Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[Loss Leader]

Define "working" without referring to "self-aware".

I can't, nor did I ever imply I could. I'm not sure why you're asking the question. A healthy working neurosystem in a human produces self-awareness. Self-awareness is a property of a material thing. Do you believe that self-awareness can exist without a working neurosystem?

 

[Dancing David]

Do toasters count?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

"Target Meaningful" sounds like a mid-90s House record.

It's a good phrase. I'm stealing it.

 

[jond]

Those are two questions and quite distinct from each other. The answer to the first most definitely does not seem to be yes; in fact it quite definitely seems to be no. The answer to the second is not something I feel confident in either way.

I would agree completely that the first question is a no, but feel quite confident in stating that there are many functioning brains (young children, animals) which exhibit no sense of self.

 

[John Jones]

Ahem. Back on topic.

Does anyone have any mathematical proof of immortality in support of Jabba and his 4+ year descent down the rabbit hole?

Jabba obviously has none, but maybe some other newish interlocutors can provide some.

 

[Loss Leader]

"Target Meaningful" sounds like a mid-90s House record.

It sounds like something Anthony Edwards would say after Maverick says, "Talk to me, Goose."

 

[jt512]

If it turns out that frequencies[*] are continuous, then sure. I'd argue that they aren't continuous, but even if they are then "reds" is still a well-defined set with a well-defined cardinality.

What's there to argue? Electromagnetic frequencies are quantized, hence countable,

 

[jt512]

I do not think that finiteness is either a necessary nor sufficient condition to being countable.

Finite sets are surely not uncountable. Some textbooks reserve the word "countable" for infinite sets that are not uncountable; others define "countable" to include finite sets as well. But clearly the elements of any non-empty finite set can be put into one-to-one correspondence with a sequence of consecutive positive integers beginning with 1, and so is countable in that sense.

 

[caveman1917]

Those are two questions and quite distinct from each other.

It's not my fault that you forgot half of the required condition. Two sets A and B are equal iff A is a subset of B and B is a subset of A. So if you want to argue that the set of brains and selves are identical (which you do when you claim that "it's just counting brains rather than selves") then you have to argue that a self can not exist without a brain (for example that it's impossible for computer simulation of a brain to be self-aware) and a brain can not exist without being self-aware (for example that the brain of a dead person is still self-aware).

The answer to the first most definitely does not seem to be yes; in fact it quite definitely seems to be no.

If you hold that a computer simulation of a brain quite definitely can not be self-aware, then what do you think is the basis for self-awareness?

The answer to the second is not something I feel confident in either way.

Dead brains probably aren't self-aware. As are insect brains probably.

But even if you argue that the set of brains is identical to the set of selves, then so what? One can still define a set of "selves" and "potential selves" and this set will still have a cardinality.

 

[caveman1917]

Some textbooks reserve the word "countable" for infinite sets that are not uncountable

Interesting, I didn't know that. At least not in Dutch they don't, or at least not significantly so.

But clearly the elements of any non-empty finite set can be put into one-to-one correspondence with a sequence of consecutive positive integers beginning with 1, and so is countable in that sense.

It needn't be a sequence, any subset of N will do.

 

[caveman1917]

I can't, nor did I ever imply I could. I'm not sure why you're asking the question.

Because you're just begging the question.

A healthy working neurosystem in a human produces self-awareness. Self-awareness is a property of a material thing.

"healthy working" is a property of a material thing as well. And how is any of this even relevant?

Do you believe that self-awareness can exist without a working neurosystem?

Why do you keep asking this question?

 

[wea]

What's there to argue? Electromagnetic frequencies are quantized, hence countable,

Off topic. As far as I know, the intensity of an electromagnetic wave is always measured in discrete quantities, but you still have photons of any frequency. Missing boundary conditions, how do you know that frequencies are quantized?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Why do you keep asking this question?

Because it's the only question that actually matters on this topic. Everything else is silly stalling nonsense.

 

[caveman1917]

Because it's the only question that actually matters on this topic.

No it isn't.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

No it isn't.

Effective debate!

 

[caveman1917]

Effective debate!

Yes it is.

 

[caveman1917]

Effective debate!

It's efficient debate as well. I only have to give the definition of set equality once and then when someone just goes "nah it ain't" without argument I don't have to repeat it anymore.

 

[Loss Leader]

Why do you keep asking this question?

I'll stop asking. I had hoped to open up a new and interesting line of discussion, but I can't do it if you're just going to play silly buggers.

 

[caveman1917]

I'll stop asking.

That's not an answer though.

I had hoped to open up a new and interesting line of discussion, but I can't do it if you're just going to play silly buggers.

Then why don't you just answer the question yourself and make a case for the answer? I've claimed that you can define a set of "potential selves" and reason about its cardinality, and I've made a case for it.

 

[Mojo]

Those are two questions and quite distinct from each other.

I'm sure that Jabba will be only too happy to try to conflate them.