Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
Agatha,
- Unfortunately, this won't be easy...
- I didn't actually chose 1 in 7 billion. I chose 7 billion over infinity. I see my current existence as being analogous to one of the winners of a lottery where there are 7 billion winners out of an infinity of participants/possibilities.
Click to expand...
This analogy only works if you think there are 7 billion winners and an infinite amount of losers.

The losers, presumably, are the 'potential selves' that didn't get to inhabit a body. But what are these 'potential selves'? Do they actually exist? Can you define what they really are? Can you explain if every X has a potential X or are selves something special that exist in potentiality before actual existence?

What does it actually mean for an emergent property to exist in an infinitely large pool of potential emergent properties? I fundamentally don't understand this concept and where you're getting it from.

Under H, there isn't an infinitely large pool of potential selves (and you really need to define what a potential self is and why there are an infinite amount of them), so this supposed calculation where you're the winner of some sort of cosmic lottery where a potential self out of a pool of millions got lucky and got a body to inhabit, is just a huge strawman.

Can you justify the infinitely large pool of potential selves, what it really means and why you think that, under H, it's an actual thing that exists?

The whole concept of 'potential selves' seems to be fundamentally begging the question by insisting upon the existence of the thing you're trying to prove in the first place. Calling them 'potential selves' doesn't negate the fact that you're clearly talking about souls, but trying to hide your question begging by calling them something else.
 
Jabba said:
- My map will be an attempt to provide both sides of this story. I'm currently reopening an old website where I'll include the map, and where I'll happily include all your questions and objections.
Click to expand...

LOL, just like you did with the shroud where you cherry picked parts of peoples replies to present a false picture of how the debate is going?
 
Jabba said:
- My map will be an attempt to provide both sides of this story. I'm currently reopening an old website where I'll include the map, and where I'll happily include all your questions and objections.
Click to expand...

Really? That would require that you read them all.
 
Jabba said:
- My map will be an attempt to provide both sides of this story. I'm currently reopening an old website where I'll include the map, and where I'll happily include all your questions and objections.
Click to expand...

What would be really great would be if you actually responded to the questions and objections with either a reason why you disagree, or an acknowledgement that the objections have merit. Your latest reset indicates that you have not learned anything in all this time, and further have no interest in actually learning anything.
 
Jabba said:
- My map will be an attempt to provide both sides of this story. I'm currently reopening an old website where I'll include the map, and where I'll happily include all your questions and objections.
Click to expand...


So you don't have time to answer many of the posts people make, but you have enough time to collate them all and put them into categories on your own website.

Yeah, that makes perfect sense...
 
Jabba said:
- My map will be an attempt to provide both sides of this story. I'm currently reopening an old website where I'll include the map, and where I'll happily include all your questions and objections.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately for you there are posters here who have seen how you display their arguments on your own website.
 
Jabba said:
My map will be an attempt to provide both sides of this story.
Click to expand...

Because cherry-picking your opponents' arguments and reproducing them elsewhere worked so well for you in the Shroud debate?

Jabba, what you're proposing is highly dishonest and you know it. Let your opponents speak for themselves in their own words. You win nothing but contempt when you try to recast the debate elsewhere and rewrite the script so you win.
 
Jabba said:
I only have so much time.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant.

You've now disclosed that your activity regarding this debate includes not only reading and posting here, but preparing an edited version for a presentation that only you will control. If you have time to do that, you have time to answer people here. You must have a lot of chutzpah to expect people to bide their time while you misquote them.
 
JayUtah said:
Because cherry-picking your opponents' arguments and reproducing them elsewhere worked so well for you in the Shroud debate?

Jabba, what you're proposing is highly dishonest and you know it. Let your opponents speak for themselves in their own words. You win nothing but contempt when you try to recast the debate elsewhere and rewrite the script so you win.
Click to expand...


At this point, it is more about preserving a cherished delusion than winning anything...
 
Jabba, just for the record , you do not have my permission to reproduce any of my posts on your website.

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
Jabba, just for the record , you do not have my permission to reproduce any of my posts on your website.

Hans
Click to expand...
Hans,
- OK. I'll just paraphrase. I'm expecting that the important objections and questions have been voiced numerous times by numerous persons.
 
wollery said:
So you don't have time to answer many of the posts people make, but you have enough time to collate them all and put them into categories on your own website.

Yeah, that makes perfect sense...
Click to expand...
Wollery,
- Again, I'm thinking that the important objections have been voiced numerous times. Also, you'll have the potential to make your own comments.
 
Jabba said:
OK. I'll just paraphrase.
Click to expand...

You don't get it. People object to you taking their statements out of the context in which they wrote them and putting them in a new context they don't control, which suggests a different outcome. Their objections have merit, because the last time you tried this you demonstrated that the effect was to misrepresent the debate. That problem is not solved by you paraphrasing the statements; it just gives you another mechanism by which to lie about how the debate is going for you. The problem is solved only by you being honest about the debate and letting it happen where it happens, in a forum that none of the participants controls.

I'm expecting that the important objections and questions have been voiced numerous times by numerous persons.
Click to expand...

They have, and almost completely unaddressed by you. Therefore the people whose statements you will be mangling and misrepresenting have a legitimate desire to see you address their objections instead of editing them into a form that makes you look good.
 
Jabba said:
Wollery,
- Again, I'm thinking that the important objections have been voiced numerous times. Also, you'll have the potential to make your own comments.
Click to expand...


A potential comment?

No, you do not have permission to use my posts in any form or any paraphrase. The hint of a promise of a possible ability to comment directly does not inspire any sort of confidence in your honesty regarding proper citations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom