Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

[jond]

- Add to that, all the potential combinations of sperm and ovum from all the potential humans who never actually did exist.

Please explain in detail how you propose to extract sperm and ovum from potential humans who never actually did exist.

 

[Belz...]

I claim there to be an infinity of potential selves, and at some point, I probably suggested there to be an infinite pool of potential selves, but I have never claimed there to be a 'plain' pool of potential selves, as that would imply a limited pool -- which is not what I believe.

Believe? Aside from gut feeling, what makes you think there's a pool at all?

Don't give me a list of things starting back to the beginning, now. Answer the question as you would if I asked you face-to-face.

 

[Jabba]

Believe? Aside from gut feeling, what makes you think there's a pool at all?

Don't give me a list of things starting back to the beginning, now. Answer the question as you would if I asked you face-to-face.

Argumemnon,
- Fahgettaboudit already. There is no "pool."

 

[JayUtah]

There is no "pool."

There has to be, if you're talking about discrete somethings that exist such that you can count them. You may not choose that word, but you're trying to walk away from the words without walking away from the concept. It's the concept that's broken.

 

[jond]

Please explain in detail how you propose to extract sperm and ovum from potential humans who never actually did exist.

Since you cannot answer this, I will assume that you know that it is utterly meaningless to discuss the potential of impossible things.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Argumemnon,
- Fahgettaboudit already. There is no "pool."

My Dear Mr. Savage:

What evidence do you have (and you know the litany about evidence) for the existence of a "soul", much less its "immortality"?

I remain, patiently yours.

 

[Belz...]

Argumemnon,
- Fahgettaboudit already. There is no "pool."

You said there was. You said there was an infinity of potential selves. That's a pool of potential selves. Stop playing with words.

 

[surreptitious57]

Start by taking every human sperm cell that has ever existed and combine it with every
human ovum that has ever existed. These are all potential humans and potential selves

The point at which potentiality actually occurs is conception when sperm fertilises egg. Before that there is none because sperm
and egg in total physical isolation from each other do not constitute potentiality. This is the major flaw with your argument here

 

[surreptitious57]

I can actually get the blog going you will be able to post your own comments. And theoretically I wont even moderate
your comments. If I can get a few neutrals in the audience they can judge emotionality and objectivity for themselves

Every one can post their own comments here which you cannot moderate so there is no need for a blog. Also you do not need
neutrals to validate an argument as it should be capable of standing by its own premises and conclusions. So whether any one
agrees with it or not is incidental. And I also find your use of theoretically rather interesting given how it should be superfluous

 

[Mojo]

Every one can post their own comments here which you cannot moderate so there is no need for a blog. Also you do not need
neutrals to validate an argument as it should be capable of standing by its own premises and conclusions. So whether any one
agrees with it or not is incidental. And I also find your use of theoretically rather interesting given how it should be superfluous

If you want to know what "theoretically" means in his context, you can probably find clues in the many excuses Jabba has given for ignoring posts in this thread and its predecessors, including "too long", "too complicated", "too uncomfortable", and "not friendly enough".

 

[JesseCuster]

#2. In what form does it exist?
- Jesse,
- It doesn't "exist" in any normal sense. It very likely won't even exist in the future -- though, it might.

You've now stated that:

1. Potential selves don't exist in any normal sense.
2. There are infinite potential selves.

So there's an infinite amount of them, but they don't exist in any normal sense?

What does that actually mean? It just sounds like a bunch of mental gymnastics in order to get the infinite amount of potential selves you think is necessary in order to get your meaningless 1 in infinite probability.

 

[JesseCuster]

Jesse,
- My major conclusion here is that there is an infinity of potential selves.

How did you conclude that?

It sounds like a bare assertion, not a conclusion. A conclusion implies that there's some sort of argument backing it up, but you're not presenting an argument for this, you're just asserting this.

Is this another thing that your argument is crucially dependent on but your only argument is that is 'just seems to make sense'?

 

[Belz...]

#2. In what form does it exist?
- Jesse,
- It doesn't "exist" in any normal sense. It very likely won't even exist in the future -- though, it might.

You keep wobbling between saying that it exists and then saying that they don't. You're trying real hard to not be pinned on any specific claim you can be countered on, but that isn't actually putting you at an advantage. Quite the opposite.

Do potential selves exist or not?

 

[Mojo]

Jesse,
- My major conclusion here is that there is an infinity of potential selves.

How did you conclude that?

It sounds like a bare assertion, not a conclusion. A conclusion implies that there's some sort of argument backing it up, but you're not presenting an argument for this, you're just asserting this.

One of the problems with Jabba's argument is that while the existence of "selves" (a term he has admitted he uses when he means "souls") is his desired conclusion, it seems that he can only reach that conclusion by asserting that they exist as one of his premises.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Jabba the evidence for your conclusion can't be "I've come to a conclusion."

You have got to evolve your argument beyond "If you accept I'm correct, then I am correct."

 

[Mycroft]

5. IOW, each new bit of consciousness sprouts a brand new particular sense of self.
6. ISOW, there is no limit on the number of different senses of self.
6. There is no limit on new bits of consciousness.

Each seed sprouts a new tomato plant.

There is no limit to the number of different tomato plants.

There is no limit on new seeds.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[Loss Leader]

Each seed sprouts a new tomato plant.

There is no limit to the number of different tomato plants.

There is no limit on new seeds.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

Tomatoes, bananas, mountains ... everything gets a turn being immortal.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

#2. In what form does it exist?
- Jesse,
- It doesn't "exist" in any normal sense. It very likely won't even exist in the future -- though, it might.

On such solid foundations an unshakable faith is built

 

[MRC_Hans]

Jesse,
- My major conclusion here is that there is an infinity of potential selves.

Jabba, under your definition: "Every person that might have been born if it didn't happen for some reason to be impossible", there may well be an infinite number of potential selves. SO what? How does somebody not being born affect the chance of your existence? Please be specific.

Hans

 

[Jabba]

Jabba, under your definition: "Every person that might have been born if it didn't happen for some reason to be impossible", there may well be an infinite number of potential selves. SO what? How does somebody not being born affect the chance of your existence? Please be specific.

Hans

Hans,
- I've tried to explain this in different forms many times.
- Try it this way.
- But make sure that you have current existence in mind.
- What is the likelihood of you winning the lottery if there are a trillion entries, but 999 billion loosers?