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

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


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags !MOD BOX WARNING!

Reply
Old 20th January 2018, 11:06 AM   #2161
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 17,318
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Mojo,
- "Shortly" covers the next 100 years or so.
Jabba, I will return to an example I provided to you years ago.

You exist now.
Your two parents must therefore also have existed. You now have 2 ancestors.
Their parents must also have existed (two each, your grandparents). You now have 4 more ancestors.
Their parents must also have existed (two each, your great-grandparents). You now have 8 more ancestors.
And so forth.

By the time you get back to the time of jebus, you alone had 147,573,952,589,676,412,928 ancestors living in or around the same time.

That is more ancestors that humans that have ever lived in the history of Earth, and there are 7,000,000,000 billion of us each having the very same number of ancestors. Therefore, at the time of the Romans there were 147,573,952,589,676,412,928 x 7,000,000,000 ancestors of all of us living on the Earth.

That is 1,033,017,668,127,734,890,496,000,000,000 of us at the time of the Romans.

That works out as 6,904 billion people per square meter over all of the land area of earth just to account for all of our ancestors.

Where were they all living?

But it gets worse. Human history does not stop at the Romans, oh no. Actual human history does not go back to the Romans, it goes at least 100,000 years back and that will make your problem even bigger. But let us ignore that and just even going back as the mythical Noah causes a huge problem.

Every time I raise this, you claim you will think about it and get back to me, but you never do.

The math is solid, but it has a fatal flaw much like your argument. Can you identify what that flaw actually is?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon 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 20th January 2018, 11:26 AM   #2162
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,235
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- In location, molecules and what they were transmitting...
Just like the senses of self.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Here, I'm trying to communicate a particularly subtle -- but exciting -- concept. Fortunately, its recognition is probably not necessary for determining that the posterior probability of OOFLam is unimaginably small. The concept is about the "self" coming out of nowhere, and therefore, being totally unpredictable and infinitely unlikely...
- Each new 'clump' of consciousness naturally involves a brand new self. It naturally creates a brand new self. There was no pool of potential selves to draw from.
We know. We understand the concept. It's called mind-body dualism. That concept is not part of the non-religious hypothesis. This discussion started when you asked for examples of you misrepresenting the non-religious hypothesis. This concept that you call subtle and exciting is not part of the non-religious hypothesis. At various times you have acted as if it were.
__________________
"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; 20th January 2018 at 12:49 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 20th January 2018, 01:38 PM   #2163
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 28,392
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- According to materialism, it's here now in the way that it won't be here after your body dies. You accept that there is a process that will quit -- never to go again -- when your body dies.
You accept that the specific going 60 mph will quit - never to go again - when my Volkswagen goes to the crusher.

Do you also agree that the phrasing you use sounds inane?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2018, 08:59 PM   #2164
Dabop
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Oz
Posts: 492
Originally Posted by jond View Post
Same as it ever was...
reminds me of the chorus of Once In A Lifetime by Talking Heads
to quote....

Same as it ever was
Same as it ever was
Same as it ever was
Look where my hand was
Time isn't holding up
Time isn't after us
Same as it ever was
Same as it ever was
Same as it ever was
Same as it ever was
Same as it ever was
Same as it ever was
Same as it ever was
Same as it ever was
Same as it ever was
__________________
It's a kind of a strawman thing in that it's exactly a strawman thing. Loss Leader

'When you're born into this world, you're given a ticket to the freak show. If you're born in America you get a front row seat.' George Carlin
Dabop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2018, 03:01 AM   #2165
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,910
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Mojo,
- "Shortly" covers the next 100 years or so.

Evasion noted.
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2018, 07:42 AM   #2166
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,225
Unhappy

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- In location, molecules and what they were transmitting...

- Here, I'm trying to communicate a particularly subtle -- but exciting -- concept. Fortunately, its recognition is probably not necessary for determining that the posterior probability of OOFLam is unimaginably small. The concept is about the "self" coming out of nowhere, and therefore, being totally unpredictable and infinitely unlikely...
- Each new 'clump' of consciousness naturally involves a brand new self. It naturally creates a brand new self. There was no pool of potential selves to draw from.
- Anyway, I think that you already accept that the likelihood of the current existence of your self -- given OOFLam -- is no larger than 10-100. Is that correct?
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Just like the senses of self.



We know. We understand the concept. It's called mind-body dualism. That concept is not part of the non-religious hypothesis. This discussion started when you asked for examples of you misrepresenting the non-religious hypothesis. This concept that you call subtle and exciting is not part of the non-religious hypothesis. At various times you have acted as if it were.
Dave,
- Mind-body dualism is not the concept I'm trying to convey. The non-religious hypothesis accepts the emergent property of consciousness and the "self" that consciousness naturally entails.
- If the NR hypothesis accepts that this particular sense of self never existed before, will never exist again, never had to exist in the first place and was not drawn from a pool of potential selves, any particular sense of self is brand new and came out of nowhere --
which is quite exciting.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2018, 07:51 AM   #2167
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 21,516
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
...
- If the NR hypothesis accepts that this particular sense of self ...
It is not a thing. There is no particular sense of self.
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2018, 08:14 AM   #2168
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 28,392
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Mind-body dualism is not the concept I'm trying to convey. The non-religious hypothesis accepts the emergent property of consciousness and the "self" that consciousness naturally entails.
What exactly are you referring to as a "self"? You're making it sound like a thing, which materialism won't allow you to do.

Quote:
- If the NR hypothesis accepts that this particular sense of self
You're lying about a sense of self being a thing in materialism. There is no "particular" sense of self any more than a Volkswagen goes a "particular" 60 mph. This is your lie which you won't be allowed to attribute to materialism.

Quote:
never existed before, will never exist again, never had to exist in the first place
The process of consciousness doesn't have a separate existence from the organism in materialism. You won't be allowed to lie about materialism.

Quote:
and was not drawn from a pool of potential selves, any particular sense of self is brand new and came out of nowhere --
which is quite exciting.
Processes don't come from pools of processes and are also not particular. I just don't think you are able to grasp the simplest concepts.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2018, 08:25 AM   #2169
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,910
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Mind-body dualism is not the concept I'm trying to convey. The non-religious hypothesis accepts the emergent property of consciousness and the "self" that consciousness naturally entails.
- If the NR hypothesis accepts that this particular sense of self never existed before, will never exist again, never had to exist in the first place and was not drawn from a pool of potential selves, any particular sense of self is brand new and came out of nowhere --
which is quite exciting.

No, if materialism is true it doesn't "come out of nowhere", it is entirely the result of, and determined by, the physical and chemical state of the brain. As you have been told many times.

Perfectly replicating you would result in two Jabbas, identical in all respects, including their consciousnesses, because the consciousnesses would be being produced by identical brains. OK, one of them would be very confused, and the other, suddenly finding himself somewhere other than where he remembered being a moment before, would probably become even more confused. But at the instant of replication they would be identical in all respects.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

Last edited by Mojo; 21st January 2018 at 09:09 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2018, 10:05 AM   #2170
carlitos
"ms divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 17,834
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Agatha,

- It would seem that I perceive (or, imagine) a concept that you and the others on this forum do not perceive (or imagine).

- From my perspective, the replication would bring a new "self-hood." It probably wouldn't be me, it probably wouldn't be you and it might not be anyone else who is currently represented in a body (alive). I'll try to explain that later...

- Otherwise, we would have no idea "who" (what self-hood) it would be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul?wprov=sfti1
Quote:

Soul
Essence of an individual
In many religious, philosophical and mythological traditions, there is a belief in the incorporeal essence of a living being called the soul.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2018, 10:20 AM   #2171
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 70,796
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Mind-body dualism is not the concept I'm trying to convey. The non-religious hypothesis accepts the emergent property of consciousness and the "self" that consciousness naturally entails.
- If the NR hypothesis accepts that this particular sense of self never existed before, will never exist again, never had to exist in the first place and was not drawn from a pool of potential selves, any particular sense of self is brand new and came out of nowhere --
which is quite exciting.
The "NR" hypothesis (science) doesn't accept any of that.

The self doesn't "exist". You just agreed that its a property, not a thing. If you could address the bringing back to life of "going 60 mph" it might help.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2018, 10:31 AM   #2172
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,235
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Mind-body dualism is not the concept I'm trying to convey. The non-religious hypothesis accepts the emergent property of consciousness and the "self" that consciousness naturally entails.
- If the NR hypothesis accepts that this particular sense of self never existed before, will never exist again, never had to exist in the first place and was not drawn from a pool of potential selves, any particular sense of self is brand new and came out of nowhere --
which is quite exciting.
That is not what the non-religious hypothesis says. In the non-religious hypothesis the same causes that resulted in the physical body resulted in the sense of self. Everything about the sense of self is determined by the body. It did not come out of nowhere.
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm

Last edited by godless dave; 21st January 2018 at 10:32 AM.
godless dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2018, 11:16 AM   #2173
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,147
Jabba: remember when you agreed that the sense of self is a process generated by a functioning brain? You are back to trying to make the self a separate entity in the materialistic model. It is not. We know where the sense of self comes from, it is generated by the brain. Why do you continue this nonsense about the self coming out of nowhere?
jond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2018, 12:36 PM   #2174
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,900
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
If the NR hypothesis accepts that this particular sense of self...
The sense of self is not particularized or individualized in materialism. You know that. That's why you had to scramble to declare other non-individualized properties of other systems as somehow not properties. You're trying very had to make materialism look liked dualism when by its very definition it isn't.
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 21st January 2018, 01:14 PM   #2175
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,225
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- In location, molecules and what they were transmitting...

- Here, I'm trying to communicate a particularly subtle -- but exciting -- concept. Fortunately, its recognition is probably not necessary for determining that the posterior probability of OOFLam is unimaginably small. The concept is about the "self" coming out of nowhere, and therefore, being totally unpredictable and infinitely unlikely...
- Each new 'clump' of consciousness naturally involves a brand new self. It naturally creates a brand new self. There was no pool of potential selves to draw from.
- Anyway, I think that you already accept that the likelihood of the current existence of your self -- given OOFLam -- is no larger than 10-100. Is that correct?
Dave,
- Is that correct?
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2018, 01:21 PM   #2176
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,225
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
...
- Here, I'm trying to communicate a particularly subtle -- but exciting -- concept. Fortunately, its recognition is probably not necessary for determining that the posterior probability of OOFLam is unimaginably small. The concept is about the "self" coming out of nowhere, and therefore, being totally unpredictable and infinitely unlikely...
- Each new 'clump' of consciousness naturally involves a brand new self. It naturally creates a brand new self. There was no pool of potential selves to draw from...
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
...
We know. We understand the concept. It's called mind-body dualism. That concept is not part of the non-religious hypothesis. This discussion started when you asked for examples of you misrepresenting the non-religious hypothesis. This concept that you call subtle and exciting is not part of the non-religious hypothesis. At various times you have acted as if it were.
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Mind-body dualism is not the concept I'm trying to convey. The non-religious hypothesis accepts the emergent property of consciousness and the "self" that consciousness naturally entails.
- If the NR hypothesis accepts that this particular sense of self never existed before, will never exist again, never had to exist in the first place and was not drawn from a pool of potential selves, any particular sense of self is brand new and came out of nowhere --
which is quite exciting.
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
That is not what the non-religious hypothesis says. In the non-religious hypothesis the same causes that resulted in the physical body resulted in the sense of self. Everything about the sense of self is determined by the body. It did not come out of nowhere.
- Do you agree that they resulted in the emergent property of consciousness?
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2018, 01:28 PM   #2177
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,235
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Do you agree that they resulted in the emergent property of consciousness?
Yes because that's something a living human brain produces.
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm
godless dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2018, 01:30 PM   #2178
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 17,318
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Is that correct?
No. It is not even wrong, it is so confused a concept.

We have spent 5 years telling you that nobody agrees with your made up numbers. 5 years of telling you over and over and over and over....
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2018, 01:32 PM   #2179
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 17,318
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Yes because that's something a living human brain produces.
The mantle of LCP has apparently passed to you. My condolences.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2018, 01:33 PM   #2180
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 28,392
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Is that correct?
Even your questions are lies.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2018, 01:43 PM   #2181
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 24,896
I think there are some things Jabba understands and ignores. And there are some things Jabba understands and lies about.

But I think there are some things that Jabba doesn't understand. I think that emergent properties of the a system is one those things.
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 21st January 2018, 01:58 PM   #2182
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 70,796
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Is that correct?
NOBODY AGREES WITH THIS.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2018, 02:06 PM   #2183
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,339
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
The mantle of LCP has apparently passed to you. My condolences.
It really has been exclusively godless dave pretty much for the past year with a few simpering attempts at posting at a few others (not engage, mind, but post at) but only to reduce the amount of complaints he got when he did this earlier.
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2018, 02:27 PM   #2184
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,900
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Do you agree that they resulted in the emergent property of consciousness?
We agree that they result in how we as materialists formulate the emergent property of consciousness, that is, as an emergent property. We don't agree with all your subsequent equivocal nonsense and all your attempts to rewrite "emergent property' to be today's psuedonym for soul. You ask us if our premises lead to our conclusions. They do. But then you go on to deliberately misrepresent and mischaracterize those conclusions. The prior confirmation doesn't apply to your misrepresentations.

Last edited by JayUtah; 21st January 2018 at 02:28 PM.
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 21st January 2018, 05:48 PM   #2185
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 21,516
Jabba,

Back at the beginning of this year, I asked the following of you. I do not believe you ever responded. Would you please do so now?

Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
Jabba, could you provide some clarity about what you mean by your "existence"? You oscillate between "sense of self" and "existence" as if the words were synonyms. They are not.

I am not seeking exact definitions, just some understanding. I will assume you meant "sense of self" in all recent cases, and your use of "existence" is just a throw-back to terminology from many years ago.

So, what's included in this sense of self?
-- It must have a bit of "I think therefore I am" aspect.
-- It must include the sensory perception of you and the world around you.
-- Does it include your memories?
-- Does it include your moral character?
-- Your likes, dislikes, ...?
-- What all is included?
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2018, 05:52 PM   #2186
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 8,117
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,

- Is that correct?

Are you floating a mythology for a fantasy story or something?
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2018, 06:21 PM   #2187
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 9,416
Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
Are you floating a mythology for a fantasy story or something?
Sorta.

He's trying to "film" enough "scenes" that he can edit into a story later.
__________________
(Formally JoeBentley)

"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
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2018, 07:31 AM   #2188
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 24,896
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Sorta.

He's trying to "film" enough "scenes" that he can edit into a story later.
The grinding repetition of takes is almost Kubrickian.
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 22nd January 2018, 08:05 AM   #2189
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 8,117
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The grinding repetition of takes is almost Kubrickian.


Except Kubrick was talented.
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2018, 09:14 AM   #2190
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,225
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave...
- Here, I'm trying to communicate a particularly subtle -- but exciting -- concept. Fortunately, its recognition is probably not necessary for determining that the posterior probability of OOFLam is unimaginably small. The concept is about the "self" coming out of nowhere, and therefore, being totally unpredictable and infinitely unlikely...
- Each new 'clump' of consciousness naturally involves a brand new self. It naturally creates a brand new self. There was no pool of potential selves to draw from.
- Anyway, I think that you already accept that the likelihood of the current existence of your self -- given OOFLam -- is no larger than 10-100. Is that correct?
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
...
We know. We understand the concept. It's called mind-body dualism. That concept is not part of the non-religious hypothesis. This discussion started when you asked for examples of you misrepresenting the non-religious hypothesis. This concept that you call subtle and exciting is not part of the non-religious hypothesis. At various times you have acted as if it were.
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Mind-body dualism is not the concept I'm trying to convey. The non-religious hypothesis accepts the emergent property of consciousness and the "self" that consciousness naturally entails.
- If the NR hypothesis accepts that this particular sense of self never existed before, will never exist again, never had to exist in the first place and was not drawn from a pool of potential selves, any particular sense of self is brand new and came out of nowhere --
which is quite exciting.
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
That is not what the non-religious hypothesis says. In the non-religious hypothesis the same causes that resulted in the physical body resulted in the sense of self. Everything about the sense of self is determined by the body. It did not come out of nowhere.
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Do you agree that they resulted in the emergent property of consciousness?
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Yes because that's something a living human brain produces.
- Good.
- I think that you agree that
1. Consciousness naturally entails a self,
2. A perfect copy of your body/brain would not reproduce your particular self -- there would be a difference between the two selves.
3. This difference would not be the result of body chemistry -- the chemistry of the two bodies would be exactly the same.
4. The bodily difference between the two would be in location and specific molecules.
5. We have no idea if, and how, these differences would determine "who" the new self would be.
6. The who/self to which I'm referring is the thing/process/experience that reincarnationists think returns.

- Where, exactly, do we run afoul?
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2018, 09:16 AM   #2191
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 70,796
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
1. Consciousness naturally entails a self,
They're the same thing.

Quote:
2. A perfect copy of your body/brain would not reproduce your particular self -- there would be a difference between the two selves.
No one agrees to that, because the concept is meaningless under H.

Quote:
3. This difference would not be the result of body chemistry -- the chemistry of the two bodies would be exactly the same.
You're stepping outside of H again.

Quote:
5. We have no idea if, and how, these differences would determine "who" the new self would be.
No one agrees with that.

Quote:
6. The who/self to which I'm referring is the thing/process/experience that reincarnationists think returns.
Then you're still outside of H. In H there's no such thing as reincarnation or "things" called selves.

Quote:
Where, exactly, do we run afoul?
As you can see, and have been told hundreds of times, everywhere.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2018, 09:17 AM   #2192
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 25,924
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Good.
- I think that you agree that

[...]

2. A perfect copy of your body/brain would not reproduce your particular self -- there would be a difference between the two selves.
No, for the 10100th time, nobody in this thread but you believes that.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Where, exactly, do we run afoul?
Where you repeatedly refuse to pay any attention to the explanations given you that the materialist model of consciousness does not include something analogous to the religious concept of the soul.

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

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2018, 09:20 AM   #2193
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 70,796
Jabba, there are no souls under H. So you can't introduce the concept to calculate P(E|H).

The "self" is a process of the brain, wholly. Everything that you are as a "self" is generated by the brain. There CANNOT be a difference between a perfect copy and the original at the moment of the copy, except spacetime coordinates.

Did you read that? CANNOT be a difference. If you claim that there is a difference, then you are NOT talking about H. If you want to talk about H you need to stop making that fundamental mistake.

But that doesn't mean both "yous" share both sets of eyes, either. Again, because no souls under H. They are distinct but identical selves. The original "you" can never be "brought back to life" because the concept is meaningless under H, and in any even the "you" reading this sentence" is not the same "you" that started reading this post.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness


Last edited by Belz...; 22nd January 2018 at 09:22 AM.
Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2018, 09:20 AM   #2194
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,235
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Good.
- I think that you agree that
1. Consciousness naturally entails a self,
2. A perfect copy of your body/brain would not reproduce your particular self -- there would be a difference between the two selves.
3. This difference would not be the result of body chemistry -- the chemistry of the two bodies would be exactly the same.

4. The bodily difference between the two would be in location and specific molecules.
5. We have no idea if, and how, these differences would determine "who" the new self would be.
6. The who/self to which I'm referring is the thing/process/experience that reincarnationists think returns.

- Where, exactly, do we run afoul?
We run afoul on #5. The only difference between the two selves would be their locations and the matter they are made of. That information is all we need to know who each one is.

In the materialist hypothesis, what makes me me is that I am this body. What makes you you is that you are that body. That's it. There's nothing additional required to establish an identity.
__________________
"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; 22nd January 2018 at 09:28 AM. Reason: state the obvious
godless dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2018, 09:29 AM   #2195
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 28,392
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Good.
- I think that you agree that
1. Consciousness naturally entails a self,
This is your JILpu (Jabba Immortal Lie per usual). You are deliberately and amateurishly trying to make it seem as if Godless Dave has said that consciousness includes a soul. He said no such thing and your clumsy attempt to make it seem so shows the depths you stoop to in your dishonesty.

Quote:
2. A perfect copy of your body/brain would not reproduce your particular self -- there would be a difference between the two selves.
This is why your feet will be held to the fire to define your terms. You clumsily try to use equivocal terms like "self" and "different". You're simply lying.

Quote:
3. This difference would not be the result of body chemistry -- the chemistry of the two bodies would be exactly the same.
Yep, clumsy and inept at equivocation. Here you're using the word "different" to mean qualitatively different rather than separate and distinct. This is your lie.

Quote:
4. The bodily difference between the two would be in location and specific molecules.
Which means that we would know "who" the "self" is in materialism. You don't get to lie about materialism.

Quote:
5. We have no idea if, and how, these differences would determine "who" the new self would be.
This is your lie. You keep it. Nobody will let your lie infect materialism.

Quote:
6. The who/self to which I'm referring is the thing/process/experience that reincarnationists think returns.
No it isn't because you have no clue about what reincarnationists think and you're clumsily trying to equivocate "thing/process" again. You are welcome to keep your lies. You may not pin them on materialism.

Quote:
- Where, exactly, do we run afoul?
Every lie you've spoken.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2018, 09:47 AM   #2196
Jabba
Philosopher
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,225
Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
Jabba,

Back at the beginning of this year, I asked the following of you. I do not believe you ever responded. Would you please do so now?
Originally Posted by jsfisher View Post
Jabba, could you provide some clarity about what you mean by your "existence"? You oscillate between "sense of self" and "existence" as if the words were synonyms. They are not.

I am not seeking exact definitions, just some understanding. I will assume you meant "sense of self" in all recent cases, and your use of "existence" is just a throw-back to terminology from many years ago.

So, what's included in this sense of self?
-- It must have a bit of "I think therefore I am" aspect.
-- It must include the sensory perception of you and the world around you.
-- Does it include your memories?
-- Does it include your moral character?
-- Your likes, dislikes, ...?
-- What all is included?
js,
- I don't mean to equate "self" and "existence."
- The sense of self I'm referring to is the thing/process/experience that reincarnationists think returns (but that materialists think "exists" for only one finite time at most).
- "I think therefore I am" does relate to the heart of the term.
- The sense of self builds up a library of memories, likes and dislikes and (hopefully) moral characteristics.
- If the sense of self does exist more than once, it must bring with it few, if any, memories. Perhaps, it does bring some likes, dislikes and moral characteristics -- that does seem suggested by the literature on reincarnation.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2018, 09:51 AM   #2197
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 70,796
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- The sense of self I'm referring to is the thing/process/experience that reincarnationists think returns (but that materialists think "exists" for only one finite time at most).
Then you're not in luck, as that type of self doesn't exist under H.

Quote:
- The sense of self builds up a library of memories, likes and dislikes and (hopefully) moral characteristics.
No, that's the brain. The self is just the conscious part, and it is the audience, not the actor.

Quote:
- If the sense of self does exist more than once, it must bring with it few, if any, memories.
No, that's the brain again, and it's been perfectly copied.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2018, 09:53 AM   #2198
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,900
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I think that you agree that...
You should know by now that starting off a post like this is going to get you a lot of well-placed criticism. Gaslighting your critics has never been a good debate strategy, and you're pretty clumsy at it to boot.

Quote:
1. Consciousness naturally entails a self,
No, this vague comment sounds suspiciously like "a self" is just another euphemism for soul. Materialism doesn't have anything like a soul in it. The sense of self in materialism is a property, not an entity.

Quote:
2. A perfect copy of your body/brain would not reproduce your particular self -- there would be a difference between the two selves.
The sense of self is not particularized or individualized in materialism. You've been given examples of other non-individualized emergent properties, which you comically tried to argue weren't properties. "Reproduce your particular self" is therefore meaningless as far as materialism goes.

"There would be a difference" is your ongoing point of equivocation. We've called you on it several times before. The only difference is that you would have two organisms, not one, which you allude to below. There would be no discernible difference, qualitatively speaking, between them. You insist on conflating cardinality with identity, and your critics rightly don't let you do this.

Quote:
3. This difference would not be the result of body chemistry -- the chemistry of the two bodies would be exactly the same.
4. The bodily difference between the two would be in location and specific molecules.
You are the only one talking about "chemistry." You try to deflect materialism toward certain specific disciplines such as chemistry and genetics, so that you can use boundaries of those specific disciplines to try to restrict the problem or draw artificial distinctions such as between human organisms and mountains. But we do agree that the only difference between the original and the copy are those that pertain to cardinality. They would be otherwise indistinguishable.

Quote:
5. We have no idea if, and how, these differences would determine "who" the new self would be.
No. Under materialism this is patently false, and we've told you this enough times that I feel confident saying that if you claim we agree on this point, you are just flat-out lying.

Materialism dictates that all that can be attributed to an object is in some way produced by the matter of that object. There is no magical property that somehow exists outside that universal rule. The car going next to me on the freeway is not exhibiting some sort of different "going 60 mph" simply because the car is one lane over. Under materialism, the copy would be exactly the same self as the original. It would have to be. If I scoot my office chair back, I don't suddenly have a different sense of self because my molecules are not where they were a second ago. You are really grasping at straws here.

Quote:
6. The who/self to which I'm referring is the thing/process/experience that reincarnationists think returns.
Putting "who" in quotes above and putting slashes between dissimilar words doesn't magically fix your argument. And since your critics are all familiar with these tricks, it's disingenuous of you to keep trying. It's downright rude to declare that people agree with such a mashup of equivocal language. Materialism does not agree that the sense of self is an entity, for example. And you want "experience" to include all the things you've stapled to it, not just the observed data.

You don't know anything about reincarnation. It's essentially a lie to say we all agree with your invocation of it.

Quote:
Where, exactly, do we run afoul?
Aside from my statements above -- which have already been repeated ad nauseam and ignored by you -- here, as you well know. And also as you well know, here is the post where you concede you have no answers. The question then becomes why you think you have any mandate to continue this debate. You lost. Man up and admit you lost. All you're doing is repeating your original claims and foisting the fantasy that anyone agrees with it.
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 22nd January 2018, 09:53 AM   #2199
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,235
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
js,
- I don't mean to equate "self" and "existence."
- The sense of self I'm referring to is the thing/process/experience that reincarnationists think returns (but that materialists think "exists" for only one finite time at most).
- "I think therefore I am" does relate to the heart of the term.
- The sense of self builds up a library of memories, likes and dislikes and (hopefully) moral characteristics.
In the materialist model it's the physical brain that does all that. There's a reason materialists think the self exists only once for a finite time - because each human brain exists only once for a finite time.
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm
godless dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2018, 10:00 AM   #2200
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 28,392
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
js,
- I don't mean to equate "self" and "existence."
Then you should define it the way you mean it. If you mean "soul" just say "soul" and be honest about it. There isn't a soul in materialism, by the way.

Quote:
- The sense of self I'm referring to is the thing/process/experience that reincarnationists think returns (but that materialists think "exists" for only one finite time at most).
No, that's a lie. You have no idea what reincarnationists think and you're again conflating a "thing" (soul) with a "process" (consciousness). There is no such thing as a soul in materialism, which is the model you're trying to refute.

Quote:
- "I think therefore I am" does relate to the heart of the term.
- The sense of self builds up a library of memories, likes and dislikes and (hopefully) moral characteristics.
And you don't remember living in 1888.

Quote:
- If the sense of self does exist more than once, it must bring with it few, if any, memories. Perhaps, it does bring some likes, dislikes and moral characteristics -- that does seem suggested by the literature on reincarnation.
We just need to look for someone from 1888 who lied about what others thought and said.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
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 06:53 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.