JesseCuster
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 4, 2016
- Messages
- 2,159
Or they don't. Because trees, like Volkswagens, don't have selves. And that means the logic that applies to people doesn't apply to trees or Volkswagens.
Just because.
Proof of Immortality, VI
- Thread starter jond
- Start date
- Status
Just because.
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
- I'm going to try to add this kind of 'potential' self up to infinity. I claim that there is an infinity of this kind of 'potential' selves.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Are you sure you want to do that? While "selves" may exist under your favoured hypothesis, they don't exist under materialism.
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
Why would the number of selves that could potentially exist in the future have anything at all to do with the likelihood of a self coming into existence in 1970?
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
Exactly this.
Even if some frozen sperm is to be regarded as a potential self, how does that influence the likelihood of another self?
Hans
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
Why, when it has been clearly explained to you that blathering about selves, potential or otherwise, does not advance your argument one iota?
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
- How about those that 'could' have existed in the past?
- I'm claiming that by theoretically removing all the barriers that prevent the combination of particular sperm cells with particular ova (e.g.the space/time barriers, etc.), every possible combination represents a different person/self.
jond
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 3,440
The problem that you refuse to understand is that under H, the self is an emergent property of a functioning brain. This whole notion of "potential selves" is a non issue. There are no such things, they do not exist is any way that could be counted, they have no bearing on your self. Your self is not a separate entity, it is an ongoing process. It did not exist before you were born. Brain stops, process stops. That is what H says. As long as you continue to include selves as separate entities, you are not talking about H.
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
They're only relevant if they impact the chain of ancestry that resulted in me.
That's a good way to come up with a number that means absolutely nothing.
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Dave,
- I might have run out of ideas as to how to effectively describe this claim to you and your colleagues -- but, I think that most well-educated neutral minds would see what I mean. Removing all the barriers preventing the combination of particular human sperm cells and ova, represents some of the number of 'potential' human selves.
- Hopefully, I'll be opening my new website soon, and attract some neutral minds and that they will see what I mean...
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
How is the number of potential human selves in any way relevant to the likelihood of a particular self existing?
Mojo
Mostly harmless
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
Lol. "It's not that I am wrong, its that you are too stupid or biased to see I am right."
Why not address Jay's points then and PROVE us wrong.
Lol, why are you here again? Oh ya, that didn't work out so well, so instead you will create a venue where you control the debate, and claim victory when christians agree with you.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
The well educated, neutral minds here see what you mean, but they also see how wrong you are. Why would other well educated neutral minds come to any other conclusion? It's not like you have managed to refute a single one of the devastating flaws in your argument that have been pointed out to you.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Your claim is well understood. What you're running out of are ways to hide your obviously illogical assumptions, begged questions, and circular reasoning so that they don't look like those things in your argument. You must have a very low opinion of your critics' intellect and experience if you believe we can't see right through those transparent attempts.
No, your argument isn't failing because your critics are biased. Your argument is failing because it's wrong. You have been shown the reasons why it's wrong, but it's obvious you simply don't care. You were presented with a list of some dozen individually fatal flaws, whose existence you acknowledged. But in spite of it, you maintain that your argument can have only one or a few superficial flaws at best. You're deeply in denial.
You had your shot at a non-ISF forum when you tried to present this for statisticians. They gave you the same answers you got here. There is no need to speculate how your argument would fare with a different audience; your failure is a matter of observable fact.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
That's tantamount to claiming that if the facts were different, your argument would succeed.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Asked and answered. Materialism contains no such notion, and you can't make potentiality work because you have to beg the question of a soul in order to keep potentiality from rendering inanimate objects equally as improbable as a soulless person. It's not as if you have made a secret of your preconceived proof. You worked it out via statistical formulation that all you'd need is a Big Denominator to render soulless people improbable with. You told us you were doing this. Now you're simply trying to invent something -- anything -- that gives you that Big Denominator and just beg it into existence so that it can serve what you predetermined the proof would have to be.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
If you're going to ignore the laws of space and time, then you don't need to prove anything. In fact, then you *can't* prove anything.
This signature is intended to irradiate people.
- Status