Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[Loss Leader]

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

"Dave,
- Please do my homework for me?"

Come on, Jabba. There are an infinite number of possible bananas, each with a slightly different length, curve, sugar content, scent, peal thickness, etc. The number of lengths between 4" and 14" is infinite. Yet the banana in my hand exists. Just because there are an infinite possible number of things doesn't make it impossible for the thing to exist.

 

[caveman1917]

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.

And what does "unable to be counted" mean? That it does not have a cardinality? How's that supposed to work?

 

[godless dave]

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

The whole body. Just like bananas, Volkswagens, and everything else in the universe. Every aspect can never exist again.

 

[Mojo]

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

If you recreate something perfectly, you have a second thing identical to the first one, not the first one again.

 

[JayUtah]

Does H include an aspect that can never exist again?

Nice try.

Each individual organism has one finite life. To ask whether it "can exist again" is largely meaningless, despite all the thought experiments aimed at reproducing or recreating it exactly from some contrived set of first principles. That doesn't mean there is an "aspect" to the organism that can also never exists again but "somehow" exists ahead of time, independently of it, such that it can be counted as having infinite potential and give you your Big Denominator.

Get it through your head, Jabba. There is no "soul" under H, or anything like unto it. There is no "aspect" under H that science "somehow" cannot see or reason about. Under H there is only the organism. The sense of self under H is a property of the organism. Each organism exhibits the property, and you can't count the properties or any trumped-up "potential" for the property any more than you can count how many "going 60 mph" there are. No Big Denominator there, so move on.

No matter how hard you try, your critics here are going to call you on it every time you try to make H seem dualistic. Why? Because H is not dualistic.

 

[theprestige]

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

This is you trying to foist your 'H on H again.

H includes reproducible processes as emergent properties of reproducible starting conditions. Reproducible senses of self as emergent properties of reproducible neurosystems, for example, are included in H.

Indeed, H accounts for senses of self without requiring an aspect that can never exist again.

How many "going 60mph" are there?

 

[jsfisher]

And what does "unable to be counted" mean? That it does not have a cardinality? How's that supposed to work?

And what does "and what does" mean? We can do this all day, no?

Unable to be counted means unable to be counted. And yes, that could mean it would not have a cardinality.

In the statement, "It is raining," what is the 'it'? How many of them are there? Is 'raining' something that can be counted?

 

[caveman1917]

And what does "and what does" mean? We can do this all day, no?

Or you could simply admit that this is a bunch of mumble-jumble you're refusing to define properly.

Unable to be counted means unable to be counted. And yes, that could mean it would not have a cardinality.

So it's both not a set and an event in a probability space? That's psychedelic.

In the statement, "It is raining," what is the 'it'? How many of them are there? Is 'raining' something that can be counted?

The statement under consideration isn't "it is raining" but "going 60 mph" as a stand-in for "sense of self".

 

[jsfisher]

Or you could simply admit that this is a bunch of mumble-jumble you're refusing to define properly.

I suppose you could look at it that way. I don't, but you are perfectly welcome to. The definition I presented, by the way, was straight out of Merriam-Webster. Not good enough, though, right?

 

[theprestige]

Or you could simply admit that this is a bunch of mumble-jumble you're refusing to define properly.

Mumbo-jumbo*

 

[caveman1917]

I suppose you could look at it that way. I don't, but you are perfectly welcome to.

So if I'm getting this straight:
"Senses of self" has no cardinality.
Each "working brain" has exactly one "sense of self".
Therefor..."working brains" has no cardinality?

If this ain't mumbo-jumbo then what is?

The definition I presented, by the way, was straight out of Merriam-Webster. Not good enough, though, right?

Right. No idea why you think it would be.

 

[caveman1917]

Mumbo-jumbo*

Yes thanks. I first went with mumble as in mumbling but then decided to change and got stuck with "mumble-jumble".

 

[jsfisher]

So if I'm getting this straight:
"Senses of self" has no cardinality.

Sense of self is a property.. It is not a thing that can be counted.

Each "working brain" has exactly one "sense of self".

No. Sense of self is an emergent property of a functioning brain. The characteristics of the property continually change.

Therefor..."working brains" has no cardinality?

That does not follow.

 

[Loss Leader]

So if I'm getting this straight:
"Senses of self" has no cardinality.
Each "working brain" has exactly one "sense of self".Therefor..."working brains" has no cardinality?

You are not getting it straight. The "sense of self" or "consciousness" is ever-changing and/or undefined. Are you, caveman1917, the same person as caveman1917 from 30 years ago? Do you love the same people, enjoy all the same food, or agree on politics?

LossLeader-30 had no memory of 9/11. He hadn't (unrelatedly) spent 11 days in a coma. He knew his locker combination, hated mushrooms, and talking to girls scared him witless. LossLeader-t0 doesn't share any of those qualities. I define my "self" now first and foremost as a father, something I considered complete bunk as little as 12 years ago.

And we haven't even counted people with traumatic head injuries that drastically alter their personalities or erase years of memory.

"Sense of self" is not coextensive with "people." It is constantly changing. The only way to count it is by creating a definition for it which works for cardinality, but renders the entire concept meaningless.

But you know all this. You're just playing silly buggers.

 

[theprestige]

How many playing silly buggers are there?

 

[caveman1917]

"Sense of self" is not coextensive with "people." It is constantly changing.

"people" is constantly changing. Do you still have the same cells as 10 years ago, the same neural connections in your brain?

And what does "constantly changing" even mean for your "sense of self"? Remember, you can't use a sequence or a curve or anything here for the definition, because the codomains of functions are...sets, with cardinalities.

The only way to count it is by creating a definition for it which works for cardinality, but renders the entire concept meaningless.

The entire concept is already meaningless.

But you know all this.

What I know is that you lot pick out the lowest of the lowest hanging fruit in skepticism (ie Jabba and his immortal souls) and even then get it wrong more often than not. You know why? Because you have a culture which abhors in-group debate and disagreement, thereby enabling anyone to just throw whatever they want at the "target". Heck I could probably say something like "Jabba you are wrong because the invisible unicorn is pink" and get away with it.

Most of all though, you can't reproach someone for not defining their terms properly and then refuse to do so yourself.

 

[caveman1917]

Sense of self is a property.. It is not a thing that can be counted.

So is "functioning brain", so you can't count functioning brains either?

No. Sense of self is an emergent property of a functioning brain. The characteristics of the property continually change.

If only that made any sense. A property is a type of predicate, right? What "characteristics" can it have? What does "continually change" mean?

That does not follow.

True. Nothing here seems to follow.

 

[wea]

Sense of self is an emergent property of a functioning brain. The characteristics of the property continually change.

If only that made any sense. A property is a type of predicate, right? What "characteristics" can it have? What does "continually change" mean?

It means that the emergent property "sense of self" is a process, it has already been said several times

 

[theprestige]

So is "functioning brain", so you can't count functioning brains either?



If only that made any sense. A property is a type of predicate, right? What "characteristics" can it have? What does "continually change" mean?



True. Nothing here seems to follow.

Now you're starting to understand. How close do you think Jabba is getting, to his mathematical proof of immortality?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Oh my God this is nonsense. Everybody here knows that a "process" is what that concepts entail. One or two people are just pretending they don't as a stalling tactic.