Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[caveman1917]

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

Probably a lot closer than you lot are getting to a mathematical counterargument.

 

[Slowvehicle]

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.

Ya think?

 

[caveman1917]

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

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.

Well a "process" was last defined as a "continuous action". So the sense of self is a continuous action? And everybody knows what that concept entails? Fine, what exactly is the Lagrangian? And I'm assuming we're integrating from "birth" to "death"?

 

[JoeMorgue]

//Refreshed my window and accidently double posted//

 

[JoeMorgue]

//And again. That was weird.//

 

[caveman1917]

deleted

 

[JoeMorgue]

Well a "process" was last defined as a "continuous action". So the sense of self is a continuous action? And everybody knows what that concept entails? Fine, what exactly is the Lagrangian? And I'm assuming we're integrating from "birth" to "death"?

No. I'm not going to sit here and throw dictionaries back and forth at each other. It's childish and you don't do it as well as Jabba so there's not even a challenge.

The language being used here is perfectly acceptable for everyone except you and Jabba. The problem does not reside with the language.

 

[caveman1917]

No. I'm not going to sit here and throw dictionaries back and forth at each other. It's childish and you don't do it as well as Jabba so there's not even a challenge.

I didn't ask you for a dictionary, where's that Langrangian?

The language being used here is perfectly acceptable for everyone except you and Jabba.

Undefined magic not-a-thingy can not be counted because it's a process? Uhu...

The problem does not reside with the language.

No it doesn't, it resides with your refusal to define your terms.

 

[wea]

Dunning–Kruger in "action" (now I'll be asked for D-K's Hamiltonian )

 

[caveman1917]

//And again. That was weird.//

Me too, posted in the middle of an edit

 

[caveman1917]

Dunning–Kruger in "action" (now I'll be asked for D-K's Hamiltonian )

Yes that's all very nice, have you ever thought of - you know - defining your terms? It's so far gone from property to process to action, and now apparently it ain't an action either, so what is it now?

 

[wea]

Yes that's all very nice, have you ever thought of - you know - defining your terms? It's so far gone from property to process to action, and now apparently it ain't an action either, so what is it now?

a definition according to your style? ok
an action is an element of the following set
|{x | x is an action}|
any other?

 

[caveman1917]

a definition according to your style? ok
an action is an element of the following set
|{x | x is an action}|
any other?

You probably mean
{x | x is an action}

Thank you. That is sufficient, given that a sense of self is an action, to state that "senses of self" indeed has a cardinality. So we're done with the "can not be counted" stuff?

 

[MRC_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.

Oh, it can well be defined as as a (albeit temporary) property of the knife.

But, we are in agreement. Except that Mr Savage hardly wins by us making little jokes about his subject, especially not such that probably pass over his head.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

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

No. It includes an aspect that is unlikely to exist again. But this is only because, by existing once, the next occurrence becomes pre-qualified. And since the occurrence is very unpredictable, an exact repeat is unlikely.

The first occurrence, however was not unlikely because it was not (in any precise way) pre-qualified. Thus any human born at the approximately right time and place might become it.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

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

In this case: Having no independent existence.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

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?

No, that does very much not follow. "Working brains" is a countable set. That does not imply that their emergent properties are. We can assume that ten working brains have ten senses of self, but not the other way around.

A lille more obvious: You can count the number of "red cars", but not the number of "red"-

Hans

 

[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 (to H), 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?

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

Dave,

- Every molecule in the whole body will exist again -- will keep on existing -- but, not every aspect. H claims that there is something, an aspect, that will not come back. And actually, the same is true for the banana -- life will not come back to the banana.
- But, I'll be back.

 

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*
Heck I could probably say something like "Jabba you are wrong because the invisible unicorn is pink" and get away with it.

*snip*

Well maybe. I don't think anyone would argue the point. But there would be some sniggering.

Hans

 

[godless dave]

Dave,

- Every molecule in the whole body will exist again -- will keep on existing -- but, not every aspect.

Some of those molecules will be broken down into their constituent atoms but yes, the matter the body is made of will still exist, but will never again be combined to form that body. Just like everything else in the universe.

H claims that there is something, an aspect, that will not come back. And actually, the same is true for the banana -- life will not come back to the banana.

There are multiple aspects that will not come back. I have no idea why you think this is significant or helps your argument. Flames burn out and never come back. Snowflakes melt and never come back. Bananas are eaten and never come back. People die and never come back.