A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Yes, well this is the problem, peacegirl, I understand that under these ideas there is no connection between the previous and current consciousness, but then one is entitled to object that if there is no connection, then what is being advocated is not possible.

So you have talked to Clark on the phone? Well why don't you invite him here to pursue this discussion on his ideas? I can tell you this, he is not going to support you on determinism or on light and sight, but he will advocate for Leassnas on the "third discovery."

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by davidm

I can tell you this, he is not going to support you on determinism

Review of Waller's Against Moral Responsibility
http://www.naturalism.org/demoralization.htm

Sounds like Waller agrees with Lessans on blame/praise and Clark agrees with compatibilism

[LadyShea]

Bump with removal of pronouns

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It sounds like Lessans is saying nothing more than humans are conscious beings and every named individual has a consciousness that refers to itself as "I"

Without a connection between LadyShea and any future people, why should LadyShea give a flying fuck at all, let alone be comforted? It's absolutely no different than the concept of oblivion.

[ceptimus]

If we take a scientific look at an individual human, we see that he or she is ultimately composed of atoms - carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sodium, potassium, iron, calcium and a few others.

But these atoms are all regularly replaced as part of normal life processes - even the atoms in our bones get replaced every few years; you are literally not the same person that you were a few years ago.

An interesting corollary of this is that as our atoms are continually recycled back into the atmosphere, oceans, etc. and that there are so many atoms in each of our bodies, then it's a statistical certainty that your body, right now, contains some atoms that were once part of Einstein's body, or Hitler's, or Abraham Lincoln's, or any other person you care to name. You probably won't have any atoms that have been part of an infant recently born - especially if that infant is in a country remote from yours - but that infant is certain to have some atoms that were once part of your body.

Come back to the fact that your entire body is gradually replaced every few years - what remains that you can call 'me' when none of the physical material is the original? Ultimately it comes down to patterns - a set of atoms arranged in a particular way records some information - and if all those atoms are replaced by others, but the pattern is still the same then the same information is recorded. We are used to the idea that a recording of someone's voice may be copied - say from a 78 rpm record to a CD. The physical media changes but the 'memory' is still the same. If we take this one stage further to an MP3 recording then there needn't be any fixed media anymore - we could transmit the recording out into empty space, say as a pulsed laser signal, or just using regular radio waves - and the 'recording' will then travel through empty space, maybe for ever, without even needing any atoms to carry it.

Information can also be recorded in the way things move - we can watch dancers and know whether they are dancing a tango or some other dance - even though, of course, the same bodies are being used to 'render' the dance.

So ultimately, what we call 'me' comes down to a collection of patterns and dances.

Consider that the hard science version says that all individuals share the same building blocks, that the building blocks are regularly replaced and recycled through other individuals, and that the difference between one individual and another is the pattern the blocks are arranged in, or the dance they are engaged in.

It's not so very different from the explanations of shared consciousness, rebirth and so on that are offered by different religions or philosophies.

Not particularly comforting either - unless you can draw comfort from the fact that once you're dead, your atoms will continue to be used by other living things, including other humans.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why? Because most people think there's nothing after death, or they will be sent to some purgatory or they will be granted a place in heaven. It's a wonderful feeling to know that when we die it's not the end. It may also create more interest in the book because it won't be our posterity that will get the benefit of this new world, but us. If that doesn't give you an incentive to spread this knowledge, I don't think anything will.

Where are your statistics to show that "most people" are Athiests or Agnostics? Religious people usually have some idea of a Heaven and I believe the Religious are the majority. Agreed, some religions believe in reincarnation, and some do not, but Lessans claims that this is not reincarnation.

[davidm]

[Stephen Maturin]

The peacegirl Bible certainly contains more than enough "number 2" to go around, and this born-again-and-again nonsense is no different.

Originally Posted by davidm

Another thing that neither Lessans, Clark nor Stewart address is this: assuming generic subjective continuity is a coherent idea (Stewart calls it "existential passage,") why does the locus of awareness shift from one individual human consciousness to another? Why doesn't it shift to a bird, a beetle, a dog or an alien on a distant planet?

In that respect it's not altogether different from reincarnation. People with "knowledge" of their past lives were always Scipio Africanus, Maimonides, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Luther King, Albert Einstein, etc.; they were never Joe Blow, some anonymous alcoholic who sucked dick for gin money and died an early, painful death.

Originally Posted by davidm

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

People with "knowledge" of their past lives were always Scipio Africanus, Maimonides, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Luther King, Albert Einstein, etc.; they were never Joe Blow, some anonymous alcoholic who sucked dick for gin money and died an early, painful death.

That's the thing that always amazes me about the so-called phenomenon of reincarnation.

Statistically, of the billions of people who have existed, the overwhelming majority of them have lived short, miserable lives. Most died in infancy or childhood. The overwhelming majority of people who have lived during the past 1,000 years or so and managed to live to adulthood were slaves or serfs, or otherwise lived lives of brutal servitude and exploitation, racked by disease, parasites, and malnutrition.

So why do so many people "remember" being Cleopatra? And why can't they speak Ancient Egyptian?

[davidm]

Ah, well, just to be fair, the philosopher Normal Swartz in one of his books recounts the man who in a past life was a raccoon.

[LadyShea]

If we look at atoms and elements, we are all stardust anyway.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Meanwhile in the real world there are 19 births for every 8 deaths, so where do the extra consciousnesses come from?

You're not seeing the relation yet. You are looking at this as if it's an equal exchange. This is incorrect.

p. 498 Since you are no longer conscious of your
existence when dead, and since it is mathematically impossible to see
this world through the consciousness of another, only through your
own consciousness, and since everybody who is still alive has their own
consciousness, it is obvious that the next person conceived and born
after your death is not him or her, because this can only be in relation
to your consciousness which is not here anymore once you died, but
YOU, not the person who just died, but an individual who grows and
develops and becomes conscious of his existence and individuality.

Consequently, this allows us to make an undeniable observation.
Because there is no such thing as the past, and consciousness can only
be your consciousness (never that of another) which can only exist in
the present, your consciousness, not your body, will always be here
during every moment of time because it is not a personal
characteristic like the shape of your nose, but that which applies to the
living substance of all mankind. Let me give another example to help
you see the relation. Take your time with this and eventually you will
understand.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

"You" is a synonym for LadyShea when peacegirl is talking to LadyShea. So how would you make your argument using only proper nouns and no pronouns at all?

It is difficult to take out the pronoun because whomever I am addressing is YOU. LadyShea is a specific name; YOU is not, unless qualified.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

peacegirl has explicitly stated that there is nothing after death for LadyShea, or Spacemonkey, or any named individual and that death is the end of that named individual. So any named individual's fear of cessation of that named individual's existence is not eased in the slightest.

That may be true if you are looking at it in terms of your present life, but if you are taking a broader view, especially as you age (which we all have to face up to) and know that death is around the corner, the knowledge that death of this individual life is not the end will be very comforting.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So then LadyShea will not always be here, although you said to LadyShea

So please make Lessans argument without using any pronouns. If peacegirl can make the argument without pronouns, then LadyShea will better understand what peacegirl and Lessans are trying to say.

The use of pronouns to refer to individuals and not individuals at the same time is illicit and confusing. If Lessans argument relies on the use of pronouns, then it is nothing but word games.

It is necessary that I use pronouns because Lessans was trying to show that only when we are looking out from our own consciousness, can we say him or her. We cannot be on the outside looking in. The confusion with pronouns is what he is trying to clarify.

Originally Posted by davidm

The argument is that at death of the personal subjective continuity x, there is a shift in the locus of awareness from x, which subject is well and truly gone, to y, which then constitutes a different personal subjectivity. For Clark, this "shift" is generic subjective continuity; for Stewart, is "existential passage."

Now, the immediate problem, is this: WHAT shifts? WHAT passes? WHAT continues? And from all the exponents of this thesis, we are met with deafening silence.

This is where the "shift" stated by Clark and the "existential passage" stated by Stewart do not line up with Lessans' explanation, so please don't tell me that they are one and the same.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Now we can all start talking in the third person, like

That really looks like Nixon. Great cartoonist.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is necessary that I use pronouns because Lessans was trying to show that only when we are looking out from our own consciousness, can we say him or her. We cannot be on the outside looking in. The confusion with pronouns is what he is trying to clarify.

This is where the "shift" stated by Clark and the "existential passage" stated by Stewart do not line up with Lessans' explanation, so please don't tell me that they are one and the same.

Well, they ARE the same, exactly the same, and since you say you have talked to Clark on the phone, why don't you ask him, and see if he says they are the same.

There are two possible problems in explicating this stuff. One might be, as I suggested earlier, that our language can't quite encompass the basic idea, since, for instance, we have no personal pronoun that describes both personal subjective passage and generic subjective passage.

The other problem, though, might be that at the end of the day, the concept being enunciated here cannot be adequately captured by any language, because the concept fails to be coherent.

Why don't you invite Clark over and ask for some help? I quite assure you that he agrees with Lessans on these claims.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LadyShea will continue to speak in the third person until peacegirl can explain Lessans position without the use of personal pronouns.

That will be hard to do because pronouns are pivotal in understanding why "I" will be here, not him or her, which is an impossible relation to make when you are not here. I will repeat this. Maybe it will eventually sink in.

p. 494 All through your life you say ‘he died,’ ‘she died,’ ‘they died,’ ‘he
was born,’ ‘she was born,’ ‘they were born,’ and you assume that these
same observations that you make during your life will continue after
your death. This relation is difficult to see because you must project
what actually occurs after you are no longer here. You actually extend
your reasoning beyond the grave, which is mathematically impossible
to do. Remember, when you die you can no longer say ‘he is born’
because this observation must pass through your consciousness and
your consciousness is no longer here since you died, so who is this
child that is born?

As soon as you say "it isn't me who was just born", or "how do you
know it is me who is born and not someone else", you are reasoning
beyond the grave.

[ChristinaM]

David, is it possible that Lessans' idea is just a more trivial flavor of a concept than Clark's is and that it's nothing more than a word game manipulation of pronouns that has nothing at all to do with consciousness as anyone else besides Lessans would describe it? No matter how many times I read it all Lessans seems to be saying is "shut up and be joyful because the word "I" will not die when you do".

[davidm]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

David, is it possible that Lessans' idea is just a more trivial flavor of a concept than Clark's is and that it's nothing more than a word game manipulation of pronouns that has nothing at all to do with consciousness as anyone else besides Lessans would describe it? No matter how many times I read it all Lessans seems to be saying is "shut up and be joyful because the word "I" will not die when you do".

No, it's the same argument in somewhat different words, and all anyone has to do to verify this is contact Clark, or Wayne Stewart for that matter.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is necessary that I use pronouns because Lessans was trying to show that only when we are looking out from our own consciousness, can we say him or her. We cannot be on the outside looking in. The confusion with pronouns is what he is trying to clarify.

p. 497 We shall
let A represent all the sperm pertaining to mankind, B all the ova, and
the combination of one with the other will be designated C which is
you, your potential consciousness of existence. Your parents have
decided to create a child. This is you, but you don’t know this yet,
nor do they know whether you will be a boy or girl or what other
characteristics you may have. You might be the first child, second,
third, fourth, fifth, and so on. Now remember, you are not born yet
so you cannot possibly be conscious of your existence, but you are a
potential candidate for this consciousness. As luck would have it, you
die during your uterine journey when your mother has a miscarriage
which means that the conditions are exactly as they were before.

Consequently, you are not conscious of your existence because your
body was never born to give you this and therefore the relation
expressed in these words — ‘he died, she died, or it died,’ would have
no meaning where you are concerned (only those who are living),
because you just died, and your existence is absolutely necessary for
the relation. Now this potential mother and father still want their
first baby — they want YOU — which word symbolizes human living
substance, so they try again, but this time you are born only to die
one month later of a heart problem. Still persistent and having a lot
of fun they try again with viable success but 18 years later you end up
in a car accident where you die. Much older now, but still capable of
propagating, mom and dad are not satisfied to lose YOU, so they try
once more to bring YOU into existence.

In actual reality, though
heredity differences exist between the three C’s, the word YOU is a
designation only for the viable substance that comes into the world
and is identified with a name to establish these differences which mom
and dad grow to love. But what is the difference between the potential
YOU who died during the uterine journey, the YOU who died one
month after birth, or the YOU who died 18 years later? Because you
are conscious of your existence and individuality during those years in
the present, write a book, build a home, make a lot of friends who cry
when you die, doesn’t take away from the fact that you are a
combination of A and B which continues in existence even while you
are alive, and regardless of what happens to C. Consequently, the
consciousness of your individuality without understanding that you
are not only C, which represents the hereditary differences that die,
but the germinal substance A and B which never die because they are
carried along from generation to generation and when united develop
into your existence, makes you perceive an improper relation.

Simply
because the entelechy of A and B develops into the consciousness of
C, which permits the recognition of individuality, does not negate the
substance from which C is derived. Even if all the individual
characteristics lie potential in the germinal substance, this still has
nothing to do with consciousness which is not an individual
characteristic like your face. The word ‘I’ or ‘you’ not only reveals this
individual difference between yourself and others, but your
consciousness of this. There is no actual difference between the
potential YOU who died one month after birth, the YOU who will die
in a relatively short period of time, or the YOU who lived for many
years. If you had died a hundred thousand times in the uterus of
somebody, eventually YOU, which is a word describing the
consciousness of differences about yourself after your parents create
you, would have been born.

This is where the "shift" stated by Clark and the "existential passage" stated by Stewart do not line up with Lessans' explanation, so please don't tell me that they are one and the same.

Originally Posted by davidm

Well, they ARE the same, exactly the same, and since you say you have talked to Clark on the phone, why don't you ask him, and see if he says they are the same.

Why are you insistent that they are the same when there is a difference? Is it because you don't want Lessans to get any of the credit? They are not the same if they are talking about a passage or shift because that implies a link between one awareness and another, and this is not what Lessans is saying although the concepts are very close.

Originally Posted by davidm

There are two possible problems in explicating this stuff. One might be, as I suggested earlier, that our language can't quite encompass the basic idea, since, for instance, we have no personal pronoun that describes both personal subjective passage and generic subjective passage.

There is no personal pronoun that describes a generic subjective passage because generic implies non-personal, so that's out.

Originally Posted by davidm

The other problem, though, might be that at the end of the day, the concept being enunciated here cannot be adequately captured by any language, because the concept fails to be coherent.

That's out of the question because it is coherent and we do have enough language and intelligence to grasp the basic concept.

Originally Posted by davidm

Why don't you invite Clark over and ask for some help? I quite assure you that he agrees with Lessans on these claims.

Maybe he does, but I'm not going to bug him right now over this. I have to focus on Lessans' other discovery or I will get off onto another tangent (and this is a tangent even though it's Lessans' 3rd discovery), and that's not my plan.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're not seeing the relation yet. You are looking at this as if it's an equal exchange. This is incorrect.

Then what did peacegirl mean by "If there are 100 people living, and a person suddenly dies making it 99, the next person born is not 101, but 100."

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why are you insistent that they are the same when there is a difference? Is it because you don't want Lessans to get any of the credit?

LOL, you are so paranoid. Long ago, I pointed out to you that Lessans thought of this FIRST, before Stewart or Clark. So if this is true, the credit for "first" belongs to him.

They are not the same if they are talking about a passage or shift because that implies a link between one awareness and another, and this is not what Lessans is saying although the concepts are very close.

They are talking about a METAPHORICAL "passage" or "shift," since the idea is difficult to put into words.

There is no personal pronoun that describes a generic subjective passage because generic implies non-personal, so that's out.

OK, so that's out. What's in?

Maybe he does, but I'm not going to bug him right now over this. I have to focus on Lessans' other discovery or I will get off onto another tangent (and this is a tangent even though it's Lessans' 3rd discovery), and that's not my plan.

Well, so far, after ten years, all of your plans have come to naught. Yet here you have a claim by Lessans that Clark and Stewart would fully support, giving you allies at last, and you balk at talking advantage of it. Quite weird. It supports the idea that what you really revel in is opposition, not support.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That will be hard to do because pronouns are pivotal in understanding why "I" will be here, not him or her, which is an impossible relation to make when you are not here. I will repeat this. Maybe it will eventually sink in.

p. 494 All through your life you say ‘he died,’ ‘she died,’ ‘they died,’ ‘he
was born,’ ‘she was born,’ ‘they were born,’ and you assume that these
same observations that you make during your life will continue after
your death. This relation is difficult to see because you must project
what actually occurs after you are no longer here. You actually extend
your reasoning beyond the grave, which is mathematically impossible
to do. Remember, when you die you can no longer say ‘he is born’
because this observation must pass through your consciousness and
your consciousness is no longer here since you died, so who is this
child that is born?

As soon as you say "it isn't me who was just born", or "how do you
know it is me who is born and not someone else", you are reasoning
beyond the grave.

Then Lessans position is indeed nothing more than word play with pronouns, has nothing to do with individual human beings being born again and again, and is meaningless.

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by Lessans

... Your parents have
decided to create a child. ... As luck would have it, you
die during your uterine journey when your mother has a miscarriage... Now this potential mother and father still want their
first baby ... so they try again, but this time you are born only to die
one month later of a heart problem. Still persistent and having a lot
of fun they try again with viable success but 18 years later you end up
in a car accident where you die. ...

I think that it might be time for a discussion of etiquette WRT rumpety pumpety again.


(my apologies to Vivisectus for what I'm sure is a spelling error.)

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That may be true if you are looking at it in terms of your present life, but if you are taking a broader view, especially as you age (which we all have to face up to) and know that death is around the corner, the knowledge that death of this individual life is not the end will be very comforting.

It is the end for that individual, which is the very thing that individual fears, so no comfort can be found in it. All peacegirl seems to be saying is that humanity does not end with one individual's cessation of existing....to which LadyShea responds DUH!