Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

[JoeMorgue]

I think you actually agree with me re the number of potential selves, but not the likelihood of your current existence.

Jabba listen to me very carefully. Stop asking for clarification as to what degree if any people agree with you. People are making their agreement or disagreement with you abundantly clear.

I beg you to stop insulting us all by acting like you are not reading the thread.

 

[Mojo]

You stubbornly don't get what he means by this. If you're going to invent the concept of "potential" existence in order to arrive at the Big Denominator that controls likelihood, you need to realize that "potential" existence therefore can't be a concept that applies only to humans and souls, but literally to everything that does or can exist. Including Volkswagens, bananas, and mountains. Unless you're prepared to argue that all these things can't possibly exist without souls, you have been refuted. "Potential" somethings does not govern whether the ones that exist actually do or should exist.

He also can't invoke his infinite number of potential souls for the hypothesis he opposes and then exclude them from his favoured hypothesis. For more than one reason.

 

[The Sparrow]

- I think you actually agree with me re the number of potential selves, but not the likelihood of your current existence.

Jabba, it sounds like you are agreeing there are no such things as potential selves.

 

[Loss Leader]

Jabba, it sounds like you are agreeing there are no such things as potential selves.

Jabba, am I right in assuming that you have an infinite number of potential right arms?

 

[jt512]

Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

I would have said "V for vacuous discussion."

 

[Jabba]

Dave,
- It appears that I have confused two issues:
1. Is there an infinity of potential selves (in the manner of potential Volkswagons)?
2. Is the likelihood of your current existence something over infinity?
- I think you actually agree with me re the number of potential selves, but not the likelihood of your current existence.

As I said before, yes that's correct.

Dave,

In scientific models for consciousness, it is exactly as traceable as the cause and effect that led to a particular brain existing, because they are the same thing. My particular brain can never exist again. If you somehow made an exact copy of my brain, It would exhibit an exact copy of my consciousness.

- But, it wouldn't exhibit your particular self-awareness. "You" would not be reincarnated.

For exactly the same reason it wouldn't be my particular brain. It would be a copy.
If two separate brains could produce the same self-awareness that would mean the scientific explanation for self-awareness is wrong.

Dave,
- In light of the hilited above, maybe I should just re-state#2: Is the likelihood of the current existence of your "self," your "particular self awareness," "you," something over infinity?

 

[godless dave]

Dave,





Dave,
- In light of the hilited above, maybe I should just re-state#2: Is the likelihood of the current existence of your "self," your "particular self awareness," "you," something over infinity?

No.

Is the likelihood of a particular Volkswagen some number over infinity? If you can understand why the answer is "no" for Volkswagens, you should be able to understand why it's also "no" for people, including the parts of people we call the self.

 

[JimOfAllTrades]

Dave,
- In light of the hilited above, maybe I should just re-state#2: Is the likelihood of the current existence of your "self," your "particular self awareness," "you," something over infinity?

No, it's pretty much exactly the same as the likelihood that his brain would exist, because the "self" is a process of a normally functioning and maturing brain. For pretty much every normal functioning brain there is a process that appears as the "self". Just like for pretty much every functioning car there is a process known as "running".

 

[Jabba]

Dave,
- In light of the hilited above, maybe I should just re-state#2: Is the likelihood of the current existence of your "self," your "particular self awareness," "you," something over infinity?

No.
Is the likelihood of a particular Volkswagen some number over infinity? If you can understand why the answer is "no" for Volkswagens, you should be able to understand why it's also "no" for people, including the parts of people we call the self.

- Why is it "no" for Volkswagens?

 

[JayUtah]

In light of the hilited above, maybe I should just re-state#2: Is the likelihood of the current existence of your "self," your "particular self awareness," "you," something over infinity?

No.

"Over infinity" is based solely in your trumped-up notion of "potential" existence. That's not a thing, and it's certainly not a concept that affects the quantitative likelihood of something existing. You've been given countless examples of why, but you answer them all by begging the question that you are "somehow" different than Volkswagens, bananas, and mountains because you have a soul and they don't.

You really need to get it through your faux-befuddled head that the scientific hypothesis for the sense of the soul is not just something to which you can attribute every wacky notion that pops into your skull. For P(E|H) you need to treat H as it is actually formulated, not as it becomes festooned with "potential" existence or any other nonsensical pseudo-philosophical babble you try to pin on it.

 

[JayUtah]

- Why is it "no" for Volkswagens?

Because Volkswagens exist. To single out one Volkswagen and ask the probability of it existing as presently constituted is the Texas sharpshooter's fallacy.

 

[godless dave]

- Why is it "no" for Volkswagens?

Are you saying the likelihood of a particular Volkswagen existing is some number over infinity?

Edited to add: consider this post from MRC_Hans:

Just as your chances of winning a lottery does not depend on how many people didn't buy a ticket, the number of people who weren't born is irrelevant.

The predictability of your existence at most depends on those who were your actual ancestors.

Hans

 

[Jabba]

Dave,
- It appears that I have confused two issues:
1. Is there an infinity of potential selves (in the manner of potential Volkswagons)?
2. Is the likelihood of your current existence something over infinity?

- I think you actually agree with me re the number of potential selves, but not the likelihood of your current existence.

As I said before, yes that's correct.

Dave,





Dave,
- In light of the hilited above, maybe I should just re-state#2: Is the likelihood of the current existence of your "self," your "particular self awareness," "you," something over infinity?

No.

Is the likelihood of a particular Volkswagen some number over infinity? If you can understand why the answer is "no" for Volkswagens, you should be able to understand why it's also "no" for people, including the parts of people we call the self.

Are you saying the likelihood of a particular Volkswagen existing is some number over infinity?...

- I think so. Going to dinner.

 

[JayUtah]

I think so.

Congratulations. You just proved that Volkswagens have immortal souls.

 

[godless dave]

If Volkswagens don't exist then my wife is going to have trouble getting home.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Congratulations. You just proved that Volkswagens have immortal souls.

...but how may legs do they have?

 

[Hokulele]

If Volkswagens don't exist then my wife is going to have trouble getting home.

She is potentially going 60 mph?

 

[abaddon]

...but how may legs do they have?

Four, once we redefine wheels as legs.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Four, once we redefine wheels as legs.

The five, ¿no?

 

[JesseCuster]

- I think so. Going to dinner.

It sounds like you're agreeing that Volkswagens are immortal.