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 1st December 2017, 11:17 AM   #321
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 8,348
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
It's not "my" way. It's the scientific model of human consciousness. It's not something I just made up.
Okay we say that but we've been tricked into a level, tone, and language that... well says that's not true.

By letting the very concept of "Materialism" become such a talking point that we keep coming back to we have presented "Reality is a thing" as just another opinion we're defending.

Again we've let Jabba and a handful of pedantic hangers on goad us into a in a discussion where "Reality exists" is just another subjective POV.

Again we need to stop letting Jabba and the varsity pedantic run in squad force us into an argument where we can't use reality as a valid concept.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Re #1: Can you replace "selves" with "self-awarenesses"
No. You may not.

Jabba I know you are totally beyond understanding how rude you are being but no. You have to address your opponents arguments, not the arguments you wish they had made because that makes your job easier.

Again Jabba we're not actors in your play. Our job here is not to make your arguing your nonsense as easy on you as possible.

It's frustrating enough when you are discussing something with someone that thinks the only way to argue with someone is to trick them into a "gotcha." It's even worse when the person sucks at it.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Hating a bad thing does not make you good." - David Wong
JoeBentley is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2017, 11:28 AM   #322
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,643
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Ah, you forget the claimed army of silent, lurking supporters Jabba claims to have. What effect will this have on those?
I guess we'll just have to sing the Marseillaise.

Ok I'll stop with the Casablanca references.
__________________
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 1st December 2017, 11:34 AM   #323
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,258
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
Jabba I know you are totally beyond understanding how rude you are being but no. You have to address your opponents arguments, not the arguments you wish they had made because that makes your job easier.
I'll have to agree that it's extremely rude.

It's disrespectful of the time and effort everyone has put into addressing this topic that Jabba asked for input on.
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 1st December 2017, 11:43 AM   #324
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,207
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I guess we'll just have to sing the Marseillaise.

Ok I'll stop with the Casablanca references.
No, please continue. Not much else worthwhile is going on in this thread
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 1st December 2017, 11:59 AM   #325
Filippo Lippi
Master Poster
 
Filippo Lippi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,759
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Ah, you forget the claimed army of silent, lurking supporters Jabba claims to have. What effect will this have on those?
It's an army of one thousand Jabba clones and Jabba can see through all one thousand pairs of eyes, all reading this thread. He'd have them register and post their support, but, unfortunately, they share his email address.
__________________
"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

Last edited by Filippo Lippi; 1st December 2017 at 12:00 PM.
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 1st December 2017, 12:03 PM   #326
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,207
Jabba...

“You know how you sound…? Like a man who’s trying to convince himself of something he doesn’t believe in his heart.”

/Casablanca
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 1st December 2017, 12:04 PM   #327
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,643
I think deep down, jabba's a rank sentimentalist.
__________________
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 1st December 2017, 01:10 PM   #328
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,207
Jabba

"it doesn’t take much to see that the problems of three little people don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world. Someday you’ll understand that.”

In other words, the universe doesn't care about your childish desire to never die.
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 1st December 2017, 01:20 PM   #329
Toontown
Philosopher
 
Toontown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,111
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Up to this point, we agree, especially the last statement.

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.
Assuming the prevailing materialistic explanation of your existence:

You shouldn't see any reason to be shocked that you exist rather than someone else. You should, however, be shocked that you exist at all.

You should not, however, be shocked that other equally unlikely things exist, unless the existence of the universe shocks you.

The fact that one of those immensely unlikely things is "you" gives you a specific perspective, which gives rise to probabilistic significance.

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
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?
If you don't think your specific body is the only one that could be you, then you are repeatable, therefore immortal in a sense.

If you do think that body is the only body that could be you, then the probability of an alternate universe in which you exist is zero. That specific body is part of this universe and no other.

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
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.
See above. The probability that your specific body could be in another place, time, or universe is zero. A specific body is part and parcel of the specific universe that gave rise to it.

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
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."
If other bodies can be "you", then you can exist more than once. If we are part of an eternally inflating multiverse, as existing theory suggests, then you would be essentially immortal - again, if other bodies can be "you".

If you believe no other body could ever be "you", then you should be shocked that "you" exist at all.


Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
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
If you believe that, then you are flirting with immortality yourself.
__________________
"I did not say that!" - Donald Trump

Last edited by Toontown; 1st December 2017 at 01:22 PM.
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 1st December 2017, 03:26 PM   #330
Monza
Alta Viro
 
Monza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,946
I thought I made a good analogy (as did many others) quite a while ago when we were talking about VWs. (As an aside, we've gone through VWs, Mt. Rainier, bread...) I mentioned a famous VW named Herbie. This vehicle was driven by actor Dean Jones through the streets of Monte Carlo and immortalized on film. If that VW were parked at an auto show, many people would take pictures of it, want to touch it, and tell their friends they saw it.*

An exact duplicate of this VW would not be treated the same, assuming that it was known that this was a duplicate. If someone said they had a replica of Herbie, it would not garner the same level of excitement. Yet if you put these two vehicles next to each other, no one would be able to tell one from the other. So what makes the original Herbie VW so special? Simply human sentimentality. There is no other difference, by definition of this thought experiment. If the two vehicles were moved around and no one was keeping track of which was the original, then we could never know. This information would be lost forever. The original Herbie would have lost its sentimentality. People could take their picture with either Herbie and it wouldn't matter with which one.

It is the same for human brains. Jabba is stuck on the fact the the copy wouldn't be him and that is the difference. But by definition, the copy is thinking the same thing. Neither Jabba nor the copy would know which one they were. As they each moved on with their lives, no one would ever know. There would be two Jabbas, each as valid as the other. The copy would be every bit Jabba as the other one. He doesn't understand that the copy would have independent thoughts in his (the copy's) head thinking, "I'm Jabba. I'm meeeeeee. The other guy is a copy. I'm different."

In every duplication thought experiment we have brought up, Jabba continues with his assertion that the difference is that the first one was the fiiiiiiiirst one and that this it is significant.







* Some time ago I read about someone saying that we place undue importance on people and objects that are on TV. As an example, a grapefruit is benign and doesn't hold much interest for people in general. But if we broadcast a live image of this grapefruit for 30 minutes a day and called it The Grapefruit Show, people would place importance on it. The grapefruit could be taken on a national tour and people would see it and say excitedly, "That's the grapefruit from TV!"

Last edited by Monza; 1st December 2017 at 03:29 PM.
Monza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2017, 03:45 PM   #331
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,943
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
1) I could but it wouldn't make a difference.



2) You can't find anything on Google supporting the claim that the scientific explanation for consciousness is that it arises from a living brain?

3) What about the books on consciousness you read?
Dave,
- Re #1: OK.
- Re #2: I can't find anything on Google discussing the chemistry of specific self-awareness. No one talks about the chemistry of ME, or YOU.
- Re #3: The different books on consciousness that I have read all say something to the effect that nothing in modern physics actually explains consciousness. It's a mystery!
__________________
"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 Ť 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 1st December 2017, 03:47 PM   #332
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 8,348
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
The different books on consciousness that I have read all say something to the effect that nothing in modern physics actually explains consciousness. It's a mystery!
Read better books.
__________________
"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 1st December 2017, 03:48 PM   #333
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,474
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I can't find anything on Google discussing the chemistry of specific self-awareness. No one talks about the chemistry of ME, or YOU.
That's because, as we have repeatedly been telling you, such individualized specificity of the process as you propose it is not a concept in the scientific model. Now do you believe us?

Quote:
The different books on consciousness that I have read all say something to the effect that nothing in modern physics actually explains consciousness. It's a mystery!
Name the books.

All the books you've cited before on various subjects related to this debate have been "woo" books, so we don't trust that you've done actual scientific homework.
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 1st December 2017, 03:49 PM   #334
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,013
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Re #1: OK.
- Re #2: I can't find anything on Google discussing the chemistry of specific self-awareness. No one talks about the chemistry of ME, or YOU.
- Re #3: The different books on consciousness that I have read all say something to the effect that nothing in modern physics actually explains consciousness. It's a mystery!
The mystery is HOW the brain does it, not whether or not it does. But you ignore that like you ignore everything you find inconvenient.
jond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2017, 04:12 PM   #335
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,138
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Re #1: OK.
- Re #2: I can't find anything on Google discussing the chemistry of specific self-awareness. No one talks about the chemistry of ME, or YOU.
That's because it's an idiotic application of the word "specific" to what you've called a process. I think you agree with me on that.

Quote:
- Re #3: The different books on consciousness that I have read all say something to the effect that nothing in modern physics actually explains consciousness. It's a mystery!
Maybe you should falsify the materialist model as it's given rather than one you dishonestly create?
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 1st December 2017, 06:11 PM   #336
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
- Re #2: I can't find anything on Google discussing the chemistry of specific self-awareness. No one talks about the chemistry of ME, or YOU.

Jabba -

I know exactly how you feel. I can't find anything on Google discussing how butterflies operate forklifts. Nobody talks about forklift operation by BUTTERFLIES.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2017, 07:02 PM   #337
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
 
ferd burfle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Just short of Zeta II Reticuli
Posts: 1,259
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
But also, as noted previously, I'm happy to treat it your way -- that your particular self-awareness was determined by your particular sperm and ovum and...

Nice one, Jabba, you almost slipped this one by by avoiding use of ďagreeĒ in any of its forms! But you couldnít get it past Jay.

Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
That's your way, not our way. You're constantly trying to introduce inappropriate terminology like "particular" and "specific" to beg the notion that self-awareness is an entity.

And had I not been one the other side of the world, sleeping, I would have busted you on it. The main reason Iíve followed this thread is to play spot-the-fallacy. These days itís become more a game of spot-the-dishonesty.
__________________
Chicken is a vegetable-James May, vegetarian
A target doesn't need to be preselected-Jabba
ferd burfle 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 1st December 2017, 07:08 PM   #338
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,857
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
The typo didn't help. Should be "winnings".
Great flick.
__________________
"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 1st December 2017, 07:12 PM   #339
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,857
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- No -- but, the only differences (I think) would be time, space and specific atoms.

- The new brain would be different in all those respects -- but, it would also be different in its emergent property of self-awareness (a different specific self-awareness), even though there would be no difference in the chemistry of the two brains. The bread involves nothing analogous to your self-awareness.

- But also, as noted previously, I'm happy to treat it your way -- that your particular self-awareness was determined by your particular sperm and ovum and the likelihood of the current existence of your particular self-awareness is still something like 1/10100.
Stop straw manning, equivocating, and pulling numbers out of your nether regions. Five years of this is too much.
__________________
"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 1st December 2017, 07:16 PM   #340
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 8,348
I'd love to get an answer out of Jabba as to what he can possibly get out of this discussion.

Even if we all just magically start agreeing with him, even if his goal is to just quote mine us for his "roadmap" nonsense.

Even if this is trolling it's weird.
__________________
"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 1st December 2017, 07:20 PM   #341
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,857
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
[...]
- Re #2: I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but I can't find anything on Google making that claim.
I can't find anything on Google supporting your claims about immortality. /thread.
__________________
"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 1st December 2017, 07:26 PM   #342
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
- Re #2: I can't find anything on Google discussing the chemistry of specific self-awareness. No one talks about the chemistry of ME, or YOU.
Of course if you look for something no one is arguing for, you won't find anything.

You continue to substitute your own words and concepts for those of people who are arguing with you here. Why do you do that, if not to deliberatey misrepresent?
__________________
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 1st December 2017, 07:31 PM   #343
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,857
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Ah, you forget the claimed army of silent, lurking supporters Jabba claims to have. What effect will this have on those?
Oh yeah. That army of lurkers. What ever happened to them?

Curley? Larry? Moe? Sing out!
__________________
"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 1st December 2017, 07:38 PM   #344
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 8,348


There I guess that solves that.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Hating a bad thing does not make you good." - David Wong
JoeBentley is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 03:22 AM   #345
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 Toontown View Post
You shouldn't see any reason to be shocked that you exist rather than someone else. You should, however, be shocked that you exist at all.
No, I shouldn't; that would be a prima facie example of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. But in any case that's irrelevant, because it's not Jabba's argument; his entire "infinite pool of selves" concept is intended to address the fact that he exists rather than someone else.

Originally Posted by Toontown View Post
The fact that one of those immensely unlikely things is "you" gives you a specific perspective, which gives rise to probabilistic significance.
No, it doesn't. To go back to your Putin analogy, "People whom Vladimir Putin want dead" is an a priori specification, and "people who are me" an a posteriori specification, when discussing the probability of there being a person who is me. Probabilistic significance requires an a priori specification.

Originally Posted by Toontown View Post
If you don't think your specific body is the only one that could be you, then you are repeatable, therefore immortal in a sense.
And this is stretching definitions beyond breaking point. "Immortal" does not mean "capable of being reproduced," it means that the process of the self does not terminate. If your argument is based on redefining words then it's no more valid than if you redefined "Immortal" to mean "a pale shade of purple grey."

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 2nd December 2017, 05:10 AM   #346
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 7,691
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
...
- Re #3: The different books on consciousness that I have read all say something to the effect that nothing in modern physics actually explains consciousness. It's a mystery!
Yeah! Reader's Digest, which books and volumes?

Do you think we're that gullible?
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!
These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.
aleCcowaN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 05:39 AM   #347
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,740
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Re #1: OK.
- Re #2: I can't find anything on Google discussing the chemistry of specific self-awareness. No one talks about the chemistry of ME, or YOU.
- Re #3: The different books on consciousness that I have read all say something to the effect that nothing in modern physics actually explains consciousness. It's a mystery!

Remember: the "books on consciousness" Jabba has read seem to be books like the one he references here.
__________________
"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 2nd December 2017, 08:30 AM   #348
sackett
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 5,110
Jabba,* you're reduced to saying, "I claim that my claim is true because I claim that it's a true claim." I can't see much future in that.

* Kumar calls you Jebba. Don't put up with that!
__________________
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 2nd December 2017, 09:02 AM   #349
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,943
- So anyway.
1. I'm happy to use the materialist model of self-awareness that depends entirely upon the particular sperm-ovum combination. Whatever, the likelihood of the current existence of my particular self-awareness is still less than 1/10100.
2. Though, I still don't accept that model myself.
3. Then, it seems to me that what is being described as that model is more like the model I've suggested -- that a certain physical state produces (or "receives"), as an emergent property, what we call "consciousness," which naturally involves a brand new, and specific self-awareness -- nowhere is it suggested that a perfect copy of my brain would produce ME (my particular self-awareness). Where did I come from?
__________________
"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 Ť 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 2nd December 2017, 09:14 AM   #350
Pixel42
SchrŲdinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,915
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- So anyway.
1. I'm happy to use the materialist model of self-awareness that depends entirely upon the particular sperm-ovum combination.
No it doesn't.

Quote:
Whatever, the likelihood of the current existence of my particular self-awareness is still less than 1/10100.
No it isn't.

Quote:
2. Though, I still don't accept that model myself.
Nobody cares what you do or don't accept.

Quote:
3. Then, it seems to me that what is being described as that model is more like the model I've suggested -- that a certain physical state produces (or "receives"), as an emergent property, what we call "consciousness," which naturally involves a brand new, and specific self-awareness
What seems to you and what is actually the case are two very different things.

Quote:
-- nowhere is it suggested that a perfect copy of my brain would produce ME (my particular self-awareness).


Quote:
Where did I come from?
If by "I" you mean your consciousness, it's an emergent property of your brain.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 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 2nd December 2017, 09:15 AM   #351
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,013
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- So anyway.
1. I'm happy to use the materialist model of self-awareness that depends entirely upon the particular sperm-ovum combination. Whatever, the likelihood of the current existence of my particular self-awareness is still less than 1/10100.
2. Though, I still don't accept that model myself.
3. Then, it seems to me that what is being described as that model is more like the model I've suggested -- that a certain physical state produces (or "receives"), as an emergent property, what we call "consciousness," which naturally involves a brand new, and specific self-awareness -- nowhere is it suggested that a perfect copy of my brain would produce ME (my particular self-awareness). Where did I come from?
You simply refuse to understand the concept of a process, donít you?
jond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 09:46 AM   #352
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,474
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
I'm happy to use the materialist model of self-awareness that depends entirely upon the particular sperm-ovum combination.
Do you really think we're not going to immediately see the straw man? Do you really think your critics are that stupid or inattentive? Even worse, this particular straw man has already been repudiated. You have to use the materialist model as it is already formulated, not as you redefine it.

Quote:
Whatever, the likelihood of the current existence of my particular self-awareness is still less than 1/10100.
No, you've proven no such thing. In fact, you haven't even offered a single numerical rationale for this number. You clearly just pulled it out of your kiester. No one is under any obligation to agree that this is the correct numerical value, or even that a probability-only argument determines whether something can or did happen.

Quote:
Though, I still don't accept that model myself.
And this reveals just how little you really know about statistical inference. You don't have to believe it. You only have to assert it arguendo for determining P(E|H). You also get to assert ~H arguendo when you're determining P(E|~H), assuming you ever get that far. In that case it won't matter that your critics don't believe ~H. Again, your argument is not broken according to some easily-corrected detail. Your argument is broken right down to your ability to formulate a statistical inference correctly.

Quote:
that a certain physical state produces (or "receives")...
NO

Entities don't "receive" properties. That's not what it means to be a property.

Quote:
...which naturally involves a brand new, and specific self-awareness...
No. Properties are not discrete entities.

Quote:
Where did I come from?
Ambiguous language. You suggest there is a metaphysical "you" that must be explained. Under materialism, all that is you is produced by the matter of your organism. You seem to think it would never be possible to have more than one you. Under materialism that's not a constraint. Every instance of your organism would be an instance of 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 2nd December 2017, 09:57 AM   #353
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,138
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- So anyway.
1. I'm happy to use the materialist model of self-awareness
And if you had honestly stopped here, you would have been fine.

Quote:
that depends entirely upon the particular sperm-ovum combination. Whatever, the likelihood of the current existence of my particular self-awareness is still less than 1/10100.
But you keep dishonestly adding foolishness such as the above.

Quote:
2. Though, I still don't accept that model myself.
You have to treat it as if it is correct if that's the model you're trying to falsify. Nobody really cares whether you accept it or not.

Quote:
3. Then, it seems to me that what is being described as that model is more like the model I've suggested -- that a certain physical state produces (or "receives"), as an emergent property
No, that's just stupid. The materialist model sees the sense of self as an emergent property. You still want to treat it as a separate thing. It only "seems" like it's closer to the materialist model because you've dishonestly tacked on a bunch of crap that doesn't belong to the materialist model.

Quote:
what we call "consciousness," which naturally involves a brand new, and specific self-awareness
No, you're trotting out your immortal lie again. You will always be called on it so you may as well stop doing it. You don't need to try to redefine the materialist model to include a soul.

Quote:
-- nowhere is it suggested that a perfect copy of my brain would produce ME MY SOUL (my particular self-awareness).
Why do you persist in your immortal lie of referring to what's you've called a process as "particular"?

Quote:
Where did I come from?
Ask an eight year old. They likely will be able to tell you.
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 2nd December 2017, 10:40 AM   #354
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,740
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- So anyway.
1. I'm happy to use the materialist model of self-awareness that depends entirely upon the particular sperm-ovum combination.

Yes, we are all aware that you are fully prepared to lie about the materialist model of consciousness if you think it will help your argument. It doesn't because everyone knows it's a lie.

Quote:
Whatever, the likelihood of the current existence of my particular self-awareness is still less than 1/10100.

Unsupported, and probably irrelevant.

Quote:
2. Though, I still don't accept that model myself.

Nor does anyone else, because it's a strawman that you have made up.

Quote:
3. Then, it seems to me that what is being described as that model is more like the model I've suggested -- that a certain physical state produces (or "receives"), as an emergent property, what we call "consciousness," which naturally involves a brand new, and specific self-awareness -- nowhere is it suggested that a perfect copy of my brain would produce ME (my particular self-awareness).

That's "being described as that model" by nobody but you, because it's a lie you have made up.

Quote:
Where did I come from?

Doesn't it say on your birth certificate?
__________________
"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 2nd December 2017, 11:57 AM   #355
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 8,348
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- So anyway.
Oh stop it with the cutesy poo passive aggressiveness. You haven't earned it.

Quote:
I'm happy to use the materialist model of self-awareness that depends entirely upon the particular sperm-ovum combination. Whatever, the likelihood of the current existence of my particular self-awareness is still less than 1/10100.
No one cares Jabba. You're speaking jibberish with no structure. It doesn't matter what you claim to accept or not you're just gonna jabber absurdisms over and over.

Quote:
Though, I still don't accept that model myself.
And a thousand of the greatest writers writing for a thousand years in a dozen language could not describe how little that matters. You simply have not shown a strong enough intellectual grasp on... well anything for your opinion as to a concept's validity to mean diddlysquat. You're a parrot squawking at episode of Cosmo.

You, and I don't me a generic "you" I mean you specifically, not accepting something counts for absolutely nothing. You don't accept that process exist and that 1 and 2 aren't the same number.

Quote:
3. Then, it seems to me that what is being described as that model is more like the model I've suggested -- that a certain physical state produces (or "receives"), as an emergent property, what we call "consciousness," which naturally involves a brand new, and specific self-awareness -- nowhere is it suggested that a perfect copy of my brain would produce ME (my particular self-awareness). Where did I come from?
Jabba no one cares anymore. No one is going to waste time trying to explain toddler level concepts to you.

At this point Jabba just accept that the most basic concepts of how the universe works are too complicated for you to understand.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Hating a bad thing does not make you good." - David Wong
JoeBentley is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2017, 12:01 PM   #356
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
- So anyway.
"So anyway"? Could you more blatantly say that you're ignoring what everyone is telling you? For someone who accused others of being rude, you're being downright insulting to your critics.

Quote:
1. I'm happy to use the materialist model of self-awareness that depends entirely upon the particular sperm-ovum combination.
That's not the materialist model.

Quote:
Whatever, the likelihood of the current existence of my particular self-awareness is still less than 1/10100.
PROVE IT.
__________________
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 2nd December 2017, 03:00 PM   #357
JimOfAllTrades
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 372
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Where did I come from?
You are the music playing on the orchestra of your body and brain, the result of a program running on your organic computer, a process that is self aware when it's running, thinks it's continuous but isn't.

Your self awareness isn't a thing at all. Like music or the output of a computer program it is the result of a process wholly dependent on the physical things that generate it. The orchestra doesn't "receive" the music from anywhere when it starts playing, and the music doesn't continue when the orchestra stops playing.

According to materialism, "You" are a process. An incredibly complex intermittently self-aware process, but nonetheless just a process that is completely generated by and dependent on your body and brain.
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 2nd December 2017, 03:18 PM   #358
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,740
Originally Posted by JimOfAllTrades View Post
You are the music playing on the orchestra of your body and brain, the result of a program running on your organic computer, a process that is self aware when it's running, thinks it's continuous but isn't.

Your self awareness isn't a thing at all. Like music or the output of a computer program it is the result of a process wholly dependent on the physical things that generate it. The orchestra doesn't "receive" the music from anywhere when it starts playing, and the music doesn't continue when the orchestra stops playing.

According to materialism, "You" are a process. An incredibly complex intermittently self-aware process, but nonetheless just a process that is completely generated by and dependent on your body and brain.

Don't expect Jabba to understand that; it's essential to his argument that he doesn't.
__________________
"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 2nd December 2017, 06:23 PM   #359
Toontown
Philosopher
 
Toontown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,111
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
No, I shouldn't; that would be a prima facie example of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. But in any case that's irrelevant, because it's not Jabba's argument; his entire "infinite pool of selves" concept is intended to address the fact that he exists rather than someone else.
No it wouldn't. I think you're trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole.

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

The smart people were wrong back then, but I would have been right.

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
No, it doesn't. To go back to your Putin analogy, "People whom Vladimir Putin want dead" is an a priori specification, and "people who are me" an a posteriori specification, when discussing the probability of there being a person who is me. Probabilistic significance requires an a priori specification.
Oh. Like "bodies that could be you" is an a priori specification, and "the body that is you" is a posterior specification?

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

The smart people were wrong back then, but I would have been right.

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
And this is stretching definitions beyond breaking point. "Immortal" does not mean "capable of being reproduced," it means that the process of the self does not terminate. If your argument is based on redefining words then it's no more valid than if you redefined "Immortal" to mean "a pale shade of purple grey."

Dave
I don't mind stretching that definition beyond the breaking point. It needs to be stretched beyond the breaking point. It is inadequate.
__________________
"I did not say that!" - Donald Trump

Last edited by Toontown; 2nd December 2017 at 06:26 PM.
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 2nd December 2017, 07:13 PM   #360
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,258
I'm sure it would violate the membership agreement, but I suspect I could make a bot that posts like Jabba. Give it some talking points, teach it to randomly quote people and then ask variations on the same questions with a few words from the other people's posts spliced in mindlessly...

Originally Posted by JABBABOT
- Okay so you agree that the process/entity/<VAR%> is attached to a specific <RAND (sperm-ova,brain,person)> then, correct?
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
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 12:59 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.