ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Closed Thread
Old 19th May 2017, 06:44 AM   #2681
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,940
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I guess I'll have to go back to "difference."
- I recognize, or imagine, a deductive difference between me and a copy of me that wouldn't bring ME back to life. That's probably the best I can do towards arguing my conclusion that the physically perfect copy would not be a totally perfect copy.
But you haven't been able to describe that difference. A copy of something is always separate from the original. You seem to be saying you expect everything about the copy to be separate from the original except the sense of self. How does that make sense?
__________________
"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 online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th May 2017, 06:48 AM   #2682
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,604
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
The ME that is not brought back to life is not defined by my physical existence.
You haven't defined "ME" or "brought back to life" or discussed what their implications are for H. Therefore using those concepts to try to falsify H amounts to begging the question.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th May 2017, 06:49 AM   #2683
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,786
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Hans,
- The ME that is not brought back to life is not defined by my physical existence.
--- Jabba

Therefore it doesn't exist under H, and claims that it exists have no place in an calculation of the likelihood of your existence under H.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th May 2017, 06:51 AM   #2684
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,786
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I guess I'll have to go back to "difference."
- I recognize, or imagine, a deductive difference between me and a copy of me that wouldn't bring ME back to life. That's probably the best I can do towards arguing my conclusion that the physically perfect copy would not be a totally perfect copy.

Things that you imagine have no place there 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 offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th May 2017, 06:52 AM   #2685
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,604
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I guess I'll have to go back to "difference."
Under H there is no difference. A perfect copy of the organism, under H, must demonstrate the same properties.

Quote:
I recognize, or imagine, a deductive difference between me and a copy of me...
What you imagine or suppose has absolutely nothing to do with H. If you're trying to falsify H by reckoning P(E|H) as very small, you must use H as it is, not as you imagine.

Quote:
That's probably the best I can do...
We know it's the best you can do because it appears to be all you can do. And you've been told several times why it's not good enough. It's not good enough because it blatantly begs the question. Since you have no answer for that rebuttal, and since you've admitted you have no better argument, the only rational thing for you to do now is concede defeat once and for all. Do you have the courage to do that?
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th May 2017, 07:01 AM   #2686
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,604
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
All I seem able to do here is repeat myself.
Yes, and it's very annoying. Stop it.

Quote:
I either recognize, or imagine, a direct line of deductive reasoning in the claim that if the copy doesn't bring ME back to life, it's missing something.
There's no reasoning, deductive or otherwise, in that statement. It's a naked claim for which you provide no evidence or discussion. You can't define or describe what would be missing. You simply insist it must somehow exist.

Quote:
IMO, there is a particular sense of self that is missing.
Not under H.

Quote:
It seems to be a different kind of difference than you guys are including.
Your critics are properly describing what happens under H. Under H there is not and cannot be any difference between the original and its copy. It follows from the theory. All your vain repetition is simply trying very very hard to paste onto H concepts it doesn't embody, and then trick people into agreeing with you. It's playground debate, not actual debate.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th May 2017, 07:48 AM   #2687
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 6,812
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
It's playground debate, not actual debate.
It's neither!

It's Jabba's Effective Debate™!
The Norseman is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th May 2017, 07:49 AM   #2688
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,849
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Agatha,

#1
- All I seem able to do here is repeat myself.
- I either recognize, or imagine, a direct line of deductive reasoning in the claim that if the copy doesn't bring ME back to life, it's missing something... IMO, there is a particular sense of self that is missing.
- It seems to be a different kind of difference than you guys are including.

#2
- I think I agree.
If you agree with 2, why do you insist that 1 should be part of H? It's not, and until you stop trying to put things into H that don't belong you are going to keep repeating yourself. Now would be a good time to stop that.
jond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th May 2017, 09:30 AM   #2689
Waterman
Thinker
 
Waterman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 241
Thumbs up

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I either recognize, or imagine, a direct line of deductive reasoning in the claim that if the copy doesn't bring ME back to life, it's missing something... IMO, there is a particular sense of self that is missing.
1. This is the part where I need some help. You have stated clearly above that there is a direct line of deductive reasoning to support your conclusion that something is missing. I have even start the framework here.

<Here is> a direct line of deductive reasoning

Insert reasoning here

<To support> the claim that if the copy doesn't bring ME back to life, it's missing something.


Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Hans,
- The ME that is not brought back to life is not defined by my physical existence.
--- Jabba
2. Then help me please, what IS it defined by? According to current scientific theory the conscious process IS defined by the physical existence and accumulation of experiences.

3. Also what are your thoughts on other intelligent but less evolved creatures and their copies, is something missing in them as well. Why or why not?
__________________
So that is how you do this...

Last edited by Waterman; 19th May 2017 at 09:31 AM. Reason: Fix quote tag
Waterman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th May 2017, 10:23 AM   #2690
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,604
Without absolving Jabba of answering your questions, let me add some insight that I think may be helpful.

Originally Posted by Waterman View Post
You have stated clearly above that there is a direct line of deductive reasoning to support your conclusion that something is missing.
Ah, but read carefully. Jabba is playing one of his standard word games that other critics have characterized as boiling down to, "Do you agree that if I had evidence and a valid line of reasoning, I will have proven my case?" Naturally someone agrees to this -- because it does logically hold -- and Jabba pivots that agreement to mean agreement that he has evidence and a valid line of reasoning, at which point he hops around with glee -- it's the "gotcha" moment he's been playing for for years. Don't fall for it; it's one of his more disingenuous deceptions.

In the line of reasoning
If the copy doesn't bring ME back to life, it's missing something.
"ME" is unclear. Jabba has never defined it except as whatever would be missing from an otherwise perfect copy. "Bring back to life" is unclear. Jabba has never defined it except as what wouldn't happen even if a perfect copy were made. Since his definitions are blatantly circular, we say his claim fails immediately (see below). But we can infer plausible (if unevidenced) meanings such that the line of reasoning is valid. If a process of duplication in some detectable way fails to produce an identical copy -- as insinuated by "bring ME back to life" -- then you can validly argue something is missing. (Something may have been added to the copy, but the gist of the line of reasoning is still operative.)

The abstract defensibility of such a cause and effect relationship, given reasonable meaning for the undefined elements, is utterly irrelevant to whether some enclosing reasoning purports those causes or observes those effects. Jabba wants you to agree that a certain conclusion would follow from a certain premise as a trick to avoid having to prove the premise.

Here the intentional ambiguity in his wording is meant to trick you into accepting the line of reasoning under the unstated premise that meanings reasonable under H are intended by "ME" and "bring back to life." Only after you expressly do what I suggest above -- evaluate the syllogism with provisional meanings -- will you find out that "ME" means soul and "bring back to life" means some form of spiritual (re)incarnation. Your agreement would give him the desired toehold from which to argue that you've also agree those things are part of H.

Quote:
Then help me please, what IS it defined by? According to current scientific theory the conscious process IS defined by the physical existence and accumulation of experiences.
I don't have to belabor that Jabba is drawing the line of reasoning not from materialism but from a fairly obvious straw man. In materialism all observable properties flow from the material as time-dependent functions. As such it is impossible under H (materialism) to reproduce the material exactly without also reproducing the properties exactly. Jabba believes otherwise, of course, but has deliberately insulated himself from the elephant in the room: he cannot apply those beliefs to H as a means of falsifying it via Bayes' theorem.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th May 2017, 10:57 AM   #2691
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,786
Originally Posted by Agatha View Post
Jabba, 1)why do you think that a perfect copy of a person would have any ongoing connection with the original - why would Waterman and Xaterman both say "blue and red?

2)Under H, the one in the blue room would say blue, and the one in the red room would say red. Under H, the original and the perfect copy would both have identical-but-separate senses of self.
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Agatha,

#1
- All I seem able to do here is repeat myself.
- I either recognize, or imagine, a direct line of deductive reasoning in the claim that if the copy doesn't bring ME back to life, it's missing something... IMO, there is a particular sense of self that is missing.
- It seems to be a different kind of difference than you guys are including.

#2
- I think I agree.

Jabba, you can't agree with 2) if you also claim that there would be something missing from the copy that was present in the original. These positions are inconsistent.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th May 2017, 12:05 PM   #2692
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,010
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Hans,
- The ME that is not brought back to life is not defined by my physical existence.
--- Jabba
Under H it is.

But, you already knew this, right?

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 Back to Top
Old 19th May 2017, 12:44 PM   #2693
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,439
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Hans,
- The ME that is not brought back to life is not defined by my physical existence.
--- Jabba
Yup, something that can't be proven or demonstrated, that you assert exists without any evidence.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th May 2017, 01:06 PM   #2694
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,816
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Agatha,

#1
- All I seem able to do here is repeat myself.
For once we agree. All you seem to be able to do here is repeat yourself. It's called a fringe reset.
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th May 2017, 01:08 PM   #2695
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,816
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Hans,
- The ME that is not brought back to life is not defined by my physical existence.
--- Jabba
No, it's defined as an emergent property of your functioning brain.
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th May 2017, 01:10 PM   #2696
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,816
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I guess I'll have to go back to "difference."
- I recognize, or imagine, a deductive difference between me and a copy of me that wouldn't bring ME back to life. That's probably the best I can do towards arguing my conclusion that the physically perfect copy would not be a totally perfect copy.
That's the best you've been able to do the last 5 years, and it's not good enough to prove immortality. LOOK AT THE SUBJECT LINE!
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th May 2017, 02:14 PM   #2697
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,786
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
Yup, something that can't be proven or demonstrated, that you assert exists without any evidence.

Otherwise OK?[/BasilFawlty]
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th May 2017, 02:16 PM   #2698
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,734
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I guess I'll have to go back to "difference."
- I recognize, or imagine, a deductive difference between me and a copy of me that wouldn't bring ME back to life. That's probably the best I can do towards arguing my conclusion that the physically perfect copy would not be a totally perfect copy.
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
But you haven't been able to describe that difference. A copy of something is always separate from the original. You seem to be saying you expect everything about the copy to be separate from the original except the sense of self. How does that make sense?
Dave,
- I've been trying -- but, for whatever reason, nothing seems to communicate. Once again, it's the thing or process that you would say cannot be reincarnated.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th May 2017, 02:35 PM   #2699
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,604
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I've been trying -- but, for whatever reason, nothing seems to communicate.
Not for "whatever" reason. We've been telling you the reason your explanation doesn't "communicate." It's a circular non-explanation. And look, here's another example of your circular reasoning:

Quote:
Once again, it's the thing or process that you would say cannot be reincarnated.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th May 2017, 02:42 PM   #2700
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,734
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Hans,
- The ME that is not brought back to life is not defined by my physical existence.
--- Jabba
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Therefore it doesn't exist under H, and claims that it exists have no place in an calculation of the likelihood of your existence under H.
Mojo,
- H accepts the existence of a specific sense of self that will not be "reincarnated." Consequently, H seems to be talking about the same thing that I think might be reincarnated.
- Everyone seems to understand what the thing or process is to which reincarnation refers. H accepts that the specific sense of self to which reincarnation refers does exist -- but according to H, this specific sense of self just can't be reincarnated...
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." Jabba's Razor

Last edited by Jabba; 19th May 2017 at 02:44 PM.
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th May 2017, 02:56 PM   #2701
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,604
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
H accepts the existence of a specific sense of self that will not be "reincarnated."
No, H has no concept of a "specific" sense of self any more than U.S. highway laws have a concept of a "specific going 60 mph." You don't get to add concepts to materialism just to make it easier for you to falsify. Particularization and specificity are just such concepts. A property is not an entity.

Quote:
Everyone seems to understand what the thing or process is to which reincarnation refers.
Yes. But they also understand that it isn't in any way part of H. You tried very hard to get people to think that agreement on a different point constituted agreement on this point, but you were not successful.

Quote:
H accepts that the specific sense of self to which reincarnation refers does exist --
Most emphatically no. Despite your desperate desire to remember the discussion that way, that's not what was agreed. What was agreed was that reincarnationists believe in a kind of soul that they assert creates the sense of self. What was not agreed to -- and specifically denied several times over your faux befuddlement -- was that H contained any such theory as to cause.

This was just one of many times you tried to pollute E with suppositions as to cause from ~H. E is the sense of self. Reincarnationists believe that sense of self is caused by a soul that persists after death and may be reincarnated. H believes that sense of self is a property manifested by a physical human organism that has a functioning brain, and requires nothing else.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th May 2017, 03:01 PM   #2702
JimOfAllTrades
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 355
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Mojo,
- H accepts the existence of a specific sense of self that will not be "reincarnated." Consequently, H seems to be talking about the same thing that I think might be reincarnated.
- Everyone seems to understand what the thing or process is to which reincarnation refers. H accepts that the specific sense of self to which reincarnation refers does exist -- but according to H, this specific sense of self just can't be reincarnated...
No, that's where you get H wrong. According to H that specific sense of self doesn't exist at all. It's not missing in the copy because it was never there in the original.

The sense of self that exists in H is part of the emergent property of consciousness, nothing more. Its cause is purely material, and comes along with a functioning brain.
JimOfAllTrades is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th May 2017, 03:20 PM   #2703
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,604
Originally Posted by JimOfAllTrades View Post
No, that's where you get H wrong. According to H that specific sense of self doesn't exist at all.
And Jabba knows this, having participated in a lively conversation with godless dave over that bit of misinterpretation and having acknowledge Dave's clarification. He seems to be conveniently forgetting that now.

E is the common observation. It must be defined the same when reckoning P(E|H) as when reckoning P(E|~H). As such it has to limit itself to what can be observed without regard or speculation to cause. H and the panoply of ~H provide the respective theory of cause. E is simply "has a sense of self." Skeptics have a sense of self. Reincarnationists have a sense of self. It is the same sense of self in that members of each camp report the same subjective sensations. Each camp hypothesizes differently about what causes those sensations. Wherever there is a difference between the formulations of the two camps, that cannot be part of E; it must be part either of H or of K (which is some specific member of ~H -- say, reincarnation). Jabba wants to take reincarnationists' speculation about what causes E and include it as part of E so that H has to explain it when reckoning P(E|H). Rightly, his critics don't let him do that.

Fortuitously forgetting having previously been set straight on this, Jabba seems to have gone back to rampant equivocation, which is his most threadbare costume. "Property" and "process" in Jabba's hands don't mean what other people think they mean. He simply considers them largely analogous to "soul."
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th May 2017, 03:30 PM   #2704
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 20,638
Jabba,
I know there are a lot of posts being directed towards you, but would you honor me with a reply to this query:

Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
Jabba,

Let's go back to the Jabba Replicator 5000: You step in, there is a brilliant flash of light, and then two Jabba's step out.

Which one is you?
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group.

"He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost
jsfisher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th May 2017, 04:09 PM   #2705
The Sparrow
Muse
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 990
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
You haven't defined "ME" ...
I think you're nailing it here. Jabba's definition of me includes a unique soul.

What jabba doesn't get, is he may already be a copy. Identity is made up of a bunch of things, but, I think most importantly, memory. Who I am is largely composed of my memories. It's how I relate now to the past, and gives me the illusion of continuity. I am that kid that sat on the cross bar of my dad's bike when I was 3. I have no memory of buffalo hunting with my dad. I'd like to think I would recognize that as something false, and not me, if it appears.

Jabba, the copy of you, or you, if you already are the copy, thinks it is the real you.

How do you know you are not already a copy of the original Jabba that was made 5 years ago.
The Sparrow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th May 2017, 04:13 PM   #2706
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,940
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I've been trying -- but, for whatever reason, nothing seems to communicate. Once again, it's the thing or process that you would say cannot be reincarnated.
I'm what way would a copy of such a thing or process be different from the thing or process it would be a copy of?
That's what isn't communicating.
__________________
"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 online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 12:22 AM   #2707
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,786
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I've been trying -- but, for whatever reason, nothing seems to communicate. Once again, it's the thing or process that you would say cannot be reincarnated.

There is certainly an apparent failure of communication, but it isn't in the direction you imply. Everyone is fully aware that you are claiming that souls exist under H. The fact that your attempts to conceal this by calling them "selves" or "specific senses of self", or whatever, have failed is not a failure of communication. The apparent failure of communication here is your apparent inability to understand that souls do not exist under H, despite this having been explained to you very clearly multiple times by multiple posters. As such it is more of a failure of comprehension than of communication, and there's only one person who is failing to comprehend.
__________________
"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; 20th May 2017 at 12:24 AM.
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 12:29 AM   #2708
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,786
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Mojo,
- H accepts the existence of a specific sense of self that will not be "reincarnated." Consequently, H seems to be talking about the same thing that I think might be reincarnated.
- Everyone seems to understand what the thing or process is to which reincarnation refers. H accepts that the specific sense of self to which reincarnation refers does exist -- but according to H, this specific sense of self just can't be reincarnated...

No, Jabba, souls do not exist under H.

Anyway, Jabba, can you please answer this question without trying to duck it by changing the scenario:
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Incidentally, Jabba, there's a question, first posted a few pages back, that you still haven't answered:

Say we have a six-sided die. We throw it, and it comes up as a 3 (event E). I form the hypothesis (H) that all six sides of the die have a 3 on them. The likelihood of the observed event under this hypothesis is 1, right?

You have an alternative hypothesis (let's call it J), that the six sides are numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. The likelihood of the observed event under this hypothesis is 1/6.

Then you pick up the die, and demonstrate that the sides are indeed numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

What is the likelihood of the the observed event if H is true?
__________________
"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; 20th May 2017 at 12:32 AM.
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 12:40 AM   #2709
Filippo Lippi
Master Poster
 
Filippo Lippi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,618
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
nothing seems to communicate.
This is a barefaced lie
__________________
"You may not know anything about the issue but I bet you reckon something.
So why not tell us what you reckon? Let us enjoy the full majesty of your uninformed, ad hoc reckon..."
David Mitchell
Filippo Lippi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 01:27 AM   #2710
JesseCuster
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 636
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I guess I'll have to go back to "difference."
- I recognize, or imagine, a deductive difference between me and a copy of me that wouldn't bring ME back to life. That's probably the best I can do towards arguing my conclusion that the physically perfect copy would not be a totally perfect copy.
But your objection isn't that a perfect copy of you isn't a totally perfect copy of you, your objection is that a perfect copy of you IS a totally perfect copy of you.

According to you, a "totally perfect copy" of you, would have a copy of everything about you and your properties, apart from your sense of self.

According to everyone else, a "totally perfect copy" of you, would have a copy of everything about you and your properties, including your sense of self.

One of those clearly makes sense and the other doesn't.

How can you insist that something is only a totally perfect copy of something else, only if it doesn't include copies of some of its properties?
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 Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 01:38 AM   #2711
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,169
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I've been trying -- but, for whatever reason, nothing seems to communicate. Once again, it's the thing or process that you would say cannot be reincarnated.
But under H there is no thing or process that cannot be reincarnated. A future copy of you which perfectly reproduced your current consciousness would be a reincarnation of you. The only difference between it and your current instance of consciousness would be its spacetime coordinates.

Please stop assuming that if we don't agree with you it's because we don't understand you. We understand you perfectly. The problem is your own understanding. Under H the only thing that uniquely identifies the instance of consciousness which you call me is its spacetime coordinates, so it makes no sense to complain that that unique identifier can't be reproduced.

ETA: Take ten identical Volkswagons. Number them 1 to 10, so each is uniquely identified. You are essentially trying to argue that number 8 cannot be a perfect copy of number 2 because its unique identifier is 8, not 2.
__________________
"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

Last edited by Pixel42; 20th May 2017 at 02:14 AM.
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 Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 06:37 AM   #2712
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,734
Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
Jabba,

Let's go back to the Jabba Replicator 5000: You step in, there is a brilliant flash of light, and then two Jabba's step out.

Which one is you?
js,
- The one wearing clothes.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 06:40 AM   #2713
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,734
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
But under H there is no thing or process that cannot be reincarnated. A future copy of you which perfectly reproduced your current consciousness would be a reincarnation of you. The only difference between it and your current instance of consciousness would be its spacetime coordinates.

Please stop assuming that if we don't agree with you it's because we don't understand you. We understand you perfectly. The problem is your own understanding. Under H the only thing that uniquely identifies the instance of consciousness which you call me is its spacetime coordinates, so it makes no sense to complain that that unique identifier can't be reproduced.

ETA: Take ten identical Volkswagons. Number them 1 to 10, so each is uniquely identified. You are essentially trying to argue that number 8 cannot be a perfect copy of number 2 because its unique identifier is 8, not 2.
Pixel,
- We don't have to worry about bringing the VW back to life.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 06:44 AM   #2714
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,010
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
js,
- The one wearing clothes.
So you agree that this would be the only way to tell the difference?

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 Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 06:45 AM   #2715
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,734
Originally Posted by JesseCuster View Post
But your objection isn't that a perfect copy of you isn't a totally perfect copy of you, your objection is that a perfect copy of you IS a totally perfect copy of you.

According to you, a "totally perfect copy" of you, would have a copy of everything about you and your properties, apart from your sense of self.

According to everyone else, a "totally perfect copy" of you, would have a copy of everything about you and your properties, including your sense of self.

One of those clearly makes sense and the other doesn't.

How can you insist that something is only a totally perfect copy of something else, only if it doesn't include copies of some of its properties?
Jesse,
- In a hurry, I don't really understand your question...
- I have to repeat myself, but don't you agree that something is missing if I'm not brought back to life?
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 06:50 AM   #2716
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,734
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
So you agree that this would be the only way to tell the difference?

Hans
- Yes. That, or some other external identifier.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 06:51 AM   #2717
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,849
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Jesse,
- In a hurry, I don't really understand your question...
- I have to repeat myself, but don't you agree that something is missing if I'm not brought back to life?
If the duplicate thinks it's you, has all your thoughts and memories, how exactly would that be different from bringing you back to life? The only difference would be the physical body, of which there would be two. And, as Pixel42 points out, their spacetime coordinates.
jond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 06:52 AM   #2718
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 20,638
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
Jabba,

Let's go back to the Jabba Replicator 5000: You step in, there is a brilliant flash of light, and then two Jabba's step out.

Which one is you?
js,
- The one wearing clothes.
Why evade the question rather than answer it?

Its point is very simple, and I suspect you know the answer, but choose not to face it: They are both you. Whatever it is that you sense, believe, feel, think, experience, and conclude to be "you" is present in both Jabba's.
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group.

"He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost
jsfisher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 07:27 AM   #2719
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 64,724
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- All I seem able to do here is repeat myself.
And why? We all understand your claims and points. Time for you to switch to something more productive.
__________________
"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"
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 Back to Top
Old 20th May 2017, 08:16 AM   #2720
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,604
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
The one wearing clothes.
What a rude non-answer.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:38 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.