Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

[Jabba]

WHY do you think there are potential selves?

This is my question. Stop dodging it.

- New selves are being conceived every second. The ones conceived 10 seconds from now are currently potential.

You know, for someone who used the lack of "potential" in my previous question to avoid answering it, you're quite fond of not quite answering the question even when it's properly worded.

I asked you why you think there is an infinite pool of potential selves. You respond that there are potential selves. It doesn't say why the pool is infinite or why you think a self coming into being somehow draws from that pool.

In short you, again, have not answered.

Argumemnon,
- Note that the question I answered was, WHY do you think there are potential selves?
- In that question, you didn't say anything about infinite.
- Then you said, "This is my question. Stop dodging it."

 

[JayUtah]

Argumemnon...

Is all this frantic equivocation helping?

 

[Jabba]

So are there an infinite number of potential Volkswagens?

- Yeah... I think we (you and me) already accepted that.

 

[JayUtah]

Yeah... I think we (you and me) already accepted that.

The how does that affect the probability of a Volkswagen arising? Specifically, how does that affect the probability of a Volkswagen existing without an immortal soul?

 

[Belz...]

Argumemnon,
- Note that the question I answered was, WHY do you think there are potential selves?
- In that question, you didn't say anything about infinite.

And as others have pointed out, stop pretending to not understand the questions asked. You are asking for an exacting standard from us and doing absolutely nothing to even begin to be precise and helpful yourself. The absence of a particular word in the question changes nothing; you know exactly what my question is.

Henceforth, this "pool of infinite potential selves" will only be written as "pool". So when I say "pool", I mean all that, and nothing else.

And no, you have not answered my question. You have not told us why the pool exists. You've told us that the self doesn't exist yet, but it's clear from previous posts of yours that you think the pool is drawn from when the self arises. We're still entirely in the dark as to why you think this, and I suspect you are as well.

When I roll a die, I don't know where it'll fall, but there isn't some pool of possibilities from which the die "gets" its value. It was always going to fall on whatever number it gives.

 

[godless dave]

- Yeah... I think we (you and me) already accepted that.

So then the likelihood of a particular Volkswagen existing must be some number over infinity, right?

 

[godless dave]

So then the likelihood of a particular Volkswagen existing must be some number over infinity, right?

Or alternatively - the number of potential things of type X has nothing to do with the likelihood of a particular example of type X existing.

 

[The Norseman]

Argumemnon,
- Note that the question I answered was, WHY do you think there are potential selves?
- In that question, you didn't say anything about infinite.
- Then you said, "This is my question. Stop dodging it."

LOL A quibble! Pretty common 'round these parts!

 

[JayUtah]

LOL A quibble! Pretty common 'round these parts!

One would argue that such a quibble, resulting from deliberate obtuseness, constitutes an unfriendly debate tactic -- something Jabba suggests he never indulges in.

 

[John Jones]

How then does that affect the probability that a Volkswagen will arise?

*BOOM*

 

[Jabba]

So then the likelihood of a particular Volkswagen existing must be some number over infinity, right?

- I think that the difference is that the particulars of each VW are all cause and effect traceable. With the emergent property of consciousness we have an "identity" that is not cause and effect traceable, and we're stuck with random -- which is why the likelihood of a particular self is something over infinity.

 

[The Norseman]

One would argue that such a quibble, resulting from deliberate obtuseness, constitutes an unfriendly debate tactic -- something Jabba suggests he never indulges in.

Yup. If it's not one tactic for obfuscation, it's another — one such as "I'll complain loudly and frequently about being 'treated rudely' so hopefully it'll distract from my rude behavior and lack of logic."

Who knows. Maybe that trick works with groups of other mainly-Christian people.

 

[jond]

- I think that the difference is that the particulars of each VW are all cause and effect traceable. With the emergent property of consciousness we have an "identity" that is not cause and effect traceable, and we're stuck with random -- which is why the likelihood of a particular self is something over infinity.

Not true. The "identity" is process, not a separate entity, and is the result of your DNA and every single event you've had over the course of your life. Including all the posts where you've been told this.

 

[The Norseman]

- I think that the difference is that the particulars of each VW are all cause and effect traceable. With the emergent property of consciousness we have an "identity" that is not cause and effect traceable, and we're stuck with random -- which is why the likelihood of a particular self is something over infinity.

But consciousness and an "identity" are cause and effect traceable.

Why do you think they aren't? What makes you think that they aren't?

 

[godless dave]

- I think that the difference is that the particulars of each VW are all cause and effect traceable. With the emergent property of consciousness we have an "identity" that is not cause and effect traceable, and we're stuck with random

That may be the case with ~H, but it is not the case with H. In H there is no identity. Everything about a particular consciousness is cause and effect traceable.

 

[JayUtah]

I think that the difference is that the particulars of each VW are all cause and effect traceable.

Under H the sense of self is cause-and-effect traceable to the brain.

With the emergent property of consciousness we have an "identity" that is not cause and effect traceable...

Under H it is. You have presented no evidence or argument to the contrary. You have merely alleged this as fact and walked away.

...and we're stuck with random

We are not. You have identified no element of the self that, under H, is not cause-and-effect traceable to a brain. Your argument is simply blatant special pleading.

 

[JayUtah]

"I'll ... distract from my rude behavior and lack of logic."

Rude behavior such as asking specifically for a justification for a particular claim, then ignoring it when several thousand words and two examples are presented of it. It's so easy to overlook rudeness when it's rudeness by omission.

Maybe that trick works with groups of other mainly-Christian people.

I have found that bluster works quite well among some Christians -- especially the Fundamentalist or other dogmatic types. Hold the threat of hell over their heads and they'll do whatever you tell them to do, even stop asking for evidence of hell.

 

[Dancing David]

- I think that the difference is that the particulars of each VW are all cause and effect traceable. With the emergent property of consciousness we have an "identity" that is not cause and effect traceable, and we're stuck with random -- which is why the likelihood of a particular self is something over infinity.

"With the emergent property of consciousness we have an "identity" that is not cause and effect traceable, and Jabba asserts random"

BTW Jabba, do you know of an identity absent an organic brain?

 

[Belz...]

- I think that the difference is that the particulars of each VW are all cause and effect traceable. With the emergent property of consciousness we have an "identity" that is not cause and effect traceable, and we're stuck with random

No, they are cause and effect traceable.

which is why the likelihood of a particular self is something over infinity.

What? That doesn't even follow. "Random" doesn't imply infinity. And as explained before, two identical selves wouldn't be connected, so you have no way to know how many variations there are.

 

[The Norseman]

"With the emergent property of consciousness we have an "identity" that is not cause and effect traceable, and Jabba asserts random"

BTW Jabba, do you know of an identity absent an organic brain?

I almost guarantee he's thinking 'god' but dares not say it here.