A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When you die, YOU may be a newborn named Jessica. This is not rebirth in the sense of any connection to a previous death, which people can't seem to grasp, especially when two completely different discussions on death are going on at the same time.

Recognizing, as Clark takes pains to point out, that the claim is using "You" in a loose sense (as you yourself, peacegirl, explained in one of your own posts) this is exactly what Stewart and Clark are contending.

This means you have two allies in at least this one claim. The idea has also been broached by Mark Sharlow at his blog, giving you a third potential ally. Why don't you network with these people? What are you afraid of?

Don't worry, Lessans thought of it before they did, so he gets first credit!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Tom Clark

In proposing this I don't mean to suggest that there exist some supernatural, death-defying connections between consciousnesses which could somehow preserve elements of memory or personality. This is not at all what I have in mind, since material evidence suggests that everything a person consists of--a living body, awareness, personality, memories, preferences, expectations, etc.--is erased at death. Personal subjective continuity as I defined it above requires that experiences be those of a particular person; hence, this sort of continuity is bounded by death. So when I say that you should look forward, at death, to the "subjective sense of always having been present," I am speaking rather loosely, for it is not you--not this set of personal characteristics--that will experience "being present." Rather, it will be another set of characteristics (in fact, countless sets) with the capacity, perhaps, for completely different sorts of experience. But, despite these (perhaps radical) differences, it will share the qualitatively very same sense of always having been here, and, like you, will never experience its cessation.

Now, peacegirl, is this, or is this not, what Lessans is arguing? If you say it isn't, it's obvious you don't understand your own father's argument.

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And by the same token, you have not had enough education ...

you have not had enough education in the formal tenets of philosophy

And by the same token, you have not had enough education...to act as a guide for anyone in the discussion of Lessans' discovery. Why can't you be honest here?

And by the same token, you have not had enough education in the formal tenets of philosophy to act as a guide for anyone in the discussion of Lessans' discovery. Why can't you be honest here?

No matter how you take it apart or put it back together it comes out hilarious.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When you die, YOU may be a newborn named Jessica. This is not rebirth in the sense of any connection to a previous death.

Wayne, is this not, in a succinct nutshell, what you and Tom are saying? Please reassure peacegirl on this point; she needs a break.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why are you so scared to ask? Are you afraid she will reject the request? I can understand why you wouldn't ask her if you think it's an imposition.

That was an inside joke.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When you die, YOU may be a newborn named Jessica. This is not rebirth in the sense of any connection to a previous death, which people can't seem to grasp, especially when two completely different discussions on death are going on at the same time.

Are you (peacegirl) claiming that the referent for the pronoun You, in the sentence above, is a newborn named Jessica? Is it correct to rewrite the sentence in this way?

Reborn only means Jessica will always be here; it does not mean there is a connection between the last person who died and the next person born.

That doesn't seem to work at all. So hows about you do what I actually asked instead of weaseling?


Jessica is Jessica. Jessica is not You (peacegirl) nor is Jessica me (LadyShea), nor is Jessica him (Spacemonkey), so your game with pronouns is just meaningless, as I've been saying.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And by the same token, you have not had enough education in the formal tenets of philosophy to act as a guide for anyone in the discussion of Lessans' discovery. Why can't you be honest here?

I've not acted as a guide, nor held myself out as a guide, to anyone for anything. I've shared my thoughts and opinions, and asked the questions I have

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That would be great, but I am certainly not going to be the one who asks livius for that split

I do know that what would help her, should any of you be brave enough to ask, is the list the post numbers that need to be moved

I'll be happy to get the post numbers if David tells me whether or not he wants her comments about it included because this is like trying to follow a conversation between adults with a screaming child throwing a tantrum in the middle of the room about 2 other subjects at the same time. I'm not volunteering to ask liv to do the split but if she's given any of you mod tools for some reason I can probably talk you through it.

[LadyShea]

I throwed you under the bus Christina. You shouldn't offer stuff up like that you know.

I have asked for a thread split to discuss W Stewarts writings separately

[ChristinaM]

It's a pain in the ass when you're filling in for a science mod and the subjects are nearly identical to a lay person, they're talking about both in the same posts and everyone wants it done perfectly in 3 minutes or less. Otherwise it's just checking boxes, doing a copy or move with one click and going back to pick up what was posted after you started. You just have to decide whether the posts should be moved or copied. If they get moved then no one will keep quoting them in this thread so that would probably be the best. Some extra stuff might come over too if it's in a mixed post but we're all past those parts anyway.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

From what I have read there is nothing in common between the two, that's why.

So you've read nothing that Wayne Stewart has written and understand nothing that Lessans has written, yet you feel that you are qualified to say that the 2 writings have nothing in common?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because he has done the work, and in all fairness you cannot compare one person with another. You have to judge them individually. Lessans deserves to be heard because these claims have major implications for the betterment of our world. If he is right, there is a lot to lose if people refuse to investigate.

And there are many discoverers that went from crackpot to well-respected. Why are you only looking at one side? I am pretty sure you would still cling to Lessans being wrong even after the testing proves him right.

The vast majority of 'crackpot ideas' stayed as 'crackpot ideas', there were a very few ideas that crossed from one to the other. Most ideas that were well respected in the begining, and failed, were just abandon as bad ideas, only a few have retained supporters and become the stuff of crackpots. Many of the ideas that started out well respected were finally proven and accepted as true. Science started believing that vision was efferent, but testing and experiments have proven that vision is afferent. It is very unlikely that Lessans will be proven right about anything. There is a massive amount of evidence against him, and there would need to be a demonstration that existing evidence is wrong and new evidence presented that supports his ideas.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

It's a pain in the ass when you're filling in for a science mod and the subjects are nearly identical to a lay person, they're talking about both in the same posts and everyone wants it done perfectly in 3 minutes or less. Otherwise it's just checking boxes, doing a copy or move with one click and going back to pick up what was posted after you started. You just have to decide whether the posts should be moved or copied. If they get moved then no one will keep quoting them in this thread so that would probably be the best. Some extra stuff might come over too if it's in a mixed post but we're all past those parts anyway.

Just pm livius the post numbers that should be split off. david might could help decide

[livius drusus]

Or post it in Admin thread Shea started.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by davidm

Here's what would be an honest response:

"It's true, NASA uses delayed-time seeing calculations to send spacecraft to Mars, and I have no explanation for this. Of course it contradicts Lessans. Still, I believe Lessans was right, even though all evidence contradicts him."

If you said that, we would judge you irrational, and conclude that yours is a faith-based position without hope of being correct, but at least no one would accuse you of being dishonst (which you are), and your would earn a much less acrimonious reception.

Bingo.

The reason you receive so much acrimony, peacegirl, is your fundamental dishonesty.

If you'd just admit that yours is a purely faith-based belief, no one would accuse you of dishonesty. It's that you dishonestly try to pretend that it's not a purely faith-based belief which engenders most of the acrimony.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Just pm livius the post numbers that should be split off. david might could help decide

The posts on this subject start at or before page 1165 and post #29105 and there is no way in 'that hot place that no-one here believes it' that I am going to try and sort them out. DavidM stated then that the topic had been discussed a hundred or more pages before that.

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Just pm livius the post numbers that should be split off. david might could help decide

How does this sound?

I'll do it with the assumption that there are 2 different books being discussed in this thread, one being Lessans' and the other being the writings of Wayne Stewart. I'll start the list with Wayne's first post and select the posts that are in response to his writings and subsequent posts with discussions and questions about those specific writings. I'll leave behind all discussion of the personal pronoun shell game going on with Lessans' idea. I'll also leave out the posts between David and peacegirl where she's insisting that the ideas are different because it will just drag the stupid into the new thread too. I figure that he can bring it in again when he thinks it's relevant. I'll try to make it look like a real philosophy thread. Hopefully peacegirl will understand that it's about Wayne's writings and not her father's .

I'll wait a few minutes to see if David wants something different before I start.

[livius drusus]

Does that suit you too, Wayne? You'll be the OP of a new thread. I can also copy posts if there's something you'd like to keep in this thread as well.

[ChristinaM]

Well that was rude of me. Of course I'll wait to see what Wayne thinks also.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not an assertion. Read this again carefully because this is all I'm posting on this subject.

<snip>

So you don't actually understand it yourself well enough to discuss it or answer questions about it? Just like with vision, you contradict yourself whenever you try to explain it. Is there any part of Lessans' work that you actually understand well enough to discuss?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When you die, YOU may be a newborn named Jessica. This is not rebirth in the sense of any connection to a previous death, which people can't seem to grasp, especially when two completely different discussions on death are going on at the same time.

You just contradicted yourself again.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And by the same token, you have not had enough education in the formal tenets of philosophy to act as a guide for anyone in the discussion of Lessans' discovery.

You've just here claimed that a formal education in philosophy is needed to act as a guide in the discussion of Lessans' ideas. What formal education in philosophy have YOU had, Peacegirl?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

How does this sound?

I'll do it with the assumption that there are 2 different books being discussed in this thread, one being Lessans' and the other being the writings of Wayne Stewart. I'll start the list with Wayne's first post and select the posts that are in response to his writings and subsequent posts with discussions and questions about those specific writings. I'll leave behind all discussion of the personal pronoun shell game going on with Lessans' idea. I'll also leave out the posts between David and peacegirl where she's insisting that the ideas are different because it will just drag the stupid into the new thread too. I figure that he can bring it in again when he thinks it's relevant. I'll try to make it look like a real philosophy thread. Hopefully peacegirl will understand that it's about Wayne's writings and not her father's .

I'll wait a few minutes to see if David wants something different before I start.

This seems fine to me. I do hope at some point that Wayne Stewart will tell peacegirl that Lessans' idea is fundamentally the same as his and Clark's.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You've just here claimed that a formal education in philosophy is needed to act as a guide in the discussion of Lessans' ideas. What formal education in philosophy have YOU had, Peacegirl?

More to the point, what "Formal Education in Philosophy" did Lessans have?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

Well that was rude of me. Of course I'll wait to see what Wayne thinks also.

Not at all, it's just that some people in their dotage tend to forget things like , , , - what was I just saying?