Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[caveman1917]

it's a straightforward question with a straightforward answer, everything is a set etc. etc.

|{x | x is no}|
|{x | x is you}|
|{x | x is didn't}|
|{x | x is you're}|
|{x | x is simply}|
|{x | x is refusing}|

caveman1917, can you spot a problem?

Yes, "going 60 mph" is a property and a lot of what you're using is not.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Yes, something can have the scent of a banana yet not be a banana.

Ignoring the technicality that, while an object that is "not a banana" cannot have the emergent property of "the scent of a banana" (but only a "scent like the scent of a banana"), is there a penomenological difference between a banana, and the scent of a banana?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Can something be pure manufactured semantics and not have emergent property of meaningless nonsense?

No. It cannot.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Can something be pure manufactured semantics and not have emergent property of meaningless nonsense?

No. It cannot.

 

[caveman1917]

Ignoring the technicality that, while an object that is "not a banana" cannot have the emergent property of "the scent of a banana" (but only a "scent like the scent of a banana"), is there a penomenological difference between a banana, and the scent of a banana?

You'll have to define "scent of a banana" then. As far as I see it someone can say "x has the scent of a banana" without x being a banana. For the same reason that something can have the colour of the sun without being the sun.

 

[JoeMorgue]

You'll have to define "scent of a banana" then. As far as I see it someone can say "x has the scent of a banana" without x being a banana. For the same reason that something can have the colour of the sun without being the sun.

First you'll have to define "scent" and "banana" and "colour" and "sun."

 

[abaddon]

You'll have to define "scent of a banana" then. As far as I see it someone can say "x has the scent of a banana" without x being a banana. For the same reason that something can have the colour of the sun without being the sun.

This is the very same argument propounded by 911 cranks. Are you even aware of that?

 

[Slowvehicle]

You'll have to define "scent of a banana" then. As far as I see it someone can say "x has the scent of a banana" without x being a banana. For the same reason that something can have the colour of the sun without being the sun.

It seems that any clarification will only trigger your demonstratedly obfuscatory argumentation at a different level.

If, to you, there is no difference between "the scent of a banana" and the scent of a 50% isoamyl acetate/amyl acetate concoction, please do not invite me to dinner at your house.

In the meantime, context is your friend: see the explication, "scent of a banana" vs "scent like that of a banana". Or don't, and enjoy continuing to hinder.

 

[Hokulele]

Your question is irrelevant. You claimed that "going 60 mph" is uncountable. Support your claim.

My question is more relevant to the topic than your requests to reinvent the dictionary. Do you believe that a self can exist without a physical brain? It's a simple yes or no question, so why are you dodging it?

 

[Slowvehicle]

My question is more relevant to the topic than your requests to reinvent the dictionary. Do you believe that a self can exist without a physical brain? It's a simple yes or no question, so why are you dodging it?

...you're gonna have to define "yes", "no" and "dodging"...

 

[MRC_Hans]

Ignoring the technicality that, while an object that is "not a banana" cannot have the emergent property of "the scent of a banana" (but only a "scent like the scent of a banana"), is there a penomenological difference between a banana, and the scent of a banana?

Oh, I think if you slice a banana, the knife will afterwards indeed have the scent of a banana.

Hans

 

[caveman1917]

My question is more relevant to the topic than your requests to reinvent the dictionary.

You don't need to reinvent a dictionary, you need to define your terms and support your case that "moving 60 mph" is uncountable. To be specific, you have to show that there does not exist an injection from "moving 60 mph" to the natural numbers.

Do you believe that a self can exist without a physical brain? It's a simple yes or no question, so why are you dodging it?

Because it's a diversion from your claim which you need to support.

 

[abaddon]

You don't need to reinvent a dictionary, you need to define your terms and support your case that "moving 60 mph" is uncountable. To be specific, you have to show that there does not exist an injection from "moving 60 mph" to the natural numbers.

Are you now claiming that it is not possible to drive at 60.5 mph? Simply because it is not a natural number?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Oh, I think if you slice a banana, the knife will afterwards indeed have the scent of a banana.

Hans

But that is the scent of a banana; the emergent property is not a property of the knife, but of the esters and congeners (and bioflavanoids) of the banana.

If you stir a tincture of iaoamyl acetate and amyl acetate with the knife, it will (kind of) smell "like banana", but the emergent property will be a property of the tincture, not a property of a banana.

...and Mr Savage wins, again, as we chase this rabbit.

 

[JoeMorgue]

You don't need to reinvent a dictionary, you need to define your terms and support your case that "moving 60 mph" is uncountable. To be specific, you have to show that there does not exist an injection from "moving 60 mph" to the natural numbers.

Dude the only unnatural number here is the width of the hair you're splitting.

We are not going to play yet another rousing game of "Sub-divide the language of the argument over and over to avoid acknowledging them" with you. We've been playing it with Jabba for 5 years and I guarantee he's better at then you are.

The "How Many 60 MPH are there" question is about the fact that, exactly as is the case with human mental processes, there is no pre-determined number of "potential 60 miles per hours" out there waiting to magically "poof" into existence. You know that what we meant. Stop acting faux-obtuse.

 

[theprestige]

You don't need to reinvent a dictionary, you need to define your terms and support your case that "moving 60 mph" is uncountable.

Read the thread. This has been done.

 

[jsfisher]

You don't need to reinvent a dictionary, you need to define your terms and support your case that "moving 60 mph" is uncountable. To be specific, you have to show that there does not exist an injection from "moving 60 mph" to the natural numbers.

No, she doesn't. The meaning of 'uncountable' is 'unable to be counted.' 'Too many to be counted' is a usage for 'uncountable', but that is not its only usage.

 

[Jabba]

Dave,
- I must admit that I'm still confused -- though, I'm still sure I'm right...
- I guess that my basic problem still has to do with the definition of "who." I'm claiming that while we can estimate the characteristics of the person coming out fairly well -- through science -- there is an aspect of the person coming out (their "identity"?) for which we don't have a clue. And, according to science, this who can never exist again. This person can never be reincarnated. Neither you nor I can ever be reincarnated. We can only exist once at most.
- That's how a banana has us beat. There is no such aspect to a banana.
- How's that?

The problem is that H includes no such aspect. Under H, the what is the who.

Dave,
- Does H include an aspect that can never exist again?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Dave,
- Does H include an aspect that can never exist again?

Mr. Savage:

How many "going 60 mph" are there?

 

[Loss Leader]

Incidentally, I saw Scent of a Banana with Gary Sinise at Circle in the Square in '98. He was brilliant. "I know I'm not a damned banana, Forrest."