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 21st July 2017, 03:09 PM   #321
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,045
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Again, what if we can someday save sperm cells and ova by freezing them (or, whatever) and create a baby by combining them. Would the planned combination represent (in a meaningful way) a real, and new person/self?
We can do this now, and each such possible person has a non-zero likelihood of existing if someone actually froze this sperm and eggs. The likelihood of each possible person existing would depend on many variables, including but not limited to the success rates of various methods of in vitro fertilization.

One thing it would not depend on is the number of people who could possibly exist over all time
__________________
"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; 21st July 2017 at 03:11 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 21st July 2017, 03:24 PM   #322
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,163
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Oh yeah, I keep thinking that going 60 mph is a process of the Volkswagen rather than a separate entity that occupies the Volkswagen.

My mistake.
There is a denominator of infinite potential going 60mph, so each actual going 60 MPH approaches zero, so ........immortality.
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 21st July 2017, 04:26 PM   #323
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,612
Originally Posted by The Sparrow View Post
There is a denominator of infinite potential going 60mph, so each actual going 60 MPH approaches zero, so ........immortality.

Nope, so Volkswagens cannot possibly exist.
__________________
"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 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 21st July 2017, 05:04 PM   #324
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,296
A sperm has a greater chance of contributing to a sticky pile of tissues under a teenager's bed than of becoming a human being. Yet under Jabba's mathematics it still has a negligible chance of doing even that, because of his comedy of combinatorics. The denominator Jabba envisions is still "yuge," and we would have to consider the probability of being deposited in that exact tissue on that exact day, not just in some tissue on some day in order to maintain the equivalence. For the purposes of analysis, a tissue is no different than an ovum. Yet those piles exist, and possibly in greater numbers than Volkswagens despite the astronomically small chance any one sperm has of participating in some youngster's specific hormonal release. No matter whether they're about sperm, Volkswagens, or lottery tickets, all of Jabba's arguments require the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. They all require an ad hoc assignment of significance after the fact.

Last edited by JayUtah; 21st July 2017 at 05:05 PM.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2017, 06:07 PM   #325
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,657
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
[...]
- Put aside the word "potential" for the moment. Would you agree that every combination of human sperm cell that has ever existed and human ovum that has ever existed represent different human selves?
No. Do you claim otherwise?
__________________
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 21st July 2017, 10:35 PM   #326
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,612
We could try using Bayesian inference to decide whether the "new evidence" is likely to be reliable.

If, as Jabba claims, the likelihood of his existence includes a factor of one over infinity, then it is infinitely more likely that any apparent observation of Jabba's existence is a false positive than a reliable observation. So while Jabba may think he exists, he can be pretty sure that he is mistaken. It's infinitely more likely that he is in fact someone else.
__________________
"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; 21st July 2017 at 10:45 PM.
Mojo 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 22nd July 2017, 01:44 AM   #327
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,525
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
We could try using Bayesian inference to decide whether the "new evidence" is likely to be reliable.

If, as Jabba claims, the likelihood of his existence includes a factor of one over infinity, then it is infinitely more likely that any apparent observation of Jabba's existence is a false positive than a reliable observation. So while Jabba may think he exists, he can be pretty sure that he is mistaken. It's infinitely more likely that he is in fact someone else.

Or is, in fact, a Volkswagen.
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd July 2017, 03:09 AM   #328
jt512
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,660
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
We could try using Bayesian inference to decide whether the "new evidence" is likely to be reliable.

If, as Jabba claims, the likelihood of his existence includes a factor of one over infinity, then it is infinitely more likely that any apparent observation of Jabba's existence is a false positive than a reliable observation. So while Jabba may think he exists, he can be pretty sure that he is mistaken. It's infinitely more likely that he is in fact someone else.
Humorous as that is, it isn't Bayesian. To be Bayesian, you'd have to compare the probability that we would "apparently observe" Jabba given that it was Jabba with the probability we would "apparently observe" Jabba given that it wasn't Jabba.
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 22nd July 2017, 03:30 AM   #329
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,612
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
Humorous as that is, it isn't Bayesian.

Should I have used the word "essentially" somewhere in 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 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 22nd July 2017, 03:55 AM   #330
jt512
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,660
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Should I have used the word "essentially" somewhere in it?

No. You should have compared probabilities under competing hypotheses.
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 22nd July 2017, 04:30 AM   #331
wea
Critical Thinker
 
wea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: EU
Posts: 355
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
.. a sextillion sperm cells ..
.. combinations of sperm cells...
...human sperm cell
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
..of sperm cell from ...
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
..save sperm cells ..
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
... greater chance of contributing to a sticky pile of tissues under a teenager's bed ...
All this philosophy is confusing me and now I'm lost. Is the targetness of that 60 Mph VolksWagen higher or lower of the teenager's waxx? Does it depend on the former's vs the latter's speed? Jabba, are they both immortal? Jabba, does the mathematic of the proof account for oligospermia?
wea 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 22nd July 2017, 05:23 AM   #332
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,899
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- If we were able to freeze one of your sperm cells, and later unfreeze it without killing it, and then combine it with one of Madonna's ovum, shouldn't that produce a new and different person/self -- someone who otherwise wouldn't have had a chance?
- What if we saved your sperm cell for 100 years and combined it with an ovum from a, then, 30 year old woman?
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
What if we did? What does that have to do with anything?
- That would produce a real, and different, person/self that otherwise, never had a chance. In other words, those two combinations of sperm cell and ovum do represent two real persons/selves that currently don't have a chance of ever existing. No one will ever know those 'potential' selves.
__________________
"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 è 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 22nd July 2017, 05:32 AM   #333
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,080
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- That would produce a real, and different, person/self that otherwise, never had a chance. In other words, those two combinations of sperm cell and ovum do represent two real persons/selves that currently don't have a chance of ever existing. No one will ever know those 'potential' selves.
Does every particle of wood in the side of the barn represent a potential target?
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 22nd July 2017, 06:09 AM   #334
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,845
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- That would produce a real, and different, person/self that otherwise, never had a chance. In other words, those two combinations of sperm cell and ovum do represent two real persons/selves that currently don't have a chance of ever existing. No one will ever know those 'potential' selves.
And?

When are going to address the fatal flaws in your argument listed by JayUtah?
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is 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 22nd July 2017, 06:18 AM   #335
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,876
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- What if we saved your sperm cell for 100 years and combined it with an ovum from a, then, 30 year old woman?

How does that saying go? "If wishes were horses, your argument would still be nonsense."
__________________
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 22nd July 2017, 06:19 AM   #336
JesseCuster
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 672
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- That would produce a real, and different, person/self that otherwise, never had a chance. In other words, those two combinations of sperm cell and ovum do represent two real persons/selves that currently don't have a chance of ever existing. No one will ever know those 'potential' selves.
A sperm and ovum combining is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a person/self arising.

Your self is not like your eye colour, something that boils down to simple genetics. It is an ongoing process arising from a whole range of conditions, including your genetics and your experiences.

You seem to think that a sperm cell combining with an ovum is, in itself, both necessary and sufficient to give rise to (and represents, whatever that means) a single unique sense of self and that nothing else is relevant.

A sperm cell and an ovum combining might never give rise to a person with a sense of self at all (in fact, I think that most don't) and a given sperm cell combining with a given ovum can give rise to person whose sense of self can be infinitely varied depending on their experiences, which are dependent on an unimaginably huge number of factors that we don't need to go into the details of.

But you seem to think that any unique sequence of genes, in and of itself, 'represents' (I'm putting that in quote marks because I'm really not sure what you mean by it) a single unique sense of self. It doesn't work like that. How could you even think it does? Have you not been listening to anything anybody has said about the sense of self and have you not learned anything from what you've read in this thread?

Moreover, you seem hellbent on debating these tangential minutiae while ignoring the problems with the meat of your argument. What has any of this got to to with anything? It's almost like you're deliberately trying to bore your opponents to death by arguing these pointless issues. None of this is helping your case at all.
JesseCuster 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 22nd July 2017, 06:21 AM   #337
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,045
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- That would produce a real, and different, person/self that otherwise, never had a chance. In other words, those two combinations of sperm cell and ovum do represent two real persons/selves that currently don't have a chance of ever existing. No one will ever know those 'potential' selves.
And what does that have to do with anything?
__________________
"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 22nd July 2017, 06:35 AM   #338
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,612
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
And what does that have to do with anything?

If he can sneak the expression "person/self" into his argument without anyone noticing, he can equivocate between a conscious person and a person with a body and an independently existing soul.
__________________
"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 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 22nd July 2017, 06:56 AM   #339
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,045
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Does every particle of wood in the side of the barn represent a potential target?
Apparently every tree that exists or could exist in the future represents wood that could be used to build a barn.
__________________
"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 22nd July 2017, 06:58 AM   #340
JesseCuster
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 672
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
If he can sneak the expression "person/self" into his argument without anyone noticing, he can equivocate between a conscious person and a person with a body and an independently existing soul.
I think he's trying to equivocate between a real person and an imaginary person, e.g. a potential person with a potential self represented by a hypothetical pairing of Cleopatra's frozen ovum pairing with a modern person's sperm.

Because something something. It's not always clear to me what Jabba is arguing and why. I think he deliberately obfuscates what he's getting at.
JesseCuster 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 22nd July 2017, 07:00 AM   #341
JesseCuster
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 672
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Apparently every tree that exists or could exist in the future represents wood that could be used to build a barn.
Or they don't. Because trees, like Volkswagens, don't have selves. And that means the logic that applies to people doesn't apply to trees or Volkswagens.

Just because.
JesseCuster 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 22nd July 2017, 07:05 AM   #342
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,899
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
And what does that have to do with anything?
- I'm going to try to add this kind of 'potential' self up to infinity. I claim that there is an infinity of this kind of 'potential' selves.
__________________
"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 è 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 22nd July 2017, 07:06 AM   #343
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,612
Originally Posted by JesseCuster View Post
It's not always clear to me what Jabba is arguing and why.

I don't think it's always clear to him either.
__________________
"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 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 22nd July 2017, 07:09 AM   #344
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,612
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I'm going to try to add this kind of 'potential' self up to infinity. I claim that there is an infinity of this kind of 'potential' selves.

Are you sure you want to do that? While "selves" may exist under your favoured hypothesis, they don't exist under materialism.
__________________
"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 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 22nd July 2017, 07:13 AM   #345
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,045
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I'm going to try to add this kind of 'potential' self up to infinity. I claim that there is an infinity of this kind of 'potential' selves.
Why would the number of selves that could potentially exist in the future have anything at all to do with the likelihood of a self coming into existence in 1970?
__________________
"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 22nd July 2017, 07:30 AM   #346
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,378
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Why would the number of selves that could potentially exist in the future have anything at all to do with the likelihood of a self coming into existence in 1970?
Exactly this.
Even if some frozen sperm is to be regarded as a potential self, how does that influence the likelihood of another self?

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans 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 22nd July 2017, 08:01 AM   #347
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,845
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I'm going to try to add this kind of 'potential' self up to infinity.
Why, when it has been clearly explained to you that blathering about selves, potential or otherwise, does not advance your argument one iota?
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is 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 22nd July 2017, 08:07 AM   #348
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,899
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Why would the number of selves that could potentially exist in the future have anything at all to do with the likelihood of a self coming into existence in 1970?
- How about those that 'could' have existed in the past?
- I'm claiming that by theoretically removing all the barriers that prevent the combination of particular sperm cells with particular ova (e.g.the space/time barriers, etc.), every possible combination represents a different person/self.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è 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 22nd July 2017, 08:14 AM   #349
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,961
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- How about those that 'could' have existed in the past?
- I'm claiming that by theoretically removing all the barriers that prevent the combination of particular sperm cells with particular ova (e.g.the space/time barriers, etc.), every possible combination represents a different person/self.
The problem that you refuse to understand is that under H, the self is an emergent property of a functioning brain. This whole notion of "potential selves" is a non issue. There are no such things, they do not exist is any way that could be counted, they have no bearing on your self. Your self is not a separate entity, it is an ongoing process. It did not exist before you were born. Brain stops, process stops. That is what H says. As long as you continue to include selves as separate entities, you are not talking about H.
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 22nd July 2017, 08:17 AM   #350
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,045
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- How about those that 'could' have existed in the past?
They're only relevant if they impact the chain of ancestry that resulted in me.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I'm claiming that by theoretically removing all the barriers that prevent the combination of particular sperm cells with particular ova (e.g.the space/time barriers, etc.), every possible combination represents a different person/self.
That's a good way to come up with a number that means absolutely nothing.
__________________
"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 22nd July 2017, 08:37 AM   #351
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,525
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- How about those that 'could' have existed in the past?
- I'm claiming that by theoretically removing all the barriers that prevent the combination of particular sperm cells with particular ova (e.g.the space/time barriers, etc.), every possible combination represents a different person/self.

Identical twins are actually two of the same self?
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd July 2017, 08:42 AM   #352
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,899
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
They're only relevant if they impact the chain of ancestry that resulted in me.
That's a good way to come up with a number that means absolutely nothing.
Dave,
- I might have run out of ideas as to how to effectively describe this claim to you and your colleagues -- but, I think that most well-educated neutral minds would see what I mean. Removing all the barriers preventing the combination of particular human sperm cells and ova, represents some of the number of 'potential' human selves.
- Hopefully, I'll be opening my new website soon, and attract some neutral minds and that they will see what I mean...
__________________
"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 è 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 22nd July 2017, 08:47 AM   #353
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,045
How is the number of potential human selves in any way relevant to the likelihood of a particular self 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd July 2017, 08:51 AM   #354
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,612
Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
Identical twins are actually two of the same self?

Or could they be one self looking through two sets of eyes?
__________________
"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 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 22nd July 2017, 08:51 AM   #355
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,163
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I might have run out of ideas as to how to effectively describe this claim to you and your colleagues -- but, I think that most well-educated neutral minds would see what I mean.
Lol. "It's not that I am wrong, its that you are too stupid or biased to see I am right."

Why not address Jay's points then and PROVE us wrong.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Hopefully, I'll be opening my new website soon, and attract some neutral minds and that they will see what I mean...
Lol, why are you here again? Oh ya, that didn't work out so well, so instead you will create a venue where you control the debate, and claim victory when christians agree with you.
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 22nd July 2017, 09:00 AM   #356
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,845
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I might have run out of ideas as to how to effectively describe this claim to you and your colleagues -- but, I think that most well-educated neutral minds would see what I mean.
The well educated, neutral minds here see what you mean, but they also see how wrong you are. Why would other well educated neutral minds come to any other conclusion? It's not like you have managed to refute a single one of the devastating flaws in your argument that have been pointed out to you.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is 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 22nd July 2017, 09:07 AM   #357
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,296
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I might have run out of ideas as to how to effectively describe this claim to you and your colleagues --
Your claim is well understood. What you're running out of are ways to hide your obviously illogical assumptions, begged questions, and circular reasoning so that they don't look like those things in your argument. You must have a very low opinion of your critics' intellect and experience if you believe we can't see right through those transparent attempts.

Quote:
but, I think that most well-educated neutral minds would see what I mean.
No, your argument isn't failing because your critics are biased. Your argument is failing because it's wrong. You have been shown the reasons why it's wrong, but it's obvious you simply don't care. You were presented with a list of some dozen individually fatal flaws, whose existence you acknowledged. But in spite of it, you maintain that your argument can have only one or a few superficial flaws at best. You're deeply in denial.

Quote:
Hopefully, I'll be opening my new website soon, and attract some neutral minds and that they will see what I mean...
You had your shot at a non-ISF forum when you tried to present this for statisticians. They gave you the same answers you got here. There is no need to speculate how your argument would fare with a different audience; your failure is a matter of observable fact.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd July 2017, 09:08 AM   #358
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,296
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- How about those that 'could' have existed in the past?
- I'm claiming that by theoretically removing all the barriers that prevent the combination of particular sperm cells with particular ova (e.g.the space/time barriers, etc.), every possible combination represents a different person/self.
That's tantamount to claiming that if the facts were different, your argument would succeed.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd July 2017, 09:11 AM   #359
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,296
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I'm going to try to add this kind of 'potential' self up to infinity. I claim that there is an infinity of this kind of 'potential' selves.
Asked and answered. Materialism contains no such notion, and you can't make potentiality work because you have to beg the question of a soul in order to keep potentiality from rendering inanimate objects equally as improbable as a soulless person. It's not as if you have made a secret of your preconceived proof. You worked it out via statistical formulation that all you'd need is a Big Denominator to render soulless people improbable with. You told us you were doing this. Now you're simply trying to invent something -- anything -- that gives you that Big Denominator and just beg it into existence so that it can serve what you predetermined the proof would have to be.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd July 2017, 09:20 AM   #360
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,174
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- How about those that 'could' have existed in the past?
- I'm claiming that by theoretically removing all the barriers that prevent the combination of particular sperm cells with particular ova (e.g.the space/time barriers, etc.), every possible combination represents a different person/self.
If you're going to ignore the laws of space and time, then you don't need to prove anything. In fact, then you *can't* prove anything.

This signature is intended to irradiate people.
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 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 02:31 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.