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 7th December 2017, 07:50 AM   #521
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,091
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- "Who" refers to SSA (specific self-awareness).

I understand that. What makes you think I don't?

A specific brain produces a specific self-awareness.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
You and I both accept that a perfect copy of my brain would not bring my SSA back to life
Exactly as we would expect if a specific self awareness is produced by a specific brain. Two brains obviously can't produce the same self awareness, because they're not the same brain.


Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
-- but, we have no idea who, or which SSA, it would be.
What information about it wouldn't we have?

Remember, in the materialist model, a self awareness isn't "drawn" at all. A living human brain is self aware (while it's awake).
__________________
"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 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 7th December 2017, 07:50 AM   #522
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,644
Originally Posted by Monza View Post
This has been addressed multiple times. A perfect copy of your brain would make a perfect copy of you. We would know exactly who it would be. It would be Jabba; a second, separate, distinct, but completely identical Jabba.
Science fiction enjoys playing with this concept. Both star Trek and Farscape for example had plots where characters were duplicated in such a way as to render the concept of which was the "real" one immaterial. They were typically used to explore how different life experiences can shape a person's actions and evolution.

Comic Books are riddled with "parallel universe" versions of characters. While often used as an easy way to introduce a cast of characters with opposing morality it can also be used to explore the impact our decisions have upon us over the course of our lives.
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2017, 08:08 AM   #523
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,143
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- "Who" refers to SSA (specific self-awareness). SSA is the experience that reincarnationists think returns to life,
What does that have to do with the materialist model, which is what you're trying to falsify?

Quote:
but that you think has only one finite life (existence), at most.
No, that's your immortal lie. Is it a different immortal lie because it's a new instance of it?

So, anyway. Stop with the immortal lie.

Quote:
(Unfortunately, referring to reincarnationists' belief seems to be the best way to make sure that listeners know to what I'm referring by "who" or "specific self-awareness.")
Actually, this is another lie. Everyone has told you that they know you are referring to a soul. You've explicity stated that you're referring to a soul. The best way would be for you to refer to it as a "soul".

Quote:
You and I both accept that a perfect copy of my brain would not bring my SSA back to life -- but, we have no idea who, or which SSA, it would be.
More lying. Nobody else accepts that self-awareness is alive. It is a process. You continue to lie when you refer to a process in the materialist model as "alive" and when you claim that others agree with you.

Quote:
Without a pool to draw from, how could we even guess which SSA it would be?
Without a pool of "going 60 mph" to draw from, how could we even being to guess which "going 60 mph" a Volkswagen is going?

You are consistent in your lying.

Last edited by RoboTimbo; 7th December 2017 at 08:11 AM.
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 7th December 2017, 08:25 AM   #524
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 24,074
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- "Who" refers to SSA (specific self-awareness). SSA is the experience that reincarnationists think returns to life, but that you think has only one finite life (existence), at most. (Unfortunately, referring to reincarnationists' belief seems to be the best way to make sure that listeners know to what I'm referring by "who" or "specific self-awareness.") You and I both accept that a perfect copy of my brain would not bring my SSA back to life -- but, we have no idea who, or which SSA, it would be. Without a pool to draw from, how could we even guess which SSA it would be?

Really, Jabba? Really? You asked me a question. I answered it and then you ignored my answer? Is that effective debate? Is it anything other than rude?

In any case, you are once again citing the beliefs of reincarnationists incorrectly. First of all, you're doing it to avoid setting out any sort of definition yourself. The question remains: What characteristics of an individual do you think are reincarnated? Does the person even remember his past life? Do they both dislike anchovies? What is your particular definition?

Second, you cannot invoke reincarnationists because you refuse to find out what they actually believe. You could get any one of a thousand books on various eastern religions. You could spend three days on a Buddhist forum asking questions. You could even watch a video on YouTube. The fact that you won't indicates that you have no intention of ever refining your argument. Your goal is just to repeat it.
__________________
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 7th December 2017, 09:04 AM   #525
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 8,356
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- "Who" refers to SSA (specific self-awareness).
Jabba do you think making up new acronyms keeps us from seeing through your arguments?

You're talking about a soul Jabba. We know. You know. You've admitted it. We know you've admitted it. You know that we know.

Quote:
SSA is the experience that reincarnationists think returns to life, but that you think has only one finite life (existence), at most. (Unfortunately, referring to reincarnationists' belief seems to be the best way to make sure that listeners know to what I'm referring by "who" or "specific self-awareness.") You and I both accept that a perfect copy of my brain would not bring my SSA back to life -- but, we have no idea who, or which SSA, it would be. Without a pool to draw from, how could we even guess which SSA it would be?
That's all jibberish.

*Very, very, very slowly as if speaking to a small, perhaps mentally challenged child.*

The term "who" as used in general day to day usage does not magically define the natural, explainable mental processing that goes on in the human brain as some magical Woo-woo Soul put there by God.

We are not disagreeing with your statements, we are dismissing them as meaningless gibberish. We DO EVER LOVING EFFING NOT accept the childish "Have you stopped beating your wife" duality you are trying to force our answers into.

We are NOT agreeing to the things you claim we are agreeing to. You have NOT trapped us in some Gotcha.
__________________
"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; 7th December 2017 at 09:11 AM.
JoeBentley 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 7th December 2017, 09:12 AM   #526
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 8,356
So it seems the final hairsplit will be Jabba pretending that "same but seperate" is a concept that cannot apply to human identify because of... reasons.

"But it wouldn't be the saaaaaaaame!" better be all you put in your "Roadmap" of your argument Jabba.
__________________
"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; 7th December 2017 at 09:14 AM.
JoeBentley 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 7th December 2017, 09:28 AM   #527
Monza
Alta Viro
 
Monza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,948
Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
Science fiction enjoys playing with this concept. Both star Trek and Farscape for example had plots where characters were duplicated in such a way as to render the concept of which was the "real" one immaterial. They were typically used to explore how different life experiences can shape a person's actions and evolution.

Comic Books are riddled with "parallel universe" versions of characters. While often used as an easy way to introduce a cast of characters with opposing morality it can also be used to explore the impact our decisions have upon us over the course of our lives.

Someone (sorry, can't remember who) brought this up a couple weeks ago. He described a Star Trek TNG episode that illustrated this concept perfectly.

You are correct that sci-fi is littered with this concept. I just thought of another one: Back to the Future Part 2. There is a point in the movie where Marty McFly goes back to 1955 again. While there he sees himself performing the actions from the first movie. This is a funny moment as he tries to avoid interrupting himself and stopping the events from the first movie. But the important concept here is that at this point in time, there are two Marty McFlys. Each one is the "real" McFly, even though they are separate.

Jabba can't seem to grasp the fact that to duplicate something results in two of that something.
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 7th December 2017, 09:42 AM   #528
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 8,356
Originally Posted by Monza View Post
Jabba can't seem to grasp the fact that to duplicate something results in two of that something.
Oh he understands it perfectly, he's just going through this shtick because he thinks it means he's trapped his opponents in some contradiction he can "gotcha" them over so he can finally act out his version of the big scene where Tom Cruise has Jack Nicholson on the stand in A Few Good Men.

Jabba still thinks he's winning (or again thinks he's writing a story where his character is winning). He thinks he's got us on the ropes with his brilliant "But it wouldn't be the same and you agree with me because you are saying they are different" argument.

Jabba's core dishonest conceit right now is to pretend we have't been clear in what we mean between "distinct" and "different" so he can continue writing the narrative so it plays out that we are being inconsistent.

Again there is no possible way to look at this as an argument. It only makes sense in the framework of someone writing a story. Even the worst argumentatives have to at least acknowledge the other sides arguments, if only to dismiss or misconstrue them.

Jabba really does think he can get something intellectually meaningful out of throwing every possible variation on the same argument against the wall until something sticks, ignoring every opponent's argument that he can't argue against (which at this point is all of them and which at every point was most all of them) and taking all that and using it as the building blocks to write the self insert fanfic he dreams of where he uses his patented effective debate method to prove that skeptics aren't "holistic" thinkers therefore he's immortal.
__________________
"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 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 7th December 2017, 09:45 AM   #529
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,644
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
Oh he understands it perfectly, he's just going through this shtick because he thinks it means he's trapped his opponents in some contradiction he can "gotcha" them over so he can finally act out his version of the big scene where Tom Cruise has Jack Nicholson on the stand in A Few Good Men.

Jabba still thinks he's winning (or again thinks he's writing a story where his character is winning). He thinks he's got us on the ropes with his brilliant "But it wouldn't be the same and you agree with me because you are saying they are different" argument.

Jabba's core dishonest conceit right now is to pretend we have't been clear in what we mean between "distinct" and "different" so he can continue writing the narrative so it plays out that we are being inconsistent.

Again there is no possible way to look at this as an argument. It only makes sense in the framework of someone writing a story. Even the worst argumentatives have to at least acknowledge the other sides arguments, if only to dismiss or misconstrue them.

Jabba really does think he can get something intellectually meaningful out of throwing every possible variation on the same argument against the wall until something sticks, ignoring every opponent's argument that he can't argue against (which at this point is all of them and which at every point was most all of them) and taking all that and using it as the building blocks to write the self insert fanfic he dreams of where he uses his patented effective debate method to prove that skeptics aren't "holistic" thinkers therefore he's immortal.
Jabba is trying to Mary Sue himself into immortality.

halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2017, 09:46 AM   #530
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,947
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
...
A specific brain produces a specific self-awareness...
- Sure.
- But, we don't know which specific self-awareness it will be.
__________________
"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 č probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba 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 7th December 2017, 09:49 AM   #531
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,091
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Sure.
- But, we don't know which specific self-awareness it will be.
We don't? What information don't we have about 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 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 7th December 2017, 09:50 AM   #532
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,484
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- "Who" refers to SSA (specific self-awareness). SSA is...
No, Jabba. Trying to hide your foists behind acronyms is no more successful than trying to hide them in quotes or by underlining ambiguous words. Turning your private ideas into acronyms does not suddenly endow them with legitimacy, as if they were well-known, well-defined, well-studied principles.

Nor does rendering an acronym change the fact that you're really trying to say "soul." Nor does it hide the fact that you're trying deliberately and desperately to conflate a property with a discrete entity. Since you attempt these deceptions on a daily basis, and get caught on a daily basis, perhaps you'll soon figure out that it doesn't work and thereafter stop insulting the intelligence of your critics.

Quote:
SS is the experience that reincarnationists think returns to life...
No. You have been invited several times to inform yourself on reincarnation. Now it's just time to call a spade a spade. Most reincarnationists are not, in fact, animists. And it is exactly the animist assumption that you need in your theory in order to get something countable. As is common in your argument, you remain profoundly ignorant of the topics that apply to it.

Quote:
Unfortunately, referring to reincarnationists' belief seems to be the best way to make sure that listeners know to what I'm referring by "who" or "specific self-awareness."
Except that you don't know what reincarnationists believe. It's therefore not a clarification but a cop-out. You don't want to be pinned down to a specific idea of immortality or a soul because then you'll have to admit you have no evidence for it. You just want to falsify materialism and say that some vague immortalityish hypothesis "must" hold instead.

But you know this, because it's Fatal Flaw no. 5 in this list I can prove you know about, but which you are now frantically pretending doesn't exist. You vacillate between H as a singular hypothesis and ~H as a singular hypothesis.

Quote:
You and I both accept that a perfect copy of my brain would not bring my SSA back to life -- but, we have no idea who, or which SSA, it would be.
No, no one agrees to that. In fact there is strong disagreement over your continued use of ambiguous language ("bring back to life") and your insistence on blurring the meanings of "distinct" and "identical."

And of course this is the same discussion we had yesterday, the day before, last week, last month, and last year. Your "effective" debate hasn't progressed beyond stating your beliefs and lying about whether people agree with them.

Quote:
Without a pool to draw from, how could we even guess which SSA it would be?
For the third time, because the definition of materialism requires it.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2017, 09:50 AM   #533
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: 25,286
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Sure.
- But, we don't know which specific self-awareness it will be.
What you mean is "We don't know which soul will inhabit it," and as you've repeatedly been told this is a meaningless statement under materialism.

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 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 7th December 2017, 09:51 AM   #534
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 8,356
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Sure.
- But, we don't know which specific self-awareness it will be.
THE EXACT SAME SELF-AWARENESS

IF IT'S SAME, IT'S THE SAME! THAT'S WHAT SAME MEANS!

HOW DO YOU NOT KNOW HOW WORDS WORK?

An exact replica of you would be another you. There would be two yous, neither one more you than the other other. It would have the exact same self-awareness.

"Specific" is a weasel word.
__________________
"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 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 7th December 2017, 09:52 AM   #535
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,484
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Sure.
- But, we don't know which specific self-awareness it will be.
Yes, we do. For the fourth time, because materialism requires it to be identical to the original. Self-awareness is a property of the material under materialist, because all that is observable under materialism is a property of the material. Duplicate the material exactly and you must duplicate its properties exactly.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2017, 09:55 AM   #536
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,644
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Sure.
- But, we don't know which specific self-awareness it will be.
So what?

What does your lazy, unfounded, assertion suggest?




Last edited by halleyscomet; 7th December 2017 at 09:58 AM.
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2017, 09:59 AM   #537
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,644




halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2017, 10:00 AM   #538
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,091
This thread has now descended to the point where posting memes actually improves 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

Last edited by godless dave; 7th December 2017 at 10:10 AM. Reason: Xibit saying "Yo Dawg"? Now there's a meme I haven't seen in a long time. Long time.
godless dave 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 7th December 2017, 10:03 AM   #539
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,016
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Sure.
- But, we don't know which specific self-awareness it will be.
Seriously, Jabba, this is the most ridiculous thing you've posted.
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 7th December 2017, 10:05 AM   #540
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,484
Originally Posted by jond View Post
Seriously, Jabba, this is the most ridiculous thing you've posted.
And possibly also the most blatantly insulting, since the repudiation of the statement was previously given multiple times by multiple people. It's pretty in-your-face rude to ignore what people say and then claim there's a "communication difficulty" and insinuate that they're all blind.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2017, 10:07 AM   #541
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,016
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
And possibly also the most blatantly insulting, since the repudiation of the statement was previously given multiple times by multiple people. It's pretty in-your-face rude to ignore what people say and then claim there's a "communication difficulty" and insinuate that they're all blind.
Indeed.
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 7th December 2017, 10:28 AM   #542
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,733
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- "Who" refers to SSA (specific self-awareness). SSA is the experience that reincarnationists think returns to life, but that you think has only one finite life (existence), at most. (Unfortunately, referring to reincarnationists' belief seems to be the best way to make sure that listeners know to what I'm referring by "who" or "specific self-awareness.") You and I both accept that a perfect copy of my brain would not bring my SSA back to life -- but, we have no idea who, or which SSA, it would be. Without a pool to draw from, how could we even guess which SSA it would be?
Muwahaha

So you mean soul, ha ha ha ha

It does not exist under the materialist perspective
__________________
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

Last edited by Dancing David; 7th December 2017 at 10:29 AM.
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 7th December 2017, 10:31 AM   #543
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,733
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Sure.
- But, we don't know which specific self-awareness it will be.
It certainly does, materialism says that it is a transitory event of limited time and duration

You only assume it is persistent
__________________
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 7th December 2017, 10:36 AM   #544
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,644
Exclamation

Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
It certainly does, materialism says that it is a transitory event of limited time and duration

You only assume it is persistent
I've found the explanation for the entire thread!!! This has all been an elaborate setup by Jabba to reference this Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal web comic!

halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2017, 10:56 AM   #545
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 8,356
You laugh but there's a SMBC so dead on about this very thread, as in it's an attempt to make an over the top parody of Bayesian statistics so ludicrous that it is essentially Jabba's exact argument, that I'm halfway ready to think Zach Weinersmith is somehow aware of this thread.

https://smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=4127
__________________
"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; 7th December 2017 at 10:58 AM.
JoeBentley 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 7th December 2017, 11:12 AM   #546
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,143
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Sure.
- But, we don't know which specific self-awareness it will be.
This is a lie. You've referred to self-awareness as a process of the organism. The self-awareness will be the self-awareness exhibited by the organism.

If you mean "soul", that isn't part of the materialist model, which is what you're trying to falsify. It is a lie to continually try to shoehorn one into the materialist model when you know it doesn't belong there.

Everyone knows you are lying about it and you will be called on it every time you do it.
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 7th December 2017, 11:14 AM   #547
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,644
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
You laugh but there's a SMBC so dead on about this very thread, as in it's an attempt to make an over the top parody of Bayesian statistics so ludicrous that it is essentially Jabba's exact argument, that I'm halfway ready to think Zach Weinersmith is somehow aware of this thread.

https://smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=4127
I had forgotten about that one.

SMBC appears to handle the edge cases where an XKCD does not (yet) exist.
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2017, 04:18 PM   #548
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Sure.
- But, we don't know which specific self-awareness it will be.

Yes, we do: it will be the self-awareness produced by that specific brain.

Once again, you are begging the question. Using "which" instead of "who" doesn't change that, and nor does underlining it. Under materialism, there are no independently existing souls.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

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

Last edited by Mojo; 7th December 2017 at 04:20 PM.
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 8th December 2017, 12:33 AM   #549
barehl
Master Poster
 
barehl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,628
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Without a pool to draw from, how could we even guess which SSA it would be?
You mean this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guf

This same ridiculous notion was used with a different shade of lipstick in Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game series. Of course, Card also had trees with souls.

As others have tried to explain to you, we don't manufacture an engine and then embue it with motoricity to get it to run. We don't put paint on a canvas and then give it the mysterious picturicity to make a visible image. We don't put words in a book and then inject that book with novelicity to evoke a meaningful story. Each of these is nothing more than its parts. So too is the brain. Nothing more.

Last edited by barehl; 8th December 2017 at 12:37 AM.
barehl 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 8th December 2017, 05:11 AM   #550
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,208
Originally Posted by barehl View Post
...we don't manufacture an engine and then embue it with motoricity to get it to run....
I LIKE that. I like that a lot.
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 8th December 2017, 08:56 AM   #551
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by The Sparrow View Post
I LIKE that. I like that a lot.

Yes, the ideas of motoricity, pictureicity and novelicity are perfect analogies to the soul, but I guarantee that Jabba will find himself inexplicably unable to understand them.
__________________
"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 8th December 2017, 08:57 AM   #552
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,947
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Sure.
- But, we don't know which specific self-awareness it will be.
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
We don't? What information don't we have about it?
- This is where we can't seem to communicate.
- By "specific self-awareness," I mean the experience that reincarnationists think returns to life. You have the same kind of experience, but don't think it will ever return to life. I think you know the experience to which I refer.
- Neither of us thinks that producing a perfect copy of my brain would bring ME back to life, nor do we believe that replicating your brain would bring YOU back to life. We both believe that replicating your brain would produce a new specific self-awareness, but we have no idea WHO that would be.
- That's the info we don't have -- but apparently, you and I don't have the same experience in mind by "that which a reincarnationist thinks returns," by "ME," "You" or "WHO.

- Fortunately, that shouldn't matter...
- Here, my objective is to determine the likelihood of the current existence of my SSA, given OOFLam -- and, I think that you now agree that 1/10100 is a reasonable estimate. If you don't agree, that's what we need to be talking about.
__________________
"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 č probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba 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 8th December 2017, 08:59 AM   #553
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,016
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- This is where we can't seem to communicate.
- By "specific self-awareness," I mean the experience that reincarnationists think returns to life. You have the same kind of experience, but don't think it will ever return to life. I think you know the experience to which I refer.
- Neither of us thinks that producing a perfect copy of my brain would bring ME back to life, nor do we believe that replicating your brain would bring YOU back to life. We both believe that replicating your brain would produce a new specific self-awareness, but we have no idea WHO that would be.
- That's the info we don't have -- but apparently, you and I don't have the same experience in mind by "that which a reincarnationist thinks returns," by "ME," "You" or "WHO.

- Fortunately, that shouldn't matter...
- Here, my objective is to determine the likelihood of the current existence of my SSA, given OOFLam -- and, I think that you now agree that 1/10100 is a reasonable estimate. If you don't agree, that's what we need to be talking about.
What part of “the experience is a process happening in your brain” do you not understand? That is the materialistic model. You keep insisting that WHO is a separate entity and insisting that the materialistic needs to include that separate entity. You are wrong.
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 8th December 2017, 09:01 AM   #554
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: 25,286
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Yes, the ideas of motoricity, pictureicity and novelicity are perfect analogies to the soul, but I guarantee that Jabba will find himself inexplicably unable to understand them.
That's not a problem; first, say that you're sure he'd understand the concepts if only you could find the proper words to express them, then just tell him outright that he agrees with you that these are valid analogies for the experience that we all collectively refer to as the soul.

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

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is 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 8th December 2017, 09:04 AM   #555
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,091
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- This is where we can't seem to communicate.
- By "specific self-awareness," I mean the experience that reincarnationists think returns to life. You have the same kind of experience, but don't think it will ever return to life. I think you know the experience to which I refer.
- Neither of us thinks that producing a perfect copy of my brain would bring ME back to life, nor do we believe that replicating your brain would bring YOU back to life. We both believe that replicating your brain would produce a new specific self-awareness, but we have no idea WHO that would be.
- That's the info we don't have -- but apparently, you and I don't have the same experience in mind by "that which a reincarnationist thinks returns," by "ME," "You" or "WHO.
I'm pretty confident we do have the same experience in mind. What I'm asking about is what this means:

Originally Posted by Jabba
we have no idea WHO that would be.
"Who" means "which person". That's the literal meaning of the word. If we know which self awareness we're talking about, and we know which brain is experiencing self awareness, then we know who it is. What about that self awareness don't we know?
__________________
"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 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 8th December 2017, 09:04 AM   #556
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,644
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- By "specific self-awareness," I mean the experience that reincarnationists think returns to life. You have the same kind of experience, but don't think it will ever return to life. I think you know the experience to which I refer.
And those would be?

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Here, my objective is to determine the likelihood of the current existence of my SSA, given OOFLam -- and, I think that you now agree that 1/10100 is a reasonable estimate. If you don't agree, that's what we need to be talking about.
Nope. Lying about the supernatural nature of what you're arguing to try and cram it into a materialistic paradigm won't help you, it will only highlight your attempts at deception.

Your efforts at being deliberately vague are pathetic and transparent. Your arguments may very well be the worst I've yet seen from a woo-woo proponent on this forum and I've talked to people who insist they're God with the only "poof" being their say-so. They, at least, have the basic decency to admit there's a supernatural component to their claims.
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2017, 09:06 AM   #557
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: 25,286
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- By "specific self-awareness," I mean the experience that reincarnationists think returns to life.
Yes, we know you mean "soul".

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I think you know the experience to which I refer.
Yes, we know that what you're describing as "the experience to which I refer" is the soul.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Neither of us thinks that producing a perfect copy of my brain would bring ME back to life, nor do we believe that replicating your brain would bring YOU back to life.
You know that this is a lie. Stop repeating it.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
We both believe that replicating your brain would produce a new specific self-awareness, but we have no idea WHO that would be.
You know that nobody else in the thread believes this. Stop lying about it.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Here, my objective is to determine the likelihood of the current existence of my SSA, given OOFLam -- and, I think that you now agree that 1/10100 is a reasonable estimate.
No, nobody agrees that this is a reasonable estimate; everybody but you agrees that it's a completely irrelevant number extracted from a nether orifice.

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 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 8th December 2017, 09:07 AM   #558
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,016
Originally Posted by jond View Post
What part of “the experience is a process happening in your brain” do you not understand? That is the materialistic model. You keep insisting that WHO is a separate entity and insisting that the materialistic needs to include that separate entity. You are wrong.
As for the math:

1: What is the likelihood of your brain existing? In the materialistic model, the likelihood of your “self” existing is exactly the same as your brain existing. Because the self is a process that your brain does.

2: What is the likelihood of your self existing as a separate entity? Whatever number you pull out of your rear end really doesn’t matter: because your “self” still involves your brain, so you also need to account for that as well.

Run the numbers, pick whatever number you want for each. The likelihood of 1 alone will always be at minimum equal to 1 & 2, and in reality will be much more likely than 1 & 2.

You know this, of course, and therefore continue to insists that the materialistic model is missing something, but it isn’t. All your whining about it isn’t me is nonsense.

ETA: oops, on my iPad and quoted myself instead of Jabba. Not that it matters as he’s going to ignore it anyway.

Last edited by jond; 8th December 2017 at 09:10 AM.
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 8th December 2017, 09:18 AM   #559
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,208
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- This is where we can't seem to communicate.....
That's because you ignore responses.
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 8th December 2017, 09:19 AM   #560
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,143
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- This is where we can't seem to communicate.
No, this is where YOU refuse to communicate. You dishonestly ignore the rebuttals to your nonsense and then lie about people agreeing with you.

Quote:
- By "specific self-awareness," I mean the experience that reincarnationists think returns to life SOUL.
FTFY. Please start being honest when you post.

Quote:
You have the same kind of experience, but don't think it will ever return to life.
You agree that saying that an "experience" can "return to life" is an idiotic thing to say.

Quote:
I think you know the experience to which I refer.
You aren't referring to an experience, you're referring to a soul. Yes, we know.

Quote:
- Neither of us thinks that producing a perfect copy of my brain would bring ME back to life, nor do we believe that replicating your brain would bring YOU back to life.
This is outright dishonesty. You mean that replicating you would mean a new soul. A thing. Please refrain from this type of dishonesty in future.

Quote:
We both believe that replicating your brain would produce a new specific self-awareness, but we have no idea WHO that would be.
This is an outright lie. You've been told dozens of times that in the materialist model, the self-awareness is a process of the particular organism. You don't have permission to stick a soul into the materialist model.

Quote:
- That's the info we don't have
Outright lie. See above.

Quote:
-- but apparently, you and I don't have the same experience in mind by "that which a reincarnationist thinks returns," by "ME," "You" or "WHO.
Frankly, you have no clue what "reincarnationists" think. What you think is "SOUL". Everyone knows it. You're dishonestly conflating a thing with a process.

Quote:
- Fortunately, that shouldn't matter...
Unfortunately for you, it matters a great deal. A sense of self in the materialist model is a process of the organism. No souls need apply.

Quote:
- Here, my objective is to determine the likelihood of the current existence of my SSA SOUL, given OOFLam MY MADE UP NONSENSE
You have permission to falsify any goofy model you choose but if it isn't the materialist model then you're wasting your time.

Quote:
-- and, I think that you now agree that 1/10100 is a reasonable estimate. If you don't agree, that's what we need to be talking about.
Your dishonesty knows no bounds.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:17 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.