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.
Reply
Old Today, 08:20 AM   #3241
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 19,357
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Sorry. I got caught up in too many things...

- So, my premises and conclusions:
1. There is such a "thing" (or process, or property) as potential "selves."
How many "going 60mph" are there?
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
Old Today, 10:10 AM   #3242
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 11,953
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Sorry. I got caught up in too many things...
People do, but it's rude to come back and try to start the discussion over instead of picking up where it left off. I'm sure you're well aware that your critics rightly blame you for the unnecessary repetition that results in the astonishing length of this thread without making any progress. Rest assured we all know what your argument is. You don't need to repeat it and restart it at every opportunity.

Quote:
So, my premises and conclusions:
Wait a minute. If we skip to the end, we confirm what you're trying to prove:

Quote:
7. Therefore, OOFLam is probably wrong.
First of all, there's no such thing as "OOFLAM." It's a silly acronym you invented and are trying to paste onto your critics. You variously define H, the name for the hypothesis in your Bayesian model, as "OOFLAM" or also as the scientific hypothesis for the self. These are not the same thing, and you've been told this many times. "OOFLAM" is simply about temporal extent. We have at most one life, and it extends over a finite length of time.

You contrived this to oppose the panoply of every possible mystical mcguffin you think might result in something like immortality, so that you could deploy the standard fringe argument by false dilemma. Not only is it a straw man, it has nothing to do with the argument you actually present. Even if "OOFLAM" were false by the argument you present, it does nothing to address either the immateriality requirement or the temporal extent necessary for your belief to hold. You're not making an argument for your proposition; you're simply casting as many aspersions as possible on what you think your critics believe.

Your critics are clearly arguing not for OOFLAM, but for the prevailing scientific understanding of the sense of self. It is this proposition that you must falsify with evidence, and even then you don't escape the false dilemma. But once again, quoting you, we look at your presentation: "So, my premises and conclusions." The problem is that these are your premises and conclusions, not the actual features of H. If you're going to falsify H -- specifically, if you're going to compute P(E|H) to be a very small number -- then you have to do it according to what H actually says, not to what your premises and conclusions are. You've simply traded one straw man for another.

And of course you keep formulating E according to the Texas sharpshooter's fallacy, but you didn't explicitly bring that up today.

Quote:
1. There is such a "thing" (or process, or property) as potential "selves."
How many times have you been caught in equivocal arguments on this forum, Jabba? Do you really believe they fool anyone? While it's nice to see evidence that you're at least reading parts of your critics posts (if not responding to them), it's dismaying that you're trying to co-opt the extremely important distinction they draw between what they actually believe and what you are frantically trying to pin on them, and pretend that they're all just words for the same concept. Shame on you, Jabba. You heed your critics' words but not their ideas. You told us you would present a mathematical proof, but instead you rely on lowborn legalistic trickery to try to fool people into accepting your argument.

Under H there is a certain property that emerges from the organism. That property is the neurological process, one of whose results is the subjective sense of self. Under H that is not an entity, not a "thing." You either don't know what a property or process is, even after copious explanation, or you simply don't care to respect the distinction. Either way, your argument fails here, hard.

Quote:
2. A self is a particular awareness.
No, the sense of self is a property. It doesn't have "particulars." Particular means, literally, existing as particles. That has specific meaning in natural philosophy. Not just in the sense of muons and gluons, but in the notion of something that is indivisible (without losing its character) and also discretely separate from other particles.

Neither of those conditions rightly applies to a process. You are desperately trying, via your typical word games, to establish that H must include the notion of the self as a "thing," and that it can be reckoned separately from the organism. This is exemplary question-begging. You may believe that the self is a particular awareness, but that's not what H says. You're not falsifying H; you're falsifying something you made up.

Quote:
3. There is an infinite number of potential selves, but a finite number of current selves.
No.

And for so many reasons, no. The sense of self under H is not particular. It is not countable. It is a process. And you know that processes are not countable. Unless you have the entire forum in your ignore list, you cannot have missed the question everyone is asking:

HOW MANY "GOING 60 MPH" ARE THERE?

I trust that's large and clear enough for you to read. After so much repetition, including from your darling critic of the moment, it's safe for your critics to conclude you refuse to answer that question because you recognize its implications for your argument, and are desperately trying to pretend it doesn't exist. It's safe to conclude you realize a property is not countable, and that this is immediately and conclusively fatal to your argument.

Nor do you have a basis for limiting the quantity of current "selves."

Quote:
4. Therefore, the likelihood of the current existence of your particular self/awareness -- given OOFLam -- is virtually zero.
No. First, this is absurd on its face (see below). Second, you really don't know how quantitative modeling works. The useful way to conduct quantitative reasoning is first to isolate the quantitative relationships into a valid model, then collect the required information, then apply the model and draw conclusions based on the results. You've done Step One by selecting Bayesian inference as your model. But you've screwed up everything else.

For instance, you didn't go collect data. You simply made up all the inputs to the model. You say Bayes lets you do this, but in fact it doesn't. It lets you offer a quantified subjective belief for some of the elements of the model. The rest must be factual.

And you didn't let the model drive your conclusion. You are trying to shoehorn the model into the conclusion you already drew. Let's not mince words. You told us very clearly that you are heavily emotionally invested in the belief in immortality, and very heavily invested in seeing this proof succeed. It's for that reason, not any mathematical study, that you believe P(H) "must" be so very small. And this, not any defensible philosophy or evidence, drives you to search high and low for the Big Denominator that you can pretend lets you set P(E|H) to zero. You're trying very hard to make mathematics fit your belief. There's no other way to state it. You've made it almost as clear as if what I just wrote above came right from your mouth.

That hot mess has nothing to do with defensible quantitative reasoning.

Quote:
5. (Just like the likelihood of you winning an infinite lottery.)
Do we really have to go over again everything that's wrong with you trying to say life is like a lottery?

Under H it simply isn't. A lottery has winners and losers, all drawn from a pool of pre-existing contestants. There is no equivalent concept under H. There cannot be, as the sense of self comes into existence only as the organism does. No "potential" self exists under H in any operative sense.

Quote:
6. But, you do currently exist!
And so do bananas and Mt Ranier and everything else that's susceptible to your "divided by the number of potential somethings" formula. All of these things manage both to exist without souls and to have infinite potential. This is a very simple reductio ad absurdum refutation, Jabba. Please understand that because of it, it's trivial to see that your argument can't hold.

Quote:
I'll gradually fill in the blanks.
You've already had four years to do that, but you obviously can't do it. As I said, one could get a college degree in philosophy or neuroscience, or even theology for that matter, in the time it has taken you to "fill in the blanks." But the real problem is that your argument doesn't just suffer from incompleteness. It's flat-out wrong. There is no augmentative remedy for this. And it's not as if your errors are nuanced, or haven't been thoroughly explained to you.

You're clearly cornered, and as you've done dozens upon dozens of times before over the past four years, you're trying to restart the debate in order to escape. You're trying to restart the same debate, using the same long-debunked arguments. Why on earth would you think it will work?
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, 10:36 AM   #3243
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,507
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Sorry. I got caught up in too many things...

- So, my premises and conclusions:
1. There is such a "thing" (or process, or property) as potential "selves."
2. A self is a particular awareness.
3. There is an infinite number of potential selves, but a finite number of current selves..
4. Therefore, the likelihood of the current existence of your particular self/awareness -- given OOFLam -- is virtually zero.
5. (Just like the likelihood of you winning an infinite lottery.)
6. But, you do currently exist!
7. Therefore, OOFLam is probably wrong.

- I'll gradually fill in the blanks.
Why do you even pretend to be having a discussion if you are going to ignore literally every single thing everyone else has to say? Every single one of your points has been thoroughly demolished and yet here you are pretending no one has ever encountered this before. Jabba, you are wrong. If you want a detailed answer for why you are wrong, read JayUtah's excellent post above. Or any of the thousands of posts throughout these many years by so many people.

Most importantly, Jabba: just stop. You are wrong and if you refuse to listen to why you are wrong that's your problem, not ours.
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 Today, 11:45 AM   #3244
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,099
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Well at least, you think that my wordplay is clever...
- But, you believe that if we could somehow duplicate your body, your particular, personal, awareness would not return.
- And, if time is infinite, and entropy is not the destiny of reality, the number of potential, particular, awarenesses should be infinite.
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
I also believe that if I strike a match and let the flame burn out, that particular flame will never return even if I strike an identical match in the same way under the same conditions. Do you?...
- Yes.

Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Also the number of potential bananas and literally everything else, as I said in one of the comments you just quoted.
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Yes.
- You seem to be accepting "particular awarenesses" as an acceptable definition for "selves." Is that correct?
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Sure.
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Have I just proved that the scientific explanation for how matches work must be wrong? We both agree that striking two identical matches in the same way under the same conditions won't produce the same flame. Does that mean the likelihood of a particular flame existing is virtually zero?
If your answer is "no", then why is the situation different for selves under H?
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- My answer is, "Yes."
- Just that in the case of the flames, the only difference between the two would be their times of existence. In the case of your body and its duplicate, their particular awarenesses, their selves, would also be different.
- And, for the moment, I'm just trying to show that the potential number of selves is infinite -- and that if so, the likelihood of your current existence -- given OOFLam -- is virtually zero.
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
They wouldn't be two different flames?
- They would be.

Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
And the only difference between the two selves would be their times of existence.
- No. Their particular awarenesses would be different.

Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Isn't the potential number of flames infinite? For that matter, isn't the potential number of matches infinite?
- Yes.

- Back to Mt Rainier and the Texas Sharpshooter...
- I'm claiming something to the effect that the target has to be "target meaningful" -- which you are -- and most likely, the times of existence for the banana, flame and match are not.

- If you can accept my logic so far (yeah, right), I'll try to explain target "meaningful."
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 11:54 AM   #3245
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,570
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- No. Their particular awarenesses would be different.
The only difference between the two particular awarenesses would be their times of existence.

So far you haven't given any difference between the situation with burning matches and living humans.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Back to Mt Rainier and the Texas Sharpshooter...
- I'm claiming something to the effect that the target has to be "target meaningful" -- which you are -- and most likely, the times of existence for the banana, flame and match are not.
Please try to explain "target meaningful". But keep in mind that you still haven't in any way established that the number of potential X is relevant to the likelihood of a particular X appearing.
__________________
"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 12:03 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, 12:57 PM   #3246
Loss Leader
Guilty With An Explanation
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 21,874
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
He always comes back, though. And the wheel goes 'round.
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
1. There is such a "thing" (or process, or property) as potential "selves."
2. A self is a particular awareness.
3. There is an infinite number of potential selves, but a finite number of current selves..
4. Therefore, the likelihood of the current existence of your particular self/awareness -- given OOFLam -- is virtually zero.
5. (Just like the likelihood of you winning an infinite lottery.)
6. But, you do currently exist!
7. Therefore, OOFLam is probably wrong.

I was completely correct. I win 15 internets.

Jabba, your #1 is self-contradictory. A thing is not a process or a property. You have not shown the "self" to be a thing. As a process or property, it is uncountable.

Since your entire argument rests on this mistake, it fails right from the start.

Support the idea that the "self" is a thing and not a process of a working neurosystem.

How many "going 60 mph" are there?
__________________
- I haven't refused to answer it; I just haven't been able to answer it...
Jabba

Do not pretend I support your argument and do not PM me.
- Nick Terry
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 01:02 PM   #3247
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 19,378
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Sorry. I got caught up in too many things...

- So, my premises and conclusions:
1. There is such a "thing" (or process, or property) as potential "selves."
2. A self is a particular awareness.
3. There is an infinite number of potential selves, but a finite number of current selves..
4. Therefore, the likelihood of the current existence of your particular self/awareness -- given OOFLam -- is virtually zero.
5. (Just like the likelihood of you winning an infinite lottery.)
6. But, you do currently exist!
7. Therefore, OOFLam is probably wrong.

- I'll gradually fill in the blanks.
No. Under the theory of OOFLam, there is no such thing as potential selves and a self is not a particular awareness.

Now come on, Jabba, this has been explained to you innumerable times. You cannot keep ignoring it.

Hans
__________________
Don't. Just don't.
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 Today, 01:11 PM   #3248
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 19,378
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
I was completely correct. I win 15 internets.

Jabba, your #1 is self-contradictory. A thing is not a process or a property. You have not shown the "self" to be a thing. As a process or property, it is uncountable.

Since your entire argument rests on this mistake, it fails right from the start.

Support the idea that the "self" is a thing and not a process of a working neurosystem.

How many "going 60 mph" are there?
In the interest of logic (but quite unconnected with the ongoing "discussion"), processes may be quite countable. If you walk into a plastic molding factory and ask how many processes and potential proces they have, they may answer that they currently have 24 processes running and 8 machines are idle, thus they have 32 potential processes.

Likewise, the number of "going 60 mph" can be defined in several countable ways:

- The number of ways you can travel 60 mph
- The number of cars going 60 mph on a given stretch of road on a given day.
- The number of times you go 60 mph on a given journey.
- Etc.

All of which is entirely irrelevant to Jabba's claims, because he is using a faulty definition of the materialistic position (what he calls OOFLAM). Once the correct definition is used, his whole argument falls to pieces.

Hans
__________________
Don't. Just don't.
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 Today, 01:12 PM   #3249
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 11,953
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I'm claiming something to the effect that the target has to be "target meaningful" -- which you are -- and most likely, the times of existence for the banana, flame and match are not.
Sounds like you're once again trying to grope for something else that makes humans "special" and mountains and bananas not. You always try to squeak out of appropriate analogies by begging this same question. Get it through your head, Jabba: you can't falsify H by supposing, under H, that humans have some magical quality that transcends the purely quantitative argument. You promised a mathematical argument, not a lengthy angst-ridden diatribe about how you feel that you're meaningful because you're alive and this life can't be it.

Quote:
If you can accept my logic so far (yeah, right), I'll try to explain target "meaningful."
No, you don't get to ask for agreement first and then present your argument afterwards. Your "logic so far" turns on whether you can prove your latest made-up concept has any basis in fact.
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
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 01:14 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.