JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF 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 18th April 2014, 01:34 PM   #5921
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 11,360
Oh, what bliss!
It's followed by Samson and Delilah!
__________________
It took us 100 years to find the Titanic, it took us 2,000 years to find Noah’s Ark.
Bill Hemmer of Fox News, commenting on the search for MH370
pakeha 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 Yesterday, 10:25 AM   #5922
Jabba
Graduate Poster
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Schenectady, NY
Posts: 1,926
- I've been trying to put it all together in one post. This might do it.
- Could be that all you guys need to read are #s 14, 15, 25 & 26.

- My Argument – I had something of an “epiphany” when I was 14 that seems to have been the results of a holistic version of Bayesian statistics applied to my own interesting existence. I came to the “realization” (or at least, the conclusion) that I am immortal.


1. Almost all of us take our own existences for granted – never noticing the miracle of miracles that each of us is.
2. We never notice the astonishing implications of our own existences. We never see the forest for all the trees.
3. The truth seems to be in the recesses of our holistic hemisphere.
4. Given the “popular” analytic and scientific orientation, the probability of my own current existence is “zilch” – yet, here I am!
5. And, almost no one notices the miracle that I am -- or, that they are.
6. And, the power(?) of this miracle is almost impossible to communicate.
7. But, in the face of it, the popular analytic/scientific orientation mentioned above is surely wrong.

8. I’ll be trying to use the binary version of the Bayes Theorem to disprove the popular scientific hypothesis that individual consciousnesses (“selves”) can exist for only one finite time.

9. The formula: P(A|me) = P(me|A) P(A)/(P(me|A) P(A) + P(me|~A) P(~A))
10. Where
10.1. "A" is the hypothesis that each potential human “self” (or, each potential illusion of a human self) exists for one finite period of time, at most.
10.2. And, “me” is my current existence (or, my current illusion of existence).
11. The numbers I propose to insert (my premises):
11.1. P(me|A) = 1/∞
11.2. P(A) = .99
11.3. P(me|~A) = .50 (not sure that makes sense…)
11.4. P(~A) = .01
12. And, P(A|me) = (1/∞).99/((1/∞).99+(.50)(.1)) = 0

13. I think that my critical premises above are 4.1 and 4.2; i.e. that
13.1. The number of potential selves (or, illusions)
13.1.1. Is infinite, and
13.1.2. I am a special case.
13.2. There is reasonable doubt that A is correct.
14. #2 is based upon a lot of questionable evidence.
15. However, if I’m correct about #1, #2 requires very little in the way of evidence.


16. Many scientists in relevant fields have concluded that the sense of a lifetime-continuing self is an illusion.
17. But then, even if the continuing self is some kind of an illusion, it is something that I (and many other such illusions, I assume) wish to continue after death of the physical body.
18. And, according to popular science, even if the self is some kind of illusion,
18.1. The illusion never existed before the life of my physical body, and
18.2. It will never exist after the death of my physical body.

19. Neither did this sense of self have any “representation” (blueprint?) prior to its actual existence.
20. In other words, there was no limited pool of potential selves that it was taken from.

21. Consciousness is an emergent property of a certain type of physical state.
22. Its emergence inherently includes the sense of a specific self.
23. And, this sense of specific self is “brand new” -- again, it had no prior representation at all.
24. While the various “characteristics” of the self (intelligence, morality, physical strength, etc., etc.,) have been determined by specific DNA and experience/environment, such is not the case for the continuing and separate awareness (sense) of the self.

25. Having no kind of previous existence, or representation (not coming from any limited pool of potential selves) – being “brand new” in that sense – even if the matter, energy and/or time available is limited, there is no limit on what specific awarenesses of self will emerge.
26. In other words, the specific possibilities are unlimited – or, infinite.
27. And, given the popular scientific opinion above, your likelihood of a current existence is no better than 7,000,000,000/∞. (7 billion being a rough estimate of the current number of human selves.)

28. But then, I am also a special case – and, if you have the same sense of self-awareness as do I, you are a special case as well.
29. I (however) am the only “thing” that I know exists (one way, or the other). Everything else could be my imagination – but there necessarily is something here doing the imagining. Me.
30. Besides, if I didn’t exist, there “might as well” be nothing -- and according to the popular scientific hypothesis, that would have been the case for all the time before my existence and all the time after my existence…
31. And, if I never exist – which the popular scientific hypothesis should probably expect -- there might as well never be anything… See what I mean?
32. That is what makes me (and probably you) a special case – and the likelihood of my current existence, given the popular scientific position, must be just 1/∞ (zero).
33. In other words, the scientific hypothesis must be wrong.

34. And then, even if I can’t validly claim that I am a special case, 7,000,000,000/∞ is also zero.

- So -- ask, or complain, away. As always, I will try to deal with one question or complaint at a time -- the one I think is most important.
__________________
"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
"Tra gli argomenti, colui che ricorre alla meno sarcasmo dovrebbe essere selezionata." 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 Yesterday, 10:37 AM   #5923
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 27,933
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I've been trying to put it all together in one post. This might do it.

<snip>


If, by "it", you mean the same garbage that was contained in your previous 717 posts then, yes, that will do it.



Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- So -- ask, or complain, away. As always, I will try to deal with one question or complaint at a time -- the one I think is most important.


The only question that comes to mind is "Why do you think simply repeating yourself ad nauseum will make your ridiculous claim any more valid?"
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon

The Australasian Skeptics Forum
Akhenaten 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 Yesterday, 10:58 AM   #5924
Aepervius
Philosopher
 
Aepervius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Bierland. I mean , germany.
Posts: 9,073
Quote:
11.1. P(me|A) = 1/∞
How many time againw ere you told this is non sense ?

Also what is your #1 and #2 ? Because I might see a #11.1 but #1 and #2 are this :

Quote:
1. Almost all of us take our own existences for granted – never noticing the miracle of miracles that each of us is.
2. We never notice the astonishing implications of our own existences. We never see the forest for all the trees.
Which are astonishingly vapid and lead to nothing whatsoever for your claim.

And if you meant #11.1 and #11.2

Quote:
11.1. P(me|A) = 1/∞
Yeah that one has been contested, and so far as I can see demolished.

Is this groundhog day ? have we gone back 21st November 2012, 09:29 PM and I missed it ?



Do you even take TIME to read what you were told ?

"Could be that all you guys need to read are #s 14, 15, 25 & 26."

Could it be that all you need is to read what was already told you.
__________________
Omnes Blessant Ultima necat

"I want, and this is my last and most dear wish, I want that the last of the king be strangled with the guts of the last priest" (Jean Meslier / 1664-1729 / Testament)
A very early french atheist, a catholic priest in life.
Aepervius 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 Yesterday, 11:01 AM   #5925
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...not where I seemed, nor was calculated to be...but no-one need worry...
Posts: 5,994
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I've been trying to put it all together in one post. This might do it.
- Could be that all you guys need to read are #s 14, 15, 25 & 26.

- My Argument – I had something of an “epiphany” when I was 14 that seems to have been the results of a holistic version of Bayesian statistics applied to my own interesting existence. I came to the “realization” (or at least, the conclusion) that I am immortal.


1. Almost all of us take our own existences for granted – never noticing the miracle of miracles that each of us is.
2. We never notice the astonishing implications of our own existences. We never see the forest for all the trees.
3. The truth seems to be in the recesses of our holistic hemisphere.
4. Given the “popular” analytic and scientific orientation, the probability of my own current existence is “zilch” – yet, here I am!
5. And, almost no one notices the miracle that I am -- or, that they are.
6. And, the power(?) of this miracle is almost impossible to communicate.
7. But, in the face of it, the popular analytic/scientific orientation mentioned above is surely wrong.

8. I’ll be trying to use the binary version of the Bayes Theorem to disprove the popular scientific hypothesis that individual consciousnesses (“selves”) can exist for only one finite time.

9. The formula: P(A|me) = P(me|A) P(A)/(P(me|A) P(A) + P(me|~A) P(~A))
10. Where
10.1. "A" is the hypothesis that each potential human “self” (or, each potential illusion of a human self) exists for one finite period of time, at most.
10.2. And, “me” is my current existence (or, my current illusion of existence).
11. The numbers I propose to insert (my premises):
11.1. P(me|A) = 1/∞
11.2. P(A) = .99
11.3. P(me|~A) = .50 (not sure that makes sense…)
11.4. P(~A) = .01
12. And, P(A|me) = (1/∞).99/((1/∞).99+(.50)(.1)) = 0

13. I think that my critical premises above are 4.1 and 4.2; i.e. that
13.1. The number of potential selves (or, illusions)
13.1.1. Is infinite, and
13.1.2. I am a special case.
13.2. There is reasonable doubt that A is correct.
14. #2 is based upon a lot of questionable evidence.
15. However, if I’m correct about #1, #2 requires very little in the way of evidence.


16. Many scientists in relevant fields have concluded that the sense of a lifetime-continuing self is an illusion.
17. But then, even if the continuing self is some kind of an illusion, it is something that I (and many other such illusions, I assume) wish to continue after death of the physical body.
18. And, according to popular science, even if the self is some kind of illusion,
18.1. The illusion never existed before the life of my physical body, and
18.2. It will never exist after the death of my physical body.

19. Neither did this sense of self have any “representation” (blueprint?) prior to its actual existence.
20. In other words, there was no limited pool of potential selves that it was taken from.

21. Consciousness is an emergent property of a certain type of physical state.
22. Its emergence inherently includes the sense of a specific self.
23. And, this sense of specific self is “brand new” -- again, it had no prior representation at all.
24. While the various “characteristics” of the self (intelligence, morality, physical strength, etc., etc.,) have been determined by specific DNA and experience/environment, such is not the case for the continuing and separate awareness (sense) of the self.

25. Having no kind of previous existence, or representation (not coming from any limited pool of potential selves) – being “brand new” in that sense – even if the matter, energy and/or time available is limited, there is no limit on what specific awarenesses of self will emerge.
26. In other words, the specific possibilities are unlimited – or, infinite.
27. And, given the popular scientific opinion above, your likelihood of a current existence is no better than 7,000,000,000/∞. (7 billion being a rough estimate of the current number of human selves.)

28. But then, I am also a special case – and, if you have the same sense of self-awareness as do I, you are a special case as well.
29. I (however) am the only “thing” that I know exists (one way, or the other). Everything else could be my imagination – but there necessarily is something here doing the imagining. Me.
30. Besides, if I didn’t exist, there “might as well” be nothing -- and according to the popular scientific hypothesis, that would have been the case for all the time before my existence and all the time after my existence…
31. And, if I never exist – which the popular scientific hypothesis should probably expect -- there might as well never be anything… See what I mean?
32. That is what makes me (and probably you) a special case – and the likelihood of my current existence, given the popular scientific position, must be just 1/∞ (zero).
33. In other words, the scientific hypothesis must be wrong.

34. And then, even if I can’t validly claim that I am a special case, 7,000,000,000/∞ is also zero.

- So -- ask, or complain, away.
As always, I will try to deal with one question or complaint at a time -- the one I think is most important.
Good Morning, Mr. Savage! I hope you are enjoying your Sunday in a way you find appropriate.

It is important tat you realize that all you have said is that you want to feel as if you are immortal, therefore it makes sense to you to feel as if you are immortal, no matter what the evidence of reality appears to indicate.

It would be difficult to produce a more clear example of assuming the consequent than your post #15.

BTW, it has always been rude of you to answer only one question, pretending that the others were not even posted; it is, however, exceptionally rude to excuse doing so by claiming that you will only answer the question you think is "most important"....

Did you ever repair, or at least apologize to "Roger" and to Dr. BLackmore for, the lies you told them?
__________________
"Anything that can be accepted into science gets accepted into science." -HighRiser
"And in science the default is that you're wrong. EVERYONE is wrong. You only can be not wrong if you have evidence to back up your claim." -Dinwar
"That is not my circus; those are not my monkeys." -Howard Tayler

Last edited by Slowvehicle; Yesterday at 11:04 AM.
Slowvehicle 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 Yesterday, 11:08 AM   #5926
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 27,933
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
3. The truth seems to be in the recesses of our holistic hemisphere.


Why are you pretending that it was never explained to you that there's no such thing as a "holistic hemisphere"?
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon

The Australasian Skeptics Forum
Akhenaten 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 Yesterday, 11:17 AM   #5927
John Jones
Philosopher
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 5,770
There it is. The fringe reset we've been expecting.
__________________
"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan

NOTE: Spelling errors are left intact for the benifit of those having no other rejoinder.

Last edited by John Jones; Yesterday at 01:07 PM.
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 Yesterday, 11:35 AM   #5928
Squeegee Beckenheim
Philosopher
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 7,564
So, back to posting the same old crap all over again, just as if it had never been posted and discussed extensively before. God forbid this thread actually move forwards at any point. It's only been 149 pages and the best part of 2 years.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim 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 Yesterday, 11:39 AM   #5929
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...not where I seemed, nor was calculated to be...but no-one need worry...
Posts: 5,994
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
So, back to posting the same old crap all over again, just as if it had never been posted and discussed extensively before. God forbid this thread actually move forwards at any point. It's only been 149 pages and the best part of 2 years.
You have my sincere sympathy, if this thread has been "the best" of your last two years...
__________________
"Anything that can be accepted into science gets accepted into science." -HighRiser
"And in science the default is that you're wrong. EVERYONE is wrong. You only can be not wrong if you have evidence to back up your claim." -Dinwar
"That is not my circus; those are not my monkeys." -Howard Tayler
Slowvehicle 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 Yesterday, 11:41 AM   #5930
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Wiltshire, UK
Posts: 5,602
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
My Argument – I had something of an “epiphany” when I was 14 that seems to have been the results of a holistic version of Bayesian statistics applied to my own interesting existence. I came to the “realization” (or at least, the conclusion) that I am immortal.

1. Almost all of us take our own existences for granted – never noticing the miracle of miracles that each of us is.
2. We never notice the astonishing implications of our own existences. We never see the forest for all the trees.
3. The truth seems to be in the recesses of our holistic hemisphere.
4. Given the “popular” analytic and scientific orientation, the probability of my own current existence is “zilch” – yet, here I am!
5. And, almost no one notices the miracle that I am -- or, that they are.
Are you really still labouring under the delusion that you are the only person who has ever had this epiphany? I had it when I was about eight. I imagine almost every even slightly thoughtful child has the "just think of all the things that had to happen for me to exist, what were the odds, I must be very special indeed" revelation. The difference is that almost all of them realise very quickly the logical error they are making. You seem unable to grasp it, no matter how many times it is explained to you.
__________________
"The correct scientific response to anything that is not understood is always to look harder for the explanation, not give up and assume a supernatural cause". David Attenborough.
Pixel42 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 Yesterday, 11:51 AM   #5931
Giordano
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,052
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
So, back to posting the same old crap all over again, just as if it had never been posted and discussed extensively before. God forbid this thread actually move forwards at any point. It's only been 149 pages and the best part of 2 years.
^^^This!

You captured it all, alright, but without a single change in response to the actual facts that everyone else here has tried to tell you. It is just as wrong as before. Perhaps it is even more wrong than ever; an insistence on a falsehood in the light of truth is even more wrong than in the absence of truth. The unwillingness to respond to corrections is what makes this religion, not science.
Giordano 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 Yesterday, 11:56 AM   #5932
Giordano
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,052
Jabba,

Just a few questions about your theory:
Are there more people on Earth now than 10000 years ago? Yes or no?

If more, where did their new consciences come from?

If made de novo, why are some of us freshly made and others reincarnated?
Giordano 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 Yesterday, 11:59 AM   #5933
Loss Leader
Opinionated Jerk
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 14,540
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- So -- ask, or complain, away. As always, I will try to deal with one question or complaint at a time -- the one I think is most important.

There's really nothing to ask or complain about. You haven't said anything new. You've just restated all your old, debunked nonsense. You haven't even really pretended to change any of your terms. I hope you're enjoying Easter. This is a great day for family, and not necessarily the best day to earn the derision of anonymous internet posters.
__________________
Follow me on Twitter! @LossLeader
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 Yesterday, 12:07 PM   #5934
Giordano
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,052
Jabba,


You seem to have confused this Forum with a billboard. It is a discussion. You have refused to respond to criticisms either with corrections, or a discussion of why you were right after all. So, what is the point? You first stated you were here to prove immortality. Clearly you haven't. Not to anyone here as a participant or lurking. So, what is the point? Advertising.
Giordano 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 Yesterday, 01:05 PM   #5935
John Jones
Philosopher
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 5,770
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Jabba,


You seem to have confused this Forum with a billboard. It is a discussion. You have refused to respond to criticisms either with corrections, or a discussion of why you were right after all. So, what is the point? You first stated you were here to prove immortality. Clearly you haven't. Not to anyone here as a participant or lurking. So, what is the point? Advertising.
Here's my guess. I'm not even sure I believe it myself:

Jabba has just recapped all his ineffective points these last 18 months or so into one post. He has done this in the hope that one of the PhD's he has contacted via email will read it and agree to the brilliance of his position.

Think of the time we might have saved had his most recent affront been in his OP, rather than 5900 posts in.
__________________
"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan

NOTE: Spelling errors are left intact for the benifit of those having no other rejoinder.

Last edited by John Jones; Yesterday at 01:06 PM.
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 Yesterday, 01:27 PM   #5936
Aepervius
Philosopher
 
Aepervius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Bierland. I mean , germany.
Posts: 9,073
Talking

Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
There it is. The fringe reset we've been expecting.
Honestly I have been expecting it earlier.
__________________
Omnes Blessant Ultima necat

"I want, and this is my last and most dear wish, I want that the last of the king be strangled with the guts of the last priest" (Jean Meslier / 1664-1729 / Testament)
A very early french atheist, a catholic priest in life.
Aepervius 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 Yesterday, 01:57 PM   #5937
John Jones
Philosopher
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 5,770
Originally Posted by Aepervius View Post
Honestly I have been expecting it earlier.
We've gotten it earlier, but in [Jabba's words] "baby steps".

Today we got the Grand Mal fringe reset.
__________________
"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan

NOTE: Spelling errors are left intact for the benifit of those having no other rejoinder.
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 Yesterday, 02:14 PM   #5938
jt512
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 747
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
11.1. P(me|A) = 1/∞
The one premise, above, can replace your whole argument. Everything else is obfuscation. Your argument is simply this: You believe your existence would be impossible unless you are immortal. But, you exist. Therefore, you are immortal. Bayes' Theorem adds nothing to your argument.
jt512 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 Yesterday, 02:21 PM   #5939
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...not where I seemed, nor was calculated to be...but no-one need worry...
Posts: 5,994
Originally Posted by jt512 View Post
The one premise, above, can replace your whole argument. Everything else is obfuscation. Your argument is simply this: You believe your existence would be impossible unless you are immortal. But, you exist. Therefore, you are immortal. Bayes' Theorem adds nothing to your argument.
I believe I am immortal, because I believe my "soul" exists, and is "immortal".
__________________
"Anything that can be accepted into science gets accepted into science." -HighRiser
"And in science the default is that you're wrong. EVERYONE is wrong. You only can be not wrong if you have evidence to back up your claim." -Dinwar
"That is not my circus; those are not my monkeys." -Howard Tayler
Slowvehicle 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 Yesterday, 03:37 PM   #5940
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 24,989
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- Could be that all you guys need to read are #s 14, 15, 25 & 26.

Could it be that all you need to read is the rest of the thread?
__________________
"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 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 Yesterday, 03:51 PM   #5941
Giordano
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,052
Jabba,

Where is B in your equation? I thought you gave up on A? Or was it you gave up on not A? I got confused.
Giordano 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 Yesterday, 03:55 PM   #5942
Giordano
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,052
Jabba

You are still very wrong, for the reasons explained to you already in this thread. Would you like to be right? Then read this thread and respond appropriately. Or perhaps you don't care?
Giordano 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 Yesterday, 04:55 PM   #5943
Loss Leader
Opinionated Jerk
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 14,540
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- My Argument –

Just for the heck of it:


Quote:
1. Almost all of us take our own existences for granted – never noticing the miracle of miracles that each of us is.

Irrelevant to any proof of any sort. Also, imprecise.


Quote:
2. We never notice the astonishing implications of our own existences. We never see the forest for all the trees.

Just restating 1, really.


Quote:
3. The truth seems to be in the recesses of our holistic hemisphere.

Evidence shows that there is no such thing as a "holistic" hemisphere. Also, irrelevant. Something is either true or not.


Quote:
4. Given the “popular” analytic and scientific orientation, the probability of my own current existence is “zilch” – yet, here I am!

Completely wrong. Also illogically assumes the conclusion.


Quote:
5. And, almost no one notices the miracle that I am -- or, that they are.

Just restating 1 and 2. You actually worked on this?


Quote:
6. And, the power(?) of this miracle is almost impossible to communicate.

Irrelevant and imprecise. Also not true. Billions of people throughout history and on earth today believe that they are alive through miraculous intervention. Somehow, the idea got communicated to them just fine.


Quote:
7. But, in the face of it, the popular analytic/scientific orientation mentioned above is surely wrong.

This is just your conclusion again. You haven't yet stated an argument.


Quote:
8. I’ll be trying to use the binary version of the Bayes Theorem to disprove the popular scientific hypothesis that individual consciousnesses (“selves”) can exist for only one finite time.

Thanks for telling us what you're going to tell us.


Quote:
9. The formula: P(A|me) = P(me|A) P(A)/(P(me|A) P(A) + P(me|~A) P(~A))

~A? I thought you'd given that up for B.


Quote:
10. Where
10.1. "A" is the hypothesis that each potential human “self” (or, each potential illusion of a human self) exists for one finite period of time, at most.

This is the first thing you've said that I agree with.


Quote:
10.2. And, “me” is my current existence (or, my current illusion of existence).

This assumes a fact not in evidence. The fact is, according to the scientific understanding of the universe, there is no single core self. By phrasing it as though there is, you set up a false equivalency. On one side of your equation you use the word "self" to mean a constantly changing organism, and on the other side you use it to mean some core, unchanging being.


Quote:
11. The numbers I propose to insert (my premises):
11.1. P(me|A) = 1/∞

Insane. No scientist agrees that life is impossible. All scientists in the relevant fields agree that the one thing we know for certain about the universe is that life IS possible. Also, as pointed out, this is your conclusion. Once you put zero on one side, you automatically win. It's like playing War against a person who has no cards.


Quote:
11.2. P(A) = .99

Hardly matters as you intend to multiply it by zero.


Quote:
11.3. P(me|~A) = .50 (not sure that makes sense…)

It doesn't.


Quote:
11.4. P(~A) = .01

Hardly matters as you've multiplied the other side by zero.


Quote:
12. And, P(A|me) = (1/∞).99/((1/∞).99+(.50)(.1)) = 0

Congratulations. You multiplied by zero.


Quote:
13. I think that my critical premises above are 4.1 and 4.2; i.e. that
13.1. The number of potential selves (or, illusions)
13.1.1. Is infinite, and
13.1.2. I am a special case.

You're just restating stuff you just said. What's the point of that?


Quote:
13.2. There is reasonable doubt that A is correct.

Oh, no there isn't. You gave the chance of A being correct as 99%. A 1% chance of being wrong is not reasonable doubt. Also, you've done extraordinary violence to the term "reasonable doubt." Reasonable Doubt is a standard of legal proof. It's not a standard of mathematical, scientific or logical proof. It has no bearing on anything you're talking about. Can you show that Reasonable Doubt is the correct standard of proof to use here? You cannot because, it is obvious, you don't know what the term means.


Quote:
14. #2 is based upon a lot of questionable evidence.



It's actually logically impossible. It also assumes your conclusion. The chance of life cannot be zero when life exists.


Quote:
15. However, if I’m correct about #1, #2 requires very little in the way of evidence.

And if you were right, I'd agree with you.


Quote:
16. Many scientists in relevant fields have concluded that the sense of a lifetime-continuing self is an illusion.

Hooray for having heard somebody say something.


Quote:
17. But then, even if the continuing self is some kind of an illusion, it is something that I (and many other such illusions, I assume) wish to continue after death of the physical body.

Irrelevant. Wishing doesn't make something so. An argument is either true or false. Your desires have no bearing on anything.


Quote:
18. And, according to popular science, even if the self is some kind of illusion,
18.1. The illusion never existed before the life of my physical body, and
18.2. It will never exist after the death of my physical body.

If by "popular science" you mean "all science," then yes.


Quote:
19. Neither did this sense of self have any “representation” (blueprint?) prior to its actual existence.

Of course it did. Why are siblings similar? Why do children resemble their parents? There is a very precise blueprint for each individual, though the decor may change.


Quote:
20. In other words, there was no limited pool of potential selves that it was taken from.

What about the limits imposed by genetics? Available womb space? Time? Energy? Matter?

But actually, I agree with you. There is no pool. Remember that: there is no pool.


Quote:
21. Consciousness is an emergent property of a certain type of physical state.
22. Its emergence inherently includes the sense of a specific self.

I am deeply convinced you have no idea what these words mean.


Quote:
23. And, this sense of specific self is “brand new” -- again, it had no prior representation at all.

Just restating something you said already.


Quote:
24. While the various “characteristics” of the self (intelligence, morality, physical strength, etc., etc.,) have been determined by specific DNA and experience/environment, such is not the case for the continuing and separate awareness (sense) of the self.

You imply a distinction where none exists. Yeah, I just quoted the damn Borg.


Quote:
25. Having no kind of previous existence, or representation (not coming from any limited pool of potential selves) – being “brand new” in that sense – even if the matter, energy and/or time available is limited, there is no limit on what specific awarenesses of self will emerge.



Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. If there is no pool of potential selves, then the pool is not unlimited. It doesn't exist. It's a null set. You can't populate a null set with anything, let alone an infinite number of things.


Quote:
26. In other words, the specific possibilities are unlimited – or, infinite.

Utter nonsense.


Quote:
27. And, given the popular scientific opinion above, your likelihood of a current existence is no better than 7,000,000,000/∞. (7 billion being a rough estimate of the current number of human selves.)

Makes no sense whatsoever. You might as well have just punched the keyboard with your fists.


Quote:
28. But then, I am also a special case – and, if you have the same sense of self-awareness as do I, you are a special case as well.

Nonsense. Imprecise to the point of meaninglessness. You clearly don't understand where the "special case" objection fits into your argument.


Quote:
29. I (however) am the only “thing” that I know exists (one way, or the other). Everything else could be my imagination – but there necessarily is something here doing the imagining. Me.

All of those words just to arrive at some half-baked Cartesian restatement? You couldn't just have typed, "I agree with Descartes" and taken a nap?


Quote:
30. Besides, if I didn’t exist, there “might as well” be nothing -- and according to the popular scientific hypothesis, that would have been the case for all the time before my existence and all the time after my existence…

Only so far as you're concerned. If you didn't exist, most people would hardly notice. The stars certainly wouldn't. (By stars, I mean both the celestial type and Jennifer Aniston.)


Quote:
31. And, if I never exist – which the popular scientific hypothesis should probably expect -- there might as well never be anything… See what I mean?

Nope. You're talking giberish. The only person to whom your existence is necessary is you. From any other perspective, you are close to irrelevant.


Quote:
32. That is what makes me (and probably you) a special case – and the likelihood of my current existence, given the popular scientific position, must be just 1/∞ (zero).

Makes no sense. None of it follows from any of it. It's just a jumble of words.


Quote:
33. In other words, the scientific hypothesis must be wrong.

You've alternately said that you would show your silly theory to be more likely statistically, to be essentially true, and to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. Now you're saying it must be true.


Quote:
34. And then, even if I can’t validly claim that I am a special case, 7,000,000,000/∞ is also zero.

Hooray for math.


Quote:
- So -- ask, or complain, away. As always, I will try to deal with one question or complaint at a time -- the one I think is most important.

Complete nonsense. Also, somewhere in there, you just yada-yada-ed the objection that ~A does not equal immortality.
__________________
Follow me on Twitter! @LossLeader
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 Yesterday, 05:26 PM   #5944
John Jones
Philosopher
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 5,770
Jabba,

The following is not a rhetorical question. Have you read the rejoinders to your posts this one day? April 20, 2014?

I realize there is a 1/∞ chance of you making an honest attempt to reply, but there it is.
__________________
"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan

NOTE: Spelling errors are left intact for the benifit of those having no other rejoinder.
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 Yesterday, 06:55 PM   #5945
xtifr
Muse
 
xtifr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Sol III
Posts: 959
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
11.1. P(me|A) = 1/∞
No, no, no! We've been over this countless times! (But not infinity times.)

A (the standard scientific model) does not allow an infinite number of arrangements of particles in the universe, so you cannot use infinity as your divisor here, no matter how much you really really want to. It's simply wrong, and invalidates everything else.

Worse yet.

Quote:
11.3. P(me|~A) = .50 (not sure that makes sense…)
Not only does it not make sense, but since ~A is "everything that's not part of the standard scientific model", it actually is infinite in scope, so here is where you would insert a divisor of infinity!

P(me|A) = incredibly tiny but finite number.
P(me|~A) = 1/∞

So, now, which seems more likely again?
__________________
"Those who learn from history are doomed to watch others repeat it."
-- Anonymous Slashdot poster
"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore."
-- James Nicoll
xtifr 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 Yesterday, 07:40 PM   #5946
Humots
Thinker
 
Humots's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 158
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- My Argument – I had something of an “epiphany” when I was 14 that seems to have been the results of a holistic version of Bayesian statistics applied to my own interesting existence. I came to the “realization” (or at least, the conclusion) that I am immortal.
What took you so long? I remember noticing my existence, and being astonished by it, at the age of 5. However, while I found my existence a surprise, I didn't consider myself special. I remember being able to summon that surprise for years, though I seem to have lost the knack in my old age.
And how does "I am immortal" follow from "I exist"?
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
4. Given the “popular” analytic and scientific orientation, the probability of my own current existence is “zilch” – yet, here I am!
As has been shown many times, that is not the valid way to view your existence. You are not "aces". You are not special. You are a face on a very large die that happened to come up.
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
5. And, almost no one notices the miracle that I am -- or, that they are.
6. And, the power(?) of this miracle is almost impossible to communicate.
Many people have noticed this "miracle". Me, for instance. And it is not hard to communicate. Everyone here knows what you mean.
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
7. But, in the face of it, the popular analytic/scientific orientation mentioned above is surely wrong.
In the face of what, exactly? Your existence?
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
11.1. P(me|A) = 1/∞
Wrong in many ways, all of which have been explained to you. And you have ignored it.
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
11.2. P(A) = .99
11.3. P(me|~A) = .50 (not sure that makes sense…)
11.4. P(~A) = .01
11.2 Where do you get this value? Just out of the air?
11.3 No, it does not make sense. What reason supports P(me|~A)= .50? Why that number?
11.4 Syntactically correct. Big deal.

If A = "the hypothesis that each potential human “self” exists for one finite period of time, at most", then ~A is just that: NOT A. Which includes all of those alternatives that we have pointed out many times. It could be that P(me|~A) = 0.
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
13.2. There is reasonable doubt that A is correct.
Loss Leader has said it: "reasonable doubt" is a legal concept, not a mathematical or scientific one. You are playing the lawyer again, just as you did in the shroud thread. And playing just as poorly.
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
But then, I am also a special case – and, if you have the same sense of self-awareness as do I, you are a special case as well.
Meaning your “epiphany”? Are you saying that only people who have had this "epiphany" are immortal? Actually, that's probably quite a lot of people.
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
-
[- So -- ask, or complain, away. As always, I will try to deal with one question or complaint at a time -- the one I think is most important.
How dismissive and insulting.

We are not complaining. We are pointing out flaws. And as always, you ignore us.

If this is what you are sending to Dr. Hoerl and Dr. Blackmore, I think they will be putting you on Ignore very soon.

I could go on, but it's late, and I'm sure that everyone is writing their own critiques. Go to it, guys.
Humots 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 Today, 12:18 AM   #5947
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
 
PixyMisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny Munuvia
Posts: 15,269
Your errors have been well-addressed by others already, but I'll jump in because you ignore almost everything said to you anyway.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I've been trying to put it all together in one post. This might do it.
- Could be that all you guys need to read are #s 14, 15, 25 & 26.

- My Argument – I had something of an “epiphany” when I was 14 that seems to have been the results of a holistic version of Bayesian statistics applied to my own interesting existence. I came to the “realization” (or at least, the conclusion) that I am immortal.
There's no holistic version of Bayesian statistics. All you have is a nonsensical belief and a deep need for justification.

Quote:
1. Almost all of us take our own existences for granted – never noticing the miracle of miracles that each of us is.
We're not miracles. That's just your refusal to accept reality.

Quote:
2. We never notice the astonishing implications of our own existences. We never see the forest for all the trees.
Again, no, that's just you.

Quote:
3. The truth seems to be in the recesses of our holistic hemisphere.
There's no such thing.

Quote:
4. Given the “popular” analytic and scientific orientation, the probability of my own current existence is “zilch” – yet, here I am!
No. No no no no no no no no no no no no no no no. This is complete and unmitigated garbage, as has been pointed out to you a hundred times already.

Quote:
5. And, almost no one notices the miracle that I am -- or, that they are.
Because no-one believes that it is a miracle, because there is no reason to believe that it is a miracle.

Quote:
6. And, the power(?) of this miracle is almost impossible to communicate.
This is a common property of nonsense.

Quote:
7. But, in the face of it, the popular analytic/scientific orientation mentioned above is surely wrong.
Nonsense does not falsify sense. Nonsense is nonsense.

Quote:
8. I’ll be trying to use the binary version of the Bayes Theorem to disprove the popular scientific hypothesis that individual consciousnesses (“selves”) can exist for only one finite time.
Yes, we know that's what you believe you're trying to do.

Quote:
9. The formula: P(A|me) = P(me|A) P(A)/(P(me|A) P(A) + P(me|~A) P(~A))
10. Where
10.1. "A" is the hypothesis that each potential human “self” (or, each potential illusion of a human self) exists for one finite period of time, at most.
10.2. And, “me” is my current existence (or, my current illusion of existence).
11. The numbers I propose to insert (my premises):
11.1. P(me|A) = 1/∞
Which is entirely false.

Quote:
11.2. P(A) = .99
11.3. P(me|~A) = .50 (not sure that makes sense…)
11.4. P(~A) = .01
12. And, P(A|me) = (1/∞).99/((1/∞).99+(.50)(.1)) = 0

13. I think that my critical premises above are 4.1 and 4.2; i.e. that
13.1. The number of potential selves (or, illusions)
13.1.1. Is infinite, and
It isn't. It can't be. We've been over this; your position is completely impossible.

Quote:
13.1.2. I am a special case.
I'll just leave that right there.

Quote:
13.2. There is reasonable doubt that A is correct.
Nope. Science works. Nonsense doesn't.

Quote:
14. #2 is based upon a lot of questionable evidence.

No evidence at all. Just wilful ignorance and self-delusion.

Quote:
15. However, if I’m correct about #1, #2 requires very little in the way of evidence.
That hardly matters, since they're the same completely unsupported handwavey garbage.

Quote:
16. Many scientists in relevant fields have concluded that the sense of a lifetime-continuing self is an illusion.
Near enough.

Quote:
17. But then, even if the continuing self is some kind of an illusion, it is something that I (and many other such illusions, I assume) wish to continue after death of the physical body.
Completely irrelevant. No-on cares what you wish, least of all the Universe.

Quote:
18. And, according to popular science, even if the self is some kind of illusion,
18.1. The illusion never existed before the life of my physical body, and
18.2. It will never exist after the death of my physical body.
Essentially correct. Except for your use of the word "popular".

Quote:
19. Neither did this sense of self have any “representation” (blueprint?) prior to its actual existence.
Correct.

Quote:
20. In other words, there was no limited pool of potential selves that it was taken from.
There's no pool. But the number of distinct potential selves is necessarily finite, since the brains that produce the selves are themselves finite.

Quote:
21. Consciousness is an emergent property of a certain type of physical state.
No. Not state, process. Specifically, computational process; more specifically, brains.

Quote:
22. Its emergence inherently includes the sense of a specific self.
Yes.

Quote:
23. And, this sense of specific self is “brand new” -- again, it had no prior representation at all.
Yes.

Quote:
24. While the various “characteristics” of the self (intelligence, morality, physical strength, etc., etc.,) have been determined by specific DNA and experience/environment, such is not the case for the continuing and separate awareness (sense) of the self.
Your sense of self is brain function. You brain is coded for by your DNA, and adjusted by your environment.

Quote:
25. Having no kind of previous existence, or representation (not coming from any limited pool of potential selves) – being “brand new” in that sense – even if the matter, energy and/or time available is limited, there is no limit on what specific awarenesses of self will emerge.

Absolutely and irretrievably wrong. If any one of matter, energy, or time are limited, that places a limit on what specific selves will emerge. In fact all three are limited, as is the nature of the self.

Quote:
26. In other words, the specific possibilities are unlimited – or, infinite.
Completely untrue. (Since 25, is wrong, everything that follows from it is wrong.)

Quote:
27. And, given the popular scientific opinion above, your likelihood of a current existence is no better than 7,000,000,000/∞. (7 billion being a rough estimate of the current number of human selves.)
Completely untrue.

Quote:
28. But then, I am also a special case – and, if you have the same sense of self-awareness as do I, you are a special case as well.
Completely untrue.

Quote:
29. I (however) am the only “thing” that I know exists (one way, or the other). Everything else could be my imagination – but there necessarily is something here doing the imagining. Me.
Irrelevant.

[quote]30. Besides, if I didn’t exist, there “might as well” be nothing -- and according to the popular scientific hypothesis, that would have been the case for all the time before my existence and all the time after my existence…[/qupte]
Irrelevant.

Quote:
31. And, if I never exist – which the popular scientific hypothesis should probably expect -- there might as well never be anything… See what I mean?
Irrelevant.

Quote:
32. That is what makes me (and probably you) a special case – and the likelihood of my current existence, given the popular scientific position, must be just 1/∞ (zero).
Completely wrong.

Quote:
3. In other words, the scientific hypothesis must be wrong.
No. You are wrong. Science is just fine.

Quote:
34. And then, even if I can’t validly claim that I am a special case, 7,000,000,000/∞ is also zero.
Irrelevant.

Quote:
- So -- ask, or complain, away. As always, I will try to deal with one question or complaint at a time -- the one I think is most important.
You have yet to deal with a single problem with your ideas, and there are so many, many problems for you to choose from.
__________________
Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu
What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

Last edited by PixyMisa; Today at 12:24 AM.
PixyMisa 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 Today, 01:51 AM   #5948
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 11,360
What is popular science?
__________________
It took us 100 years to find the Titanic, it took us 2,000 years to find Noah’s Ark.
Bill Hemmer of Fox News, commenting on the search for MH370
pakeha 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 Today, 02:49 AM   #5949
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 24,989
Originally Posted by pakeha View Post
What is popular science?

A magazine, I think.
__________________
"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 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 Today, 03:03 AM   #5950
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 11,360
Of course!
I KNEW I'd heard the phrase before.
__________________
It took us 100 years to find the Titanic, it took us 2,000 years to find Noah’s Ark.
Bill Hemmer of Fox News, commenting on the search for MH370
pakeha 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 Today, 03:42 AM   #5951
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 24,989
I expect Jabba has already emailed them to ask if they think the self is an illusion.
__________________
"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 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 Today, 03:51 AM   #5952
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 24,989
Originally Posted by PixyMisa View Post
There's no holistic version of Bayesian statistics.

Jabba is using the word "holistic" in the modern sense of "rubbish", as in "homeopathy is holistic medicine".
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

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

Last edited by Mojo; Today at 03:52 AM.
Mojo 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 Today, 04:55 AM   #5953
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 11,360
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
I expect Jabba has already emailed them to ask if they think the self is an illusion.
Yet another keyboard ruined by coffee.
__________________
It took us 100 years to find the Titanic, it took us 2,000 years to find Noah’s Ark.
Bill Hemmer of Fox News, commenting on the search for MH370
pakeha 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 Today, 06:11 AM   #5954
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota
Posts: 6,615
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
There it is. The fringe reset we've been expecting.
Yep. As if none of us had posted anything over the last 18 months.
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm
godless dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 06:20 AM   #5955
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...not where I seemed, nor was calculated to be...but no-one need worry...
Posts: 5,994
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Yep. As if none of us had posted anything over the last 18 months.
Welcome to the background radiation of the Rich Savage ExperienceTM...
__________________
"Anything that can be accepted into science gets accepted into science." -HighRiser
"And in science the default is that you're wrong. EVERYONE is wrong. You only can be not wrong if you have evidence to back up your claim." -Dinwar
"That is not my circus; those are not my monkeys." -Howard Tayler
Slowvehicle 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 Today, 06:25 AM   #5956
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota
Posts: 6,615
Just to reiterate once again, because I love repeating myself:

Quote:
While the various “characteristics” of the self (intelligence, morality, physical strength, etc., etc.,) have been determined by specific DNA and experience/environment, such is not the case for the continuing and separate awareness (sense) of the self.
The self consists of the characteristics of the self and nothing else. The characteristics of a thing are what make up that thing.


Quote:
25. Having no kind of previous existence, or representation (not coming from any limited pool of potential selves) – being “brand new” in that sense – even if the matter, energy and/or time available is limited, there is no limit on what specific awarenesses of self will emerge.
You already know this isn't true in the scientific model. There is a limit on what specific awareness of self will emerge, because the awareness of self is one of the characteristics of the self. This limit is imposed by biology.
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm
godless dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:56 AM   #5957
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 27,933
There are no words pictures.

Help me out here, you guys.
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon

The Australasian Skeptics Forum
Akhenaten 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 Today, 07:57 AM   #5958
Loss Leader
Opinionated Jerk
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 14,540
Originally Posted by Akhenaten View Post
There are no words pictures.

Help me out here, you guys.


A Hutt eating its own tail?
__________________
Follow me on Twitter! @LossLeader
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 Today, 07:58 AM   #5959
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 27,933
Working in background . . .
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon

The Australasian Skeptics Forum
Akhenaten 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 Today, 08:05 AM   #5960
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...not where I seemed, nor was calculated to be...but no-one need worry...
Posts: 5,994
Originally Posted by Akhenaten View Post
Working in background . . .
A Hutt rising from its own ashes?
__________________
"Anything that can be accepted into science gets accepted into science." -HighRiser
"And in science the default is that you're wrong. EVERYONE is wrong. You only can be not wrong if you have evidence to back up your claim." -Dinwar
"That is not my circus; those are not my monkeys." -Howard Tayler
Slowvehicle 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
Reply

JREF Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

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 08:11 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

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