Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

[Dancing David]

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



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

There is a standard definition of 'brain' (in neurology,medicine) the definition of 'self' or 'sense of self' is lacking. (Even by the low standards of the R&P forum)

Continued from here

Posted By: kmortis

 

[Dancing David]

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"?

That is the point, sense of self is not countable...

 

[caveman1917]

There is a standard definition of 'brain' (in neurology,medicine) the definition of 'self' or 'sense of self' is lacking. (Even by the low standards of the R&P forum)

That is the point, sense of self is not countable...

You didn't answer my questions.

 

[wea]

... If so, do you have an example of a "countable thing"?

You didn't answer my questions.

There are possible injections between a car (I think in english it's called) plate number and the natural numbers. Would you please specify a working injection between "senses of self" and NN, so we can get rid of some ambiguity?

 

[caveman1917]

There are possible injections between a car (I think in english it's called) plate number and the natural numbers.

Are we backtracking on the "uncountable means not having a cardinality" thing?

Would you please specify a working injection between "senses of self" and NN, so we can get rid of some ambiguity?

Is "senses of self" a set? If no, define what you mean by "injection between 'senses of self' and NN".

 

[wea]

Is "senses of self" a set? If no, define what you mean by "injection between 'senses of self' and NN".

You seem to be the only one here thinking "they" could be countable (but Jabba). The definition of countable for a set, if I remember correctly, is that each element can be associated to a natural number. I'm not the one supposed to define that association, you are.

 

[caveman1917]

The definition of countable for a set, if I remember correctly, is that each element can be associated to a natural number.

Go argue with jsfisher and let me know what the conclusion is.

I'm not the one supposed to define that association, you are.

If you're claiming that it's uncountable then it's up to you to show that it is.

 

[wea]

If you're claiming that it's uncountable then it's up to you to show that it is.

For me, this "sense of self" is the generic name that is used to refer to the class of (ever-changing) illusions that brains generate about their activity (processes), in order to internally refer to the sum of those activities as a "unity" or a "thing" (or a "self"). This is a phylogenetic adaptation, not a thing. It's the name we use for a class of processes, not a defined entity with any defined boundary. I can't even imagine how someone (you) could try to say it's countable, it's even vaguely defined as a concept. Can you show "senses of self"? Can you order them?

 

[Dancing David]

You didn't answer my questions.

That is my answer, I guess you don't agree.

 

[caveman1917]

It's the name we use for a class of processes, not a defined entity with any defined boundary.

Well then, thread solved. Jabba you are indeed immortal because your sense of self does not have a defined boundary. It is everywhere in the universe for all time.

I can't even imagine how someone (you) could try to say it's countable, it's even vaguely defined as a concept.

Being deliberately vague about something does not imbue that something with almost magical properties such as having no boundaries.

Can you show "senses of self"? Can you order them?

Can you do that with brains?

 

[caveman1917]

That is my answer, I guess you don't agree.

I'll take that as "nothing is countable".

 

[wea]

Well then, thread solved. Jabba you are indeed immortal because your sense of self does not have a defined boundary. It is everywhere in the universe for all time.

Like Santa Klaus. Do you understand what an illusion is, caveman1917?

ETA: maybe is it "delusion"? english not my native language etc etc.

Can you do that with brains?

Sure I can show brains. I can even count them. And order them (by weight, e.g.).
Now it's your time with "senses of self".

 

[caveman1917]

Like Santa Klaus. Do you understand what an illusion is, caveman1917?

ETA: maybe is it "delusion"? english not my native language etc etc.

If you think a sense of self isn't bounded by the substrate of which it is an emergent property then you're the one with the illusions, I would say.

Sure I can show brains. I can even count them. And order them (by weight, e.g.).
Now it's your time with "senses of self".

Every brain is associated with a "sense of self", so the answer is the same as you do with brains.

 

[Hokulele]

Every brain is associated with a "sense of self", so the answer is the same as you do with brains.

No, not every brain has a "sense of self", it's the other way around.

The issue is that Jabba claims you can't count it the same as you do with brains, which is why people keep asking him to count "going 60 mph".

 

[wea]

Every brain is associated with a "sense of self", so the answer is the same as you do with brains.

It has been said a lot of times in the parent thread, it's not one brain -> one sense of self, unique and immutable. It's a process. In a year or an hour etc. etc. your self perception won't be the same. On a timescale large enough it can be demonstrated (even to identity disorders, split brains etc.). Where are you going to set the limit? A ms? a ns? Why?

 

[caveman1917]

It has been said a lot of times in the parent thread, it's not one brain -> one sense of self, unique and immutable. It's a process. In a year or an hour etc. etc. your self perception won't be the same.

Neither will your brain. What's with the special pleading all the time?

 

[Dancing David]

I'll take that as "nothing is countable".

I take that as an exaggeration and speculation on your part

 

[wea]

Neither will your brain. What's with the special pleading all the time?

There is an operational definition for brain, e.g. a working human brain is some 10¹¹ neurons in a skull. Over time molecules are substituted, the "identity" of a particular brain is attributed to the remaining largest portion etc. It can be measured, weighted etc. by observers.
I'm still waiting for your operational definition of "sense of self". As far as I can tell "sense of self" can be observed only by its "owner", any relative statement is subjective. To declare it countable you need an injection on the natural numbers. Your function will hopefully work, as said, on Santa Klaus(es). Or the perception of hunger and fear or fantasy or emotion. I've repeatedly said I think it's a hopelessly ill-defined concept, whose existence doesn't mean there is a corresponding thing. I'd find it useful to stand corrected, why are you refusing to give your operational definition of "senses of self"?

 

[Jabba]

- This will take a while -- if at all.

- I’ve said it before, and must admit that the logic seems to be missing something…

1) You are the only thing (or process) that you know for sure actually exists!
2) The likelihood of you currently existing – given OOFLam – is one/∞, or virtually zero!
3) If you didn’t currently exist, it would be as if there was nothing at all!
4) If you never existed, there might as well never be anything at all...

- This is what I mean by “target meaningfulness.” I’m claiming that targets don’t require red and white circles, that you and I make for real targets, that Mt Rainier is impressive, but it’s not nearly as meaningful as we are.
- I’m pretty sure that this is why toontown thinks that your perspective is so important.

- Your importance and likelihood, together, are really coincidental and impressive. And my current existence and importance, together, are even more so.

 

[godless dave]

- This will take a while -- if at all.

- I’ve said it before, and must admit that the logic seems to be missing something…

1) You are the only thing (or process) that you know for sure actually exists!

Completely irrelevant.

2) The likelihood of you currently existing – given OOFLam – is one/∞, or virtually zero!

Despite discussing this for over four years, you still have not demonstrated this to be true.

3) If you didn’t currently exist, it would be as if there was nothing at all!

Completely irrelevant.

4) If you never existed, there might as well never be anything at all...

Completely irrelevant.

- This is what I mean by “target meaningfulness.” I’m claiming that targets don’t require red and white circles, that you and I make for real targets, that Mt Rainier is impressive, but it’s not nearly as meaningful as we are.

All you're doing is doubling down on the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.

- I’m pretty sure that this is why toontown thinks that your perspective is so important.

And that's why he's wrong. The first step in critical thinking is to remove your own perspective and attempt to look at things objectively.

- Your importance and likelihood, together, are really coincidental and impressive.

They are neither.