Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[Loss Leader]

Remember also that Jabba (in an attempt to dig himself out of a different hole) has defined the disembodied "self" as having no characteristics, all the characteristics of the embodied "self" being supplied by the body. By his own argument, whatever "self" wound up in his body would be Jabba.

ETA: Not that "selves" exist in the way Jabba defines them.

He also refuses to believe that the self changes. At least, he's never answered any of my questions about whether he is the same person he was thirty years ago - likes, dislikes, cares, memories, even food preferences.

He'll happily call the soul a "process" or "illusion" just so long as those are understood to mean "an unchanging thing."

 

[Mojo]

He'll happily call the soul a "process" or "illusion" just so long as those are understood to mean "an unchanging thing."

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that’s all."
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. "They’ve a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they’re the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That’s what I say!"

Source

 

[jond]

He also refuses to believe that the self changes. At least, he's never answered any of my questions about whether he is the same person he was thirty years ago - likes, dislikes, cares, memories, even food preferences.

He'll happily call the soul a "process" or "illusion" just so long as those are understood to mean "an unchanging thing."

Indeed, just as he ignored my question about whether he thought his father's direction to never give up was part of his self.

 

[Jabba]

-

The likelihood is not something over infinity for E|H.

Dave,
- If there is no pool of potential selves, there is no limit to the number of of potential selves -- and, I think you've already agreed that there is no pool of potential selves.
- Or, how about this? What would limit the number of potential selves? Why couldn't we just keep recycling?

 

[godless dave]

- Dave,
- If there is no pool of potential selves, there is no limit to the number of of potential selves -- and, I think you've already agreed that there is no pool of potential selves.
- Or, how about this? What would limit the number of potential selves? Why couldn't we just keep recycling?

As I said just a few posts ago:

There is no limit to the number of potential bananas or potential Volkswagens.

We've been over this before.

At the time you were born, the number of potential selves that could have been born was limited by the number of humans of reproductive age and all the different ways they could combine their genetic material to produce offspring. That's a large number of possibilities, but it's not infinite.

Right now you already exist, so the number of potential selves is irrelevant to the likelihood of your current existence.

 

[Mojo]

Why couldn't we just keep recycling?

Because you aren't immortal. Sooner or later you will have to stop.

 

[Hokulele]

- Or, how about this? What would limit the number of potential selves? Why couldn't we just keep recycling?

The fact that they aren't things limits their number to zero.

 

[Loss Leader]

- Or, how about this? What would limit the number of potential selves? Why couldn't we just keep recycling?

The fact that they're not things. You can't recycle a process. Going 60 mph is not recycling the last time your car went 60 mph.

Also, so long as you're making stuff up, do you have any evidence that the soul doesn't get recycled? You claim that the scientific model says the soul isn't recycled but is brand new each time. Yet, the scientific model doesn't say anything at all about a soul. So, why can't I claim that there are only nine souls, and they are being constantly recycled?

Since time means nothing to the great recycler, he can even go back in time to reuse souls even when they're already experiencing one life. Maybe the couples who are soul-mates actually are the same soul finding itself.

None of this has any evidence in the scientific model, but then neither does anything else you say.

 

[JoeMorgue]

If there is no pool of potential selves, there is no limit to the number of of potential selves

What kind of sense does that make?

Since you can't prove some mythical "Pool of selves" exists that's evidence of an unlimited number of them?

No. You're wrong.

There's no "Pool of potential selves" because there are no potential selves in the way you're using the concept. It is impossible for you to not understand this.

 

[Agatha]

Dave,
- If there is no pool of potential selves, there is no limit to the number of of potential selves -- and, I think you've already agreed that there is no pool of potential selves.

No. Nonononono. There is no pool of potential selves because there is no such thing as a potential self. Your if-then statement is missing the point that there is no such thing as a potential self.

It is true that there is no pool of potential selves. But that does not mean that the number of potential selves are infinite, it means that the number of potential selves is zero. Zip, none, nada, nil, zero.

The self, the consciousness (or whatever is your current euphemism for a soul) is a process, not a thing. It is dynamic and uncountable. Unless and until you grasp the difference between things and processes, you are doomed to repeat the same silly mistakes that have characterised this thread from the get-go.

 

[Dancing David]

- Dave,
- If there is no pool of potential selves, there is no limit to the number of of potential selves -- and, I think you've already agreed that there is no pool of potential selves.
- Or, how about this? What would limit the number of potential selves? Why couldn't we just keep recycling?

Would every chemical change in your body create a new self.

(Fallacy of construction and false dichotomy on your part)

 

[JoeMorgue]

It's like a weird inverse Ship of Theseus.

 

[Jabba]

There is no limit to the number of potential bananas or potential Volkswagens.

We've been over this before.

At the time you were born, the number of potential selves that could have been born was limited by the number of humans of reproductive age and all the different ways they could combine their genetic material to produce offspring. That's a large number of possibilities, but it's not infinite.

Right now you already exist, so the number of potential selves is irrelevant to the likelihood of your current existence.

Dave,
- Wouldn't you say that one of Cleopatra's ova and one of my sperm cells would represent a potential self that never had a chance? And, in determining the number of potential selves, shouldn't we count potential selves that never had a chance?

 

[Hokulele]

Dave,
- Wouldn't you say that one of Cleopatra's ova and one of my sperm cells would represent a potential self that never had a chance? And, in determining the number of potential selves, shouldn't we count potential selves that never had a chance?

No. The self is not a thing.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- Wouldn't you say that one of Cleopatra's ova and one of my sperm cells would represent a potential self that never had a chance? And, in determining the number of potential selves, shouldn't we count potential selves that never had a chance?

No, because your existence depends on the existence of people who were alive at the same time Cleopatra was. Impossible selves aren't potential selves.

 

[Mojo]

Dave,
- Wouldn't you say that one of Cleopatra's ova and one of my sperm cells would represent a potential self that never had a chance? And, in determining the number of potential selves, shouldn't we count potential selves that never had a chance?

Jabba,
- The human genome has a finite number of base pairs. This means that there are only a finite number of possible sequences. You have already been told this. Repeatedly.

ETA: That is not the only thing wrong with your argument; it's just the one I am pointing out in this post.

 

[Loss Leader]

Dave,
- Wouldn't you say that one of Cleopatra's ova and one of my sperm cells would represent a potential self that never had a chance? And, in determining the number of potential selves, shouldn't we count potential selves that never had a chance?

There is no such thing as a "potential self."

 

[John Jones]

- Dave,
- If there is no pool of potential selves, there is no limit to the number of of potential selves [...]

Non sequitur

This has all been patiently and carefully explained to you dozens of times over the last 4 or 5 years in the simplest of all possible terms.

You keep ignoring all these explanations and repeating the same baseless claims time after time.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Jabba what possible combinations of words can anyone make that will result in you responding with anything that would look out of place on Tvtrope's "Insane Troll Logic" page?

 

[Pixel42]

jt,
- What if the prior probabilities are 99% for H, 1% for ~H and the likelihoods are something over infinity for E|H and about 60% for E|~H?

- Dave,
- If there is no pool of potential selves, there is no limit to the number of of potential selves -- and, I think you've already agreed that there is no pool of potential selves.
- Or, how about this? What would limit the number of potential selves? Why couldn't we just keep recycling?

Dave,
- Wouldn't you say that one of Cleopatra's ova and one of my sperm cells would represent a potential self that never had a chance? And, in determining the number of potential selves, shouldn't we count potential selves that never had a chance?

Jabba the mistakes you are making have been explained to you patiently, in detail. and in the simplest possible terms, many many times. Why are you simply repeating them as if it was the first time you'd ever made them? Go back and read the responses you got any of the previous times you posted the same faulty arguments, and this time try to understand them.