A revolution in thought - Page 311

davidm · #**7751** 07-02-2011, 06:44 PM

I want to lay out more formally why this “existential passage” concept is metaphysically empty.

Standard Physicalism (SP) is the thesis that when we die, we permanently cease to exist and nothing of our awareness or consciousness “passes” to anyone or anything. Death is the permanent cessation of awareness.

Existential Passage (EP) is the thesis described above, that we somehow “pass” to the next person born, even though we do not share a soul, a pattern, or a substance with that next person.

We can now set up a taxonomy of predictions and consequences of the competing claims.

Let’s again use Einstein and Billy Buttfuck.

Standard Physicalism

SP predicts as follows: Einstein dies, and Einstein, as Einstein, ceases to exist, his memories, consciousness and all other mental properties permanently obliterated.

SP predicts that Billy Buttfuck, as Billy Buttfuck, attains awareness sometime early in life and self-awareness a little later. He has no memory or experience of having been anyone other than who he is.

SP predicts that outside observers can objectively agree on the time and place of Einstein’s death, and that Einstein is gone for good. They can objectively agree on the time and place of Buttfuck’s birth, and that Buttfuck is coming into existence for the first time.

Existential Passage

EP predicts as follows: Einstein dies, and Einstein, as Einstein, ceases to exist, his memories, consciousness and all other mental properties permanently obliterated.

EP predicts that Billy Buttfuck, as Billy Buttfuck, attains awareness sometime early in life and self-awareness a little later. He has no memory or experience of having been anyone other than who he is.

EP predicts that outside observers can objectively agree on the time and place of Einstein’s death, and that Einstein is gone for good. They can objectively agree on the time and place of Buttfuck’s birth, and that Buttfuck is coming into existence for the first time.

Anyone notice anything funny?

The predictions of SP and EP are, word for word, exactly the same.

Therefore, the only difference between the two claims is this: EP posits a wholly unknown, and in principle undetectable, phenomenon whereby Einstein on his death somehow (!) passes to Buttfuck. But, just as in SP, Buttfuck has no idea that he “was” Einstein, and Einstein has no idea that he “will become” Buttfuck. But the predictions and the consequences of SP and EP are otherwise exactly the same. EP just introduces a wholly superfluous and completely untestable claim of passage from Einstein to Buttfuck.

Ockham’s Razor now swoops in, and slices away the metaphysically useless empty baggage of EP.

LadyShea · #**7752** 07-02-2011, 06:50 PM

God, it's even stupider when it's explained coherently.

davidm · #**7753** 07-02-2011, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

God, it's even stupider when it's explained coherently.

And there is more yet! :grin:

davidm · #**7754** 07-02-2011, 07:09 PM

Just in case Lessans’ (and Stewart’s) notion of EP has not been disposed of, I will now show why it is scientifically impossible.

Stewart and Lessans claim that Einstein would pass to Buttfuck, just in case Buttfuck was the next person born in the world. The question, though, is this: the next person born in the world, according to who?

And now the same bugbear that destroyed Lessans’ efferent vision and real-time seeing — good old Special Relativity — is going to destroy existential passage, even if EP were philosophically coherent, which, as we have seen, it is not. And it’s going to save poor old Einstein, SR’s inventor, from becoming Buttfuck :phew:

(even assuming such an idea were coherent in the first place, which it is not).

A principle feature of SR is that for certain classes of events, there is no objective fact of the matter about their time ordering.

Consider Einstein’s thought experiment about the train.

Recall that in the experiment, a woman on a train sits in the middle of the train, equidistant from front and back. And there is a man on the embankment.

The train rushes past. When the woman on the train and the man on the embankment face each other, such that both are now equidistant from the front and back of the train, the man on the embankment reports lightning flashes hitting the back and front of the train simultaneously, while the woman on the train sees them occur sequentially, with the front flash first and the rear flash later.

We can throw in a second train, heading in the opposite direction of the first. The observer on the second train will report that the lightning flash at the back of the first train occurs first, and that the flash at the front of the first train occurs later.

Remember, under SR, all three observers are correct. There is no frame-independent time ordering of these events.

Now let’s call the flash at the back of the train “death of Einstein” and the flash at the front of the train “birth of Buttfuck.”

For the observer on the embankment: Einstein dies, and Buttfuck is born, simultaneously. Hence Einstein cannot pass to Buttfuck; EP says Einstein must pass to the next person born after Einstein dies!

For the observer on the first train: Buttfuck is born before Einstein dies. Hence, again, Einstein cannot “pass” to Buttfuck!

It is only possible for the observer on the second train to entertain the notion that Einstein passes to Buttfuck, because for that observer, Einstein dies first and then later Buttfuck is born. But even here, it is not guaranteed that Buttfuck is the next person born after Einstein dies; he might be, but for an observer traveling in yet a different inertial frame, relative to the two trains and the observer on the ground, he won’t be.

Thus, the Special Theory of Relativity makes existential passage impossible, because it brings about a logical contradiction: Einstein both does, and does not, pass to Buttfuck.

peacegirl · #**7755** 07-02-2011, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doctor X

She could start by reading TLR's explanation, but she will not because she knows if she does she will know she is wrong.

So she covers her eyes . . . hoping the monster of reality will not see her.

Funny, her "Efferent Theory" remains contradicted by visual field deficits and neglects. As it is contradicted by, well, everything.

--J.D.

It is not contradicted by visual field deficits and neglects. If there is a problem with central vision, there is probably a problem with the brain and it would be the same whether we saw afferently or efferently.

peacegirl · #**7756** 07-02-2011, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Just in case Lessans’ (and Stewart’s) notion of EP has not been disposed of, I will now show why it is scientifically impossible.

Stewart and Lessans claim that Einstein would pass to Buttfuck, just in case Buttfuck was the next person born in the world. The question, though, is this: the next person born in the world, according to who?

Wrong. Lessans is not claiming that the next person born would automatically be the person who just died.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

And now the same bugbear that destroyed Lessans’ efferent vision and real-time seeing — good old Special Relativity — is going to destroy existential passage, even if EP were philosophically coherent, which, as we have seen, it is not. And it’s going to save poor old Einstein, SR’s inventor, from becoming Buttfuck :phew:

(even assuming such an idea were coherent in the first place, which it is not).

A principle feature of SR is that for certain classes of events, there is no objective fact of the matter about their time ordering.

Consider Einstein’s thought experiment about the train.

Recall that in the experiment, a woman on a train sits in the middle of the train, equidistant from front and back. And there is a man on the embankment.

The train rushes past. When the woman on the train and the man on the embankment face each other, such that both are now equidistant from the front and back of the train, the man on the embankment reports lightning flashes hitting the back and front of the train simultaneously, while the woman on the train sees them occur sequentially, with the front flash first and the rear flash later.

We can throw in a second train, heading in the opposite direction of the first. The observer on the second train will report that the lightning flash at the back of the first train occurs first, and that the flash at the front of the first train occurs later.

Remember, under SR, all three observers are correct. There is no frame-independent time ordering of these events.

Now let’s call the flash at the back of the train “death of Einstein” and the flash at the front of the train “birth of Buttfuck.”

For the observer on the embankment: Einstein dies, and Buttfuck is born, simultaneously. Hence Einstein cannot pass to Buttfuck; EP says Einstein must pass to the next person born after Einstein dies!

For the observer on the first train: Buttfuck is born before Einstein dies. Hence, again, Einstein cannot “pass” to Buttfuck!

It is only possible for the observer on the second train to entertain the notion that Einstein passes to Buttfuck, because for that observer, Einstein dies first and then later Buttfuck is born. But even here, it is not guaranteed that Buttfuck is the next person born after Einstein dies; he might be, but for an observer traveling in yet a different inertial frame, relative to the two trains and the observer on the ground, he won’t be.

Thus, the Special Theory of Relativity makes existential passage impossible, because it brings about a logical contradiction: Einstein both does, and does not, pass to Buttfuck.

I am very surprised that you're comparing Lessans third discovery to some other philosophy that has nothing to do with it. :sadcheer:

davidm · #**7757** 07-02-2011, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Just in case Lessans’ (and Stewart’s) notion of EP has not been disposed of, I will now show why it is scientifically impossible.

Stewart and Lessans claim that Einstein would pass to Buttfuck, just in case Buttfuck was the next person born in the world. The question, though, is this: the next person born in the world, according to who?

Wrong. Lessans is not claiming that the next person born would automatically be the person who just died.

Hey, Peacegirl, have you read your own father's book? You know, the thing that you keep hectoring us to do?

Want me to quote him, Peacegirl? The part where he explicitly says that the next person born is the conscisousness of the person who just died? :popcorn:

davidm · #**7758** 07-02-2011, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Just in case Lessans’ (and Stewart’s) notion of EP has not been disposed of, I will now show why it is scientifically impossible.

Stewart and Lessans claim that Einstein would pass to Buttfuck, just in case Buttfuck was the next person born in the world. The question, though, is this: the next person born in the world, according to who?

Wrong. Lessans is not claiming that the next person born would automatically be the person who just died.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

And now the same bugbear that destroyed Lessans’ efferent vision and real-time seeing — good old Special Relativity — is going to destroy existential passage, even if EP were philosophically coherent, which, as we have seen, it is not. And it’s going to save poor old Einstein, SR’s inventor, from becoming Buttfuck :phew:

(even assuming such an idea were coherent in the first place, which it is not).

A principle feature of SR is that for certain classes of events, there is no objective fact of the matter about their time ordering.

Consider Einstein’s thought experiment about the train.

Recall that in the experiment, a woman on a train sits in the middle of the train, equidistant from front and back. And there is a man on the embankment.

The train rushes past. When the woman on the train and the man on the embankment face each other, such that both are now equidistant from the front and back of the train, the man on the embankment reports lightning flashes hitting the back and front of the train simultaneously, while the woman on the train sees them occur sequentially, with the front flash first and the rear flash later.

We can throw in a second train, heading in the opposite direction of the first. The observer on the second train will report that the lightning flash at the back of the first train occurs first, and that the flash at the front of the first train occurs later.

Remember, under SR, all three observers are correct. There is no frame-independent time ordering of these events.

Now let’s call the flash at the back of the train “death of Einstein” and the flash at the front of the train “birth of Buttfuck.”

For the observer on the embankment: Einstein dies, and Buttfuck is born, simultaneously. Hence Einstein cannot pass to Buttfuck; EP says Einstein must pass to the next person born after Einstein dies!

For the observer on the first train: Buttfuck is born before Einstein dies. Hence, again, Einstein cannot “pass” to Buttfuck!

It is only possible for the observer on the second train to entertain the notion that Einstein passes to Buttfuck, because for that observer, Einstein dies first and then later Buttfuck is born. But even here, it is not guaranteed that Buttfuck is the next person born after Einstein dies; he might be, but for an observer traveling in yet a different inertial frame, relative to the two trains and the observer on the ground, he won’t be.

Thus, the Special Theory of Relativity makes existential passage impossible, because it brings about a logical contradiction: Einstein both does, and does not, pass to Buttfuck.

I am very surprised that you're comparing Lessans third discovery to some other philosophy that has nothing to do with it. :sadcheer:

See above, peacegirl. Like Stewart, your father says that the next person born takes up the consciousness of the person that just died. SR makes this impossible. Just like it makes real-time seeing and efferent vision impossible. :yup:

And, as I shall soon show, special relativity and general relativity make EP impossible for yet another reason!

And please respond, if you can, to my questions, and Lady Shea's questions about the philosophical coherency of this concept. Thanks! :wave:

davidm · #**7759** 07-02-2011, 08:02 PM

Hey, Peacegirl, I commend to your attention the following posts:

Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A revolution in thought

Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A revolution in thought

Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A revolution in thought

Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A revolution in thought

Also, were you going to look up in Dad’s book where he said that the next person born takes up the consciousness of the person who died, or am I going to have to do that for you?

:popcorn:

peacegirl · #**7760** 07-02-2011, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Just in case Lessans’ (and Stewart’s) notion of EP has not been disposed of, I will now show why it is scientifically impossible.

Stewart and Lessans claim that Einstein would pass to Buttfuck, just in case Buttfuck was the next person born in the world. The question, though, is this: the next person born in the world, according to who?

Wrong. Lessans is not claiming that the next person born would automatically be the person who just died.

Hey, Peacegirl, have you read your own father's book? You know, the thing that you keep hectoring us to do?

Want me to quote him, Peacegirl? The part where he explicitly says that the next person born is the conscisousness of the person who just died? :popcorn:

I know where he says that david, but there is no relationship with the person who just died (meaning "you"), and the "you" who is coming into the world. He makes no reference to a person who just died, and the next person born.

But remember, since it is
mathematically impossible to see this universe through any
consciousness but your own, and since your consciousness is no longer
here, the next person born is not his or her consciousness, for this
must be in relation to you, and you are not here because you just died,
but YOUR consciousness.

peacegirl · #**7761** 07-02-2011, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Hey, Peacegirl, I commend to your attention the following posts:

Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A revolution in thought

Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A revolution in thought

Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A revolution in thought

Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A revolution in thought

Also, were you going to look up in Dad’s book where he said that the next person born takes up the consciousness of the person who died, or am I going to have to do that for you?

:popcorn:

David, this is getting silly. He never ever said that the next person takes up the consciousness of the person who died because there's no relationship. It almost sounds like science fiction, as if somebody's spirit or consciousness can take up residence in another person's body. This is not what he's saying at all.

davidm · #**7762** 07-02-2011, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Hey, Peacegirl, I commend to your attention the following posts:

Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A revolution in thought

Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A revolution in thought

Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A revolution in thought

Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A revolution in thought

Also, were you going to look up in Dad’s book where he said that the next person born takes up the consciousness of the person who died, or am I going to have to do that for you?

:popcorn:

David, this is getting silly. He never ever said that the next person takes up the consciousness of the person who died because there's no relationship. It almost sounds like science fiction, as if somebody's spirit or consciousness can take up residence in another person's body. This is not what he's saying at all.

Yes, it sounds like science fiction because it IS science fiction. AND THIS SCIENCE FICTION IS YOUR FATHER'S CLAIMS.

Wow, peacegirl, how stupid do you take people to be? As stupid as you? You just quoted him thus:

Quote:

But remember, since it is
mathematically impossible to see this universe through any
consciousness but your own, and since your consciousness is no longer
here, the next person born is not his or her consciousness, for this
must be in relation to you, and you are not here because you just died,
but YOUR consciousness.

Have you no reading comprehension AT ALL? He is saying: YOUR consciousness is no longer here (because you have died); THEREFORE, the next person born is NOT HIS OR HER CONSCIOUSNESS, but YOUR consciousness! WTF is he saying, other than: when you die, YOUR consciousness becomes that of the NEXT PERSON BORN?

Hm, peacegirl? :popcorn:

And that is exactly the same thing that Stewart said, which you already admitted, in case you forgot! You even THANKED me for linking to Stewart, way back long ago!

:lol:

davidm · #**7763** 07-02-2011, 08:16 PM

Watch the

squirm!

LadyShea · #**7764** 07-02-2011, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Hey, Peacegirl, I commend to your attention the following posts:

Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A revolution in thought

Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A revolution in thought

Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A revolution in thought

Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A revolution in thought

Also, were you going to look up in Dad’s book where he said that the next person born takes up the consciousness of the person who died, or am I going to have to do that for you?

:popcorn:

David, this is getting silly. He never ever said that the next person takes up the consciousness of the person who died because there's no relationship. It almost sounds like science fiction, as if somebody's spirit or consciousness can take up residence in another person's body. This is not what he's saying at all.

What is he saying then?

How is saying "we are born again and again and again" coherent AT ALL if there is no relationship between the consciousness of those that have died and those that are born after?

What does "the next person born is not his or her consciousness, but YOUR consciousness.* " mean?

Bolded parenthetical below removed from above as it serves to obfuscate the actual point

Quote:

the next person born is not his or her consciousness, for this must be in relation to you, and you are not here because you just died, but YOUR consciousness.

peacegirl · #**7765** 07-02-2011, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Just in case Lessans’ (and Stewart’s) notion of EP has not been disposed of, I will now show why it is scientifically impossible.

Stewart and Lessans claim that Einstein would pass to Buttfuck, just in case Buttfuck was the next person born in the world. The question, though, is this: the next person born in the world, according to who?

Wrong. Lessans is not claiming that the next person born would automatically be the person who just died.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

And now the same bugbear that destroyed Lessans’ efferent vision and real-time seeing — good old Special Relativity — is going to destroy existential passage, even if EP were philosophically coherent, which, as we have seen, it is not. And it’s going to save poor old Einstein, SR’s inventor, from becoming Buttfuck :phew:

(even assuming such an idea were coherent in the first place, which it is not).

A principle feature of SR is that for certain classes of events, there is no objective fact of the matter about their time ordering.

Consider Einstein’s thought experiment about the train.

Recall that in the experiment, a woman on a train sits in the middle of the train, equidistant from front and back. And there is a man on the embankment.

The train rushes past. When the woman on the train and the man on the embankment face each other, such that both are now equidistant from the front and back of the train, the man on the embankment reports lightning flashes hitting the back and front of the train simultaneously, while the woman on the train sees them occur sequentially, with the front flash first and the rear flash later.

We can throw in a second train, heading in the opposite direction of the first. The observer on the second train will report that the lightning flash at the back of the first train occurs first, and that the flash at the front of the first train occurs later.

Remember, under SR, all three observers are correct. There is no frame-independent time ordering of these events.

Now let’s call the flash at the back of the train “death of Einstein” and the flash at the front of the train “birth of Buttfuck.”

For the observer on the embankment: Einstein dies, and Buttfuck is born, simultaneously. Hence Einstein cannot pass to Buttfuck; EP says Einstein must pass to the next person born after Einstein dies!

For the observer on the first train: Buttfuck is born before Einstein dies. Hence, again, Einstein cannot “pass” to Buttfuck!

It is only possible for the observer on the second train to entertain the notion that Einstein passes to Buttfuck, because for that observer, Einstein dies first and then later Buttfuck is born. But even here, it is not guaranteed that Buttfuck is the next person born after Einstein dies; he might be, but for an observer traveling in yet a different inertial frame, relative to the two trains and the observer on the ground, he won’t be.

Thus, the Special Theory of Relativity makes existential passage impossible, because it brings about a logical contradiction: Einstein both does, and does not, pass to Buttfuck.

I am very surprised that you're comparing Lessans third discovery to some other philosophy that has nothing to do with it. :sadcheer:

See above, peacegirl. Like Stewart, your father says that the next person born takes up the consciousness of the person that just died. SR makes this impossible. Just like it makes real-time seeing and efferent vision impossible. :yup:

And, as I shall soon show, special relativity and general relativity make EP impossible for yet another reason!

And please respond, if you can, to my questions, and Lady Shea's questions about the philosophical coherency of this concept. Thanks! :wave:

Show me where he says the next person born takes up the consciousness of the person that just died.

davidm · #**7766** 07-02-2011, 08:25 PM

She quotes her own father explicitly saying that YOUR conscisouness becomes that of the next person born after you die, and she denies that this is what he is saying!

Then what is he saying, peacegirl? :lol:

How do you get born again and again, to enjoy eternal bliss in the Golden Age? :lol:

LadyShea · #**7767** 07-02-2011, 08:26 PM

Quote:

the next person born is not his or her consciousness, but YOUR consciousness.

Is it really all about pronoun usage, peacegirl, like the reviewer at Amazon stated? Noting the limitations of language to explain some concepts isn't really much of a discovery about the nature of the concept

davidm · #**7768** 07-02-2011, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Show me where he says the next person born takes up the consciousness of the person that just died.

Can you read?

Quote:

...since your consciousness is no longer
here, the next person born is not his or her consciousness ... but YOUR consciousness.

LadyShea · #**7769** 07-02-2011, 08:29 PM

david, she is taking umbrage at "takes up" because Lessan's used "is"

So we need to define "is" I guess

peacegirl · #**7770** 07-02-2011, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Hey, Peacegirl, I commend to your attention the following posts:

Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A revolution in thought

Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A revolution in thought

Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A revolution in thought

Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A revolution in thought

Also, were you going to look up in Dad’s book where he said that the next person born takes up the consciousness of the person who died, or am I going to have to do that for you?

:popcorn:

David, this is getting silly. He never ever said that the next person takes up the consciousness of the person who died because there's no relationship. It almost sounds like science fiction, as if somebody's spirit or consciousness can take up residence in another person's body. This is not what he's saying at all.

What is he saying then?

How is saying "we are born again and again and again" coherent AT ALL if there is no relationship between the consciousness of those that have died and those that are born after?

What does "the next person born is not his or her consciousness, but YOUR consciousness.* " mean?

Bolded parenthetical below removed from above as it serves to obfuscate the actual point

Quote:

the next person born is not his or her consciousness, for this must be in relation to you, and you are not here because you just died, but YOUR consciousness.

That's the key. It's the fact that you are no longer here. It's the same conditions as before you were born. So when you come into the world, there is no relationship between anyone who lived before, and the "you" was just born. There are no memories of a past life because there's no relationship to a past life, no taking up consciousness of another, and no reincarnation. If you think his proof of determinism is difficult to explain, this is even harder. You have to read this chapter over and over again because it's not easy to grasp the first time around.

LadyShea · #**7771** 07-02-2011, 08:33 PM

It's wholly unnecessary and incoherent then to say we are born again and again again then, as davidm outlined here. We simply cease to exist, which is fine by itself...why the extraneous stuff?

peacegirl · #**7772** 07-02-2011, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

david, she is taking umbrage at "takes up" because Lessan's used "is"

So we need to define "is" I guess

Exactly. "Takes up" sounds like a soul of someone who just died is now living in someone who was just born. That's not what he is saying at all.

LadyShea · #**7773** 07-02-2011, 08:36 PM

Define "is" then in this sentence

Quote:

"the next person born is not his or her consciousness, but YOUR consciousness."

Deconstructed, lingusitically this means

the next person born is not his or her consciousness. the next person born is YOUR consciousness

davidm · #**7774** 07-02-2011, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Hey, Peacegirl, I commend to your attention the following posts:

Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A revolution in thought

Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A revolution in thought

Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A revolution in thought

Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A revolution in thought

Also, were you going to look up in Dad’s book where he said that the next person born takes up the consciousness of the person who died, or am I going to have to do that for you?

:popcorn:

David, this is getting silly. He never ever said that the next person takes up the consciousness of the person who died because there's no relationship. It almost sounds like science fiction, as if somebody's spirit or consciousness can take up residence in another person's body. This is not what he's saying at all.

What is he saying then?

How is saying "we are born again and again and again" coherent AT ALL if there is no relationship between the consciousness of those that have died and those that are born after?

What does "the next person born is not his or her consciousness, but YOUR consciousness.* " mean?

Bolded parenthetical below removed from above as it serves to obfuscate the actual point

Quote:

the next person born is not his or her consciousness, for this must be in relation to you, and you are not here because you just died, but YOUR consciousness.

That's the key. It's the fact that you are no longer here. It's the same conditions as before you were born. So when you come into the world, there is no relationship between anyone who lived before, and the "you" was just born. There are no memories of a past life because there's no relationship to a past life, no taking up consciousness of another, and no reincarnation. If you think his proof of determinism is difficult to explain, this is even harder. You have to read this chapter over and over again because it's not easy to grasp the first time around.

No, peacegirl, I DO understand it, and it is precisely what Wayne Stewart argues for; and I might remind you, you AGREED with this, way back when, when you THANKED me for linking you to Stewart. I've already SAID (can you read?) that this is NOT reincarnation, for instance, and precisely explained the difference between Lessans' claim and reincarnation. Did you miss that explanation of mine?

And now, in one of the posts I just recently made, I discussed the Ship of Theseus, the brain experiment, and reincarnation, and then existential passage (Stewart's term for your father's identical idea) to show why existential passage is meaningless. I DO understand the claim being made , and I've employed the scalpel of philosophical reasoning to show it to be incoherent.

peacegirl · #**7775** 07-02-2011, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's wholly unnecessary and incoherent then to say we are born again and again again then, as davidm outlined here. We simply cease to exist, which is fine by itself...why the extraneous stuff?

Because we are born again. Not LadyShea, but someone who will look at herself and say, I am conscious of my existence, and it will be YOU. It's not extraneous stuff; it's a very important concept because so many people are afraid of death. But once they know that there's nothing to fear, it makes life that much more enjoyable. It might not be welcome in religious circles because they believe they will meet their loved ones in heaven. Just knowing that there is mathematical proof this isn't the end when we die is a very comforting feeling, especially as we get into our older years.