Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[Hokulele]

That makes absolutely no sense at all.



It's not a nonsense question, it's a straightforward question with a straightforward answer, just like:

How many apples are there?

|{x | x is apple}|

You just don't like the answer because you need it to be a nonsense question for your argument to work.

No, just because you do not understand that there is a difference between apples (things) and a sense of self (process) just underlines why Jabba is having such a hard time seeing why his argument is a non-starter.

Both of you seem to believe that the self is something other than the result of normal brain processes, and is therefore as countable as cars and apples. Modern neuroscience disagrees.

 

[theprestige]

That makes absolutely no sense at all.



It's not a nonsense question, it's a straightforward question with a straightforward answer, just like:

How many apples are there?

|{x | x is apple}|

You just don't like the answer because you need it to be a nonsense question for your argument to work.

You really should try following the conversation. Jabba is arguing that going 60mph is drawn from an infinite pool of going 60mph, and that therefore a particular car going a particular 60mph at a particular point in time is virtually impossible. And that therefore that particular going 60mph must have an eternal existence independent of the car that's going that particular 60mph.

Jabba is arguing that the color of a banana is drawn from an infinite pool of potential banana colors, and that therefore a particular banana having a particular color at a particular point in time is virtually impossible. And that therefore that particular color of a banana must have an eternal existence independent of the banana that has that particular color.

Jabba is arguing that the flavor of an apple is drawn from an infinite pool of potential apple flavors, and that therefore a particular apple having a particular flavor at a particular point in time is virtually impossible. And that therefore that particular flavor of an apple must have an eternal existence independent of the apple that has that particular flavor.

Jabba is arguing that the sense of self is drawn from an infinite pool of potential senses of self, and that therefore a particular organism having a particular sense of self at a particular point in time is virtually impossible. And that therefore that particular sense of self must have an eternal existence independent of the organism that has that particular sense of self.

Jabba's response to being told that all of these arguments have the same fatal flaws is to feign confusion and resort to special pleading.

Your response is to misunderstand completely, and argue a point nobody is disputing--or even discussing.

 

[caveman1917]

No, just because you do not understand that there is a difference between apples (things) and a sense of self (process)

Define "thing", define "process", show what the difference is. What happened to "property" btw? I thought it was supposed to be a property.

 

[caveman1917]

You really should try following the conversation. Jabba is arguing that going 60mph is drawn from an infinite pool of going 60mph, and that therefore a particular car going a particular 60mph at a particular point in time is virtually impossible. And that therefore that particular going 60mph must have an eternal existence independent of the car that's going that particular 60mph.

{...}

Jabba's response to being told that all of these arguments have the same fatal flaws is to feign confusion and resort to special pleading.

Then argue the fatal flaw, I've highlighted it. The cardinality of the set of "going 60 mph" is not the flaw, countable or uncountable.

 

[Hokulele]

Define "thing", define "process", show what the difference is. What happened to "property" btw? I thought it was supposed to be a property.

Thing = A discrete, material object.
Process = A continuous action.

Technically, the correct term is "emergent property" as there is a time component and dependency involved. Sloppy terminology on my part, so let's stick with that one and ignore the "process" vs. "property" debate.

But to put it in different terms, a thing is described using a noun, an emergent property is more correctly a verb or an adjective, depending on context. The fact that we are constantly verbing nouns and nouning verbs is just a weirdness of language, not of reality.

 

[Hokulele]

Another way to approach this is to look at dependency, and what exactly it is you are quantifying. For example, can you have "wind" without any other material object immediately involved? Things, such as apples, can be shown to exist on their own.

Selves, not so much.

 

[caveman1917]

Thing = A discrete, material object.

Do you mean the set of all "things" is a discrete topological space? If not, define "discrete". Define "material".

Process = A continuous action.

Define "action".

 

[Hokulele]

Do you mean the set of all "things" is a discrete topological space? If not, define "discrete". Define "material".

Define "action".

No. This is the same avoidance procedure Jabba uses when he wants to obstruct a discussion, rather than advance it.

To approach this a different way, do you believe a "sense of self" can exist without something to generate it?

 

[caveman1917]

No. This is the same avoidance procedure Jabba uses when he wants to obstruct a discussion, rather than advance it.

If you refuse to define your terms then you are not advancing any discussion.

To approach this a different way, do you believe a "sense of self" can exist without something to generate it?

What does that have to do with your claim that a property (such as going 60 mph) is uncountable?

 

[theprestige]

Then argue the fatal flaw, I've highlighted it. The cardinality of the set of "going 60 mph" is not the flaw, countable or uncountable.

The many fatal flaws of Jabba's argument including the one that's relevant here, have been argued repeatedly throughout this thread. We argue it now by reference rather than in toto.

 

[Hokulele]

If you refuse to define your terms then you are not advancing any discussion.

I did. You are simply using the same stalling tactics seen by Jabba throughout this thread, such as claiming a failure in understanding.

What does that have to do with your claim that a property (such as going 60 mph) is uncountable?

Answer my question and I will explain why.

 

[Loss Leader]

I guess that my basic problem still has to do with the definition of "who." I'm claiming that while we can estimate the characteristics of the person coming out fairly well -- through science -- there is an aspect of the person coming out (their "identity"?) for which we don't have a clue. And, according to science, this who can never exist again. This person can never be reincarnated. Neither you nor I can ever be reincarnated. We can only exist once at most.
- That's how a banana has us beat. There is no such aspect to a banana.
- How's that?

It's gibberish. Your answer is to just declare that a banana doesn't have a soul. And, once again, you haven't defined what a soul is (today you're calling it "identity"), what its characteristics are, or how we could falsifiably test for it.

It's the same fail as always. You assume the consequent and then stand back, amazed that you proved the consequent.

 

[John Jones]

Dave,
- I must admit that I'm still confused -- though, I'm still sure I'm right...
- I guess that my basic problem still has to do with the definition of "who." I'm claiming that while we can estimate the characteristics of the person coming out fairly well -- through science -- there is an aspect of the person coming out (their "identity"?) for which we don't have a clue. And, according to science, this who can never exist again. This person can never be reincarnated. Neither you nor I can ever be reincarnated. We can only exist once at most.
- That's how a banana has us beat. There is no such aspect to a banana.
- How's that?

You are not a scientist and seem to have a poor grasp of the discipline.

 

[abaddon]

3421Dave,
- Out of all time, it happens that we both do exist, and that's when we're both doing it.

We are all here now. If we were not, there would be some other group having a similar conversation.

What on earth is special about right now?

Now, you committed to me personally that you would think about and address you ancestor problem. You alone must perforce have 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 ancestors and that is just going back to the alleged time of jebus. Further, all 7 billion of us must also have that many ancestors giving us 64,563,604,257,983,430,656,000,000,000 ancestors around the world. More people than have ever existed in the entire history of humanity, cumulative.

And that is only going back 2,000 years. Go back to the alleged time of Noah and it gets exponentially worse for your argument, reaching 21,778,071,482,940,061,661,655,974,875,633,000,000,000. You have never addressed this, simply brushed it under the carpet. Why might that be?

That's only 4,500 years. Roll it back 200,000 years and it becomes exponentially bigger again. Point is that it will never reach anything remotely approaching infinity, just a very large number and there is a huge flaw in there that you seem unaware of. Can you spot it?

And to confound you, 74,000 years ago, the human population fell as low as 1,000 to 10,000. That severely restricts the number of "potential selves".

Using those facts, your misapplication of Bayes proves that YOU do not exist right now.

 

[caveman1917]

I did. You are simply using the same stalling tactics seen by Jabba throughout this thread, such as claiming a failure in understanding.

No you didn't. You're simply refusing to define your terms and then making up a story about "stalling tactics" to get out of it. The stalling tactic is obviously yours, rather than define your terms you've simply been producing a new one every time: property -> process -> action.

Answer my question and I will explain why.

Your question is irrelevant. You claimed that "going 60 mph" is uncountable. Support your claim.

 

[JoeMorgue]

No

Define "no"

you

Define "you"

didn't.

Define "didn't."

You're

Define "you're"

simply

Define "simply"

refusing

Define "refusing"

See? That's all you are doing. Pretend you don't understand simple arguments, bog them down in semantics and faux-obtuseness.

 

[Slowvehicle]

No you didn't. You're simply refusing to define your terms and then making up a story about "stalling tactics" to get out of it. The stalling tactic is obviously yours, rather than define your terms you've simply been producing a new one every time: property -> process -> action.

Your question is irrelevant. You claimed that "going 60 mph" is uncountable. Support your claim.

Is there, in your epistemology, a difference between a banana and the scent of a banana?

 

[wea]

Define "no"
Define "you"
Define "didn't."
Define "you're"
Define "simply"
Define "refusing"

it's a straightforward question with a straightforward answer, everything is a set etc. etc.

|{x | x is no}|
|{x | x is you}|
|{x | x is didn't}|
|{x | x is you're}|
|{x | x is simply}|
|{x | x is refusing}|

caveman1917, can you spot a problem?

ETA: how many you're are there?

 

[caveman1917]

Is there, in your epistemology, a difference between a banana and the scent of a banana?

Yes, something can have the scent of a banana yet not be a banana.

 

[theprestige]

How many stalling in a debate are there, Jabba?