Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[CriticalThanking]

Jabba,

Do you agree you are unable to jump 4 miles high (from the surface of the earth using only your muscles)? You seem to be claiming there is therefore no limit to the number of times you can jump 4 miles high. Do you agree there is a problem with that?

 

[The Sparrow]

Jabba, we had a conversation going in posts 2804, 2812, 2814, 2838. Are you abandoning that now?

It ended with:

Jabba:

Sparrow,
- Are you asking for evidence that there is an aspect of a person that cannot be reproduced -- or, are you asking for evidence that there is no such aspect in a banana?


Sparrow:

The former.

 

[wea]

Why are you simply repeating them as if it was the first time you'd ever made them?

his father's direction to never give up

Hamilcar Barca did less damage having Hannibal swear

 

[Jabba]

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.

Dave,
- Yes they are -- it's just that the words are confusing.
- Two human reproductive cells of the opposite sex generally react with each other to produce a new self if they merge. If any two do not merge, the particular self they represent -- would have created -- will be left behind. Almost all possible combinations of human reproductive cells represents a potential human self.

 

[godless dave]

Would you say the 1938 Brooklyn Dodgers are potential winners of the 2017 World Series?

 

[Hokulele]

Dave,
- Yes they are -- it's just that the words are confusing.
- Two human reproductive cells of the opposite sex generally react with each other to produce a new self if they merge. If any two do not merge, the particular self they represent -- would have created -- will be left behind. Almost all possible combinations of human reproductive cells represents a potential human self.

Would you count all potential selves from people who could have reproduced by merging cells with a banana? Why or why not?

 

[Loss Leader]

Dave,
- Yes they are -- it's just that the words are confusing.
- Two human reproductive cells of the opposite sex generally react with each other to produce a new self if they merge. If any two do not merge, the particular self they represent -- would have created -- will be left behind. Almost all possible combinations of human reproductive cells represents a potential human self.

You are equating "self" with "genetic code." The genetic code tells you a lot about a person physically, but not a lot about who that person is. Think of all the sets of twins you know who are, gasp, completely different people.

The self is a process. No two people, even twins, are running the same process.

Hell, it doesn't even have to be people. I have the exact same computer upstairs as downstairs - bought them two-for-one. Yet each one has its own quirks. And the older they get, the more they diverge.

 

[The Sparrow]

Dave,
- Yes they are -- it's just that the words are confusing.
- Two human reproductive cells of the opposite sex generally react with each other to produce a new self if they merge. If any two do not merge, the particular self they represent -- would have created -- will be left behind. Almost all possible combinations of human reproductive cells represents a potential human self.

How can something that is not yet 'created' be 'left behind'. The latter tries to imply that in fact it is created and is "waiting". Once again you try to sneak something in, and...........fail.

 

[godless dave]

How can something that is not yet 'created' be 'left behind'. The latter tries to imply that in fact it is created and is "waiting". Once again you try to sneak something in, and...........fail.

Not to mention, when was it "left behind"? In Cleopatra's lifespan, or Jabba's?

 

[Peregrinus]

... Almost all possible combinations of human reproductive cells represents a potential human self.

A potential human BEING; "self" is of another order entirely - as has been pointed out so often the dead horse got up and left the scene.

 

[godless dave]

A potential human BEING; "self" is of another order entirely - as has been pointed out so often the dead horse got up and left the scene.

I've been treating human being and self as the same thing. The latter is part of the former.

 

[abaddon]

Dave,
- Yes they are -- it's just that the words are confusing.
- Two human reproductive cells of the opposite sex generally react with each other to produce a new self if they merge. If any two do not merge, the particular self they represent -- would have created -- will be left behind. Almost all possible combinations of human reproductive cells represents a potential human self.

There is all manner of weirdness folded up into that post.

The egg has no gender at all, it has an X chromosome and never anything else. How that can be defined as a "gender" is anyone's guess. The sperm carries either of an X or a Y chromosome. If the lucky one happens to carry a Y chromosome, under jabba rules the "opposite" gender, then you get male progeny. Again under jabba rules, if the sperm carries an X, then they are not "opposite genders" and nothing happens. Conclusion: Women do not exist.

Moving along to the whole "will be left behind" nonsense, we have an assertion that an event which never happened somehow actually exists as a real event/object/entity/housecat.

It is trivial. It is no different than arguing that every lottery ticket issued in every country in the world is a potential winner. I have a lottery ticket. Since the total possible number of tickets worldwide is effectively infinite, therefore MY ticket is proven to be a winner.

 

[Mojo]

- Two human reproductive cells of the opposite sex generally react with each other to produce a new self if they merge.

Are you now claiming that human zygotes are conscious?

If any two do not merge, the particular self they represent -- would have created -- will be left behind.

They don't produce a consciousness when they merge. They produce a single cell, without the sort of nervous system necessary to produce consciousness.

It is this sort of comment that makes it obvious that your definition of the "self" is metaphysical in nature, and corresponds to nothing real.

Almost all possible combinations of human reproductive cells represents a potential human self.

Many of them are not even compatible with life.

 

[Mojo]

- Two human reproductive cells of the opposite sex generally react with each other to produce a new self if they merge. If any two do not merge, the particular self they represent -- would have created -- will be left behind.

And remember, Jabba: the human genome has a finite number of base pairs. Claiming that the "self" is produced by the fusion of the genetic material of two human gametes is therefore inconsistent with your claim of an infinite number of potential "selves".

 

[fibbermcgee]

Jabba I am totally confused. Now you say that the merger of an egg and a sperm creates a self. Therefore every child conceived has a soul. How does this jell with your theory of an immortal soul that goes from old body to a new one? Are you saying that the soul and the self are different entities?

 

[aleCcowaN]

No, he's just playing by ear.

 

[Loss Leader]

Jabba I am totally confused. Now you say that the merger of an egg and a sperm creates a self. Therefore every child conceived has a soul. How does this jell with your theory of an immortal soul that goes from old body to a new one? Are you saying that the soul and the self are different entities?

I can clear this up. He's saying that the scientific model has new selves being created with every birth, amounting to a vast number of selves and an even greater number of "potential" selves.

BUT, if each self is immortal then the chance of any one self occurring is one and thus the scientific model is wrong.

At least one of the many thousand mistakes he's making is ascribing to the scientific model beliefs that don't exist so that he can then negate them. It's a kind of a strawman thing in that it's exactly a strawman thing.

 

[caveman1917]

if each self is immortal then the chance of any one self occurring is one

Why? Immortal or not, the number of selfs is still limited by the number of bodies.

 

[John Jones]

Dave,
- I basically agree with your part that I hilited. Scientifically speaking, we cannot reproduce the particular self. IOW, there are no potential selves in the sense that specific chemistry would produce the same self each time.

If you are presuming to speak on behalf of the discipline of science, then you ought to shut the hell up right about now.

 

[Dabop]

At least one of the many thousand mistakes he's making is ascribing to the scientific model beliefs that don't exist so that he can then negate them. It's a kind of a strawman thing in that it's exactly a strawman thing.

Can I pinch this???? sig worthy