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 27th November 2017, 08:00 AM   #121
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,643
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
Would another exactly, down to the tiniest detail, copy of that neuro-chemical process be me? I don't know or care. It's not a valid question. It's applying a term to something in context it was never meant to be used and trying to use the fact the term doesn't work as evidence of something.
This, exactly.
__________________
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 27th November 2017, 10:01 AM   #122
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,943
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
You could call it your self, your consciousness, or your self awareness. It really doesn't matter. In the model you claim to be trying to disprove, it comes from a working brain.
Dave,
- Exactly. I'm trying to show that that model is wrong.
- I'm trying to show that the self must continue to exist after the death of the brain.
- One of my claims is that the materialists and reincarnationists are talking about the same concept/experience (the "self") when they discuss the possibility of life after death. I represent the materialist model by OOFLam and the likelihood of your current existence under that 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 27th November 2017, 10:03 AM   #123
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,857
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Exactly. I'm trying to show that that model is wrong.
- I'm trying to show that the self must continue to exist after the death of the brain.
- One of my claims is that the materialists and reincarnationists are talking about the same concept/experience (the "self") when they discuss the possibility of life after death. I represent the materialist model by OOFLam and the likelihood of your current existence under that model.
I hate to break it to you, but you've been failing miserably for 5 years.
__________________
"I have no clue" - King of the Americas
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 27th November 2017, 10:07 AM   #124
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,138
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Exactly. I'm trying to show that that model is wrong.
Can't wait for you to start.

Quote:
- I'm trying to show that the self must continue to exist after the death of the brain.
When will you start?

Quote:
- One of my claims is that the materialists and reincarnationists are talking about the same concept/experience (the "self") when they discuss the possibility of life after death.
In the materialist model, which is what you're trying to refute, the self is a product of the organism. You don't get to paste a soul onto the materialist model.

Quote:
I represent the materialist model by OOFLam and the likelihood of your current existence under that model.
No, you misrepresent the materialist model. You try to paste a soul onto it. You and I agree that that's dishonest but we also agree that you've embraced dishonesty.
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 27th November 2017, 10:09 AM   #125
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: 25,261
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Exactly. I'm trying to show that that model is wrong.
Unfortunately, the way you're trying to show that it's wrong is by demanding that something not part of it and completely incompatible with it should be considered part of it, so that you can claim a contradiction. In effect it's a circular strawman argument; you're misrepresenting the materialist hypothesis as a different, internally inconsistent, hypothesis so that you can then point to its internal inconsistency and claim it to be refuted. That's a fundamentally dishonest argument, and what's equally dishonest is your attempt to claim that you can somehow make it a valid argument by choosing an appropriate synonym for the word "soul".

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
One of my claims is that the materialists and reincarnationists are talking about the same concept/experience (the "self") when they discuss the possibility of life after death.
Another of your claims is that this experience is not reproduced when all the elements contributing to it in any way are reproduced, and what you're so obviously trying not to say is "because the soul is involved, and souls are unique." Let me make it clear to you:

In materialism, there is no analogue to 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 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 27th November 2017, 10:10 AM   #126
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,087
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Exactly. I'm trying to show that that model is wrong.
- I'm trying to show that the self must continue to exist after the death of the brain.
- One of my claims is that the materialists and reincarnationists are talking about the same concept/experience (the "self") when they discuss the possibility of life after death. I represent the materialist model by OOFLam and the likelihood of your current existence under that model.
Except whenever you try to come up with a value for P(E|H), you don't base it on the materialist model. In the materialist model, the self comes from the brain. It does not come from nowhere. It is cause and effect traceable.
__________________
"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 27th November 2017, 10:10 AM   #127
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,943
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Jabba, I'm confused by your use of the word "reproduce". You seem to agree that reproducing a brain would result in two brains, the original and the copy. But when it comes to what you're calling "selves", you seem to be implying that "reproducing" a self would result in one self in two locations. I don't get it.
Dave,
- I'm saying that what I'm calling the self would be different in the copy in the same way that a new loaf of bread would be different than the original -- except that the new self is the result of an emergent property that has no analog in the new loaf of bread.
__________________
"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 27th November 2017, 10:13 AM   #128
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: 25,261
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I'm saying that what I'm calling the self would be different in the copy in the same way that a new loaf of bread would be different than the original -- except that the new self is the result of an emergent property that has no analog in the new loaf of bread.
Yes, you're saying the new self has a different soul. We all know that. Under materialism, there is no such thing as a soul, so your claim is not valid 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 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 27th November 2017, 10:14 AM   #129
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,138
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I'm saying that what I'm calling the self SOUL would be different in the copy in the same way that a new loaf of bread would be different than the original -- except that the new self SOUL is the result of an emergent property that has no analog in the new loaf of bread BECAUSE BREAD DOESN'T HAVE A SOUL.
See how it looks when I remove your dishonesty and add what should be your honest words?
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 27th November 2017, 10:14 AM   #130
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,087
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I'm saying that what I'm calling the self would be different in the copy in the same way that a new loaf of bread would be different than the original -- except that the new self is the result of an emergent property that has no analog in the new loaf of bread.

So, like I've been saying, if you made an exact copy of my body, my self would be reproduced.
__________________
"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 27th November 2017, 10:14 AM   #131
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,643
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Exactly. I'm trying to show that that model is wrong.
- I'm trying to show that the self must continue to exist after the death of the brain.
Yes we know. We also know how terribly you've failed at those.
__________________
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 27th November 2017, 10:15 AM   #132
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 8,348
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Exactly. I'm trying to show that that model is wrong.
Okay. Do you plan to start actually doing this at some point?

Quote:
I'm trying to show that the self must continue to exist after the death of the brain.
You're failing. And I don't mean failing at doing it, I mean failing at trying to do it.

Quote:
One of my claims is that the materialists and reincarnationists are talking about the same concept/experience (the "self") when they discuss the possibility of life after death. I represent the materialist model by OOFLam and the likelihood of your current existence under that model.
You represent nothing. You haven't made a claim. You just keep repeating over and over what your claims are going to be at some point in the future. I don't think a can think of a proper example of any greater use of an amount of words to say nothing in history.

Jabba you will ignore this. The fact that you continue to act as if your opponents can't see through your act is literally, no hyperbole, without embellishment, by far the most intellectually insulted I have ever been in a discussion.

We're 5 plus years into this discussion and you haven't even begun to actually make a point. I don't care if this is an act, I don't care if it is trolling, I don't care if it's some persona you're crafting, I don't care if you really are some befuddled old man.

It's indefensible. And you are beyond saving.
__________________
"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 27th November 2017, 10:16 AM   #133
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,643
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I'm saying that what I'm calling the self would be different in the copy in the same way that a new loaf of bread would be different than the original
No, it would be distinct. And? Who cares if you're not "brought back to life"? That has nothing to do with whether materialism is false.
__________________
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 27th November 2017, 10:18 AM   #134
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,138
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I'm saying that what I'm calling the self would be different in the copy...
Explain exactly how it would differ.
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 27th November 2017, 10:21 AM   #135
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 8,348
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Explain exactly how it would differ.
"They wouldn't be the saaaaaaaame!"
__________________
"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 27th November 2017, 10:26 AM   #136
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,474
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Exactly. I'm trying to show that that model is wrong.
And, as you've been repeatedly told, you don't get to do that in the context of the term of your statistical model that deals with materialism. When reckoning that term, P(E|H), you must do so as if H were true, whether you believe it to be true or not, and even if your overall goal is to falsify it.

Quote:
I'm trying to show that the self must continue to exist after the death of the brain.
That's your overall goal, yes. But at this point in the proof you're trying to reckon P(E|H). You must do so using H as it is formulated, and you must assume it is true throughout this portion of the inference. Otherwise you're not performing a correct statistical inference; you'd just be using pseudo-mathematics to conceal a blatantly begged question.

Your whole notion of "potential selves" as discriminable entities is to pretend to justify the Big Denominator you announced ahead of time you would need in order for your proof to work. Insofar as you are using the Big Denominator only to argue that P(E|H) must be very, very small, it has meaning only within the P(E|H) term of your formula, part of the likelihood ratio. Hence all the concepts you use to justify the Big Denominator must fall under the auspices of H and not just be something you made up.

Leaving aside that there's no countable set of "potential selves" in materialism that gives a meaningful probability, your bigger problem is that you can't use an assumption that H is false, or the premonition that you can prove it false, as a premise in constructing such a proof with respect to P(E|H). First, that's just blatantly circular reasoning. Second, it's expressly not how the likelihood ratio works in a statistical inference.

Quote:
One of my claims is that the materialists and reincarnationists are talking about the same concept/experience (the "self") when they discuss the possibility of life after death.
That claim is expressly false. Materialists do not allow for any such effect or entity as reincarnation would require. I presume Dave Rogers has said this in a typeface large enough to preclude your selective attention. You may not rewrite materialism to make it easier for you to refute.

Quote:
I represent the materialist model by OOFLam and the likelihood of your current existence under that model.
You misrepresent the materialist model by just making up a bunch of stuff and calling it materialism. When reckoning P(E|H) you must consider H as it is actually formulated. You don't own H. It's not yours to speculate around. You may not rewrite it at will to suit your attempts to falsify it.

As I have written many times, and as I have outlined here as fatal flaws #1 and #3, you simply have no idea how to properly formulate a statistical inference. Had you done what I've asked you many times to do and take an hour or so to address briefly each of these fatal flaws (or shown your utter inability to do that), your critics would not have to waste their time with an obviously incompetent attempt at proof. Your proof is not broken merely in some irrelevant nuance or by some niggling detail. Your proof is broken at the fundamental level of understanding how math works.

You're wrong and you know you're wrong, as evidenced by your assiduous avoidance of a comprehensive rebuttal to your claims. Please concede the debate and apologize for wasting your critics' time.
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 27th November 2017, 10:33 AM   #137
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,474
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I'm saying that what I'm calling the self would be different in the copy in the same way that a new loaf of bread would be different than the original -- except that the new self is the result of an emergent property that has no analog in the new loaf of bread.
But you're trying to have your bread and eat it too. The point of the bread loaf analogy was to illustrate how materialism actually works, not to provide a new framework for you to speculate around and abuse pronouns. The analogy shows that under materialism, emergent properties such as "smells like bread" must be present any time the material composition is present. Once again you're trying to violate materialism by saying humans are different from bread in that they have a soul and bread does not.

In materialism, all that is attributable to humans is a product of the material that makes up the human organism. All of it. There is no magical component or effect that somehow won't be reproduced in a perfect copy. It is the same for bread; all properties of bread would be present in any copy of the loaf -- to wit, one that is made from the same recipe. The analogy was meant to teach you, and all you have demonstrated is your unwillingness to learn.
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 27th November 2017, 10:39 AM   #138
Filippo Lippi
Master Poster
 
Filippo Lippi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,759
Lying about materialism is fine, it's a lie for Jesus
__________________
"You may not know anything about the issue but I bet you reckon something.
So why not tell us what you reckon? Let us enjoy the full majesty of your uninformed, ad hoc reckon..."
David Mitchell
Filippo Lippi 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 27th November 2017, 10:45 AM   #139
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,474
Originally Posted by Filippo Lippi View Post
Lying about materialism is fine, it's a lie for Jesus
Nothing so noble. It's a lie toward the greater glory of Jabba, the master of Effective DebateTM and the Confounder of the Godless Atheists who masquerade as skeptics. In his less guarded moments Jabba confesses he thinks he can do this where notables like Aristotle and Plato failed because they didn't have statistical inference at their disposal. I can excuse quite a bit of behavior from people who propose to give glory to some imaginary deity (and who accidentally do lots of practical good words in the process). But I can't abide someone who wantonly lies simply to embiggen his sense of self worth.
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 27th November 2017, 10:47 AM   #140
Filippo Lippi
Master Poster
 
Filippo Lippi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,759
If god cared, he'd have proven himself long before now
__________________
"You may not know anything about the issue but I bet you reckon something.
So why not tell us what you reckon? Let us enjoy the full majesty of your uninformed, ad hoc reckon..."
David Mitchell
Filippo Lippi 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 27th November 2017, 10:51 AM   #141
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 8,348
Originally Posted by Filippo Lippi View Post
Lying about materialism is fine, it's a lie for Jesus
And, I seriously I'm not trying to just keep harping on this, framing this in the context of "materialism" is playing into Jabba's hand.

As long as we keep saying "X isn't true under materialism" all Jabba (and certain hanger on thread nannies) hear is that that means it's possible under some other context, cue infinite regressions and nitpicking.

I get it, we have to slap the modifier on there to keep the pedants away but by doing so we've gift wrapped Jabba a hairsplit to walk for eternity.

And it's functionally absurd. How exactly did we get argued into our side of the debate being "Death exists unless under... the very concept that reality exists." I can't help but feel that that second part i doing more harm than good.

I can't help but feel I'm having to put a "Unless reality doesn't exist" modifier on way more of my statements that is necessary under any sane context.
__________________
"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; 27th November 2017 at 11:04 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 27th November 2017, 10:54 AM   #142
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,474
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
See how it looks when I remove your dishonesty and add what should be your honest words?
And it's not as if your rewriting changes Jabba's argument. Jabba has admitted that the concept he's thinking of is the soul, and that the only reason he doesn't use the word "soul" is because he doesn't want it to be as readily apparent that he's begging the question.

Jabba, what RoboTimbo has produced above is pretty much how your critics read all your arguments. It should be easily discernible then how little chance you have to convince a dispassionate third party that you really have something beyond the word games JoeBentley has astutely described. It really is quite insulting to your critics that you think you can so easily deceive 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 27th November 2017, 11:04 AM   #143
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,474
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
As long as we keep saying "X isn't true under materialism" all Jabba (and certain hanger on thread nannies) hear is that that means it's possible under some other context, cue infinite regressions and nitpicking.
I agree that's what they likely hear. But it doesn't stop it from being a true rebuttal, and a necessary one.

Quote:
I get it, we have to slap the modifier on there to keep the pedants away...
But it's not just pedantry. It's a necessary qualifier for the part of the model Jabba is trying to justify with his potentiality argument. We're looking at a ratio of likelihoods for which P(E|H) is one of the terms. It is the term Jabba hopes to justify as very, very small based on his theory of where "selves" must come from in materialism. When we say "under materialism" it is therefore also to emphasize that it is meant to hold only when devising an expression for P(E|H) -- i.e., only when we can assume H is true.

In contrast, when we switch to reckoning P(E|~H), we will have to assume that ~H is true, whatever Jabba decides that will be. (There is an additional error in that Jabba has not reconciled the false dilemma, but that would confuse the point I'm trying to make.)

You're right, I think, in pointing out that many of the responses people are giving do not see the hidden pitfall Jabba has laid by insisting on his vague language. And as such those responses stand to validate the hidden premise in Jabba's loaded questions. But at least when I say "under materialism" I'm attempting to remind Jabba that he must reckon P(E|H) as if materialism were as his critics have defined it, and as if that were true.
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 27th November 2017, 11:11 AM   #144
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 8,348
If one side has been reduced to "I'm right if you assume reality doesn't exist" I sort of feel like the conversation should stop there.

"I'm right if you assume reality doesn't exist" shouldn't a valid point to address in any topic ever outside of a Philosophy 101 class.

Half the threads on this board at times are functionally reducible to one side going "I'm right if you assume... magic." Letting people routinely use "Materialism" as a way to portray "I assume reality exists" as a stance that has to be defended against other valid alternatives is just insane to me.
__________________
"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; 27th November 2017 at 11:13 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 27th November 2017, 11:24 AM   #145
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,474
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
If one side has been reduced to "I'm right if you assume reality doesn't exist" I sort of feel like the conversation should stop there.
And most of us agree this conversation should have stopped years ago after it became objectively obvious that Jabba didn't know what he was talking about. But as you say, he's created a dynamic where he doesn't have to admit defeat, and where the frustrated departure of his critics can be spun to suggest his success.

When I say we get to assume materialism is correct, it's only because that's a narrow feature of the method Jabba has chosen. In a Bayesian inference you get to assume each involved hypothesis is in turn correct for the purpose of determining what that tells you about the progression of data you actually see. It doesn't beg the question because each hypothesis gets a turn at being correct for some observation, and the aggregation of all those attempts to explain the outcome is what we reason from. If Jabba weren't using this particular inferential framework then we wouldn't be talking about qualified remarks this way.
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 27th November 2017, 02:42 PM   #146
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,943
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Except whenever you try to come up with a value for P(E|H), you don't base it on the materialist model. In the materialist model, the self comes from the brain. It does not come from nowhere. It is cause and effect traceable.
- Yes, I do. The likelihood of my current existence -- given OOFLam --is virtually zero. I must be missing something, but I can't figure out what it is.
__________________
"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 27th November 2017, 02:46 PM   #147
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,943
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
So, like I've been saying, if you made an exact copy of my body, my self would be reproduced.
- Is this "self" the same concept/experience that reincarnationists think returns?
__________________
"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 27th November 2017, 02:48 PM   #148
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,138
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Yes, I do.
No, you don't.

Quote:
The likelihood of my current existence -- given OOFLam --is virtually zero.
No, it isn't. The likelihood of your current existence is one.

Quote:
I must be missing something, but I can't figure out what it is.
I will credit you with telling the truth here. I have absolutely no doubt that you wouldn't be able to figure it out if left to your own devices. However, you are fortunate in that you don't need to figure it out yourself. Virtually everyone else in the thread has told you exactly what it is with specificity and excruciating detail over years of time and thousands of posts.

If you were honest, this wouldn't be an issue.
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 27th November 2017, 02:50 PM   #149
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,258
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I must be missing something, but I can't figure out what it is.
JABBA: I must be missing something.

LITERALLY EVERYONE ELSE: Here's a detailed list of all the things you're doing wrong, stated twelve different ways and repeated for literally five years.

JABBA: I just can't figure out what. It's a mystery!
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 27th November 2017, 02:52 PM   #150
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,138
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Is this "self" the same concept/experience that reincarnationists think returns?
You're the one dishonestly obfuscating terms. What do you want it to refer to in the materialist model?
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 27th November 2017, 02:52 PM   #151
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 8,348
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Yes, I do. The likelihood of my current existence -- given OOFLam --is virtually zero. I must be missing something, but I can't figure out what it is.
"The likelihood of my current existence -- given the total bullcrap thing I completely made up just to shoe into this argument and have a dozen people explain to me in terms a child would understand what is wrong with over a course of years -- is virtually zero."

The thing you are "missing" Jabba is THAT OOFLAM IS A TOTAL BEGGING THE QUESTION PIECE OF ABSOLUTE NONSENSE YOU MADE UP!

Jesus tap dancing Christ. At least when you talk to a wall sometimes you'll get an echo.
__________________
"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 27th November 2017, 02:53 PM   #152
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 8,348
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Is this "self" the same concept/experience that reincarnationists think returns?
Why are you asking us for a third party's view of something?

What are you doing? Who are you talking to? Do you think we're stupid?
__________________
"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 27th November 2017, 02:53 PM   #153
JimOfAllTrades
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 372
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Yes, I do. The likelihood of my current existence -- given OOFLam --is virtually zero. I must be missing something, but I can't figure out what it is.
But you don't. You say that an exact copy of you wouldn't be the same as you because it would be a second instance of you, not the original you.

But that is exactly what materialism predicts: that a copy would be a second instance of the same object, identical in every way, but separate. So by saying that because the copy is a different instance there must be something missing from the copy, you're not talking about materialism.
JimOfAllTrades 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 27th November 2017, 02:56 PM   #154
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,087
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Yes, I do. The likelihood of my current existence -- given OOFLam --is virtually zero. I must be missing something, but I can't figure out what it is.
One of the things you're missing is that "virtually zero" doesn't mean anything mathematical. But let's ignore that for now.

In the materialist model, the one you claim to be H in for P(E|H), your current existence is a result of your parents having sex, you being conceived, you being born, and you surviving through today. Their existence is a result of similar circumstances with their parents, and similarly back to the first appearance of life on earth, which was itself the result of events we don't understand, which were in turn the results of other events going back to the beginning of time and the universe.

So depending on when you calculate the likelihood of your eventually existence, you might get a very small number. But the same would be true of absolutely everything that exists now: every snowflake, every grain of sand, every piece of rock on every planet in the universe.

In the materialist model, your self is entirely the result of natural processes. It did not come from nowhere. Its relative unlikelihood at various points in history is no more significant than the unlikelihood that the formation we call Mount Rainier would one day exist in the form it currently exists in.
__________________
"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; 27th November 2017 at 02:58 PM.
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 27th November 2017, 02:57 PM   #155
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 8,348
Jabba I still think the term "materialism" needlessly confuses you. I think you lack the context to understand what people are telling you when they say "There is no place for a non-reproducible part of the self under materialism" and lack the intellectual honesty and curiosity to learn it.

So I'm going to be more direct.

There's no such thing as soul in reality. You don't have a soul. You are going to die one day and never come back.
__________________
"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; 27th November 2017 at 02:58 PM.
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 27th November 2017, 02:57 PM   #156
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,087
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Is this "self" the same concept/experience that reincarnationists think returns?
It's the same experience but not the same concept. All the reincarnation beliefs I'm familiar with posit some kind of soul that exists independently of the physical body.
__________________
"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; 27th November 2017 at 02:58 PM.
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 27th November 2017, 02:57 PM   #157
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,258
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Is this "self" the same concept/experience that reincarnationists think returns?
No, that would be a soul. We don't believe those exist, and under the materialistic model they aren't a thing.

Which we've explained to you, like, a thousand times.

Obviously I don't have the energy but it would be really interesting to take these five years of posts and see how many times each thing has been explained to Jabba.

Anyway, here's to attempt #77,519:

This is the Materialist view of the sense of self. It doesn't matter if you agree with it, for your argument to make any sense you need to calculate your probabilities as if this is the case:
  1. We do experience consciousness, or a sense of self.
  2. This is caused by our physical brains, by the electrical signals and neurochemistry and all that jazz.
  3. If our brains are disrupted, so is the sense of self.
  4. Our sense of self isn't a tangible thing, nor is it a thing at all. It's an emergent property of our brains.
  5. If you duplicated someone perfectly, that duplicate would also have a sense of self. Since the person was duplicated exactly, both copies would have the same thoughts, feelings, and personality.
  6. Our sense of self goes away every night when we get some good sleep. By most reasonable definitions it's just gone. When we wake up we once again have a sense of self.
  7. Likewise, people have been pretty darn dead and have been brought back. During the time we are dead (or deeply sleeping, or in a coma, or whatever) our sense of self isn't somewhere else - it just is gone entirely. There is no persistent sense of self that survives outside our body.
  8. We don't really call this a "new" sense of self, because it's an emergent property rather than a countable thing. Likewise if a chameleon was green, and then turned red, and then turned green again we wouldn't say it had a "new" green. It was green, then it wasn't, then it was. We are aware, then we're not, then we are.
  9. When our brains break sufficiently that they can no longer generate this sense of self awareness ever again, it's just over. There's nothing to reincarnate because that sense of self isn't a countable thing and it's gone anyway. Nobody else will have "our" sense of self, or any part of it, because it's not a THING that can be passed around or divided up.
  10. That feeling you have, that a copy wouldn't be you and that there's something special about the original that would be lost in translation - that's not an actual thing, it's more like sentimental value. It means something TO YOU but it's not an actual measurable or quantifiable value. If we DID replace you with a perfect copy and didn't tell you, you would never know.
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 27th November 2017, 02:59 PM   #158
JimOfAllTrades
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 372
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Is this "self" the same concept/experience that reincarnationists think returns?
I would imagine that what I think of as "me", my sense of self or whatever you want to call it, is probably what some reincarnationists think is reincarnated. Other reincarnationists may think some other aspect is reincarnated. Like most groups, I doubt you'll find a 100% (or maybe even large majority) consensus.

But why does what some reincarnationists think affect your formula?
JimOfAllTrades 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 27th November 2017, 03:02 PM   #159
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,474
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Yes, I do.
No, you most certainly don't. You base it on your own straw-man version of materialism.

Quote:
I must be missing something, but I can't figure out what it is.
Funny how that happens when you ignore everything that's happening around you.
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 27th November 2017, 03:11 PM   #160
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 24,056
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I'm saying that what I'm calling the self would be different in the copy in the same way that a new loaf of bread would be different than the original -- except that the new self is the result of an emergent property that has no analog in the new loaf of bread.

Really? What about the smell of the bread?
__________________
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
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 12:57 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.