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 9th October 2016, 12:07 PM   #361
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,093
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
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 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 9th October 2016, 12:27 PM   #362
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,093
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
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.
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 9th October 2016, 12:31 PM   #363
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 28,949
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
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
Hokulele 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 9th October 2016, 12:38 PM   #364
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 6,415
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.
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 9th October 2016, 01:00 PM   #365
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,093
Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
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.
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 9th October 2016, 01:01 PM   #366
The Sparrow
Muse
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 769
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
.... there are [i]no potential selves[/I] .....
I agree with the highlighted portion. :P
The Sparrow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th October 2016, 02:12 PM   #367
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,538
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 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 9th October 2016, 02:48 PM   #368
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,125
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th October 2016, 02:57 PM   #369
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,595
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
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 9th October 2016, 03:01 PM   #370
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: 22,936
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
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 Back to Top
Old 9th October 2016, 03:02 PM   #371
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,125
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Is there a limited pool of potential brains?
Dave,
- No.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th October 2016, 03:05 PM   #372
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,595
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
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 9th October 2016, 03:06 PM   #373
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,080
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- 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.
__________________
"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 9th October 2016, 03:08 PM   #374
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: 22,936
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
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 Back to Top
Old 9th October 2016, 03:21 PM   #375
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,080
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?
__________________
"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 9th October 2016, 04:09 PM   #376
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,093
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
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.
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 9th October 2016, 04:28 PM   #377
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 22,144
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
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 haven't refused to answer it; I just haven't been able to answer it...
Jabba

Do not pretend I support your argument and do not PM me.
- Nick Terry
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th October 2016, 04:36 PM   #378
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,538
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 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 9th October 2016, 05:33 PM   #379
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 16,509
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
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
Slowvehicle 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 9th October 2016, 06:59 PM   #380
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 58,998
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- 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.
__________________
"What is best in life?"
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th October 2016, 07:26 PM   #381
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 19,979
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
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.
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 Back to Top
Old 10th October 2016, 06:14 AM   #382
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,125
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
So is the likelihood of a particular brain existing some number over infinity?
Dave,
- Yes.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th October 2016, 06:17 AM   #383
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,595
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
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 10th October 2016, 06:20 AM   #384
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,125
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
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.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th October 2016, 06:21 AM   #385
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,595
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
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
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 10th October 2016, 06:36 AM   #386
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,093
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Yes [the probability of a brain existing is a real number divided by infinity, i.e., zero].
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
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."
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 10th October 2016, 07:14 AM   #387
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,125
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
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.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th October 2016, 07:16 AM   #388
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,538
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
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 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 10th October 2016, 07:17 AM   #389
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,595
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
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
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 10th October 2016, 07:18 AM   #390
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 13,393
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
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?
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 Back to Top
Old 10th October 2016, 08:08 AM   #391
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,093
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- 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.
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 10th October 2016, 09:19 AM   #392
The Sparrow
Muse
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 769
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
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.
The Sparrow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th October 2016, 09:29 AM   #393
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,093
Originally Posted by The Sparrow View Post
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.
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 10th October 2016, 12:47 PM   #394
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 6,415
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.
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 10th October 2016, 12:52 PM   #395
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 13,393
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
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?
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 Back to Top
Old 10th October 2016, 12:59 PM   #396
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,093
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
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.
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 10th October 2016, 08:37 PM   #397
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 22,144
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
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.
__________________
- I haven't refused to answer it; I just haven't been able to answer it...
Jabba

Do not pretend I support your argument and do not PM me.
- Nick Terry
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th October 2016, 03:35 AM   #398
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,125
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
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?
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Et tamen salsus est ratio plerumque recta ad unum." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th October 2016, 03:39 AM   #399
John Jones
Philosopher
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,929
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Would you accept that the self is an emergent property?
Are you about to put words in someone's mouth again?
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 11th October 2016, 04:00 AM   #400
jond
Master Poster
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,538
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
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.
jond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
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 09:51 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.