Proof of Immortality, VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba, I don't agree with your 1 in 10100 number. I do agree that, given all the possible ways the universe could have turned out starting from the Big Bang, my eventual existence was one of a very large number of possibilities. Just like every other specific thing that happened.

What I'm still not sure you're quite getting is that in the non-religious model, when I say "my existence", you could substitute "my physical body's existence" and it would mean exactly the same thing. That's why I keep bringing up Mount Rainier, grains of sand, and snowflakes. The non-religious hypothesis is that everything, including the human sense of self, is physical. When I talk about "my sense of self" I mean the parts of my brain involved in cognition. Not something attached to them, not even something produced by them, but the actual structures in the actual organ, doing whatever they do that results in them being able to conceive of abstract concepts and use language to describe them.
 
Jabba said:
- Same issue.
Click to expand...

That issue being your repeated, ham-fisted attempts to equivocate "wouldn't be me." Godless dave clearly intends that to mean there would be two items where once there was only one -- a numerical connotation only. He carefully laid this out a number of times, including a treatise on pronouns that would have been pedantic in any other context except having to constantly correct you. It's insulting when you ignore all that and try to claim agreement.

Instead, you want it to refer to properties and identity. "Wouldn't be me," in your lexicon, means the copy would lack some ineffable quality that is the sine qua non of one's sense of self. This is not what materialism says. It is not a concept that arises out of materialism. In fact, it is a concept so utterly foreign to materialism that it's not hyperbole to say it's the antithesis of what materialism says on the subject.

When we say you're misrepresenting materialism, we're saying that you're trying to foist a concept that is literally the opposite of materialism.
 
Jabba said:
- So, the new body would not be you.
Click to expand...

godless dave said:
But do you understand that concept is not part of the non-religious hypothesis?
Click to expand...
- No. I still think it is.
- I think you agree that there is no pool of potential selves, and that a perfect copy of your body would not bring you back to life -- would not be you. If so, each potential self doesn't exist in any sense before its actual self exists. The new self would not be the who of you, but who it would be would have an infinity of possibilities.
- But anyway, If you still believe that such a concept does not apply to the non-religious hypothesis, I'll quit trying to convince you.
 
Jabba said:
- No. I still think it is.
- I think you agree that there is no pool of potential selves, and that a perfect copy of your body would not bring you back to life -- would not be you. If so, each potential self doesn't exist in any sense before its actual self exists.
Click to expand...

So, just like everything else, it doesn't exist until it exists. No kidding.

Jabba said:
The new self would not be the who of you, but who it would be would have an infinity of possibilities.
Click to expand...

If you don't understand that everything about "me" is determined by the physical "me", then you don't understand what the non-religious hypothesis is.
 
Jabba said:
No. I still think it is.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. When you ask how you are misrepresenting what other people say, and they tell you, telling them that they're wrong is just incomparably, inexcusably, arrogantly rude. You are consciously, deliberately misrepresenting the materialist theory.

I think you agree that there is no pool of potential selves...
Click to expand...

Equivocation. There are no "potential selves" in materialism, except in the uselessly abstract sense that there are potential everythings.. You carefully word this to say "there is no pool of potential selves." You then explain what you mean by this. You say there is no pool, so there is no finite number of them. This is your excuse to declare that there is an infinite number of them, which is the Big Denominator you told us at the beginning you were searching for to make your predetermined argument work.

The concept of "potential selves" as you wish to employ it here, as a meaningful denominator, does not exist in materialism. We're not quibbling over what the number should be, or how the number should be determined. We're pointing out that the concept does not apply.

And once again you're trying to invent a new concept halfway between existence and non-existence so that you can patch up the holes in your argument with it. No, you don't get to invent such nonsense and pretend that someone else's theory must espouse it.

...and that a perfect copy of your body would not bring you back to life -- would not be you. If so, each potential self doesn't exist in any sense before its actual self exists. The new self would not be the who of you, but who it would be would have an infinity of possibilities.
Click to expand...

This is meaningless twaddle from beginning to end. You're just using the same word games you've always used -- obviously the only thing you know how to do -- to try to foist the notion that there are souls in materialism. "Who of you" is just tonight's lame euphemism for a soul.

I'll quit trying to convince you.
Click to expand...

Yes, you need to present an argument that isn't simply you trying comically hard to shove words in other people's mouths. SOdhner gave you a detailed response to your latest fringe reset. Start with that.
 
Jabba said:
You had already accepted the number (10-100) I was trying to support with that argument.
Click to expand...


“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”

“Thou shalt not lie.”

That’s two commandments you’re breaking right there.
 
Jabba said:
- No. I still think it is.
Click to expand...
Materialism doesn't care what you think. You are welcome to falsify any model you invent but it won't be materialism.

- I think you agree that there is no pool of potential selves, and that a perfect copy of your body would not bring you back to life -- would not be you.
Click to expand...
Congratulations! "You" have discovered pronouns!

If so, each potential self
Click to expand...
Materialism says that it embodies no such idiotic concept. Which model are you inventing to falsify?

doesn't exist in any sense before its actual self exists.
Click to expand...
So things don't exist before they exist. This ranks up there with "your" discovery of pronouns.

The new self would not be the who of you, but who it would be would have an infinity of possibilities.
Click to expand...
Materialism says there are no such idiotic concepts in its model. Is this for a straw model that you're inventing to falsify?

- But anyway, If you still believe that such a concept does not apply to the non-religious hypothesis, I'll quit trying to convince you.
Click to expand...
If you think such idiotic concepts belong to the non-religious model, you'll need to provide some citations to back it up.
 
Last edited:
halleyscomet said:
“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”

“Thou shalt not lie.”

That’s two commandments you’re breaking right there.
Click to expand...

Jabba hasn't made any specific religion part of his argument. Nor, among his many claims to superiority, has he claimed to be an exemplary Christian or a strong believer in Bible principles, although he's happy to accept the adulation of practicing Christians. So pointing out that his actions contradict a Judeo-Christian ethic is not likely to have much effect. I gather Jabba's motivations are more personal than institutional.

Wantonly lying is simply not part of honorable human behavior, and certainly less so in what wants to be a well-reasoned debate. Jabba has professed to be a master of "effective debate," of which blatant lying can have no part. Yet it seems to be a cornerstone of his approach. He habitually lies about what other people have said, and that's just not a condition under which a mature discussion can occur. I've concluded that Jabba wants desperately to be seen to have bested those troublesome skeptics at their own game, and it seems that regular lying is an acceptable means to that end.
 
Jabba said:
- No. I still think it is.
- I think you agree that there is no pool of potential selves, and that a perfect copy of your body would not bring you back to life -- would not be you. ..........
Click to expand...

Literally EVERYONE sees you ignoring the question of WHAT WOULD BE THE DIFFERENCE? Which attributes would differ? You won't answer because it breaks your argument.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom