Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
jond,
- I disagree. Science accepts that condoms and birth control pills prevent potential selves from becoming actual selves.
Click to expand...

They prevent human bodies from being born. Selves are the result of a functioning brain, not a separate entity.
 
Argumemnon said:
If they're weak, how can they be formidable? And if they're subjective, how can they be objective?

You're not making any sense.
Click to expand...
Argumemnon,
- They tend to be weak as compared to empirical evidence. But sometimes, according to the details of their study,they can be quite significant.
 
Jabba said:
jond,
- I disagree. Science accepts that condoms and birth control pills prevent potential selves from becoming actual selves.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a potential self. In fact, there is no such thing as a self. It's a process. You are utterly, consistently, perpetually wrong.
 
Jabba said:
Argumemnon,
- They tend to be weak as compared to empirical evidence. But sometimes, according to the details of their study,they can be quite significant.
Click to expand...

No. They are not "quite" significant or any other vague term you want to use to make it sound better. At best, they can warrant more research, but that's it.
 
- A process is a "thing." It just isn't an "object."
- It can also be a very meaningful thing. Being a process doesn't mean it isn't real, nor that the particular identity resulting from a process couldn't return.
- And anyway, who has proven that the resulting sense of identity is not more than a process?
 
Jabba said:
- A process is a "thing." It just isn't an "object."
- It can also be a very meaningful thing. Being a process doesn't mean it isn't real, nor that the particular identity resulting from a process couldn't return.
- And anyway, who has proven that the resulting sense of identity is not more than a process?
Click to expand...

A process cannot exist separate from the components that give rise to it. What that means is that the self does not exist without a functioning brain.

As for your "and anyway": it is the default position based on all the available evidence. We KNOW, absolutely positively without question that the brain is significantly involved here. We can alter the sense of self and indeed shut it off entirely by changing the brain. We have exactly zero evidence of selves outside of brains.
 
Jabba said:
jond,
- I disagree. Science accepts that condoms and birth control pills prevent potential selves from becoming actual selves.
Click to expand...
No. It doesn't. Science claims that birth control prevents zygotes from being viable pre or post fertilization depending on method.

Are you really going to claim that a single cell must have a self or selves? By that reckoning, bacteria would have souls. Brushing your teeth would be by definition an act of genocide.

Or are you going to claim that humans are somehow special in their act of procreation as opposed to all the other animals who do it in exactly the same way?

Or perhaps something else lobbed in as a post-hoc argumentative hand grenade?

Where exactly are all of these potential selves and how do you know? Do they form an orderly queue? Or is conception a metaphysical riot among the countless billions of selves for the privilege of conception? Does that mean the most evil, self centred and ruthless potential self is the most likely to get incarnated? Does that mean that all people are likely the dregs of all potential selves, those willing to trod on their fellows at all costs? If immortal, why would they even care about becoming incarnated in the first place? They can choose A: Be an immortal spirit without a care, or B: Have a mortal life encased in meatspace with all that entails.
Seems a no-brainer decision to me.

Of course, that all leaves aside the claim that all of these avaricious potential selves must be actively competing with each other for an existence which offers them nothing at all by way of advantage and that these entities cannot be shown to exist in the first place.
 
Jabba said:
-..........nor that the particular identity resulting from a process couldn't return.............
Click to expand...

Oh for the love of crumbcake.
You can posit whatever magic scenario you want. It doesn't mean anything because you have ZERO evidence.

Hell I can posit that magic invisible pixies live in my eyes and help me see. So what?
 
The Sparrow said:
Oh for the love of crumbcake.
You can posit whatever magic scenario you want. It doesn't mean anything because you have ZERO evidence.

Hell I can posit that magic invisible pixies live in my eyes and help me see. So what?
Click to expand...

Nobody has proven that there aren't magic invisible pixies in your eyes.
 
Jabba said:
jond,
- I disagree. Science accepts that condoms and birth control pills prevent potential selves from becoming actual selves.
Click to expand...
Science doesn't recognize your fabricated concept of a "potential soul." Try again, without evading the point.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
 
Jabba said:
Argumemnon,
- They tend to be weak as compared to empirical evidence. But sometimes, according to the details of their study,they can be quite significant.
Click to expand...
I gave you a thorough analysis of the "details of their study" in this case which you have completely ignored. This argument is refuted.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
 
Jabba said:
- A process is a "thing." It just isn't an "object."
Click to expand...
Is going 60 mph a "thing"?

- It can also be a very meaningful thing. Being a process doesn't mean it isn't real, nor that the particular identity resulting from a process couldn't return.
Click to expand...
Can going 60 mph return as the same going 60 mph? You continue to use the word "particular" improperly.

- And anyway, who has proven that the resulting sense of identity is not more than a process?
Click to expand...
Do not attempt to shift the burden of proof. You've apparently set yourself the task to prove it is more than a process. Calling it a "particular" process doesn't do it.
 
Jabba said:
- A process is a "thing." It just isn't an "object."
- It can also be a very meaningful thing. Being a process doesn't mean it isn't real, nor that the particular identity resulting from a process couldn't return.
- And anyway, who has proven that the resulting sense of identity is not more than a process?
Click to expand...
A process has a dependent existence. You're trying to suggest otherwise. Having a dependent existence, it cannot return without the entity it depends on. Its subjective meaningfulness has no bearing on its objective nature.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
 
Jabba said:
- A process is a "thing." It just isn't an "object."
Click to expand...

That's what we mean by "thing". Stop playing games.

- It can also be a very meaningful thing. Being a process doesn't mean it isn't real, nor that the particular identity resulting from a process couldn't return.
Click to expand...

Running is real too, but you don't say that runnings have only one finite life at most.

- And anyway, who has proven that the resulting sense of identity is not more than a process?
Click to expand...

That's not how science works and you know it. You need to prove that it IS more than that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom