Dave,
- I probably should have left out that stuff about "sharing" -- it seems to be more distracting than illustrative. I should have left #4 as,
4. There is no chemistry exclusive to just one self.
- And then,
5. In that sense, you came from nothing.
6. That is the sense that counts in our math, and
7. The denominator in the formula for my existence, given the scientific model, is ∞.
- Those last three are what I will begin trying to support.
5.1. Your self is not taken from a pool of potential selves.
5.2. Scientifically speaking, there is no such thing as a potential self.
5.3. You were not a potential self before becoming an actual self.
5.4. You were nothing before your actual conception.
Good Morning, Mr. Savage!
I admit to a bit of confusion. You posted this, yesterday:
- I'll try again to find a point in my syllogism where we tend to agree, and where we first diverge. I'll start with the following:
1. Specific chemistry produces what we call “consciousness.”
2. Consciousness naturally develops a specific “self.”
3. According to the scientific model, such a self may be a process, or even an illusion -- but whatever, it generally persists for a lifetime, never to exist again.
- Do you agree with any of that? If so, do you disagree with any of that?
Several posters pointed out several reasons to disagree with what you posted. Your response, instead of repairing the disagreements, was to post:
Dave,
- How about #4 below?
<snip>
4. There is no chemistry exclusive to just one self -- if we were able to develop a perfect replica of a person’s brain at 4 years of age, the two brains would not share the same self.
...to which multiple posters objected, with explanations. Again, instead of addressing the objections, this morning you add even more incorrect and insupportable statements.
It is clear that you are not listening. It is clear that YOU think that you, "the best man in the fight", are "winning" this "effective debate". Tragically, you do not understand that you are deluding yourself, and being dishonest with others.
For what it's worth, I offer the following objections to today's additions:
4. There is no chemistry exclusive to just one self.
Given the level of precision to which you do not even aspire, much less strive to attain, this is near-meaningless.
Your physical brain was shaped by chemical processes--
influenced by contingent situations.
The specific arrangement of chemicals of which your physical self is formed (and by which your "self" is limited) are distinctive to the point that you can be identified, not just by those chemicals, but by secretions of those chemicals.
The proper functioning of your consciousness is dependent upon a specific range of chemicals, the alteration of which will alter your consciousness, even to the point of ending it permanently.
In that sense, "you" are a specific combinations of chemicals, and a specific set of interactions of chemicals...had those chemicals been different during your development, "you" would be different; if those chemicals are altered now, "you" will be different.
5. In that sense, you came from nothing.
No. "You" did not come form "nothing". You "came from" the combination of two human gametes, with all the concomitant baggage (you could not, for instance, develop the ability to photosynthesize; nor to synthesize your own vitamin C). You were exposed to the shaping of what was essentially a monkey troupe ("you" are the emergent property of a simian, rather than a felid, equid, or cetacean neurosystem). The contingencies that shaped your neurosystem effective rule out, for instance, telepathy. Though vast, the potential ways in which you could have developed are constrained.
6. That is the sense that counts in our math, and
Since your "this" refers to an erroneous claim, it
cannot support your "math".
7. The denominator in the formula for my existence, given the scientific model, is ∞.
Mr. Savage, how many times has it been pointed out to you that this is not true? The first time you say something that is, demonstrably, incorrect, it can be an actual, honest, mistake, or error. When you persist in parroting a contrafactual claim, particularly in the face of correction, it resembles a lie so closely that it could breed with an outright lie and have fertile offspring.
You continue to misstate the
soi-dissant "scientific model" (You keep on using that term. I do not think it means what you think it means...).
You continue to pretend that a denominator of "infinity" is meaningful, instead of producing an undefined and undefinable product.
You continue to ignore any and all objections, even (or especially) the ones for which you pretend to be asking.
5.1. Your self is not taken from a pool of potential selves.
5.2. Scientifically speaking, there is no such thing as a potential self.
5.3. You were not a potential self before becoming an actual self.
5.4. You were nothing before your actual conception.
Or, you could (and here is a truly novel idea) present actual evidence (concrete, physical, practical, empirical, objective evidence) that the "soul" exists independently of any neurosystem (or at all) and is "immortal".
).