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

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


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

Reply
Old 2nd December 2017, 07:14 PM   #361
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 8,396
Originally Posted by Toontown View Post
No it wouldn't. I think you're trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole.
There are no pegs. There are no holes. There's no soul and Jabba is not going to live forever.

Quote:
Back when all the smart people believed the earth was the entire universe (because the earth was all they could see), I might have said, "Not likely. It is unlikely that all we can see just happens to coincide with all that exists. Plus, it is too ludicrously unlikely that a universe consisting of one little planet would have produced sentient life. There must be very, very many planets."

The smart people were wrong back then, but I would have been right.
Well la de da ain't you just special.

Quote:
Oh. Like "bodies that could be you" is an a priori specification, and "the body that is you" is a posterior specification?
Meaningless twaddle in florid prose. Latin nonsense is still nonsense.

Quote:
Back when all the smart people believed the planets in the Sol system were the only planets that existed (because the bodies in the solar system were the only things they could see that moved), I might have said, "Not likely. It is unlikely that all we can see that moves just happens to coincide with all that exists. Plus, it is too ludicrously unlikely that a universe consisting of one paltry little collection of planets would have produced sentient life. There must be very, very many planets."

The smart people were wrong back then, but I would have been right.
Again, well la de da ain't you special.

Why does this one thread keep inviting this anti-intellecual "Oh you eggheads need to be taken down a notch" nonsense?

Quote:
I don't mind stretching that definition beyond the breaking point. It needs to be stretched beyond the breaking point. It is inadequate.
Translation: "I'm going to play silly word games."
__________________
"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 2nd December 2017, 08:49 PM   #362
Toontown
Philosopher
 
Toontown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,121
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post

Why does this one thread keep inviting this anti-intellecual "Oh you eggheads need to be taken down a notch" nonsense?
You answer that question every day.

What eggheads? You mean the pseudo-intellectual thread squatters?
__________________
"I did not say that!" - Donald Trump
Toontown is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2017, 07:57 AM   #363
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,964
Dave (Godless),
- Way back when, when I was first claiming how unlikely I was -- given OOFLam -- and, how that reflected on OOFLam, you brought up the unlikelihood of Mt Rainier, suggesting that if I was correct about my existence and immortality, it must be either that Mt Rainier is immortal, or just that the existence of Mt Rainier defied science (I can't remember which).
- Ultimately, I claimed that I was "set apart,"whereas Rainier was not (which would explain why the same logic wouldn't apply to Rainier) -- and further that I (my particular self-awareness) was not scientifically traceable, whereas Rainier was.
- Since then, we've addressed the same issue regarding VWs and loaves of bread, with similar results, and I've presented my, likely, best arguments re "set apart" and "scientifically traceable" for each sub-issue. Whatever, for now, I'll leave those arguments as my closing statements for those issues and sub-issues.
- And then, you claimed that my resistance to the sperm+ovum explanation for particular self-awarenesses was misguided, but seemed to be accepting my explanation when you accepted that a perfect copy of my brain, or my sperm+ovum, would not bring ME back to life.
__________________
"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 4th December 2017, 08:05 AM   #364
Monza
Alta Viro
 
Monza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,955
Jabba,

In all seriousness and sincerity, have you read any of the replies to your posts? Even if you ignore everyone but Godless Dave, it doesn't seem you have read or understood his posts. You just keep repeating the same thing but never address the basic errors that have been pointed out to you time and time again.
Monza 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 4th December 2017, 08:10 AM   #365
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,522
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave (Godless),
- Way back when, when I was first claiming how unlikely I was -- given OOFLam -- and, how that reflected on OOFLam, you brought up the unlikelihood of Mt Rainier, suggesting that if I was correct about my existence and immortality, it must be either that Mt Rainier is immortal, or just that the existence of Mt Rainier defied science (I can't remember which).
- Ultimately, I claimed that I was "set apart,"whereas Rainier was not (which would explain why the same logic wouldn't apply to Rainier) -- and further that I (my particular self-awareness) was not scientifically traceable, whereas Rainier was.
- Since then, we've addressed the same issue regarding VWs and loaves of bread, with similar results, and I've presented my, likely, best arguments re "set apart" and "scientifically traceable" for each sub-issue. Whatever, for now, I'll leave those arguments as my closing statements for those issues and sub-issues.
- And then, you claimed that my resistance to the sperm+ovum explanation for particular self-awarenesses was misguided, but seemed to be accepting my explanation when you accepted that a perfect copy of my brain, or my sperm+ovum, would not bring ME back to life.
1. Yes, you've tried all these arguments before, many times.

2. Your argument to be "set apart" (i.e., somehow different than all other material) boiled down to begging that you had a soul. Your "traceability" argument was pure question-begging.

3. Your insistence on ambiguous language festooned with textual apparatus to suggest some alternate meaning (e.g., "bring ME back to life...") has been thoroughly discussed.

4. Your critics aren't going anywhere, so ignoring them is not going to make them go away and let you claim that you "must" have bested them.
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 4th December 2017, 08:11 AM   #366
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,098
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave (Godless),
- Way back when, when I was first claiming how unlikely I was -- given OOFLam -- and, how that reflected on OOFLam, you brought up the unlikelihood of Mt Rainier, suggesting that if I was correct about my existence and immortality, it must be either that Mt Rainier is immortal, or just that the existence of Mt Rainier defied science (I can't remember which).
- Ultimately, I claimed that I was "set apart,"whereas Rainier was not (which would explain why the same logic wouldn't apply to Rainier) -- and further that I (my particular self-awareness) was not scientifically traceable, whereas Rainier was.
- Since then, we've addressed the same issue regarding VWs and loaves of bread, with similar results, and I've presented my, likely, best arguments re "set apart" and "scientifically traceable" for each sub-issue. Whatever, for now, I'll leave those arguments as my closing statements for those issues and sub-issues.
If those are your best arguments then you might as well quit now, since you supported neither the "set apart" concept nor the "scientifically untraceable" concept.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- And then, you claimed that my resistance to the sperm+ovum explanation for particular self-awarenesses was misguided, but seemed to be accepting my explanation when you accepted that a perfect copy of my brain, or my sperm+ovum, would not bring ME back to life.
It's not a "sperm+ovum" explanation, it's a brain explanation. The materialist view is that human brains are conscious and have a sense of self. Sperm + ovum is where a new brain eventually comes from.

I accept that a perfect copy of your brain would not bring you back to life for exactly the same reason that I accept that a perfect copy of a loaf of bread would not be the first loaf of bread. In other words, I accept that 1+1=2. This does not contradict the idea that self-awareness comes from the brain. On the contrary, it's a logical consequence of it.
__________________
"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 4th December 2017, 08:19 AM   #367
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,156
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave (Godless),
Weird. Why not just call him godless dave?

Quote:
- Way back when, when I was first claiming how unlikely I was -- given OOFLam -- and, how that reflected on OOFLam, you brought up the unlikelihood of Mt Rainier, suggesting that if I was correct about my existence and immortality, it must be either that Mt Rainier is immortal, or just that the existence of Mt Rainier defied science (I can't remember which).
- Ultimately, I claimed that I was "set apart,"whereas Rainier was not (which would explain why the same logic wouldn't apply to Rainier) -- and further that I (my particular self-awareness) was not scientifically traceable, whereas Rainier was.
What is "particular" about what you've called a process? This is just your immortal lie.

Quote:
- Since then, we've addressed the same issue regarding VWs and loaves of bread, with similar results, and I've presented my, likely, best arguments re "set apart" and "scientifically traceable" for each sub-issue. Whatever, for now, I'll leave those arguments as my closing statements for those issues and sub-issues.
That's probably best since, if they are your "best arguments", you've utterly failed.

Quote:
- And then, you claimed that my resistance to the sperm+ovum explanation for particular self-awarenesses was misguided,
As misguided as your misuse of "particular" to refer to what you've called a process of self-awareness.

Quote:
but seemed to be accepting my explanation when you accepted that a perfect copy of my brain, or my sperm+ovum, would not bring ME back to life.
You continue to dishonestly use waffle terms such as "ME", capitalizing and underlining them to give some significance that doesn't exist in reality. What has specifically been said is that there would be two duplicate but separate instances of you and what you've called your process of self-awareness, each thinking correctly that it is Jabba, as you've agreed.

When you mean "SOUL", just say soul. It would be the honest thing to do and I think you agree with everyone that you've lost at every turn.
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 4th December 2017, 08:40 AM   #368
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,964
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
If those are your best arguments then you might as well quit now, since you supported neither the "set apart" concept nor the "scientifically untraceable" concept.
- Obviously, I disagree. I think that a neutral jury would generally disagree also. And could be that Caveman and Toon agree with those two conclusions of mine -- though, I doubt that they like my arguments.


Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
It's not a "sperm+ovum" explanation, it's a brain explanation. The materialist view is that human brains are conscious and have a sense of self. Sperm + ovum is where a new brain eventually comes from.

I accept that a perfect copy of your brain would not bring you back to life for exactly the same reason that I accept that a perfect copy of a loaf of bread would not be the first loaf of bread. In other words, I accept that 1+1=2. This does not contradict the idea that self-awareness comes from the brain. On the contrary, it's a logical consequence of it.
- Would a perfect copy of my brain bring my particular self-awareness back to life?
__________________
"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 4th December 2017, 08:43 AM   #369
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,705
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave (Godless),
- Way back when, when I was first claiming how unlikely I was -- given OOFLam -- and, how that reflected on OOFLam, you brought up the unlikelihood of Mt Rainier, suggesting that if I was correct about my existence and immortality, it must be either that Mt Rainier is immortal, or just that the existence of Mt Rainier defied science (I can't remember which).
- Ultimately, I claimed that I was "set apart,"whereas Rainier was not (which would explain why the same logic wouldn't apply to Rainier) -- and further that I (my particular self-awareness) was not scientifically traceable, whereas Rainier was.
- Since then, we've addressed the same issue regarding VWs and loaves of bread, with similar results, and I've presented my, likely, best arguments re "set apart" and "scientifically traceable" for each sub-issue. Whatever, for now, I'll leave those arguments as my closing statements for those issues and sub-issues.
- And then, you claimed that my resistance to the sperm+ovum explanation for particular self-awarenesses was misguided, but seemed to be accepting my explanation when you accepted that a perfect copy of my brain, or my sperm+ovum, would not bring ME back to life.
How's re-stating your claims worked for you so far?

Did you think we had forgotten?

We know you claim it's set apart. But you have not justified that claim.
__________________
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 4th December 2017, 08:44 AM   #370
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,705
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Obviously, I disagree. I think that a neutral jury would generally disagree also.
So far all neutral juries have agreed against you. Where's this mythical jury that happens to agree with you?

Quote:
- Would a perfect copy of my brain bring my particular self-awareness back to life?
Stop asking the same question over and over and read the *********** responses.
__________________
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 4th December 2017, 08:45 AM   #371
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,098
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Would a perfect copy of my brain bring my particular self-awareness back to life?
I just answered that in the very post you're replying to.

Try reading this again:

Quote:
I accept that a perfect copy of your brain would not bring you back to life for exactly the same reason that I accept that a perfect copy of a loaf of bread would not be the first loaf of bread
__________________
"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 4th December 2017, 08:47 AM   #372
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,023
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Obviously, I disagree. I think that a neutral jury would generally disagree also. And could be that Caveman and Toon agree with those two conclusions of mine -- though, I doubt that they like my arguments.
Where's that laughing dog???

Quote:
- Would a perfect copy of my brain bring my particular self-awareness back to life?
What would the difference between a perfect copy self identifying as Jabba and you be, exactly? And why do you keep ignoring this question?
jond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2017, 08:53 AM   #373
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,156
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Obviously, I disagree. I think that a neutral jury would generally disagree also. And could be that Caveman and Toon agree with those two conclusions of mine -- though, I doubt that they like my arguments.
Toontown was actually kind enough to illustrate for you that you couldn't make 1+4=7 without fundamentally changing your argument. You haven't changed your fundamental argument.

You have a neutral jury right here. They disagree with your arguments for the thousands of reasons given which you haven't addressed. You're just been too dishonest to address the fatal flaws or even acknowledge them.

Quote:
- Would a perfect copy of my brain bring my particular self-awareness back to life?
Your immortal lie. How is what you've called a process of self-awareness "particular". Does a Volkswagen go a "particular" 60 mph?

Jabba, you can refute your made up nonsense all you want. You can stick a soul onto your OOFLAM and then say that OOFLAM doesn't address souls. It doesn't matter. If you haven't falsified the actual materialist model, you've lost.
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 4th December 2017, 08:55 AM   #374
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,705
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Your immortal lie.
It sure keeps getting brought back to life repeatedly in new bodies.
__________________
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 4th December 2017, 09:03 AM   #375
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,964
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
I just answered that in the very post you're replying to.

Try reading this again:
- No, you didn't.
- I used "my particular self-awareness" in my question -- you had used "you" (referring to "me") in your previous answer. I wanted to make sure that we were talking about the same thing/process.

- OK. I'll stick with the "brain" model, and avoid the "sperm+ovum" model.
__________________
"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 4th December 2017, 09:05 AM   #376
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,098
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- No, you didn't.
- I used "my particular self-awareness" in my question -- you had used "you" (referring to "me") in your previous answer.
They're 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
Old 4th December 2017, 09:07 AM   #377
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,023
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- OK. I'll stick with the "brain" model, and avoid the "sperm+ovum" model.
Great. Now you have to explain how a process in the brain can continue when the brain stops functioning.
jond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2017, 09:08 AM   #378
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,705
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- No, you didn't.
- I used "my particular self-awareness" in my question -- you had used "you" (referring to "me") in your previous answer. I wanted to make sure that we were talking about the same thing/process.
For ****'s sake, Jabba, you've been using the same terms for years. You can't possibly expect us to believe that you suddenly thought we didn't understand your terms.
__________________
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 4th December 2017, 09:31 AM   #379
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,522
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I wanted to make sure that we were talking about the same thing/process.
No, you were trying to play your standard silly word games in hopes of springing a "gotcha!" As usual, it failed.

Quote:
I'll stick with the "brain" model, and avoid the "sperm+ovum" model.
How about you just use the materialist model for everything, as the reckoning of P(E|H) requires in your model, instead of trying to create the illusion of victory by tricking someone into agreeing with your slyly and dishonestly worded straw-man formulations of materialism?
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 4th December 2017, 09:35 AM   #380
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,964
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
They're the same thing.
- That's what I wanted to know. I've been mistaken about assumptions before.
__________________
"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 4th December 2017, 09:38 AM   #381
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,098
When talking about the materialist model of reality, there is no possible scenario where making a copy of something would result in that something being in two places at once.
__________________
"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 4th December 2017, 09:45 AM   #382
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,522
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Obviously, I disagree.
Of course you disagree, but you can't come up with any rational reason for your disagreement. The reasons you give are irrational because (1) they commit the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, and (2) they beg the question that you differ from other matter because you have a soul. Your disagreement then simply devolves to denial.

Quote:
I think that a neutral jury would generally disagree also.
No. Another poster was kind enough to find where you attempted these arguments in a forum where you couldn't insinuate the "biased skeptics" card. They reached the same conclusions as we did here: (1) your claim fails for a number of easily fatal flaws, and (2) you ignore everything that's said to you and seem just to want a pulpit to preach from.

In five years you have utterly failed to show any evidence that your claims would far any better in front of a different audience. And in fact all the evidence -- including that supplied by you -- demonstrates that everyone to whom you've shown this argument has given you the same reasons why it doesn't work.

Now how about you stop insulting your critics by blaming them your failure. Especially since you're so unkind as to ignore the actual reasons they're giving for disagreeing with you, which have nothing to do with the bias you're frantically trying to pin on them.

Quote:
And could be that Caveman and Toon agree with those two conclusions of mine -- though, I doubt that they like my arguments.
Neither of them has a dog in your fight, and (last I checked) they had both repudiated your argument. While each of them has taken issue with some way in which your critics have addressed your proof, they do not accept that your proof is valid.

Quote:
Would a perfect copy of my brain bring my particular self-awareness back to life?
"Back to life" and "particular self-awareness" (i.e., that self-awareness is a discrete) are not concepts in materialism.
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 4th December 2017, 09:46 AM   #383
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 8,396
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Obviously, I disagree. I think that a neutral jury would generally disagree also. And could be that Caveman and Toon agree with those two conclusions of mine -- though, I doubt that they like my arguments.
- We know you disagree Jabba. You've just never actually bothered to explain anything beyond just stating it over and over.

- There is no mythical pool of neutral people silently agreeing with you. You know it, we know it.

- Caveman and Toon just run into this thread to take skeptics to tasks because they get off on it. They aren't on "your side."

Quote:
Would a perfect copy of my brain bring my particular self-awareness back to life?
- This questions has been asked and answered countless times Jabba. Stop being rude. You're a grown man Jabba finally start acting like it.
__________________
"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; 4th December 2017 at 09:48 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 4th December 2017, 09:47 AM   #384
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,522
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
When talking about the materialist model of reality, there is no possible scenario where making a copy of something would result in that something being in two places at once.
And by corollary, when talking about the materialist model of reality there is no possible scenario where making a copy of something would result in a copy that failed to exhibit all possible properties of the original except spacetime coordinates of the actual matter. By the definition of materialism, a copy must reproduce all that the original is.
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 4th December 2017, 09:57 AM   #385
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,705
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- That's what I wanted to know. I've been mistaken about assumptions before.
You forgot to follow that with an actual substantive post.
__________________
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 4th December 2017, 09:59 AM   #386
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,705
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
No. Another poster was kind enough to find where you attempted these arguments in a forum where you couldn't insinuate the "biased skeptics" card. They reached the same conclusions as we did here: (1) your claim fails for a number of easily fatal flaws, and (2) you ignore everything that's said to you and seem just to want a pulpit to preach from.

In five years you have utterly failed to show any evidence that your claims would far any better in front of a different audience. And in fact all the evidence -- including that supplied by you -- demonstrates that everyone to whom you've shown this argument has given you the same reasons why it doesn't work.
Jabba doesn't seem to realise that many of us would absolutely love to be immortal, so we're actually biased in favour of his argument. It's just so poorly constructed that it doesn't even convince us.
__________________
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 4th December 2017, 10:13 AM   #387
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 8,396
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Jabba doesn't seem to realise that many of us would absolutely love to be immortal, so we're actually biased in favour of his argument. It's just so poorly constructed that it doesn't even convince us.
The irony is the potential for post-humanism immorality (or extremely long lifespans) is a favorite subject of mine.

There is absolutely without question a good discussion to be had in the possibility of maintaining the mental process longer either through improving the human body or transferring/copying the mental process to another system capable of supporting it.
__________________
"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 4th December 2017, 10:19 AM   #388
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,272
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I think that a neutral jury would generally disagree also.
Jabba, you appear to be suggesting that anyone that doesn't agree with you is no 'neutral'.

By a normal definition in this kind of context, we are a 'neutral jury'. But by all means, if there's some mythical group out there that agrees with you - find them!

Go! Find your neutral jury! You've accomplished less than nothing in the last five years here. I mean that literally. You not only haven't convinced anyone, your refusal to respond to criticism and habit of dishonest methods mean that you have actually destroyed any goodwill that was offered to you. You are in a worse place than when you started.

So go, and look for your neutral jury. I can't imagine you'll find what you're looking for but you certainly can't find it here so you may as well try elsewhere.
SOdhner 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 4th December 2017, 10:35 AM   #389
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,910
In case anyone is interested, here is where Jabba took his case to a bunch of statisticians. It's not a pretty sight.

http://www.talkstats.com/showthread....ian-Statistics
__________________
"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 4th December 2017, 10:40 AM   #390
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,156
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- No, you didn't.
- I used "my particular self-awareness" in my question
Which, as you agree, is your immortal lie. How can what you've referred to as a process be "particular"? Is that like a Volkswagen going a particular 60 mph?

Quote:
-- you had used "you" (referring to "me") in your previous answer. I wanted to make sure that we were talking about the same thing/process.
In the materialist model, which is what you're trying to falsify, it is a process. Lying about it and dishonestly conflating "thing/process" with a slash between the two incongruous words doesn't change that. As you agree.

Quote:
- OK. I'll stick with the "brain" model, and avoid the "sperm+ovum" model.
Stick with the materialist model, whether you want to our not. That's what you're trying to falsify. Falsify something else all you want, that won't do you any good.
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 4th December 2017, 10:44 AM   #391
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,522
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
In case anyone is interested, here is where Jabba took his case to a bunch of statisticians. It's not a pretty sight.

http://www.talkstats.com/showthread....ian-Statistics
Jabba, will you please reconcile this evidence with your claim that your argument would fare better with a "neutral jury?"
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 4th December 2017, 10:44 AM   #392
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,156
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- That's what I wanted to know. I've been mistaken about assumptions before.
More often, you've deliberately tried to obfuscate terms and shroud them in ambiguity. You get caught every time. Like dishonestly conflating "thing" with "process".

You've agreed that a sense of self is a process. It's just dishonest of you to then go back to putting a slash between them to refer to what you've admitted is a process.
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 4th December 2017, 11:26 AM   #393
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,705
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
In case anyone is interested, here is where Jabba took his case to a bunch of statisticians. It's not a pretty sight.

http://www.talkstats.com/showthread....ian-Statistics
Wow, the OP is so dishonest, pretending to think he did something wrong when he in fact is convinced of the reverse.

ETA: Wait... he was 72 two years ago? He's as old as my parents. Befuddled old man my ass.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか


Last edited by Argumemnon; 4th December 2017 at 11:28 AM.
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 4th December 2017, 12:00 PM   #394
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,739
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Re #1: OK.
- Re #2: I can't find anything on Google discussing the chemistry of specific self-awareness. No one talks about the chemistry of ME, or YOU.
- Re #3: The different books on consciousness that I have read all say something to the effect that nothing in modern physics actually explains consciousness. It's a mystery!
Here try this, your parochial language usage is a deficit

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=pubmed+neurology+of+self+awareness
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2017, 12:06 PM   #395
Steve
Illuminator
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,085
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Why would the consciousnesses produce by two identical brains be different? What would the difference be?
Now you've got me thinking.... do identical twins have identical brains? Is the identical part only skin deep or does it extend to organs etc.? Identical twins certainly do have different consciousnesses from each other.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve 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 4th December 2017, 12:11 PM   #396
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 8,396
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
Now you've got me thinking.... do identical twins have identical brains? Is the identical part only skin deep or does it extend to organs etc.? Identical twins certainly do have different consciousnesses from each other.


Quote:
Identical twins have identical genes but they don't have identical brains and that is because learning leads to anatomical changes in the brain and even identical twins will have different social experiences, different learning experiences, and therefore will end up having different brains. Every single person in the world, as far as we know, has a slightly different brain than any other person because they've been exposed to somewhat different social and environmental experiences.
- Eric Richard Kandel (Neuroscientist and Professor of Biochemistry and Biophysics at the College of Physicians and Surgeons at Columbia University. Recipient of the 2000 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his research on the physiological basis of memory storage in neurons.)

https://www.dnalc.org/view/1200-Iden...al-Brains.html
__________________
"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 4th December 2017, 12:32 PM   #397
Monza
Alta Viro
 
Monza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,955
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
Now you've got me thinking.... do identical twins have identical brains? Is the identical part only skin deep or does it extend to organs etc.? Identical twins certainly do have different consciousnesses from each other.

The brain is constantly changing. Each thought and memory is accompanied by a complex action of neurons firing and new synapse connections being made. They can never actually be perfectly identical, as defined in this thought experiment we have been discussing.

This is why two perfect human copies of each other will diverge the moment they are exposed to some stimuli. Jabba can't get over the fact that each will still be a valid person with the same memories/experiences up to the point they diverged. It doesn't make one less of the the original than the other.

Another way to think of it: Would Gomer still be the same person if he had decided to join the Navy rather than the Army? Jabba looks at this by believing Army Gomer is the same person as the hypothetical Navy Gomer. The reality is that Gomer is not a static thing. The hypothetical Navy Gomer would have different experiences, friends, thoughts, memories, than Army Gomer. Yet, they are both still a valid Gomer, just the same (i.e. identical) Gomer.


ETA
Ninja'd by Joe Bently. I guess his reference to a Nobel prize-winning doctor is better than my reference to a TV doofus.

Last edited by Monza; 4th December 2017 at 12:35 PM.
Monza 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 4th December 2017, 12:41 PM   #398
Steve
Illuminator
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,085
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
- Eric Richard Kandel (Neuroscientist and Professor of Biochemistry and Biophysics at the College of Physicians and Surgeons at Columbia University. Recipient of the 2000 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his research on the physiological basis of memory storage in neurons.)

https://www.dnalc.org/view/1200-Iden...al-Brains.html
Thanks. Makes a lot of sense to me re learning resulting in physical changes to the brain.

This made me go off and do a little more research because I wondered at what stage of development these changes started. It seems that due to changes in the womb, "identical twins" are not identical at birth. In addition to brain changes, in-utero changes are responsible for such things as non-identical fingerprints.

A little learning is a good thing.

Edit - thanks to Monza for the additional info.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"

Last edited by Steve; 4th December 2017 at 12:42 PM.
Steve 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 4th December 2017, 02:59 PM   #399
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 25,340
Originally Posted by Toontown View Post
Oh. Like "bodies that could be you" is an a priori specification, and "the body that is you" is a posterior specification?
No. Both are a posteriori, because they include the known result in the specification.

Originally Posted by Toontown View Post
Back when all the smart people believed the planets in the Sol system were the only planets that existed (because the bodies in the solar system were the only things they could see that moved), I might have said, "Not likely. It is unlikely that all we can see that moves just happens to coincide with all that exists. Plus, it is too ludicrously unlikely that a universe consisting of one paltry little collection of planets would have produced sentient life. There must be very, very many planets."

The smart people were wrong back then, but I would have been right.
It must be very satisfying to think how much cleverer you might have been. Personally I don't remember a time when all the smart people believed that.

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

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2017, 03:35 PM   #400
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,752
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- And then, you claimed that my resistance to the sperm+ovum explanation for particular self-awarenesses was misguided...

Seriously, Jabba? The only person who has been suggesting a "sperm+ovum" explanation, or that there is such a thing as a "particular self-awareness" is you.

Quote:
...but seemed to be accepting my explanation when you accepted that a perfect copy of my brain, or my sperm+ovum, would not bring ME back to life.

That's because, under the model that you claim to be trying to disprove, the "ME", "particular self-awareness", or whatever term you have decided to use to sneak the soul into your premises in the hope that nobody will notice, doesn't exist. Two completely identical people, if such could somehow be created, would have completely identical consciousnesses, but would not be the same person because there would be two of them. Producing a perfect copy of you would result in a second, identical, Jabba. Another one, not the same one.
__________________
"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
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 10:52 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

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