breath. The immortal bananas thing was bought up 1000 posts ago and many times since then. All ignored in the name of 'effective debate'.

The Sparrow 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
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 10:52 AM.
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.