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.
Reply
Old 22nd November 2017, 05:07 PM   #1
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 17,003
Proof of Immortality, VII

Mod InfoYet another segment of the immortal thread. As per usual, the position of the thread split was arbitrary. The previous segment is here.
Posted By:jsfisher

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Hopefully, we're getting down to the "nitty gritties" of our disagreement. Again, my objective right now is to nail down our different basic disagreements.
- There is at least two issues in this 'one' disagreement:#1. How many potential loaves of bread are there -- i.e., how many different loaves of bread could we make if we never ran out of time or the necessary conditions?
Suppose, for the sake of argument, one were to make an exact copy of Jabba. There would be thus Jabba the original and jabba the copy both identical. So far so good?

Jabba the copy must perforce be an exact copy of Jabba the original in every respect, else it would not be a copy.

Therefore , Jabba-1 is exactly the same as Jabba-2. Jabba the first must perforce be exactly the same as Jabba the second, right? Perforce, they must be identical. Else, Jabba-2 must not be an exact copy of Jabba-1, right? If Jabba-2 is in any way different from Jabba-1, then Jabba-2 is not a copy in any way. Do you grok that?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?

Last edited by jsfisher; 23rd November 2017 at 11:41 AM.
abaddon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2017, 06:10 PM   #2
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 8,371
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
"Me" and "copy" are simply labels here, not any sort of metaphysical description.
This needs to reiterated so Jabba can properly ignore it.

Jabba keeps thinking he's trapped us in some masterful gotcha intellectual paradoxes (or more accurately he thinks he's finally properly directed his actors into performing a scene where that happens) because we're not bothering to make linguistic distinctions between intellectual distinctions he recognizes but we don't.

That's why Jabba thinks he's trapped us when we say that the brain is a thing but the mind is a process. The fact that we've established over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over the distinction we are making, he's "winning" because we aren't using his words.

Jabba thinks he's won because we can't or won't talk using his language.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Hating a bad thing does not make you good." - David Wong
JoeBentley is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2017, 06:18 PM   #3
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 21,098
@Jabba,

After the copying process, which of the two persons would believe he be the original Jabba?

You've already answered this, by the way. Your answer was "both", and you were correct. What does that tell you about your concept of "me"?
__________________
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 23rd November 2017, 12:21 AM   #4
MetalPig
Master Poster
 
MetalPig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 22, Acacia Avenue
Posts: 2,871
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
#1. How many potential loaves of bread are there -- i.e., how many different loaves of bread could we make if we never ran out of time or the necessary conditions?
47. The rest are just copies of the originals.

Now what?
__________________
Just drive.
MetalPig 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 23rd November 2017, 07:03 AM   #5
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,956
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Jabba, this isn't any more complicated than the two loaves of bread.

I come out of the cells of my brain.

If you made an exact copy of my brain, an exact copy of me would come out of it.

I do agree that an exact copy of me wouldn't be me (as would anyone who understands the meaning of the word "copy"). I don't agree that this means the brain doesn't produce the self. On the contrary, it's exactly what we would expect if the brain produced the self.
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Aren't the hi-lighted statements contradictory?
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
No. I don't see why they would be. An exact copy of my brain wouldn't be my brain, therefore the self it produced wouldn't be me, it would be an exact copy of me.
- So, when you say "I," you don't mean you.
__________________
"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 23rd November 2017, 07:08 AM   #6
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,021
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- So, when you say "I," you don't mean you.
Jabba, if the duplicate self identifies as Jabba, how, exactly, is it different from being you? (Apart from there now being two, as there are with anything.)

ETA: remember, you keep talking “sense of self” so, that’s what we’re looking at. The duplicate has the same sense of self: it thinks it’s Jabba. It has all the same memories and thoughts as Jabba. But, once duplicated the two selves diverge because they are processes in the functioning brains.

Last edited by jond; 23rd November 2017 at 07:11 AM.
jond 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 23rd November 2017, 07:13 AM   #7
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,149
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- So, when you say "I," you don't mean you the same soul.
Why do you have to be so dishonest? I've corrected your typed words to your intended ones. I give you permission to read JayUtah's post just a few prior to yours.
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 23rd November 2017, 07:14 AM   #8
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,676
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- So, when you say "I," you don't mean you.
Stop trying to introduce souls into the discussion.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2017, 07:54 AM   #9
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 8,371
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
Jabba keeps thinking he's trapped us in some masterful gotcha intellectual paradoxes (or more accurately he thinks he's finally properly directed his actors into performing a scene where that happens) because we're not bothering to make linguistic distinctions between intellectual distinctions he recognizes but we don't.
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- So, when you say "I," you don't mean you.
See?
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Hating a bad thing does not make you good." - David Wong
JoeBentley is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2017, 08:15 AM   #10
caveman1917
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,226
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
Yes, and therefore we can at least talk about the dart tip having an exact center, which has probability 0 of hitting any particular point, but probability 1 of hitting some point.
Yes, exactly like how we can at least talk about the number being exactly specified when guessed.

Quote:
There is almost always going to be loss of mathematical rigor when trying to illustrate a mathematical abstraction with a real-world example.
And that is why "but you can't write out a number with 1e100 digits" is such a silly argument.

Quote:
I'm surprised that no one has objected to the dart example on the grounds that where the dart lands is actually deterministic, and thus has probability 1 of landing exactly where it did.
Because that's just confused. A coin toss might be deterministic for all we know, but that doesn't mean that we don't talk about things like "fair coins" with probability 0.5 of landing either side.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2017, 08:18 AM   #11
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,956
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Jabba, this isn't any more complicated than the two loaves of bread.

I come out of the cells of my brain.

If you made an exact copy of my brain, an exact copy of me would come out of it.

I do agree that an exact copy of me wouldn't be me (as would anyone who understands the meaning of the word "copy"). I don't agree that this means the brain doesn't produce the self. On the contrary, it's exactly what we would expect if the brain produced the self.
Dave,
- S0, reproducing your self would not reproduce you.
- IOW, your self is determined entirely by the cells of your brain, but you must require something more. When above you say, "I come out of the cells of my brain.", by "I" you mean your self -- but, you do not also mean you.
- And, each new self would be different in that regard.
__________________
"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 23rd November 2017, 08:24 AM   #12
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 8,371
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- S0, reproducing your self would not reproduce you.
- IOW, your self is determined entirely by the cells of your brain, but you must require something more. When above you say, "I come out of the cells of my brain.", by "I" you mean your self -- but, you do not also mean you.
- And, each new self would be different in that regard.
No Jabba we don't agree that there is a soul. Stop dishonestly pretending you've skilfully trapped us into admitting we do.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Hating a bad thing does not make you good." - David Wong
JoeBentley is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2017, 08:26 AM   #13
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,021
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- S0, reproducing your self would not reproduce you.
- IOW, your self is determined entirely by the cells of your brain, but you must require something more. When above you say, "I come out of the cells of my brain.", by "I" you mean your self -- but, you do not also mean you.
- And, each new self would be different in that regard.
No. See my previous response.
jond 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 23rd November 2017, 08:28 AM   #14
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,209
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- S0, reproducing your self would not reproduce you.
- IOW, your self is determined entirely by the cells of your brain, but you must require something more. When above you say, "I come out of the cells of my brain.", by "I" you mean your self -- but, you do not also mean you.
- And, each new self would be different in that regard.
Lets count the unsupported assertions:

1. - S0, reproducing your self would not reproduce you.
What? What is missing - asked hundreds of times and ignored

2. your self is determined entirely by the cells of your brain, but you must require something more.
What? What is with must. Says who, why? Support please.

3. by "I" you mean your self -- but, you do not also mean you.
What? you are telling someone else what they mean?
Based on what? When did they indicate that is what they mean?

4. - And, each new self would be different in that regard.
What? You haven't actually shown any of your premises to be true and how you are just stating your conclusion.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2017, 08:31 AM   #15
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 8,371
"Would another me be me?"

So along with "A copy means it by definition has all the same characteristics and qualities as the original" and "1 and 2 aren't the same number" we will now have to explain what a pronoun is and how it works to a grown man.

Eventually we'll have to do the whole "Who's on First?" routine.
__________________
"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

Last edited by JoeBentley; 23rd November 2017 at 08:35 AM.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2017, 08:32 AM   #16
wea
Critical Thinker
 
wea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: EU
Posts: 365
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- S0, reproducing your self would not reproduce you.
- IOW, your self is determined entirely by the cells of your brain, but you must require something more. When above you say, "I come out of the cells of my brain.", by "I" you mean your self -- but, you do not also mean you.
- And, each new self would be different in that regard.
No, see any of the previous answers, e.g. jond's
wea 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 23rd November 2017, 08:36 AM   #17
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,676
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- S0, reproducing your self would not reproduce you.
Oh, yes it would. It would be a distinct you, but it would be a reproduction of you.

Quote:
- IOW, your self is determined entirely by the cells of your brain, but you must require something more.
"You" and "your self" are exactly the same thing, and you just said "entirely". You're trying to have it both ways.

Quote:
When above you say, "I come out of the cells of my brain.", by "I" you mean your self -- but, you do not also mean you.
Why are you now trying to create a new distinction? You have always argued that "you" was this "self" that reincarnationists talk about. Why do you now change the argument?
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2017, 08:36 AM   #18
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,889
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- S0, reproducing your self would not reproduce you.
- IOW, your self is determined entirely by the cells of your brain, but you must require something more. When above you say, "I come out of the cells of my brain.", by "I" you mean your self -- but, you do not also mean you.
- And, each new self would be different in that regard.
Rule of so.
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2017, 08:58 AM   #19
sackett
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 5,114
Fellers, let's consider what Jabba's up against. He dare not abandon his position, his "claim," by admitting that his arguments are failures. If he ever stops repeating himself, a silence will fall in which the truth of our mortality stands before him, implacably and unavoidably. He's afraid.

Is a fear of nonexistence irrational? Yes; but none of us is rational all the time.
__________________
Fill the seats of justice with good men; not so absolute in goodness as to forget what human frailty is. -- Thomas Jefferson

What region of the earth is not filled with our calamities? -- Virgil
sackett 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 23rd November 2017, 08:59 AM   #20
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,676
Originally Posted by sackett View Post
none of us is rational all the time.
Some of us are rational more often than others.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2017, 09:18 AM   #21
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 8,371
Originally Posted by sackett View Post
Fellers, let's consider what Jabba's up against. He dare not abandon his position, his "claim," by admitting that his arguments are failures. If he ever stops repeating himself, a silence will fall in which the truth of our mortality stands before him, implacably and unavoidably. He's afraid.
Oh well cry me a goddamn river. Some one pass me the hair shirt so I might properly genuflect myself.

We are not "picking" on Jabba.

Jabba's not some old man we've all tracked down and surrounded to taunt him about his mortality for the Lulz. He sought us out with the express purpose of "proving immortality using Baysian statistics" using his "Truly Effective Debate Method" because he has an admitted hangup up with science and logic and fully admits he wants to quote mine a bunch of skeptics for statements he can rewrite into a piece of self insert fan fiction that he can show off to a mythical audience of neutral parties that doesn't exist anywhere but in his head.

It's not like the rest of us aren't going to die as well. Everybody has to grapple with morality same as Jabba. His fear of death doesn't make him a special snowflake we have to handle with kid's gloves. Any eggshells being walked on are his own doing.

Quote:
Is a fear of nonexistence irrational? Yes; but none of us is rational all the time.
And you can take that "But everyone is irrational some of the time!" special pleading and take it on the longest walk you can stand off the shortest pier you can find.
__________________
"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

Last edited by JoeBentley; 23rd November 2017 at 09:20 AM.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2017, 09:30 AM   #22
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,676
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
Oh well cry me a goddamn river. Some one pass me the hair shirt so I might properly genuflect myself.

We are not "picking" on Jabba.
I think Sacket was being sarcastic.

Quote:
Jabba's not some old man we've all tracked down and surrounded to taunt him about his mortality for the Lulz. He sought us out with the express purpose of "proving immortality using Baysian statistics" using his "Truly Effective Debate Method" because he has an admitted hangup up with science and logic and fully admits he wants to quote mine a bunch of skeptics for statements he can rewrite into a piece of self insert fan fiction that he can show off to a mythical audience of neutral parties that doesn't exist anywhere but in his head.
Excellent summary.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2017, 10:01 AM   #23
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 13,731
Hi! I once participated in this thread when I was a younger stronger man but for many months (years?) I've left it to those others who could better summon up the dedication and energy required. Just being curious I took a peek this morning. From a quick inspection it appears that months and years later Jabba is still:

1. discussing which would be "he" if he were exactly duplicated
2. unable to describe exactly what it is that is "reincarnated" in his model of immortality
3. making use of the Texas sharpshooter's logical fallacy
No doubt I've missed additional "golden oldie" arguments that lie further upthread.

My mom watched "soap operas" on TV. For me the most amazing aspect of these shows was that I could go away to college for months, return for Christmas, and the plot of the soap operas would be exactly at virtually same point as when I left. Nothing was ever resolved; instead the characters would engage in heartfelt, deep, heavy dialog each episode. Odd, but I have the same feeling about Jabba's script.

And Jabba: I recall that years ago (when I was an active participate) you were requesting other posters to assist you in researching your own arguments and prior posts due to what you described as increasing memory difficulties. You also explained that you felt that participating in this thread was often overwhelming to you due to your age related limited energy, thus justifying why you ignored most rebuttals and would typically choose only one "most favored opponent" to whom to engage in conversation. In looking over your recent posts I find myself relieved that despite all the intervening time both your memory difficulties and your energy limitations appear to have been reversed. Your posts often read like those of a much younger man. I too am past 60 and have experienced the same problems- perhaps there is hope for me too?
Giordano 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 23rd November 2017, 10:04 AM   #24
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,676
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Hi! I once participated in this thread when I was a younger stronger man but for many months (years?) I've left it to those others who could better summon up the dedication and energy required. Just being curious I took a peek this morning. From a quick inspection it appears that months and years later Jabba is still:

1. discussing which would be "he" if he were exactly duplicated
2. unable to describe exactly what it is that is "reincarnated" in his model of immortality
3. making use of the Texas sharpshooter's logical fallacy
No doubt I've missed additional "golden oldie" arguments that lie further upthread.

My mom watched "soap operas" on TV. For me the most amazing aspect of these shows was that I could go away to college for months, return for Christmas, and the plot of the soap operas would be exactly at virtually same point as when I left. Nothing was ever resolved; instead the characters would engage in heartfelt, deep, heavy dialog each episode. Odd, but I have the same feeling about Jabba's script.

And Jabba: I recall that years ago (when I was an active participate) you were requesting other posters to assist you in researching your own arguments and prior posts due to what you described as increasing memory difficulties. You also explained that you felt that participating in this thread was often overwhelming to you due to your age related limited energy, thus justifying why you ignored most rebuttals and would typically choose only one "most favored opponent" to whom to engage in conversation. In looking over your recent posts I find myself relieved that despite all the intervening time both your memory difficulties and your energy limitations appear to have been reversed. Your posts often read like those of a much younger man. I too am past 60 and have experienced the same problems- perhaps there is hope for me too?
I'm sure you can back to the original version of this thread (was it brought back to life with the second?) and you wouldn't notice a difference. If you didn't look at the dates of the posts, you could be forgiven to think that that thread's posts are from today.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2017, 10:26 AM   #25
sackett
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 5,114
No, sackett wasn't being sarcastic. Somebody called this thread a special case. I agree: a clinical case.

Those eggshells are of Jabba's own laying. Yes, he came here to speak his mind, and keep speaking it, to drown out what I've called a silence, a dread (to him) silence of death.

Somebody thinks I'm calling on posters to go easy on Jabba. Dunno how somebody got that idea. I'm handwaving aside all his repeated Jabbaling, and telling him to face what we all face.

Let him stop trying to hide from the coming of our friend. Irrationality is worse than death.
__________________
Fill the seats of justice with good men; not so absolute in goodness as to forget what human frailty is. -- Thomas Jefferson

What region of the earth is not filled with our calamities? -- Virgil
sackett 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 23rd November 2017, 10:31 AM   #26
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,889
Speaking of years of fallacy-filled monotony, I sense a Chapter Seven split coming.
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave

Last edited by John Jones; 23rd November 2017 at 11:11 AM.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2017, 10:58 AM   #27
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,097
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- S0, reproducing your self would not reproduce you.
It would reproduce me. To reproduce something is to make a copy of it.

Quote:
- IOW, your self is determined entirely by the cells of your brain, but you must require something more.

It does not. My self, "me", is determined entirely by the cells of my brain. A copy of my brain would have different cells made of different matter. The self produced by that brain would only be "different" in the same way the second brain is "different" from my brain.

It really is as simple as a copy being separate from the original.
__________________
"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 23rd November 2017, 10:59 AM   #28
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,149
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- S0, reproducing your self would not reproduce you.
I'm sure you agree that that's an idiotic thing to say.

Quote:
- IOW, your self is determined entirely by the cells of your brain, but you YOUR SOUL must require something more.
And you're ok with being that dishonest? I substituted the words you meant to say.

Quote:
When above you say, "I come out of the cells of my brain.", by "I" you mean your self -- but, you do not also mean you.
I'm sure you agree that you are being dishonest in trying to obfuscate the meanings of words and hide your "soul" in them.

Quote:
- And, each new self SOUL would be different in that regard.
If you mean "soul", why don't you honestly say "soul"?
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 23rd November 2017, 11:12 AM   #29
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,503
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- So, when you say "I," you don't mean you.
Same ol' dishonest, ambiguous use of language as always.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2017, 11:14 AM   #30
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,676
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Same ol' dishonest, ambiguous use of language as always.
It's incredible that jabba's now stooped low enough to try to make "you" mean something different than "you".
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2017, 11:30 AM   #31
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,503
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
It's incredible that jabba's now stooped low enough to try to make "you" mean something different than "you".
Proof by Underlining.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2017, 11:44 AM   #32
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,889
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
Speaking of years of fallacy-filled monotony, I sense a Chapter Seven split coming.
How cool is my clairvoyance?


OK, I admit I noticed the post count was reaching the approximate limit before admin actions become necessary.
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave

Last edited by John Jones; 23rd November 2017 at 11:47 AM.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2017, 12:11 PM   #33
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,745
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- S0, reproducing your self would not reproduce you.

Yes, it would, and using a zero instead of an o doesn't mean that the Rule of "So..." doesn't apply.
__________________
"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 23rd November 2017, 10:48 PM   #34
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 24,095
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- S0, reproducing your self would not reproduce you.
- IOW, your self is determined entirely by the cells of your brain, but you must require something more. When above you say, "I come out of the cells of my brain.", by "I" you mean your self -- but, you do not also mean you.
- And, each new self would be different in that regard.

Jabba -

You're typing utter gibberish. Go to a nice Buddhist message board and ask them how they think reincarnation works. Or, alternatively, just stop.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2017, 10:48 PM   #35
jt512
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,673
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
A coin toss might be deterministic for all we know, but that doesn't mean that we don't talk about things like "fair coins" with probability 0.5 of landing either side.

A coin toss is deterministic.
jt512 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2017, 09:00 AM   #36
caveman1917
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,226
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
A coin toss is deterministic.
Evidence?
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2017, 06:46 PM   #37
jt512
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,673
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Evidence?

Seriously? Newton's Laws of Motion.
jt512 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2017, 07:00 AM   #38
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,956
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
It would reproduce me. To reproduce something is to make a copy of it.




It does not. My self, "me", is determined entirely by the cells of my brain. A copy of my brain would have different cells made of different matter. The self produced by that brain would only be "different" in the same way the second brain is "different" from my brain.

It really is as simple as a copy being separate from the original.
Dave,
- Back in 3320 of the previous chapter, you said,
"I come out of the cells of my brain.
If you made an exact copy of my brain, an exact copy of me would come out of it.
I do agree that an exact copy of me wouldn't be me"

- I'm just trying to find the right words. While a perfect copy would reproduce you, it wouldn't be you...
__________________
"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 25th November 2017, 07:19 AM   #39
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,021
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Back in 3320 of the previous chapter, you said,
"I come out of the cells of my brain.
If you made an exact copy of my brain, an exact copy of me would come out of it.
I do agree that an exact copy of me wouldn't be me"

- I'm just trying to find the right words. While a perfect copy would reproduce you, it wouldn't be you...
What, exactly would the difference be? If the duplicate self identifies as Jabba, how is that different from you?
jond 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 25th November 2017, 07:27 AM   #40
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,097
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Back in 3320 of the previous chapter, you said,
"I come out of the cells of my brain.
If you made an exact copy of my brain, an exact copy of me would come out of it.
I do agree that an exact copy of me wouldn't be me"

- I'm just trying to find the right words. While a perfect copy would reproduce you, it wouldn't be you...
Of course not. When is a copy ever the original? When are two things ever the same thing?
__________________
"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
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 09:32 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.