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 29th November 2017, 09:26 AM   #241
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,494
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
At this point he's so trapped in his own corner it's been reduced down to "Another me wouldn't be me because only I am me." It's been distilled into pure argument via definition.
That's every Jabba thread, and why his threads persist for years without formally "getting started." He tries to foist personal definitions and ground rules that essentially guarantee his success before we even start. It's like a lawyer trying to win a case entirely by pretrial rulings in limine that result in only favorable evidence being presented.
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 29th November 2017, 09:29 AM   #242
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,208
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
.... and science must be stuck with figuring that each bit of consciousness naturally brings with it, or creates, a brand-new self-awareness .
LOL

"Science" is "stuck" with nothing. Don't be ridiculous in either attempting to speak for the scientific community, or making conclusions based on your fallacious ramblings.
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 29th November 2017, 09:29 AM   #243
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: 25,309
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
No, you don't get to use a model that insists upon an arbitrary distinction between humans and everything else.
This. Because, of course, materialism does not do so, therefore any model that does so is not materialism. And so we're back to the core of the argument, which rests on misrepresenting materialism in order to give it the appearance of internal inconsistency.

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 29th November 2017, 09:47 AM   #244
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,494
Originally Posted by The Sparrow View Post
"Science" is "stuck" with nothing.
Science is, in fact, liberated from not having to consider all the special cases that would arise if we had to, for example, consider each car going 60 mph to be exhibiting an individualized property.

Jabba's strategy has been to load down the data, E, with assumptions from his own theories in hopes of showing that science is "stuck" trying to explain those add-ons. His argument boils down, then, to "Science can't explain my theory." And that's because science has its own theory that doesn't include his assumptions. Of course Jabba doesn't come out and say it's his theory; he insists instead that it's an inherent part of the data.
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 29th November 2017, 10:10 AM   #245
carlitos
"ms divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 17,718
Originally Posted by John Jones
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- S0, reproducing your self would not reproduce you.
- IOW, your self is determined entirely by the cells of your brain, but you must require something more. When above you say, "I come out of the cells of my brain.", by "I" you mean your self -- but, you do not also mean you.
- And, each new self would be different in that regard.
Rule of so.
Rule of s0, actually. Ess - Zero. Maybe that's a different thing.


Aaaaaand, I'm putting the new thread on ignore, since it doesn't bring out my best. Best of luck to all.
carlitos 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 29th November 2017, 10:12 AM   #246
sackett
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 5,114
Jabba, all you have to do is come back and haunt the forum after you're dead. Should be easy for an immortal soul. I mean, jeeze, you'll have plenty of time.

Let us know when you've died and we can start watching for you.
__________________
Fill the seats of justice with good men; not so absolute in goodness as to forget what human frailty is. -- Thomas Jefferson

What region of the earth is not filled with our calamities? -- Virgil
sackett is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2017, 10:13 AM   #247
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,494
If he has an out-of-body experience instead, would that constitute a sock puppet?
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 29th November 2017, 10:49 AM   #248
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 17,001
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
So many good counter-arguments... so little acknowledgment.
That is the aim. Post so much crap that people can't be bothered to reply anymore. Then declare victory.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2017, 10:54 AM   #249
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,095
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
That is the aim. Post so much crap that people can't be bothered to reply anymore. Then declare victory.
Yep. And in the grand scheme of things it wouldn't matter if he did. Declining to participate in the thread lets Jabba tell himself he won the debate. Participating in the thread lets him tell himself he actually has a point worth considering. I have no illusions that I'm doing anything effective by posting in this thread but I need a break from work every now and then or I'll lose my temper at how stupid my employer's clients are and how many resources we're wasting by giving in to their stupid requests.
__________________
"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 29th November 2017, 11:05 AM   #250
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 8,359
Here's the thing though, and here I'll just gift wrap a serving of crow to eat later to save everyone else the trouble... I don't think anyone is that dense.

He'll never admit it, he'll never acknowledge it, it will never make a difference as to his action but there is no way the utter across the board bottom to top total destruction of his entire argument, argumentative style, conclusions, ulterior motive and literally everything both direct and meta about this discussion has got to have gotten through to Jabba.... on some level. Some level.

There has to be a sunk cost tipping point to the "I'm winning as long as the argument is still going on" technique. At certain point watching your entire argument get trounced like a Hitler pinata at a Mossad convention has got to start to outweigh the symbolic moral victory of "being still in the fight."
__________________
"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 29th November 2017, 11:24 AM   #251
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 8,359
BTW if anybody wants to see what the "smart" version of this discussion would be, Vsauce has you covered.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjfaoe847qQ
__________________
"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 29th November 2017, 11:30 AM   #252
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,655
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
That is the aim. Post so much crap that people can't be bothered to reply anymore. Then declare victory.
I guess he didn't expect us to keep going at it for five years.

The feeling's mutual, jabba.
__________________
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 29th November 2017, 11:47 AM   #253
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 17,001
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Yep. And in the grand scheme of things it wouldn't matter if he did. Declining to participate in the thread lets Jabba tell himself he won the debate. Participating in the thread lets him tell himself he actually has a point worth considering. I have no illusions that I'm doing anything effective by posting in this thread but I need a break from work every now and then or I'll lose my temper at how stupid my employer's clients are and how many resources we're wasting by giving in to their stupid requests.
Yeah, sure, it is an odd route to take because it will prove nothing, demonstrates nothing, illustrates nothing, yet for reasons inexplicable jabba has been doing that very thing for years. Why? I don't think even jabba can answer that, or at least has made no attempt to do so.

Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
Here's the thing though, and here I'll just gift wrap a serving of crow to eat later to save everyone else the trouble... I don't think anyone is that dense.

He'll never admit it, he'll never acknowledge it, it will never make a difference as to his action but there is no way the utter across the board bottom to top total destruction of his entire argument, argumentative style, conclusions, ulterior motive and literally everything both direct and meta about this discussion has got to have gotten through to Jabba.... on some level. Some level.

There has to be a sunk cost tipping point to the "I'm winning as long as the argument is still going on" technique. At certain point watching your entire argument get trounced like a Hitler pinata at a Mossad convention has got to start to outweigh the symbolic moral victory of "being still in the fight."
Beats me. The whole concept of the "Least Critical Poster" would not exist were it not for the bovine proposals propounded in these various threads. Perhaps one should ask Jabba. No answer will be forthcoming so try not to get excited.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2017, 12:22 PM   #254
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,736
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- If a perfect copy of your brain would not bring back your specific self-awareness, neither should your sperm and ovum, and science must be stuck with figuring that each bit of consciousness naturally brings with it, or creates, a brand-new self-awareness .
This seems to be two conjoined sentence fragments or just an absurd conclusion.

Are you saying the 'sperm and ovum' should produce 'specific self-awareness', which is totally bizarre.

Brains produce specific self-awareness
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2017, 12:25 PM   #255
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,736
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- How about perfect copies of your sperm and ovum?
- And, if science/materialism considers, or would consider, your particular sperm and ovum to be the cause of your particular self-awareness, I'm happy to use that model instead.
This is the dumbest straw man in a long series of dumb strawman
__________________
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 29th November 2017, 12:25 PM   #256
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,095
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
This seems to be two conjoined sentence fragments or just an absurd conclusion.

Are you saying the 'sperm and ovum' should produce 'specific self-awareness', which is totally bizarre.

Brains produce specific self-awareness
Jabba seems to think the "self" is a separate thing that gets attached to a body at some point, and that the characteristics of the body - the genome or the shape of the brain or something - determine which self gets attached.

Like if you have two radios, both tuned to 89.3 FM, they'll both pick up the same transmission. They won't pick up two separate transmissions.

That's what he seems to be getting at but who knows.
__________________
"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 29th November 2017, 12:53 PM   #257
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,018
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Jabba seems to think the "self" is a separate thing that gets attached to a body at some point, and that the characteristics of the body - the genome or the shape of the brain or something - determine which self gets attached.
This is exactly what he thinks is happening, as exhibited by his phrase "each brain brings with it a self". And he refuses to consider why that phrase is incorrect, and despite all the times he's been called on it, refuses to acknowledge the problem.

When pressed on it, he pretends he's talking about the materialistic model. But then he ignores all the people who explain why if the self is a process, it will stop when the brain stops functioning.

Quote:
Like if you have two radios, both tuned to 89.3 FM, they'll both pick up the same transmission. They won't pick up two separate transmissions.
Don't go there!!! We don't need another 20 pages of why the radio analogy doesn't work.
jond is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2017, 02:34 PM   #258
MarkCorrigan
Winter is Coming
 
MarkCorrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 8,440
Ok, fed up with being ignored here so I'll just get to my point with asking about Star Trek.

See Jabba, I'm a bit of a fan of the show in most of it's guises but my particular favorite was The Next Generation. This thread got me thinking about a specific episode in fact, which revolves around something that happened to the character William T Riker in his past.

As the episode goes the ship visits a planet Riker had been to previously while a Lieutenant, that had these powerful electrical storms sweep across it regularly. What happened on his previous visit was that a storm hit while he was about to beam up with the transporter (which locks onto your molecules, stores your DNA, breaks you down then reassembles you on the pad/destination, teleporting you almost instantly between places) meaning that for a moment his pattern was disrupted and he was nearly lost.

So anyway, the ship arrives on the planet and an away team (including Riker) beams down, only to find...another Will Riker! It transpires that when the storm hit, he was transported up to the ship, but was ALSO left behind. Two literally identical versions of himself, one on the planet, left alone because no one knew he was there, and one on his ship. This other Riker has all the memories, experiences and thoughts of the Riker who made it off planet up to the moment of the transporter malfunction, but their lives diverged from that point. Left behind Riker was still deeply in love with his girlfriend of the time, while show Riker had left her and moved on for instance.

Ok, so why am I discussing the plot to a sci-fi TV show? Because it follows the materialist model of the universe perfectly. Two copies of the same person, absolutely identical in every way, not just physically but mentally and emotionally at the point of duplication. Not one Riker looking out of two sets of eyes, in fact neither one knew the other even existed until the Enterprise went back to the planet, but two copies BOTH of whom were William T Riker, to the point where they have a row about which one is the real Riker until someone else points out they both are.

It's a great piece of TV, but more than that it shows how hollow your attempt to foist a soul onto materialism really is. Two identical copies of a person, both of them independent from the moment of duplication, but both absolutely and completely William Thomas Riker.

ETA: The episode was called Second Chances
__________________
Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data.
It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz

Now I lay me down to sleep, a bag of peanuts at my feet.
If I die before I wake, give them to my brother Jake.

Last edited by MarkCorrigan; 29th November 2017 at 03:05 PM.
MarkCorrigan 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 29th November 2017, 02:36 PM   #259
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,494
Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan View Post
It's a great piece of TV, but more than that it shows how hollow your attempt to foist a soul onto materialism really is. Two identical copies of a person, both of them independent from the moment of duplication, but both absolutely and completely William Thomas Riker.
I'd be afraid that any attempt to reproduce me exactly would result in a JayUtah with a ghoatee.
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 29th November 2017, 02:43 PM   #260
MarkCorrigan
Winter is Coming
 
MarkCorrigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 8,440
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
I'd be afraid that any attempt to reproduce me exactly would result in a JayUtah with a ghoatee.
But at least then Jabba would have some support, plus you could use your agoniser on the rest of us to drive us away.
__________________
Naturalism adjusts it's principles to fit with the observed data.
It's a god of the facts world view. -joobz

Now I lay me down to sleep, a bag of peanuts at my feet.
If I die before I wake, give them to my brother Jake.
MarkCorrigan 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 29th November 2017, 02:48 PM   #261
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,472
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- What can I call the kind of thing/process that would not be me in my copy? I could call it "soul" with the stipulation that by definition, it may not be immortal.
- Whatever, it's what will come back to life according to reincarnationists, but not according to you. I need a word for that concept.
"Soul" works fine.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans 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 29th November 2017, 03:33 PM   #262
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,952
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- If a perfect copy of your brain would not bring back your specific self-awareness, neither should your sperm and ovum, and science must be stuck with figuring that each bit of consciousness naturally brings with it, or creates, a brand-new self-awareness .
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Why not?
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- How about perfect copies of your sperm and ovum?
- And, if science/materialism considers, or would consider, your particular sperm and ovum to be the cause of your particular self-awareness, I'm happy to use that model instead.
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
They would, under the right conditions, combine to form a blastocyst which would develop into an embryo which would eventually start forming a brain. This brain would not be exactly like mine because various factors in the womb influence how a fetus develops. But regardless, a copy is separate from the original. 1+1=2. What makes my self awareness my particular self awareness is that it's the one my particular brain is producing...
- So, you agree with me in that the combination of your particular sperm and ovum-- even if it encountered the very same factors in the womb -- would not produce your particular self-awareness. Your particular self-awareness must not be simply the result of chemistry.
__________________
"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 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 29th November 2017, 03:36 PM   #263
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,145
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- So, you agree with me in that the combination of your particular sperm and ovum-- even if it encountered the very same factors in the womb -- would not produce your particular self-awareness. Your particular self-awareness must not be simply the result of chemistry.
Inveterate lying is a sin and means your soul is mortal.
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 29th November 2017, 03:43 PM   #264
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,494
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
So, you agree with me...
Do not grovel for agreement. It's annoying.

Quote:
...in that the combination of your particular sperm and ovum-- even if it encountered the very same factors in the womb...
I've highlighted the part where you clearly (and probably deliberately) misrepresent godless dave's post. He said the same organism would not arise because the factors in the womb are different. You're trying to apply his answer to a new hypothetical case in which factors in the womb are the same.

To claim he agrees with you in this manner is a bald-faced lie, for which you should be ashamed, Jabba.

In any case, godless dave has made abundantly clear that the only difference that is operative in his formulation of materialism -- which is a correct one, by the way -- is the distinction arising from there being two nevertheless identical organisms. And you carefully edited away the part where he pointed out how irrelevant human embryology is to the question.

I think you're being deliberately dishonest. What evidence can you show to suggest you aren't?

Quote:
would not produce your particular self-awareness.
There is no such thing as "particular self-awareness" in materialism.

Quote:
Your particular self-awareness must not be simply the result of chemistry.
Straw man. Materialism does not argue that properties are solely the product of chemistry. The are solely properties of the material, but that involves more than just chemistry.
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 29th November 2017, 03:46 PM   #265
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,018
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- So, you agree with me in that the combination of your particular sperm and ovum-- even if it encountered the very same factors in the womb -- would not produce your particular self-awareness. Your particular self-awareness must not be simply the result of chemistry.
Only if you ignore the infinite number of times its been pointed out that the self is a combination of chemistry and the ongoing experiences that your functioning brain has. If we duplicated every experience youve had, including all the posts youve intentionally ignored, there would be two identical Jabbas. Both equally wrong and equally absurd.
jond is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2017, 03:46 PM   #266
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,095
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- So, you agree with me in that the combination of your particular sperm and ovum-- even if it encountered the very same factors in the womb -- would not produce your particular self-awareness.
No, that's not what I said. The sperm and egg that produced me would produce me. Well they already did 47 years ago.

Exact copies of that sperm and egg would be separate from the originals and would thus produce a blastocyst separate from the original blastocyst.

Because a copy of something is separate from the original.


Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Your particular self-awareness must not be simply the result of chemistry.
That doesn't follow at all and I don't understand why you think it does.

My self awareness is the result of a particular brain. A copy of that brain would not be the same brain. It would be a different particular brain.

One self cannot be in two places at once.

Would you agree that a loaf of bread is simply the result of chemistry?
__________________
"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; 29th November 2017 at 03:52 PM.
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 29th November 2017, 03:58 PM   #267
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,208
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
No, that's not what I said. ...
What??!!? You mean Jabba foisted a different meaning onto something you clearly stated?

I am shocked...Shocked I tell you!
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 29th November 2017, 07:57 PM   #268
Toontown
Philosopher
 
Toontown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,119
Originally Posted by Toontown View Post
Easy example: you may be blissfully unaware that your existence has any probabilistic significance - until it occurs to you to ask how likely it is that you would exist if Vladimir Putin wanted you dead. When you ask that question, you assume a specific perspective. From that perspective, you can conclude with good confidence that Putin probably doesn't seriously want you dead.
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post



I honestly don't know how to reply to that piece of irrelevant crap.
Sorry you feel that way. Hopefully your mouth will eventually straighten back out.

Because of your card deck analogy, I didn't think you knew that the posterior observation of your existence could have any probabilistic significance, so I quickly conjured up one of many possible perspective-based examples.

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
I see no way it has any bearing whatever on the question we're discussing, which is whether the probability of Jabba coming into existence is overwhelmingly less under the assumption of materialism than under the assumption that materialism is not correct.
I can answer that. From everyone else's perspective, the answer is no. Jabba's existence is no more significant to everyone else than a random grain of sand on Mars.

End thread.

BUT - Jabba's subjective perspective on his existence is not the same as everyone else's perspective on him, and from his perspective, the answer is yes. He should be absolutely shocked that he exists, if he assumes the prevailing materialistic explanation.

Where Jabba went wrong, IMO, was in believing he could develop a compelling alternate explanation, let alone one which could be objectively proved to others. That would have to be a scientific theory, possibly requiring a new branch of mathematics to express it.

I've talked to Jabba about this, as to the futility of the attempt. As nearly as I can guess, I think his plan is to show that his subjective perspective is valid. Then, I suppose, he will endeavor to show that anyone else can, at will, also assume a similar perspective, and arrive at a similar conclusion, not entirely unlike repeating an experiment.

Why he picked this crowd to try that on is a mystery even greater than the mystery of his existence.
__________________
"I did not say that!" - Donald Trump
Toontown is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2017, 02:11 AM   #269
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: 25,309
Originally Posted by Toontown View Post
I can answer that. From everyone else's perspective, the answer is no. Jabba's existence is no more significant to everyone else than a random grain of sand on Mars.

End thread.
Up to this point, we agree, especially the last statement.

Originally Posted by Toontown View Post
BUT - Jabba's subjective perspective on his existence is not the same as everyone else's perspective on him, and from his perspective, the answer is yes. He should be absolutely shocked that he exists, if he assumes the prevailing materialistic explanation.
And this is where we disagree. Putting myself in the same place, I see no reason to be shocked that I exist rather than someone very much like me but in some significant ways different. Suppose you were transported to an alternate universe where the only difference was, say, that I preferred cheddar to other kinds of cheese; would that be a more, less, or equally likely probability universe than the one we live in? I would submit that it would be roughly the same probability, therefore there is no particular reason why one should have been preferred over another. By extension, none of the other possible variations on who I could have been are particularly more or less likely, so there's no reason to be surprised that I ended up as this particular "me." That, I think, is the gist of what Jabba is trying to get at with his infinite pool of potential selves; the question of "Why did I end up as this specific self?" The answer to this is, quite simply, "Why not?"

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

Last edited by Dave Rogers; 30th November 2017 at 02:13 AM.
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 30th November 2017, 02:28 AM   #270
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 20,472
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- So, you agree with me in that the combination of your particular sperm and ovum-- even if it encountered the very same factors in the womb -- would not produce your particular self-awareness. Your particular self-awareness must not be simply the result of chemistry.
Your current self is defined by your genes and some combination of all the influences and experiences you have had up to the current moment. This includes also the inferences that your brain might have made from its experienses. So some of it is indeed immaterial, but it is still stored in, and bound to, the chemistry that is your physical brain.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans 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 30th November 2017, 02:42 AM   #271
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,745
Originally Posted by Toontown View Post
BUT - Jabba's subjective perspective on his existence is not the same as everyone else's perspective on him, and from his perspective, the answer is yes. He should be absolutely shocked that he exists, if he assumes the prevailing materialistic explanation.

If Jabba is observing his existence, what is the likelihood that he exists?
__________________
"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 30th November 2017, 02:47 AM   #272
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,745
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Your current self is defined by your genes and some combination of all the influences and experiences you have had up to the current moment. This includes also the inferences that your brain might have made from its experienses. So some of it is indeed immaterial, but it is still stored in, and bound to, the chemistry that is your physical brain.

Hans

The stuff about the "self" being determined by genetics is just another attempt to sneak in the idea of the "self" as a constant thing rather than a transient process.
__________________
"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 30th November 2017, 05:27 AM   #273
wea
Critical Thinker
 
wea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: EU
Posts: 365
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
This brain would not be exactly like mine because various factors in the womb influence how a fetus develops.
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- So, you agree with me ... even if it encountered the very same factors in the womb -- would not produce your particular ...

A, B are brains
CA are the "womb factors" encountered by A

godless dave: A ≠ B because CA ≠ CB

Jabba: So, you agree with me that even if CA = CB, A ≠ B

Jabba, did I get it right?
wea is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2017, 06:22 AM   #274
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,952
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- So, you agree with me in that the combination of your particular sperm and ovum-- even if it encountered the very same factors in the womb -- would not produce your particular self-awareness. Your particular self-awareness must not be simply the result of chemistry.
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
No, that's not what I said. The sperm and egg that produced me would produce me. Well they already did 47 years ago.

Exact copies of that sperm and egg would be separate from the originals and would thus produce a blastocyst separate from the original blastocyst.

Because a copy of something is separate from the original.




That doesn't follow at a
ll and I don't understand why you think it does.

My self awareness is the result of a particular brain. A copy of that brain would not be the same brain. It would be a different particular brain.

One self cannot be in two places at once.

Would you agree that a loaf of bread is simply the result of chemistry?
- A particular loaf of bread is simply the result of chemistry. Your particular self-awareness would not be produced by a new combination of your exact chemistry -- and therefor, would not be simply the result of your chemistry.
__________________
"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 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 30th November 2017, 07:00 AM   #275
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,272
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Your particular self-awareness would not be produced by a new combination of your exact chemistry -- and therefor, would not be simply the result of your chemistry.
1. Stop saying "particular self-awareness like that's a thing. We've all taken the time to explain this to you many, many times now. You're being exceptionally rude.

2. A perfect copy would be a perfect copy. You're deliberately getting things all muddled up with talk of whether or not the same result would come from the starting point of a sperm and egg, even though it has been explained to you many times why that's wrong.

This is stupid. I don't know why I keep reading this thread. What the hell is wrong with me?
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 30th November 2017, 07:15 AM   #276
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,145
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- A particular loaf of bread is simply the result of chemistry. Your particular self-awareness
You agree with me that referring to what you've called the process of self-awareness as "particular" is very dishonest on your part?

Quote:
would not be produced by a new combination of your exact chemistry -- and therefor, would not be simply the result of your chemistry.
How would it 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 30th November 2017, 07:18 AM   #277
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: 25,309
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- A particular loaf of bread is simply the result of chemistry. Your particular self-awareness would not be produced by a new combination of your exact chemistry -- and therefor, would not be simply the result of your chemistry.
So, you agree that an exact copy of me would have an identical self-awareness to mine, as this arises purely from the chemistry of my brain.

(See, the rest of us can do it to you too.)

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 30th November 2017, 07:21 AM   #278
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,095
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- A particular loaf of bread is simply the result of chemistry. Your particular self-awareness would not be produced by a new combination of your exact chemistry -- and therefor, would not be simply the result of your chemistry.
A particular loaf of bread would not be produced by a new combination of the same chemistry that produced the first one.
__________________
"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 30th November 2017, 07:27 AM   #279
wea
Critical Thinker
 
wea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: EU
Posts: 365
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- A particular loaf of bread is simply the result of chemistry. Your particular self-awareness would not be reproduced by a new combination replication of your exact chemistry -- and therefor, would not be simply the result of your chemistry.

FTFY. "chemistry" here means replicated neurons/neurotransmitters/action potentials configuration. Identical neuron sequence firing = identical self-awareness process.

Last edited by wea; 30th November 2017 at 07:29 AM.
wea is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2017, 08:07 AM   #280
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,208
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- A particular loaf of bread is simply the result of chemistry. Your particular self-awareness would not be produced by a new combination of your exact chemistry -- and therefor, would not be simply the result of your chemistry.
If you keep repeating it to yourself, maybe you'll actually believe it.
The Sparrow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post 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 08:01 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.