Proof of Immortality, the IV league - Page 10

JayUtah · 9th October 2016, 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by Jabba

I basically agree with your part that I hilited. Scientifically speaking, we cannot reproduce the particular self.

No. Scientifically speaking there is no difference between the sense of self and consciousness. They are simply two words for the same thing. Scientifically speaking these are abstract properties, not objects.

Stop trying to cram your made-up nonsense into other people's mouths.

JayUtah · 9th October 2016, 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by godless dave

Specific chemistry wouldn't produce the same brain each time either. Because a copy is not the original, even if it's identical to the original.

So we're back to the standard numbers game. This discussion used to be about whether some process would produce the same self if repeated. Practically that's impossible because complex systems in science rarely repeat. This is the predictability problem Jabba once relied upon before. But when we remove the practical difficulty and speak hypothetically, Jabba has to punt. It's not about whether the characteristics can be reproduced or whether they derive naturally. It's about the ineffable "something" that somehow magically exists and attaches to mere cardinality.

Mathematically now he's just arguing a tautology. It's all about identity (in the mathematical sense) and the one property that any object -- no matter how closely modeled on another -- can share with it: its identity. The argument is "two is more than one because two is more than one."

Unfortunately for Jabba's argument, it's still a straw man -- just a tautological one. In the scientific model there is no property attached to mere numerological identity that causes the emergent property of the self to differ any more than white is different because there are two snowballs.

Hokulele · 9th October 2016, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by JayUtah

Unfortunately for Jabba's argument, it's still a straw man -- just a tautological one. In the scientific model there is no property attached to mere numerological identity that causes the emergent property of the self to differ any more than white is different because there are two snowballs.

That is why I keep asking him if he were to be cloned today, when he wakes up from the process, would he know if he were the original, or the clone?

He actually admitted avoiding this question several years ago, as it exposed a major flaw in his belief.

JoeBentley · 9th October 2016, 12:38 PM

Jabba you're an adult. You understand the difference between the two identical objects, a recreated object, and somehow recreating the same object. Stop acting like you don't.

JayUtah · 9th October 2016, 01:00 PM

Originally Posted by Hokulele

He actually admitted avoiding this question several years ago, as it exposed a major flaw in his belief.

He has made a number of such admissions. But as I'm sure you're aware, Jabba's concessions aren't really concessions. He just says whatever he has to in order to live to obfuscate another day.

The Sparrow · 9th October 2016, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by Jabba

.... there are [i]no potential selves[/I] .....

I agree with the highlighted portion. :P

jond · 9th October 2016, 02:12 PM

One more time, with feeling. The self is not an entity, it is a process derived from a functioning brain. No functioning brain, no process. How hard is that to understand, Jabba?

Jabba · 9th October 2016, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by Jabba

Dave,
- Consciousness came from my brain. My consciousness naturally came with, or produced, a particular self -- ME. If we were able to reproduce my brain, consciousness would again come with it, but this consciousness would not be ME. This would be a brand new self. We would not get the same self via the same chemistry.
- The point is that there is ‘something’ here that never existed before -- in any form whatsoever. In that sense, it came from nowhere. And, there was no limited pool of potential selves from which this self came. And, if there is no limited pool of potential selves, the number of potential selves is unlimited. And, the likelihood of the current existence of my self (and your self) – given the scientific model (and OOFLam) -- is 7 billion divided by infinity.

Originally Posted by godless dave

And so did your self.
If we reproduced your brain we wouldn't get the same consciousness, we would get one exactly like it.
It still seems like you're trying to get us to concede that souls exist so you can then try to prove souls are immortal.
We don't believe souls exist.

Originally Posted by Jabba

Dave,
- I basically agree with your part that I hilited. Scientifically speaking, we cannot reproduce the particular self. IOW, there are no potential selves in the sense that specific chemistry would produce the same self each time.

Originally Posted by godless dave

Specific chemistry wouldn't produce the same brain each time either. Because a copy is not the original, even if it's identical to the original.

Dave,
- Agreed.
- Right now I'm just trying to show why science would accept that there is no limited pool of potential selves.
- And, without such a pool, potential selves must be infinite.

godless dave · 9th October 2016, 02:57 PM

Is there a limited pool of potential brains?

Dave Rogers · 9th October 2016, 03:01 PM

Is there a limited pool of potential radio programs? If not, how unlikely is it that the one you just happened to listen to isn't a different one?

Dave

Jabba · 9th October 2016, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by godless dave

Is there a limited pool of potential brains?

Dave,
- No.

godless dave · 9th October 2016, 03:05 PM

So is the likelihood of a particular brain existing some number over infinity?

Mojo · 9th October 2016, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Right now I'm just trying to show why science would accept that there is no limited pool of potential selves.
- And, without such a pool, potential selves must be infinite.

There is no pool of potential selves, whether limited or infinite. The consciousness that your brain produces is your consciousness. End of story.

Dave Rogers · 9th October 2016, 03:08 PM

I'm interested in this concept. If there's an unlimited number of possibilities as to the form an object can take, does that mean the object must have an immortal soul? Because I'm starting to worry that there's a potentially infinite number of forms a settee can take, and mine may be resenting me sitting on it.

Dave

Mojo · 9th October 2016, 03:21 PM

Jabba, when you turn a light on, what is the likelihood that the light that the light bulb produces is the light that it produces?

JayUtah · 9th October 2016, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by Jabba

Dave,
- Agreed.
- Right now I'm just trying to show why science would accept that there is no limited pool of potential selves.
- And, without such a pool, potential selves must be infinite.

Asked and answered. The concept of "potential selves" is not part of the scientific model. You just made it up and are frantically trying to paste it into the model. The self is a property of the organism. You are trying to equivocate what "property" means. It's not something that exists in "pools" and it's not something that has a cardinality.

Science does not accept your pasted-on attachments, and I've given you the reasons why. You will predictably ignore all that because it's well established at this point that you do so for any real challenge to your belief.

Loss Leader · 9th October 2016, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

I'm interested in this concept. If there's an unlimited number of possibilities as to the form an object can take, does that mean the object must have an immortal soul? Because I'm starting to worry that there's a potentially infinite number of forms a settee can take, and mine may be resenting me sitting on it.

Dave

Nonsense. That's its purpose in life. Existentially, you sofa is happier than I am.

jond · 9th October 2016, 04:36 PM

Asked before and ignored: once your parents conceived you, what is the likelihood that you would have become Jabba? What is the likelihood you would have become Napoleon?

Slowvehicle · 9th October 2016, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by Mojo

Jabba, when you turn a light on, what is the likelihood that the light that the light bulb produces is the light that it produces?

But is it the SAME light it produced the last time you turned it on?

Argumemnon · 9th October 2016, 06:59 PM

Originally Posted by Jabba

- I was created. But, I wasn't created by any God. Each new consciousness just brings with it a brand new self.

Aren't you getting tired of making stuff up as you go?

I mean, unless you're writing fiction, that is.

theprestige · 9th October 2016, 07:26 PM

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

Aren't you getting tired of making stuff up as you go?

I mean, unless you're writing fiction, that is.

Even fiction writers generally try to come up with a coherent narrative and then stay internally consistent with it. Making stuff up as you go is the enemy of a good story.

Jabba · 10th October 2016, 06:14 AM

Originally Posted by godless dave

So is the likelihood of a particular brain existing some number over infinity?

Dave,
- Yes.

godless dave · 10th October 2016, 06:17 AM

So should we doubt the scientific hypothesis explaining the existence of human brains?

Jabba · 10th October 2016, 06:20 AM

Originally Posted by godless dave

So should we doubt the scientific hypothesis explaining the existence of human brains?

Dave,
No. The brain is a pile of parts -- just like Rainier.

godless dave · 10th October 2016, 06:21 AM

Originally Posted by Jabba

Dave,
No. The brain is a pile of parts -- just like Rainier.

Then we shouldn't doubt the scientific hypothesis for the existence of your self, since it's the same hypothesis.

JayUtah · 10th October 2016, 06:36 AM

Originally Posted by Jabba

Dave,
- Yes [the probability of a brain existing is a real number divided by infinity, i.e., zero].

Originally Posted by Jabba

Dave,
No. The brain is a pile of parts -- just like Rainier.

This is exactly the fallacy of special pleading. Textbook definition.

Under H the self is identical to consciousness, which is an emergent property of a functioning brain. You've shown no qualitative reason that science should consider anything else. Your "computation" of probability works out the same for H as for ~H, so probability is definitely not a viable factor in your proof.

You're down to simply claiming the soul exists "because."

Jabba · 10th October 2016, 07:14 AM

Originally Posted by godless dave

Then we shouldn't doubt the scientific hypothesis for the existence of your self, since it's the same hypothesis.

Dave,
- No.
- My claim is that the self is a 'unit' -- not a pile of parts.

jond · 10th October 2016, 07:16 AM

Originally Posted by Jabba

Dave,
- No.
- My claim is that the self is a 'unit' -- not a pile of parts.

Then you are claiming that your "self" is not an emergent property. Which means you need to demonstrate the existence of this self that exists separate from your brain.

godless dave · 10th October 2016, 07:17 AM

Originally Posted by Jabba

Dave,
- No.
- My claim is that the self is a 'unit' -- not a pile of parts.

That doesn't matter. The self comes from the pile of parts. The explanation of where the pile of parts comes from also explains where the self comes from.

abaddon · 10th October 2016, 07:18 AM

Originally Posted by Jabba

Dave,
- No.
- My claim is that the self is a 'unit' -- not a pile of parts.

An emergent property is not a "pile of parts".

JayUtah · 10th October 2016, 08:08 AM

Originally Posted by Jabba

- My claim is that the self is a 'unit' -- not a pile of parts.

That is not the scientific hypothesis. The scientific hypothesis is that the self is identical to consciousness, and is an emergent property of the organism -- that "pile of parts."

If even giant red letters can't help you address the blatant straw man, then it's clear this thread is a debate in name only.

The Sparrow · 10th October 2016, 09:19 AM

Originally Posted by Jabba

Dave,
- No.
- My claim is that the self is a 'unit' -- not a pile of parts.

Awesome, now all you have to do is prove it.

JayUtah · 10th October 2016, 09:29 AM

Originally Posted by The Sparrow

Awesome, now all you have to do is prove it.

And let's be clear what this means. We're talking about H, the scientific hypothesis.

For some h in ~H, Jabba can invent whatever he wants. His hypothesis varies around the notion that the self is some ineffable aspect or component of the entire person and that it can exist separately from the body and thus persist after death.

But for H, the scientific hypothesis, he can't just make up a bunch of pseudo-philosophical nonsense and expect that to stand. H has to be what skeptics, scientists, etc. actually conclude. You can't tell someone what his belief has to be in order to make it easier for you to refute. That's exactly the straw man fallacy.

Jabba has to show that whatever he says is part of H is actually what scientists theorize, not what he desperately wishes H were.

JoeBentley · 10th October 2016, 12:47 PM

Hell forget "prove it" show even the tinniest, tiniest, most basic shred of basic evidence for it's bare possibility.

abaddon · 10th October 2016, 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

Hell forget "prove it" show even the tinniest, tiniest, most basic shred of basic evidence for it's bare possibility.

Dividing by infinity makes any claim valid, if one is let away with it.

JayUtah · 10th October 2016, 12:59 PM

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

Hell forget "prove it" show even the tinniest, tiniest, most basic shred of basic evidence for it's bare possibility.

And we're still speaking under the terms of H, so it has to be a shred of evidence for its possibility under the scientific model of consciousness. Not to be pedantic, but Jabba usually gets two or three pages of equivocation out of flip-flopping between talking about his ill-formed claim of an immortal soul and his straw-man foist over the top of the scientific hypothesis.

Loss Leader · 10th October 2016, 08:37 PM

Originally Posted by Jabba

Dave,
No. The brain is a pile of parts -- just like Rainier.

Jabba -

Even this statement is just not true. Mt. Rainier is an emergent property of a functioning ecosystem. Tectonic plates move, water and wind erode surfaces. Animals and birds scatter seeds, plants root, people hike up and down, even worms under the soil turn and soften it. Mt. Rainier looks different today that it did yesterday and even more different than it did thirty years ago. It is not a pile of parts any more or less than you are.

Jabba · 11th October 2016, 03:35 AM

Originally Posted by godless dave

That doesn't matter. The self comes from the pile of parts. The explanation of where the pile of parts comes from also explains where the self comes from.

Dave,
- Would you accept that the self is an emergent property?

John Jones · 11th October 2016, 03:39 AM

Originally Posted by Jabba

Dave,
- Would you accept that the self is an emergent property?

Are you about to put words in someone's mouth again?

jond · 11th October 2016, 04:00 AM

Originally Posted by Jabba

Dave,
- Would you accept that the self is an emergent property?

Everyone has been telling you that. The problem is that you don't understand what an emergent property is.

9th October 2016, 12:31 PM	#363
Hokulele Deleterious Slab of Damnation Pither Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: The Biggest Little City in the World Posts: 29,423	Originally Posted by JayUtah Unfortunately for Jabba's argument, it's still a straw man -- just a tautological one. In the scientific model there is no property attached to mere numerological identity that causes the emergent property of the self to differ any more than white is different because there are two snowballs. That is why I keep asking him if he were to be cloned today, when he wakes up from the process, would he know if he were the original, or the clone? He actually admitted avoiding this question several years ago, as it exposed a major flaw in his belief.
	__________________ "Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon

9th October 2016, 12:38 PM	#364
JoeBentley Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Jacksonville, FL Posts: 7,257	Jabba you're an adult. You understand the difference between the two identical objects, a recreated object, and somehow recreating the same object. Stop acting like you don't.
	__________________ Hemingway once wrote that "The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.

9th October 2016, 02:12 PM	#367
jond Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 2,849	One more time, with feeling. The self is not an entity, it is a process derived from a functioning brain. No functioning brain, no process. How hard is that to understand, Jabba?
jond Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 2,849

9th October 2016, 02:48 PM	#368
Jabba Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 4,735	Originally Posted by Jabba Dave, - Consciousness came from my brain. My consciousness naturally came with, or produced, a particular self -- ME. If we were able to reproduce my brain, consciousness would again come with it, but this consciousness would not be ME. This would be a brand new self. We would not get the same self via the same chemistry. - The point is that there is ‘something’ here that never existed before -- in any form whatsoever. In that sense, it came from nowhere. And, there was no limited pool of potential selves from which this self came. And, if there is no limited pool of potential selves, the number of potential selves is unlimited. And, the likelihood of the current existence of my self (and your self) – given the scientific model (and OOFLam) -- is 7 billion divided by infinity. Originally Posted by godless dave And so did your self. If we reproduced your brain we wouldn't get the same consciousness, we would get one exactly like it. It still seems like you're trying to get us to concede that souls exist so you can then try to prove souls are immortal. We don't believe souls exist. Originally Posted by Jabba Dave, - I basically agree with your part that I hilited. Scientifically speaking, we cannot reproduce the particular self. IOW, there are no potential selves in the sense that specific chemistry would produce the same self each time. Originally Posted by godless dave Specific chemistry wouldn't produce the same brain each time either. Because a copy is not the original, even if it's identical to the original. Dave, - Agreed. - Right now I'm just trying to show why science would accept that there is no limited pool of potential selves. - And, without such a pool, potential selves must be infinite.
Jabba Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 4,735	__________________ "The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski "Most good ideas don't work." Jabba "Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." Jabba's Razor

9th October 2016, 02:57 PM	#369
godless dave Great Dalmuti Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 7,941	Is there a limited pool of potential brains?
	__________________ "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

9th October 2016, 12:07 PM	#361
JayUtah Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 13,607	Originally Posted by Jabba I basically agree with your part that I hilited. Scientifically speaking, we cannot reproduce the particular self. No. Scientifically speaking there is no difference between the sense of self and consciousness. They are simply two words for the same thing. Scientifically speaking these are abstract properties, not objects. Stop trying to cram your made-up nonsense into other people's mouths.

9th October 2016, 12:27 PM	#362
JayUtah Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 13,607	Originally Posted by godless dave Specific chemistry wouldn't produce the same brain each time either. Because a copy is not the original, even if it's identical to the original. So we're back to the standard numbers game. This discussion used to be about whether some process would produce the same self if repeated. Practically that's impossible because complex systems in science rarely repeat. This is the predictability problem Jabba once relied upon before. But when we remove the practical difficulty and speak hypothetically, Jabba has to punt. It's not about whether the characteristics can be reproduced or whether they derive naturally. It's about the ineffable "something" that somehow magically exists and attaches to mere cardinality. Mathematically now he's just arguing a tautology. It's all about identity (in the mathematical sense) and the one property that any object -- no matter how closely modeled on another -- can share with it: its identity. The argument is "two is more than one because two is more than one." Unfortunately for Jabba's argument, it's still a straw man -- just a tautological one. In the scientific model there is no property attached to mere numerological identity that causes the emergent property of the self to differ any more than white is different because there are two snowballs.

9th October 2016, 01:00 PM	#365
JayUtah Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 13,607	Originally Posted by Hokulele He actually admitted avoiding this question several years ago, as it exposed a major flaw in his belief. He has made a number of such admissions. But as I'm sure you're aware, Jabba's concessions aren't really concessions. He just says whatever he has to in order to live to obfuscate another day.

9th October 2016, 01:01 PM	#366
The Sparrow Muse Join Date: Sep 2015 Location: Central Canada Posts: 991	Originally Posted by Jabba .... there are [i]no potential selves[/I] ..... I agree with the highlighted portion. :P

9th October 2016, 03:01 PM	#370
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD Posts: 24,072	Is there a limited pool of potential radio programs? If not, how unlikely is it that the one you just happened to listen to isn't a different one? 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

9th October 2016, 03:02 PM	#371
Jabba Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 4,735	Originally Posted by godless dave Is there a limited pool of potential brains? Dave, - No.
Jabba Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 4,735	__________________ "The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski "Most good ideas don't work." Jabba "Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." Jabba's Razor

9th October 2016, 03:05 PM	#372
godless dave Great Dalmuti Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 7,941	So is the likelihood of a particular brain existing some number over infinity?
	__________________ "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

9th October 2016, 03:06 PM	#373
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 28,790	Originally Posted by Jabba - Right now I'm just trying to show why science would accept that there is no limited pool of potential selves. - And, without such a pool, potential selves must be infinite. There is no pool of potential selves, whether limited or infinite. The consciousness that your brain produces is your consciousness. End of story.
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 28,790	__________________ "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

9th October 2016, 03:08 PM	#374
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD Posts: 24,072	I'm interested in this concept. If there's an unlimited number of possibilities as to the form an object can take, does that mean the object must have an immortal soul? Because I'm starting to worry that there's a potentially infinite number of forms a settee can take, and mine may be resenting me sitting on it. 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

9th October 2016, 03:21 PM	#375
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 28,790	Jabba, when you turn a light on, what is the likelihood that the light that the light bulb produces is the light that it produces?
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 28,790	__________________ "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

9th October 2016, 04:09 PM	#376
JayUtah Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 13,607	Originally Posted by Jabba Dave, - Agreed. - Right now I'm just trying to show why science would accept that there is no limited pool of potential selves. - And, without such a pool, potential selves must be infinite. Asked and answered. The concept of "potential selves" is not part of the scientific model. You just made it up and are frantically trying to paste it into the model. The self is a property of the organism. You are trying to equivocate what "property" means. It's not something that exists in "pools" and it's not something that has a cardinality. Science does not accept your pasted-on attachments, and I've given you the reasons why. You will predictably ignore all that because it's well established at this point that you do so for any real challenge to your belief.

9th October 2016, 04:28 PM	#377
Loss Leader Would Be Ringing (if a bell) Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: New York Posts: 23,053	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers I'm interested in this concept. If there's an unlimited number of possibilities as to the form an object can take, does that mean the object must have an immortal soul? Because I'm starting to worry that there's a potentially infinite number of forms a settee can take, and mine may be resenting me sitting on it. Dave Nonsense. That's its purpose in life. Existentially, you sofa is happier than I am.
	__________________ I have the honor to be Your Obdt. S^t L. Leader

9th October 2016, 04:36 PM	#378
jond Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 2,849	Asked before and ignored: once your parents conceived you, what is the likelihood that you would have become Jabba? What is the likelihood you would have become Napoleon?
jond Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 2,849

9th October 2016, 05:33 PM	#379
Slowvehicle Membership Drive Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls... Posts: 17,348	Originally Posted by Mojo Jabba, when you turn a light on, what is the likelihood that the light that the light bulb produces is the light that it produces? But is it the SAME light it produced the last time you turned it on?
	__________________ "They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest "The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David "Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze

9th October 2016, 06:59 PM	#380
Argumemnon World Maker Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the thick of things Posts: 64,733	Originally Posted by Jabba - I was created. But, I wasn't created by any God. Each new consciousness just brings with it a brand new self. Aren't you getting tired of making stuff up as you go? I mean, unless you're writing fiction, that is.
	__________________ "Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!"

9th October 2016, 07:26 PM	#381
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 21,705	Originally Posted by Argumemnon Aren't you getting tired of making stuff up as you go? I mean, unless you're writing fiction, that is. Even fiction writers generally try to come up with a coherent narrative and then stay internally consistent with it. Making stuff up as you go is the enemy of a good story.

10th October 2016, 06:14 AM	#382
Jabba Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 4,735	Originally Posted by godless dave So is the likelihood of a particular brain existing some number over infinity? Dave, - Yes.
Jabba Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 4,735	__________________ "The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski "Most good ideas don't work." Jabba "Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." Jabba's Razor

10th October 2016, 06:17 AM	#383
godless dave Great Dalmuti Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 7,941	So should we doubt the scientific hypothesis explaining the existence of human brains?
	__________________ "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

10th October 2016, 06:20 AM	#384
Jabba Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 4,735	Originally Posted by godless dave So should we doubt the scientific hypothesis explaining the existence of human brains? Dave, No. The brain is a pile of parts -- just like Rainier.
Jabba Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 4,735	__________________ "The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski "Most good ideas don't work." Jabba "Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." Jabba's Razor

10th October 2016, 06:21 AM	#385
godless dave Great Dalmuti Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 7,941	Originally Posted by Jabba Dave, No. The brain is a pile of parts -- just like Rainier. Then we shouldn't doubt the scientific hypothesis for the existence of your self, since it's the same hypothesis.
	__________________ "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

10th October 2016, 06:36 AM	#386
JayUtah Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 13,607	Originally Posted by Jabba Dave, - Yes [the probability of a brain existing is a real number divided by infinity, i.e., zero]. Originally Posted by Jabba Dave, No. The brain is a pile of parts -- just like Rainier. This is exactly the fallacy of special pleading. Textbook definition. Under H the self is identical to consciousness, which is an emergent property of a functioning brain. You've shown no qualitative reason that science should consider anything else. Your "computation" of probability works out the same for H as for ~H, so probability is definitely not a viable factor in your proof. You're down to simply claiming the soul exists "because."

10th October 2016, 07:14 AM	#387
Jabba Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 4,735	Originally Posted by godless dave Then we shouldn't doubt the scientific hypothesis for the existence of your self, since it's the same hypothesis. Dave, - No. - My claim is that the self is a 'unit' -- not a pile of parts.
Jabba Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 4,735	__________________ "The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski "Most good ideas don't work." Jabba "Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." Jabba's Razor

10th October 2016, 07:16 AM	#388
jond Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 2,849	Originally Posted by Jabba Dave, - No. - My claim is that the self is a 'unit' -- not a pile of parts. Then you are claiming that your "self" is not an emergent property. Which means you need to demonstrate the existence of this self that exists separate from your brain.
jond Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 2,849

10th October 2016, 07:17 AM	#389
godless dave Great Dalmuti Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 7,941	Originally Posted by Jabba Dave, - No. - My claim is that the self is a 'unit' -- not a pile of parts. That doesn't matter. The self comes from the pile of parts. The explanation of where the pile of parts comes from also explains where the self comes from.
	__________________ "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

10th October 2016, 07:18 AM	#390
abaddon Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 15,676	Originally Posted by Jabba Dave, - No. - My claim is that the self is a 'unit' -- not a pile of parts. An emergent property is not a "pile of parts".
	__________________ Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?

10th October 2016, 08:08 AM	#391
JayUtah Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 13,607	Originally Posted by Jabba - My claim is that the self is a 'unit' -- not a pile of parts. That is not the scientific hypothesis. The scientific hypothesis is that the self is identical to consciousness, and is an emergent property of the organism -- that "pile of parts." If even giant red letters can't help you address the blatant straw man, then it's clear this thread is a debate in name only.

10th October 2016, 09:19 AM	#392
The Sparrow Muse Join Date: Sep 2015 Location: Central Canada Posts: 991	Originally Posted by Jabba Dave, - No. - My claim is that the self is a 'unit' -- not a pile of parts. Awesome, now all you have to do is prove it.

10th October 2016, 09:29 AM	#393
JayUtah Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 13,607	Originally Posted by The Sparrow Awesome, now all you have to do is prove it. And let's be clear what this means. We're talking about H, the scientific hypothesis. For some h in ~H, Jabba can invent whatever he wants. His hypothesis varies around the notion that the self is some ineffable aspect or component of the entire person and that it can exist separately from the body and thus persist after death. But for H, the scientific hypothesis, he can't just make up a bunch of pseudo-philosophical nonsense and expect that to stand. H has to be what skeptics, scientists, etc. actually conclude. You can't tell someone what his belief has to be in order to make it easier for you to refute. That's exactly the straw man fallacy. Jabba has to show that whatever he says is part of H is actually what scientists theorize, not what he desperately wishes H were.

10th October 2016, 12:47 PM	#394
JoeBentley Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Jacksonville, FL Posts: 7,257	Hell forget "prove it" show even the tinniest, tiniest, most basic shred of basic evidence for it's bare possibility.
	__________________ Hemingway once wrote that "The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.

10th October 2016, 12:52 PM	#395
abaddon Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 15,676	Originally Posted by JoeBentley Hell forget "prove it" show even the tinniest, tiniest, most basic shred of basic evidence for it's bare possibility. Dividing by infinity makes any claim valid, if one is let away with it.
	__________________ Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?