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 3rd March 2017, 10:21 AM   #241
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,966
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,

- For whatever reason(s), it seems to me obvious that the existence of our "particular self-awarenesses" is analogous to us winning the lottery; it's hard for me to understand why that isn't obvious to you or our colleagues; and for that reason, I have trouble explaining why I think that we're analogous to lottery winners...
- My best guess at this point is that you see the lottery as simple chance, and our existence as clearly due to cause and effect (in fact, I'm beginning to think that you already told me that...), whereas and whatever, I suspect that they are both the result of cause & effect, but that in neither case is the cause & effect traceable -- and consequently, chance is reasonably applied to both.
- I claim that while our particular characteristics are largely traceable to cause and effect, this process that I'm calling our particular self-awareness is not at all traceable to cause and effect -- we cannot reproduce it chemically -- and our particular processes, scientifically speaking, can never exist again.
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
...
In scientific models for consciousness, it is exactly as traceable as the cause and effect that led to a particular brain existing, because they are the same thing. My particular brain can never exist again. If you somehow made an exact copy of my brain, It would exhibit an exact copy of my consciousness.
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- But, it wouldn't exhibit your particular self-awareness. "You" would not be reincarnated.
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
For exactly the same reason it wouldn't be my particular brain. It would be a copy.
If two separate brains could produce the same self-awareness that would mean the scientific explanation for self-awareness is wrong.
- Which is why our particular self-awarenesses are not cause and effect traceable -- and whose current existences are, therefore, as subject to calculations re chance as is winning the lottery.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2017, 10:22 AM   #242
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,098
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Which is why our particular self-awarenesses are not cause and effect traceable
I don't see how that follows. It's exactly as cause and effect traceable as the brain that produces it. If someone made a copy of your brain you could trace the causality that led to that copy existing, and thus to the copy of your self-awareness 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 Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2017, 10:36 AM   #243
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,915
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,

- For whatever reason(s), it seems to me obvious that the existence of our "particular self-awarenesses" is analogous to us winning the lottery; it's hard for me to understand why that isn't obvious to you or our colleagues; and for that reason, I have trouble explaining why I think that we're analogous to lottery winners...
- My best guess at this point is that you see the lottery as simple chance, and our existence as clearly due to cause and effect (in fact, I'm beginning to think that you already told me that...), whereas and whatever, I suspect that they are both the result of cause & effect, but that in neither case is the cause & effect traceable -- and consequently, chance is reasonably applied to both.
- I claim that while our particular characteristics are largely traceable to cause and effect, this process that I'm calling our particular self-awareness is not at all traceable to cause and effect -- we cannot reproduce it chemically -- and our particular processes, scientifically speaking, can never exist again.
Jabba, go back and read this thread and its ancestors.
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave
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 3rd March 2017, 10:46 AM   #244
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 8,400
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Which is why our particular self-awarenesses are not cause and effect traceable -- and whose current existences are, therefore, as subject to calculations re chance as is winning the lottery.
Read your own thread, already answered and/or addressed multiple times. You are being insulting by asking the same questions over and over.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Hating a bad thing does not make you good." - David Wong
JoeBentley is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2017, 10:47 AM   #245
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,915
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,

- For whatever reason(s), it seems to me obvious that the existence of our "particular self-awarenesses" is analogous to us winning the lottery; it's hard for me to understand why that isn't obvious to you or our colleagues; and for that reason, I have trouble explaining why I think that we're analogous to lottery winners...
- My best guess at this point is that you see the lottery as simple chance, and our existence as clearly due to cause and effect (in fact, I'm beginning to think that you already told me that...), whereas and whatever, I suspect that they are both the result of cause & effect, but that in neither case is the cause & effect traceable -- and consequently, chance is reasonably applied to both.
- I claim that while our particular characteristics are largely traceable to cause and effect, this process that I'm calling our particular self-awareness is not at all traceable to cause and effect -- we cannot reproduce it chemically -- and our particular processes, scientifically speaking, can never exist again.
1) You don't speak for the discipline of science
2) Go back and read all the response to your posts.
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave
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 3rd March 2017, 11:06 AM   #246
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,524
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Which is why our particular self-awarenesses are not cause and effect traceable...
You're equivocating "particular." If the exact causes are replicated, they will produce identical effects. This has been a hallmark of the debate since its beginning. You're trying to make something out of how many times this could be done in the hypothetical example and counting each as "particular".

Quote:
...as subject to calculations re chance as is winning the lottery.
Are you ever going to read and respond to the dozens of arguments that explain why the emergent property of consciousness is not anything like a lottery? Or are you going to continue blundering ahead in ignorance, unapologetically ignoring the people who are trying to educate you? It's important. We want to know whether continuing to correct your ongoing, persistent misrepresentations is a waste of time.
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 3rd March 2017, 11:11 AM   #247
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,753
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- But, it wouldn't exhibit your particular self-awareness. "You" would not be reincarnated.

Correct. Two identical things are two things, not one thing.
__________________
"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 3rd March 2017, 11:17 AM   #248
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,739
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,

- For whatever reason(s), it seems to me obvious that the existence of our "particular self-awarenesses" is analogous to us winning the lottery;
Assertion of belief is not an argument
__________________
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 3rd March 2017, 11:18 AM   #249
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,739
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- But, it wouldn't exhibit your particular self-awareness. "You" would not be reincarnated.
You just assume that your consciousness/awareness is the same, it changes all the time
__________________
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 3rd March 2017, 11:45 AM   #250
Toontown
Philosopher
 
Toontown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,121
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Which is why our particular self-awarenesses are not cause and effect traceable -- and whose current existences are, therefore, as subject to calculations re chance as is winning the lottery.
Why not use standard big bang theory? That was many orders of magnitude more chancy than any lottery.

According to standard big bang theory, our 'specific' self-awarenesses are not cause and effect traceable because the brains that produce them are not cause and effect traceable.

According to SBB theory, the first elementary particles began to form at t = 0 + 10-43 seconds, in the midst of an incomprehensibly chaotic quantum stew. That kind of chaos was true randomness, as only the quantum realm can do it. This entire universe randomly emerged from that wild and crazy quantum crap shoot. Literally any possible configuration of the universe could have emerged from that. All but one of which would not have included your specific brain.

Try cause-and-effect tracing your brain through that.

One of the random particles that eventually factored into your brain's formation might have gotten the crap knocked out of it by another random particle, sending it careening off in a direction inconsistent with your brain's formation. That's all it might have taken to erase any possibility of your brain, and maybe even the galaxy it was formed in. And it's actually far worse for the determinists than that. All of the quantum interactions that had a hand in your brain's eventual formation had to happen pretty much the way they did.

Don't even bother trying to calculate the odds that were stacked against your specific brain when that clock started ticking. Something like ten to the power of eighty, factorial. Something like that.

And that was just the tip of the randomness iceberg. Quantum interactions have been happening ever since. One of which might have been a cosmic ray randomly emerging from the sun and striking someone who would have killed one of your ancestors, had he not died of cancer caused by the cosmic ray. Or your ancestor who forgot to go on an errand because of a cosmic ray. An errand from which she would not have returned. Just a couple of an uncountable number of possibilities.

Yeah. Not really like a lottery. Lottery odds pale to laughable insignificance compared to the quantum shuffle.

And it's not even necessary to go that far to flummox the determinists. The fact is, probability applies to a fully deterministic universe the same as an indeterministic one. That's because probability is about incomplete knowledge, not randomness. Randomness just happens to be one of the causes of incomplete knowledge.
__________________
"I did not say that!" - Donald Trump

Last edited by Toontown; 3rd March 2017 at 12:19 PM.
Toontown 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 3rd March 2017, 12:09 PM   #251
Toontown
Philosopher
 
Toontown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,121
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Toontown,
- When I try to explain why my existence is so special, I keep running into "my perspective." But then,...
The formula you presented is built on subjective perspective. It was intended only to be used subjectively and perspectively.

It's the kind of thing a theoretical cosmologist might use to choose or reject a direction of inquiry. "Would I exist if this is true?" can be a very pertinent question if used correctly.

And that was your problem when you decided to try to use the formula to prove an interpretation of reality to a bunch of 19th century determinist skeptics, many of whom were already pissed at you over the whole "shroud" thing, which I have avoided like the plague.
__________________
"I did not say that!" - Donald Trump
Toontown 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 3rd March 2017, 02:45 PM   #252
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,966
Originally Posted by Toontown View Post
Why not use standard big bang theory? That was many orders of magnitude more chancy than any lottery.

According to standard big bang theory, our 'specific' self-awarenesses are not cause and effect traceable because the brains that produce them are not cause and effect traceable.

According to SBB theory, the first elementary particles began to form at t = 0 + 10-43 seconds, in the midst of an incomprehensibly chaotic quantum stew. That kind of chaos was true randomness, as only the quantum realm can do it. This entire universe randomly emerged from that wild and crazy quantum crap shoot. Literally any possible configuration of the universe could have emerged from that. All but one of which would not have included your specific brain.

Try cause-and-effect tracing your brain through that.

One of the random particles that eventually factored into your brain's formation might have gotten the crap knocked out of it by another random particle, sending it careening off in a direction inconsistent with your brain's formation. That's all it might have taken to erase any possibility of your brain, and maybe even the galaxy it was formed in. And it's actually far worse for the determinists than that. All of the quantum interactions that had a hand in your brain's eventual formation had to happen pretty much the way they did.

Don't even bother trying to calculate the odds that were stacked against your specific brain when that clock started ticking. Something like ten to the power of eighty, factorial. Something like that.

And that was just the tip of the randomness iceberg. Quantum interactions have been happening ever since. One of which might have been a cosmic ray randomly emerging from the sun and striking someone who would have killed one of your ancestors, had he not died of cancer caused by the cosmic ray. Or your ancestor who forgot to go on an errand because of a cosmic ray. An errand from which she would not have returned. Just a couple of an uncountable number of possibilities.

Yeah. Not really like a lottery. Lottery odds pale to laughable insignificance compared to the quantum shuffle.

And it's not even necessary to go that far to flummox the determinists. The fact is, probability applies to a fully deterministic universe the same as an indeterministic one. That's because probability is about incomplete knowledge, not randomness. Randomness just happens to be one of the causes of incomplete knowledge.
Toon,
- I think that I totally agree.
- Seems even more obvious if you're a determinist.
- Then, there's the Anthropic Principle.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor

Last edited by Jabba; 3rd March 2017 at 02:47 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 3rd March 2017, 03:10 PM   #253
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,524
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I think that I totally agree.
Because you're both committing the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.
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 3rd March 2017, 03:12 PM   #254
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,966
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
I don't see how that follows. It's exactly as cause and effect traceable as the brain that produces it. If someone made a copy of your brain you could trace the causality that led to that copy existing, and thus to the copy of your self-awareness existing.
- But, you agree that my particular self-awareness is not reproduceable. How can we 'trace' it if we can't reproduce it? We have no idea what physicality brings about a particular self-awareness. Saying that a particular brain is the cause would seem to make it traceable only one step back...
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2017, 03:24 PM   #255
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,524
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
But, you agree that my particular self-awareness is not reproduceable.
It would be reproducible if we could reproduce your organism exactly. You merely want to equivocate that "particular" must consider two things that are identical -- having derived from identical causes and ultimately indistinguishable -- to be somehow nevertheless different merely by the accident of cardinality. As you probably suspect, the half dozen previous times you tried this argument it was just as completely refuted as it is now. And you continue to insult your fellow contributors by ignoring them.

Quote:
How can we 'trace' it if we can't reproduce it?
Traceability is simply the ability to go from cause to effect in a deterministic fashion. It doesn't somehow become untraceable or nondeterministic just because it is impractical to reproduce the causes perfectly. Determinism is in the nature of the consequence, not its practicality. Again, chaos theory has had the answer to this for some time and you have been given proper references to the relevant material. You simply chose to ignore it.

Determinism is not an axiom here. It's a necessary consequence of the scientific hypothesis for the sense of self. You have the cart before the horse.

Quote:
We have no idea what physicality brings about a particular self-awareness.
Of course we do, but by all means keep that denial uncamouflaged so it doesn't get mistaken for an actual argument.

Last edited by JayUtah; 3rd March 2017 at 03:29 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 Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2017, 03:34 PM   #256
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,098
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- But, you agree that my particular self-awareness is not reproduceable.
I don't agree with that at all. To reproduce something is to make a copy of it. Just like the last time you tried to tell me I agree with that statement.

A copy is identical to the original.

If something is capable of experiencing self awareness, a copy of that thing would experience self-awareness in exactly the same way. There doesn't have to be a difference between them for them to be two separate things.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
We have no idea what physicality brings about a particular self-awareness. Saying that a particular brain is the cause would seem to make it traceable only one step back...
We know exactly what physicality brings about a particular self awareness - a human brain. And we understand the causes of a human brain existing. In my case I can trace a chain of causality back to 1763, and could go farther if I were willing to give Ancestry.com more money.
__________________
"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; 3rd March 2017 at 03:53 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 Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2017, 03:35 PM   #257
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,489
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I still think it is analogous.
- As you know, I consider each potential combination of human sperm cell and ovum (whatever the dates and places) as representing a potential different human being (What if we could freeze them all?). I don't understand why you don't.
It is irrelevant. Suppose you have a lottery with an infinity of numbers and you draw 7 billion tickets. What is the likelihood that each of the holders of those tickets is a winner?

That is the question.

Or, suppose you drop 7 billion buckets of sand on the ground. What is the likelihood that you have 7 billion individual heaps of sand?

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2017, 03:37 PM   #258
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,524
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
I don't agree with that at all. To reproduce something is to make a copy of it. Just like the last time you tried to tell me I agree with that statement.
Analysis: "godless dave agrees with me on the cardinality of two. Therefore he has to agree with me on what that cardinality means in terms of my argument."
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 3rd March 2017, 03:49 PM   #259
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,739
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- But, you agree that my particular self-awareness is not reproduceable. How can we 'trace' it if we can't reproduce it? We have no idea what physicality brings about a particular self-awareness. Saying that a particular brain is the cause would seem to make it traceable only one step back...
How do you know it is the same moment to moment, or do you assume that?
__________________
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 3rd March 2017, 05:31 PM   #260
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,915
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- But, you agree that my particular self-awareness is not reproduceable. [...]..
There you go again -- trying to put your words into other peoples' mouths.

Shame on you. You have no worthwhile argument and no intellectual integrity.
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave

Last edited by John Jones; 3rd March 2017 at 05:33 PM.
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2017, 05:47 PM   #261
Filippo Lippi
Master Poster
 
Filippo Lippi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,764
45 years of "Effective" Debate
__________________
"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 3rd March 2017, 06:04 PM   #262
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 24,125
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
(in fact, I'm beginning to think that you already told me that...)

Jabba -

Irrespective of any argument being made, can't you see how rude this is?

Last night, I went to the grade school science fair and I introduced myself to the Principal, even though we'd met once or twice. But I would have been fairly put out if my son's teacher didn't recognize me.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2017, 06:07 PM   #263
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 24,125
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
In my case I can trace a chain of causality back to 1763, and could go farther if I were willing to give Ancestry.com more money.

Good for you. I go back a hundred years and then the answer just keeps coming up, "somewhere in Poland."
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2017, 06:37 PM   #264
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,524
My dad gave Ancestry.com a ton of money and I can go back as far as Louis IV of France.
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 3rd March 2017, 08:18 PM   #265
jt512
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,674
Originally Posted by Toontown View Post
You are not the only regular participant in this thread who does not understand the formula.

As you conveniently demonstrate:

Quote:
The formula, in plain English:

The probability that I would have come to exist given H is equal to (the probability that I would have come to exist given H times the probability that H is true) divided by (the probabiliity that I would have come to exist given H plus the probability that I would have come to exist given something other than H times the probability that something other than H is true)
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 Back to Top
Old 4th March 2017, 06:17 AM   #266
Toontown
Philosopher
 
Toontown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,121


You're right. That is wrong. It should begin with "The probability that H is true given the fact that I exist is equal to..."
__________________
"I did not say that!" - Donald Trump

Last edited by Toontown; 4th March 2017 at 07:42 AM.
Toontown 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 4th March 2017, 06:35 AM   #267
Toontown
Philosopher
 
Toontown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,121
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
It is irrelevant. Suppose you have a lottery with an infinity of numbers and you draw 7 billion tickets. What is the likelihood that each of the holders of those tickets is a winner?

That is the question.
Not really. Your proposal immediately raises the question: what proportion of the infinity of numbers are winning numbers?

I'm pretty sure you're attempting to commit the Texas Horse Race Fallacy, but I can't be sure until you flesh out your analogy.
__________________
"I did not say that!" - Donald Trump

Last edited by Toontown; 4th March 2017 at 07:39 AM.
Toontown 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 4th March 2017, 08:07 AM   #268
Toontown
Philosopher
 
Toontown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,121
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Because you're both committing the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.
I protest this false interpretation of my position.

I tend to disbelieve an interpretation of reality which implies that I have beaten giganogargantuan odds.

I tend to go with the default anthropic assumption that what I am experiencing is typical, rather than ludicrously anomalous or "special".

Neither of the above considerations has any relation to selectively drawing a circle around a data cluster and then claiming to be special. In fact, the opposite is true, and those who see things the opposite way are the real fallacy criminals.
__________________
"I did not say that!" - Donald Trump

Last edited by Toontown; 4th March 2017 at 08:12 AM.
Toontown 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 4th March 2017, 08:14 AM   #269
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,966
236
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- But, it wouldn't exhibit your particular self-awareness. "You" would not be reincarnated.
239
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
For exactly the same reason it wouldn't be my particular brain. It would be a copy.
If two separate brains could produce the same self-awareness that would mean the scientific explanation for self-awareness is wrong.
241
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Which is why our particular self-awarenesses are not cause and effect traceable -- and whose current existences are, therefore, as subject to calculations re chance as is winning the lottery.
242
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
I don't see how that follows. It's exactly as cause and effect traceable as the brain that produces it. If someone made a copy of your brain you could trace the causality that led to that copy existing, and thus to the copy of your self-awareness existing.
254
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- But, you agree that my particular self-awareness is not reproduceable. How can we 'trace' it if we can't reproduce it? We have no idea what physicality brings about a particular self-awareness. Saying that a particular brain is the cause would seem to make it traceable only one step back...
256
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
I don't agree with that at all. To reproduce something is to make a copy of it. Just like the last time you tried to tell me I agree with that statement.
A copy is identical to the original.
If something is capable of experiencing self awareness, a copy of that thing would experience self-awareness in exactly the same way. There doesn't have to be a difference between them for them to be two separate things.
We know exactly what physicality brings about a particular self awareness - a human brain. And we understand the causes of a human brain existing. In my case I can trace a chain of causality back to 1763, and could go farther if I were willing to give Ancestry.com more money.
Dave,
- In 239 above, you agree that your particular self-awareness would not be exhibited in your copy. In 256, you say that my particular self-awareness would be reproduced in my copy. Those two claims seem to conflict.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th March 2017, 08:48 AM   #270
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 17,024
Apparently, a fringe reset is insufficient, now we have the return of the useless numbers.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon 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 4th March 2017, 08:51 AM   #271
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,524
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Those two claims seem to conflict.
Because you cherry pick the parts of his posts you think agree with you and ignore the part where he doesn't agree with you on the significance of individuality. For crying out loud, Jabba, read the thread.
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 4th March 2017, 08:52 AM   #272
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,753
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave
- In 239 above, you agree that your particular self-awareness would not be exhibited in your copy. In 256, you say that my particular self-awareness would be reproduced in my copy. Those two claims seem to conflict.

They don't. A reproduction of something is not that thing; it is a second identical thing. You are effectively trying to equivocate between singular and plural, and since pretty much everyone here is capable of distinguishing between these concepts your attempt is doomed to failure.
__________________
"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; 4th March 2017 at 08:54 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 4th March 2017, 09:40 AM   #273
Filippo Lippi
Master Poster
 
Filippo Lippi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,764
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Apparently, a fringe reset is insufficient, now we have the return of the useless numbers.
Almost as if he's just to push people's buttons.
__________________
"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 4th March 2017, 10:29 AM   #274
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,915
Originally Posted by Filippo Lippi View Post
Almost as if he's just to push people's buttons.
Stand-by for headache-inducing, multi-colored bullet points.

Jabba,

Are you still quoting people out of context against their will from here to your web sites?
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave
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 4th March 2017, 11:11 AM   #275
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,098
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
236

239

241

242

254

256Dave,
- In 239 above, you agree that your particular self-awareness would not be exhibited in your copy. In 256, you say that my particular self-awareness would be reproduced in my copy. Those two claims seem to conflict.
To reproduce something is to make a copy.
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 4th March 2017, 11:59 AM   #276
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,098
Jabba, have you ever gone to the store, bought three cans of the same kind of soup, then tried to convince the cashier that you should only be charged for one because they are the same can of soup?
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 5th March 2017, 05:43 AM   #277
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,217
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Jabba, have you ever gone to the store, bought three cans of the same kind of soup, then tried to convince the cashier that you should only be charged for one because they are the same can of soup?
That is beautiful!
The Sparrow is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2017, 09:44 AM   #278
Toontown
Philosopher
 
Toontown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,121
Originally Posted by The Sparrow View Post
That is beautiful!
You've been out in central Canada too long. Curb your enthusiasm.

Momentous events and deep insights are occurring rapidly. But not here.
__________________
"I did not say that!" - Donald Trump
Toontown 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 5th March 2017, 05:48 PM   #279
caveman1917
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,224
Originally Posted by Toontown View Post
I tend to go with the default anthropic assumption that what I am experiencing is typical, rather than ludicrously anomalous or "special".
I think it would be better and more accurate to say that the default anthropic assumption is that what you experience (ie your actual observer-moment) is randomly sampled from the class of all possible experiences (observer-moments).

This is probably what you meant, but I think the language of "typical" or "special" can lead to confusion. Consider a sequence of 100 coin tosses, resulting in a string of heads and tails. This specific sequence is special in the sense of being ludicrously unlikely, it has a probability of 2^{-100}, but it is not special in the sense of not being randomly sampled from the class of all possible such sequences.

The real question here, after all, isn't the ludicrous unlikelihood of Jabba's specific experiences (they are ludicrously unlikely) but whether his specific experiences can be considered to have been specially rather than randomly selected from the class of all possible experiences (they can not).

Quote:
Neither of the above considerations has any relation to selectively drawing a circle around a data cluster and then claiming to be special. In fact, the opposite is true, and those who see things the opposite way are the real fallacy criminals.
I agree. I'd challenge anyone who sticks to this Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy explanation to explain what is wrong with the following argument (or any other such argument) where I condition on my own existence in the second statement:

If my parents hadn't met then I wouldn't exist.
I exist.
Therefor, my parents have met.

Last edited by caveman1917; 5th March 2017 at 06:20 PM.
caveman1917 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 5th March 2017, 06:08 PM   #280
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 17,024
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
I agree. I'd challenge anyone who sticks to this Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy explanation to explain what is wrong with the following argument (or any other such argument) where I condition on my own existence in the second statement:

If my parents hadn't met then I wouldn't exist.
I exist.
Therefor, my parents have met.
And how about your parents parents? your grandparents? Were there not four of those?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon 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
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 05:54 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.