Victoribus Spolia wrote:Your opinion of the matter is irrelevant. You added content to a definition being actively used in a debate, which is also the fallacy of equivocation. The nature of claims are dependent on definitions, you cannot change or add to them at will.
Really? I just did.
(Actually, I mentioned it before, as have others, but this is still a cop-out).
No, because possibility was defined earlier in comparison to potentiality. You have equated them again, which is just as erroneous now as it was before.
And still ignoring my point about identity.
And they do, they likewise are connected and correspond to specific physical referents in a specific temporal-physical circumstance. When was this ever denied?
So whether your potential son has brown hair and a bad-temper (identity) is dependent on your subjective thoughts of such? If you you had an idea of your child with red hair and fair skin, would that modify the logical concept of the potential person to have such once actualized?
Again, you have misunderstood.
I am not saying that their identity is dependent on subjective thought.
I am saying that any identity for a potential person is subjective, and makes that potential person subjective.
This matter cannot be subject to a yes or no question (as I just demonstrated) and is not relevant to the present topic at hand. I cannot answer the question as you request, it is too simplistic. Unless you demonstrate otherwise given what I just posted as to why it should be a simple yes or no.
If you are arguing that potential people have identities and objectively exist, then it must be that people who will be born five centuries from now already have intact identities that objectively exist, despite the fact that the genetics and environment which will create these identities does not exist.
When did you answer the question before?
Why wouldn't John Connor have a future identity if this occurred? if such an identity was not preemptively eliminated (because you claim no identity exists in potential persons); then, when his existence as a potential person was eliminated via sterilization, no identity was eliminated (because none existed) and there is therefore no reason it could not still actualize even though the person himself did not actualize.
Again, you are ignoring the biological fact that identity is partly biological.
If Sarah is sterilised, John will never exist.
This is true even if John’s identity never exists in the 80s.
If this seems ridiculous it is because your claim is ridiculous. Just as the actual person is dependent on the objective logical concept of a potential person, so likewise is his identity. John Connor's identity is only explicit in his actual person; whereas its existence in his potential person was implicit, but existed nonetheless. This is the same sense as how a butterfly's characteristics (identity) existed implicitly, and as a potentiality, in the caterpillar. The distinction is only of implicit and explicit, not objective and subjective as you claim. You are in error.
...except the caterpillar objectively exists as a concrete thing and the genetic material that will create the butterfly is likewise concrete and objectively real.
The same cannot be said for the identity of an actual person before they are conceived.
The proof of this is that, if a caterpillar is killed, the characteristics (identity) of the butterfly cannot become manifest (explicit) in actuality. This is because, those characteristics (identity) are implicit in the caterpillar and so if the potential butterfly being destroyed destroys the corresponding actual butterfly that would otherwise exist, likewise the corresponding actual identity of the butterfly is destroyed because the identity as it existed in potentiality was also destroyed. Identity is not only independent, but also inseparable from the objective logical concept of potential butterfly and therefore cannot be, in-and-of-itself, subjective as you claim.
This is consistent to our agreed-to definition of "identity."
The identity does not need to exist in the potential person in order for it to exist in the actual person.
It can come about when the actual person is conceived and even later.
There is a crack in everything,
That's how the light gets in...