Proof of Immortality, the IV league

[Hokulele]

H claims that there is something, an aspect, that will not come back.

H claims no such thing. Please demonstrate otherwise.

 

[MRC_Hans]

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

No. "Functioning brain" is an object. It belongs to a subset of "brains".

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

Yes, "functioning" is a predicate. There exists non-functional brains, but to the best of our knowledge they do not perceive a self.

What does "continually change" mean?

What does "dictionary" mean? (If you know, use it.)

Hans

 

[caveman1917]

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.

Is "senses of self" a set or not? If not, define "ten working brains have ten senses of self".

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

You can count the number of red anythings just fine, including the cars.

 

[caveman1917]

No. "Functioning brain" is an object. It belongs to a subset of "brains".

If I show you something, can you answer the question "is this a functioning brain" with yes or no? If yes, there you go, it's a property. If no, how exactly do you define this set of "brains" and its subset "functioning brains"?

 

[JayUtah]

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

Now it looks like you're trying to drag reductionism into this. That doesn't help you, because the difference between an organism and the molecules that make it up is covered under the "emergent" part of the emergent property that is the sense of self. Under H there's no "aspect" to speak of in any way other than as a synonym for "property."

H claims that there is something, an aspect, that will not come back.

Nonsense. The scientific hypothesis holds no such thing. You're just trying different combinations of words to insist that H is dualistic. It is not, and it is insulting to your critics for you to continue to try to fool them into agreeing otherwise.

And actually, the same is true for the banana -- life will not come back to the banana.

Life under H is simply the informal word for a set of reasonably well-defined biological processes suited to each kingdom of organisms. Where those processes can be observed, we say the organism is alive. When those processes cease, we say the organism has died. The period of time for that observation is the finite time in which life exists for that organism. This is true also for the human organism. One of the biological processes of a living human organism is the subjective sense of self that arises from the neurological operation -- the electrochemical processes of the brain. All those processes can have a subjective interpretation. Under H there is no evidence that the sense of self is anything other than one of the set of properties that belong to the organism.

The same is true for the human as is true for the banana. There is no set of "potential banana lives" by which you can divide the number of existing bananas and conclude that no one banana has a chance of existing. There is exactly as much uniqueness postulated under H for a banana as there is for a human. Your increasingly frantic and increasingly ham-fisted attempts to paste dualism onto science do not change that.

 

[Slowvehicle]

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.

How many "going 60 mph" are there?

Why do you keep ignoring this question?

 

[Loss Leader]

- 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.

So bananas are immortal now, because the chance of any given banana existing is 1/inf?

Is that how bad things have gotten, Jabba. In order to make your math work, we now have immortal bananas?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Is "senses of self" a set or not? If not, define "ten working brains have ten senses of self".

Seriously? "Ten working brains" is a set. Since the senses of self cannot exist without the brains, they cannot form a set.

You can count the number of red anythings just fine, including the cars.

Yes, but you can't count the number of "red". You will always have to define which objects are red.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

If I show you something, can you answer the question "is this a functioning brain" with yes or no? If yes, there you go, it's a property.

It is a characteristic, a physical characteristic of a brain. You can measure it. You cannot measure its sense of self.

Hans

 

[Dancing David]

How many bananas going 60 mph are there?

According to OOOBLAM there are no bananas

 

[theprestige]

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

I doubt it. The mathematical counterargument has been presented multiple times.

 

[The Sparrow]

According to OOOBLAM there are no bananas

ooooooooooooooblam.

Say it with me, out loud,

ooooooooooooooooooooooblam.

I just had a diction-gasm

 

[Dancing David]

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?



Right. No idea why you think it would be.

The issue is that there is not demonstrated singular 'sense of self', there are multiple sensation, perception, memories , thoughts and emotions, they are a changing array.
So if someone, like Jabba, was to demonstrate that 'sense of self' was not just a rubric under which a changing constellation of events was lumped, then we could discuss there being a cardinality to 'sense of self'.

However just like a visual perception it is a changing target, similar to prior moments but not the same.

 

[Dancing David]

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

Exactly!

Then what is 'sense of self' most likely an assumption without evidence?

So if the substrate itself changes, much less the individual process, how is 'sense of self' a countable thing?

 

[Dancing David]

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.

Nope, they won't. Most organic molecules combine and break down.

 

[Loss Leader]

The issue is that there is not demonstrated singular 'sense of self', there are multiple sensation, perception, memories , thoughts and emotions, they are a changing array.
So if someone, like Jabba, was to demonstrate that 'sense of self' was not just a rubric under which a changing constellation of events was lumped, then we could discuss there being a cardinality to 'sense of self'.

However just like a visual perception it is a changing target, similar to prior moments but not the same.

Well said, not that it will matter.

 

[caveman1917]

The issue is that there is not demonstrated singular 'sense of self', there are multiple sensation, perception, memories , thoughts and emotions, they are a changing array.

Neither is there a singular "functioning brain", there are multiple neurons and connections between them, and they are a changing array.

So if someone, like Jabba, was to demonstrate that 'sense of self' was not just a rubric under which a changing constellation of events was lumped, then we could discuss there being a cardinality to 'sense of self'.

However just like a visual perception it is a changing target, similar to prior moments but not the same.

Would you then, by the same standard, agree that we could not discuss there being a cardinality to "brains"?

 

[caveman1917]

Exactly!

Then what is 'sense of self' most likely an assumption without evidence?

So if the substrate itself changes, much less the individual process, how is 'sense of self' a countable thing?

The substrate changing is the "sense of self" changing. Unless it's a dualistic thing? So would you agree that the "substrate" is not a "countable thing"? If so, do you have an example of a "countable thing"?

 

[Jabba]

Nope, they won't. Most organic molecules combine and break down.

DD,
- I wasn't thinking. Godless Dave set me straight.

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...

 

[Hokulele]

The substrate changing is the "sense of self" changing. Unless it's a dualistic thing? So would you agree that the "substrate" is not a "countable thing"? If so, do you have an example of a "countable thing"?

Because once again, you are counting cars, not counting reds.