A revolution in thought

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said I came here because I needed people who had the intellectual capacity to understand this work. I didn't realize that this involves the emotional capacity as well, and I ain't seein it. You're all too caught up in him being wrong before the horse makes it to the finish line.

I am glad you agree that an emotional state can cloud one's judgement. Do you think you would be capable of admitting this work is wrong if some very strong evidence came up to suggest this?

[Doctor X]

Stupid = believing sight is efferent

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Lessans makes a big point of saying that everything always happens in the present moment, in the subjective Now. The past is gone, he says, and the future does not yet exist. You are who you are right now, he says, because you are co-existent with many other people. They can’t be you, and you can’t be them.

And that all seems trivially true, establishing the point that when Lessans actually does say something correct, what he says is neither original nor profound.

Because the past no longer exists and the future does not yet exist, there are plenty of people for you to “pass to” in the future, when you die.

What the hell are you talking about?

Originally Posted by davidm

So “you” will be born again and again, just not as “you” — as other, future people (so Lessans, and Wayne Stewart and Tom Clark, claim).

A big fat no.

Originally Posted by davidm

I think it has been shown that this idea of “existential passage” makes no sense either philosophically or scientifically.

Why do you keep including Lessans in this?

Originally Posted by davidm

But Lessans’ claims about the nature of time raise interesting issues in the philosophy of time.

It’s obviously true that everything that happens to us, happens to us in the subjective present. This is trivially true. We call when we are, the “now.”

By spatial analogy, we call where we are, the “here.”

So wherever we are in space is by definition “here,” and whenever we are in time is by definition “now.” These terms, “here,” and “now,” are analogous.

But the analogy is epistemic only. It breaks down ontologically.

Everyone understands that “here” is an indexical term. That is, it is tied to our perspective. Other “heres” exist, ontologically; only we call them “there.”

No one thinks, for instance, that if he is in New York, Boston fails to exist. Boston is “there,” and is just as existent as the New York “here.” If one were to travel from New York to Boston, then Boston would become that person’s new “here.”

But what about time? When Lessans talks about the non-existent past and future, he captures the common intuition that only the present moment is actually (ontologically) real. This philosophy is called “presentism.”

Under presentism, the “now” is all that there is, both epistemically and ontologically. By contrast, “here” in space is an epistemic term only; ontologically other “heres” exist, but we call them “theres.”

But Lessans’ seemingly innocent observation opens a big can of worms.

There are three dimensions of space, and one of time. Ontologically, although any given location is our epistemic “here,” we understand that other locations exist in front of us and behind us, above us and below us, and to the left and right of us.

By analogy, since there is only one dimension of time, we would say that the past lies “behind us,” and the future lies “in front of us.” But unlike space, we think that those temporal locations “behind us” and “in front of us” don’t exist. So this is a crucial disanalogy between space and time.

Below is a graphic depicting three different observers in constant uniform motion with respect to one another:



Event B is simultaneous with A in the green reference frame, but it occurred before in the blue frame, and will occur later in the red frame.

Presentism is the thesis that only present events exist. But the chart above, which depicts the relativity of simultaneity (i.e., special relativity) shows that presentism, espoused by Lessans and many others, is wrong.

It’s easy to see why. If presentism were true, then the three observers shown in the above graphic would all agree on what is present. Since they do not, it cannot be the case that only the present actually exists.

Clearly, just as there are multiple “heres” (only we call them “theres” when we are not at those spatial locations), there are also multiple “nows.”

There is no such thing as the future or the past David except in relation to the present. We cannot live in the past, nor can we live in the future. We can have different perceptions as to how fast or slow time seems to be going, and we can have subjective points of view as to what we see based on our frame of reference, but the truth of the matter is that time itself is a manmade construct and doesn't exist except in relation to ourselves.

Originally Posted by davidm

The reason that the three observers in constant uniform motion with respect to one another disagree on what constitutes the contents of the present moment is because they are carving up a pre-existent four-dimensional reality at different angles, the way that three different knives might slice through a loaf of bread at different angles.

If one is a presentist, one mistakenly assumes that the present moment — one’s own bread slice — is all that there is.

That is not true. Everybody's reality is different because they're seeing things from a different angle, but the same time frame. Where is this four-dimensional reality you speak of?

Originally Posted by davidm

But as the slice of bread is simply a cross-section of a much larger existent loaf, so too what we call the “present moment” is nothing more than a cross-section, a slice, of a much larger, existent reality.

That sounds very nice, but it's completely theoretical.

Originally Posted by davidm

From this it follows that just as all locations in space exist, so too do all locations in time. The past, present and future all exist. They are real.

Sounds very logical, but wrong.

Originally Posted by davidm

Lincoln exists. Socrates exists. Dinosaurs exist. Your youthful self exist. Your deathbed self exists. They exist, when they exist. And all the people of the future exist, too.

Maybe I'll see you in the future, and we'll actually be on friendly terms.

Originally Posted by davidm

This philosophical thesis, the competitor to presentism, is called “eternalism.”

Eternity exists because we live in the present.

Originally Posted by davidm

Presentism is flatly contradicted by special relativity. Eternalism is supported by special (and general) relativity. If the theory of relativity is correct, presentism is false and eternalism is true.

That's the $64,000 question! Obviously, if presentism is true, then your reasoning is just another nice sounding bunch of logical cobwebs.

Originally Posted by davidm

If eternalism is true, then all the consciousness slots are taken up, and there is no one for us to “existentially pass” to. Thus both existential passage and, for that matter, reincarnation, run afoul of eternalism, and the block universe.

Eternalism means that the future is as fixed as the past. No one can change the past, present or future, and no one alive now can “existentially pass” to, or be “reincarnated as” anyone in the future, because future people exist.

I agree that no one can change the past, present, or future, but not for those reasons. Well, we were close to agreeing on something, but not close enough to win a prize.

[Vivisectus]

We already had to consign Einstein's special relativity to the large heap of things that cannot be right at the same time as this book. Along with neurology and optics. They just all miraculously work while being completely wrong, just like camera's are nothing but light detectors, but magically and mysteriously do not need to wait for light to reach them to take a picture on account of us designing them as light-detectors, but accidentally making efferent machines in stead, without noticing. These machines furthermore work exactly as if they were not efferent through some amazing coincidence.

Simply ignoring the problems of presentism vs eternalism is small potatoes by comparison.

[Doctor X]

Stupid = avoiding evidence

--J.D.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

extraneous:

2. not part of what is under consideration; not essential; external: The speaker made many extraneous remarks.

Germinal substance is an extraneous concept to the question of the status of an individual's consciousness upon death

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But the word "like" implies something similar, as if its purpose is to give comfort.

It's purpose appears to be to give comfort, just like concepts of afterlife, yes. As soon as you offer up anything remotely similar to reality, I will use a different analogy

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you earlier that if it revealed something that did not give comfort, most people would want to know the truth regardless.

Yes, I am one of those people! I want to know the true facts regarding the human condition. Why do you think I have been questioning you so hard about the nature of the germinal substance and consciousness?

Unfortunately you have failed to provide answers that correspond with reality, offering wooish vagueness.

As you have yet to reveal anything that seems to exist in reality

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are born again. Your consciousness.

Bu you've already agreed that consciousness emerges from an individual's living brain and ceases to exist with the death of the individual's living brain. You've also stated that when I am gone I am gone.

So, if my individual consciousness, which is a product of my living brain, ceases to exist when my brain dies, how can it be born again and again? And if I am gone, how can I be born again and again?

You are contradicting yourself and spouting woo. How can you call this scientifically valid?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Therefore germinal substance is the conditions upon which a sperm and egg can one day create an individual human being. It is the potential in each of us to pass on our genes. The germinal substance is A and B (the sperm and the egg) which, if fertilized, turns into C (you). You can call it material or immaterial, I really don't care. It's not woo LadyShea.

A physical, material substance is not "conditions"
A physical, material substance is not "potential"

If it is immaterial, it is woo- no more meaningful or a part of reality than chi or The Force or souls. Thanks for finally admitting it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sperm and ovum before they become united. Is that okay?

Sperm and ova are sperm and ova, aka gametes. So the germinal substance is the gamete?

I don't care about his reasoning, I care about the support for the scientific claim you and he made regarding a substance in the body that has mass and takes up space. I want to understand the properties of the germinal substance so I can study it and see how you believe it somehow allows consciousness to be reborn.

Quit trying to change the subject (aka weasel) YOU made the claim YOU must back it up.

LOL, says the person who uses a made up definition of mathematical

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Germinal substance is the potential of A (sperm) + B (ovum) to produce C (you).

That's not an answer. A physical, material substance that has mass is not "potential"

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

time itself is a manmade construct and doesn't exist except in relation to ourselves.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I am glad you agree that an emotional state can cloud one's judgement. Do you think you would be capable of admitting this work is wrong if some very strong evidence came up to suggest this?

Yes I would, but so far it's all fluff. To be serious, I know he has made a discovery, but I will leave a shred of "what if it's not" open, so you won't think I'm nothing more than Lessans' faithful.

[Vivisectus]

So how does this manmade concept make atomic clocks in orbit run different from clock on earth? And how come the difference matches up to what we would expect is special relativity was correct, and time is in fact no such thing?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I answered it straight out to prompt you to continue, and yet you didn't move on to your explanation.

I must have missed it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What other choice do we have but to live or die, was a false dichotomy, which it isn't.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is actually a false dichotomy, because suicide is a choice and an action, one who suicides is definitely moving from dissatisfaction (with life), but it's still movement. The opposite of "living" in my mind is merely existing (someone who is catatonic for example).

No, because even if the person is catatonic, they are still alive. Their heart is beating. There are only two options here. Does your heart beat, or doesn't it? We can't be dead and alive at the same time. Can you agree with that?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

In your terminology, what would one who does nothing to move towards satisfaction in either direction (neither towards death nor towards living) be doing? Someone who simply mentally checks out and does not move to die nor move to sustain life?

That's not the important thing right now. I just wanted to establish that we physically either alive or dead.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Your "live or die" didn't take all the complexities into account.

I would disagree. Lessans did take all the complexities into account.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As far as there is no proof in anything, how could we get to the space station if Nasa didn't have an exact mathematical trajectory? So call this math, not science, okay? Paaalleeeeeasssee, can we ever get past the skepticism, even for a day?

Proof is used in mathematics. I cannot call Lessans ideas math because they aren't math

And no, I can't get past my skepticism, it's a huge part of my neurological makeup.

Even a self described aura reader loudly announced that my skepticism overwhelms my spirituality, though in general I had an enormous and colorful aura

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said I came here because I needed people who had the intellectual capacity to understand this work. I didn't realize that this involves the emotional capacity as well, and I ain't seein it. You're all too caught up in him being wrong before the horse makes it to the finish line.

Yes some of us are emotionally attached to reality. Go figger

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because it's more of a concept than a material thing.

Then why didn't you just admit that in the first place when I asked you about it?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only way he could describe in in material terms is to use the phrase "germinal substance" that transmits, through sex, the DNA to the next generation as potential consciousness.

Then it is immaterial, aka woo

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Instead of using the term "germinal substance," let's replace it with "protoplasm." You might be able to relax a little.

Protoplasm is an obsolete term, and is no longer in use by scientists

Originally Posted by Dictionary

1. Biology . (no longer in technical use) the colloidal and liquid substance of which cells are formed, excluding horny, chitinous, and other structural material; the cytoplasm and nucleus.
2.
Obsolete . the living matter of organisms regarded as the physical basis of life, having the ability to sense and conduct stimuli.

As you failed to provide a link to the source of your quote below, I have done so for you. It appears to be a thrown together site with links to money making online and bad translations to English. There isn't even an author named for chrissakes. There is nothing scientific or authoritative about it at all. Do you do even the slightest vetting of the sources you use to determine if they are likely to provide valid information?

WHAT IS PROTOPLASM?

Science has made many great advances. In its laboratories it can duplicate many of the wonders of nature. But there is one substance that no scientist has yet been able to make. That substance is protoplasm, which is the living part of all plants and animals. All organisms, whether they are plant or animal, are composed of cells. There may be millions of cells, as in the human being, or there may be one, as in the Protozoa. But whether the organism is a whale, a man, or a rose, the walls of the cells enclose the same life substance—protoplasm. In each cell the protoplasm consists chiefly of two parts. One is the more solid, central part called “the nucleus.” The other is the softer, more liquid part called “the cytoplasm.” All protoplasm is not alike. In fact, each type of living thing has its own kind of protoplasm. And the different types of cells within an organism each have special forms of protoplasm.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes I would, but so far it's all fluff. To be serious, I know he has made a discovery, but I will leave a shred of "what if it's not" open, so you won't think I'm nothing more than Lessans' faithful.

Fluff! Logic, special relativity, optics, neurology, cameras, scientific method - all fluff to you.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, because even if the person is catatonic, they are still alive. Their heart is beating. There are only two options here. Does your heart beat, or doesn't it?

Heartbeat does not define life or death. OMG that hasn't been the demarcation for decades...where have you been?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We can't be dead and alive at the same time. Can you agree with that?

No I can't agree with that, because you may use a different definition of "dead" than I do. In fact, since you mentioned "heart beating" I am almost positive we do not define dead the same way.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not the important thing right now. I just wanted to establish that we physically either alive or dead.

One can be in a persistent vegetative state with nothing but a brain stem in a skull otherwise full of useless goo, yet still breathe and have a heart beat. Do you consider that dead or alive? What if someone meets all the criteria for brain death at 2pm on Friday, but is on life support to keep the heart and lungs functioning...are they dead or alive?

Even doctors keep changing the definition of dead, because it is a spectrum, not an either/or

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I would disagree. Lessans did take all the complexities into account.

Nope, he didn't even define death as he was using it

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

*snip*

peacegirl, please be advised that you are too stupid to discuss topics like presentism vs. eternalism, so I did not read your above reply and simply snipped it. Basically, you are not bright enough to discuss anything beyond perhaps a Dick and Jane reader. I no longer read your posts except to scan them for the occasional really stupid one-liners that you are prone to generate, and I do that only for the purposes of later mocking them and you.

You are also too dishonest to discuss anything of value.

[Vivisectus]

I still haven't gotten over fluff. Surely there is a limit to even the most fanatical willful ignorance?

There is no other definition for "That which leads to the most satisfaction" than "That which people end up selecting", making the basis of the whole show a mere tautology. This is not addressed bar saying "no it isn't".

Camera's, designed as light-receptors, work efferently and do not have to wait for light to reach them despite having been designed to receive light and create an image out of that light. This, also, is simply covered by "That is not unscientific."

There is nothing in the book that proves that blame is what enables justification, and that justification is a requirement for a harmful act. This is also just waved away by "it just works that way"

Then there is the problem that instant, efferent vision flatly contradicts special relativity. The answer to that? "No it doesn't".

Optics, the physiology of the eye and the optic nerve - waved away. Why? "My father spent a lot of time thinking about it."

And all this on account of a self-important hack, ignorant enough to not even notice that basic science contradicted everything he said.

Fluff indeed.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

peacegirl, please be advised that you are too stupid to discuss topics like presentism vs. eternalism, so I did not read your above reply and simply snipped it. Basically, you are not bright enough to discuss anything beyond perhaps a Dick and Jane reader. I no longer read your posts except to scan them for the occasional really stupid one-liners that you are prone to generate, and I do that only for the purposes of later mocking them and you.

You are also too dishonest to discuss anything of value.

So is this one of your guilty pleasures? Would you say it was 'greater satisfaction' or 'greater dissatisfaction'?

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said cameras do and don't take pictures in real time. I said they DO take pictures in real time.

Actually, you spent pages insisting that while we see things immediately, a camera must wait for the light to arrive, and so does not "see" things as they happen. You were most insistent on that point, up to and including insisting that we would be able to see distant events that we could not yet photograph, since the light had not yet reached us and so the camera could not function (but the eyes could, somehow).

You spent pages insisting on that. All the while ignoring the fact that it's easily demonstrated that this is not the case.



Until you realized that this wasn't what Lessans had said. At which point you immediately switched positions.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Actually, you spent pages insisting that while we see things immediately, a camera must wait for the light to arrive, and so does not "see" things as they happen. You were most insistent on that point, up to and including insisting that we would be able to see distant events that we could not yet photograph, since the light had not yet reached us and so the camera could not function (but the eyes could, somehow).

You spent pages insisting on that. All the while ignoring the fact that it's easily demonstrated that this is not the case.


Until you realized that this wasn't what Lessans had said. At which point you immediately switched positions.

Now what, pissgirl? You are caught out!

Want us to go dig up YOUR OWN quotes for you?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I don't care about his reasoning . . . .

Aw, come on! Be a sport! The three "undeniable facts" are (1) only the present exists, (2) you perceive the world only through your own consciousness, and (3) you're conscious of your own existence at this instant. From those "facts" Lessans concludes that your consciousness must always be present.

When you die, your "bubble of consciousness" bursts. That which distinguished you as an individual is gone. It is no more. It has ceased to be. It is bereft of life. It has shuffled off this mortal coil. It has run down the curtain and joined the Choir Invisible.

So what of the next child born? You cannot say that child is "him" or "her." Why not? Because such relations are observable only through your consciousness, and your consciousness is gone.

Accordingly, the newborn is not him or her but you. It cannot be otherwise. I really don't see what's so difficult about this.

show spoiler

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I want to understand the properties of the germinal substance so I can study it and see how you believe it somehow allows consciousness to be reborn.

First of all, the germinal substance is most certainly not sperm and eggs. Lessans never states, suggests, implies or even hints any such thing. There appears to be more to it than mere genetic lineage.

In fact, Lessans writes of a "germinal world of potential consciousness." That's what he was trying to illustrate with the discussion about the many headed body. The heads represent individuals. The body represents the germinal world, the source of potential consciousness from which actual consciousness arises. Individuals come and go (i.e., heads get chopped off and replaced), but the body - the germinal world of potential consciousness - remains in existence.

Again, what's so difficult?

show spoiler

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Surely there is a limit to even the most fanatical willful ignorance?

Apparently not. I take this as the object lesson of this thread.

[Vivisectus]

You know? Me too. I did not believe it before, and part of me still does not want to believe it now, but I must admit that I am running out of excuses and ideas. ignorance beats informed - it does not require effort, meticulousness or mental discipline, and can be condensed into the simple words: "No it isn't, because it says so in (insert holy book)"

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So how does this manmade concept make atomic clocks in orbit run different from clock on earth? And how come the difference matches up to what we would expect is special relativity was correct, and time is in fact no such thing?

Huh? It's obvious that time is based on measurable units, but that doesn't mean that time exists outside of our subjective experience. In other words, without you feeling time moving on, there would be no objective time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Proof is used in mathematics. I cannot call Lessans ideas math because they aren't math

And no, I can't get past my skepticism, it's a huge part of my neurological makeup.

You know I say that's a good things. We're sistas when it comes to being skeptical.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Even a self described aura reader loudly announced that my skepticism overwhelms my spirituality, though in general I had an enormous and colorful aura

Hey, we're really virtual sistas (joking about the spelling ) because I question everything too. We would be taken left and right if we didn't. I don't leave a stone unturned when someone is trying to convince me of something.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said I came here because I needed people who had the intellectual capacity to understand this work. I didn't realize that this involves the emotional capacity as well, and I ain't seein it. You're all too caught up in him being wrong before the horse makes it to the finish line.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes some of us are emotionally attached to reality. Go figger.

Yes we are. In that respect, we're sort of two peas in a pod.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because it's more of a concept than a material thing.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then why didn't you just admit that in the first place when I asked you about it?

Because I am not sure what you're asking for. I don't want to say something that you will think discredits Lessans, for no good reason other than I didn't say the right word, or express what I'm trying to say adequately.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only way he could describe in in material terms is to use the phrase "germinal substance" that transmits, through sex, the DNA to the next generation as potential consciousness.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then it is immaterial, aka woo.

It's not woo at all. It's what allows the transference of DNA, or the germinal fluid [aka substance] that allows the next generation to be born. How can you say that this substance (which is not immaterial) is not necessary? How could sperm meet egg otherwise? Sperm just doesn't hop around looking for a sweeheart to impregnate. It needs a vehicle to get to her. In all seriousness, I truly don't know how to express this aspect without you telling me it's immaterial, and therefore nonsense.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Instead of using the term "germinal substance," let's replace it with "protoplasm." You might be able to relax a little.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Protoplasm is an obsolete term, and is no longer in use by scientists.

What does that mean? This was in the conversation in that chapter because at that time, it was used in conversational language. You better read this whole tract again, and then we can talk.

From a superficial observation this is all very true, but the
reasoning as to what actually happens after your death is an inference
based upon your observations during your life. This reasoning
complicates even more the difficulty of understanding this
phenomenon. While you are alive you know that many people die
who never return. You also know that many babies are born who are
in no way the people who died, therefore, since you too must die and
the babies born are not the people who died, you cannot be one of the
babies born after your death.

Another way of saying the same thing
is this: If you could remain alive for 200 years, not one of the babies
born during that time could possibly be you, so if you had died after
80 years why should one of the same babies born during the 120 years
following your death be you when they were not you before. Can’t you
see how easy it is for reasoning to prove that we are not born again?

As was just mentioned, from a superficial observation this is all very
true, but your reasoning as to what actually happens after your death
is an inference based upon your observations during your life. When
you die you cannot possibly have any more observations. In other
words, your reasoning doesn’t reveal a deeper truth.

Does matter
itself reveal atomic energy? Do the individual planets, moon and sun
reveal the solar system? Do individual people reveal the mankind
system unless we observe certain undeniable laws? Does all of it
together reveal the reality of God, unless certain mathematical
relations are perceived? Certainly your grandparents gave birth to
your parents who gave birth to four children, but this tells us nothing
about the deeper law which is necessary to perceive in order to
understand why there is nothing to fear in death and why we will be
born again and again and again.

At one time man was afraid of
thunder and lightning thinking it was the wrath of God, but now we
don’t fear the thunder and try to protect ourselves as best we can
against the lightning. Until man discovered the cause of an eclipse
which required knowledge of the solar system or, to phrase it
differently, knowledge of the laws that inhere in particular bodies in
motion, he was afraid that something terrible was going to happen and
it became an ominous sign that was blamed for whatever evil followed.
Such is the reason it seems strange to be alive at this moment with all
the millions of years behind you, because you don’t understand the
truth. When it is thoroughly explained the strangeness disappears,
but I must proceed with undeniable relations and begin with this
statement which I shall prove.

“But I see that death is a terrible thing.”

“For the living only; the dead don’t know it, right?”

“It’s true that they don’t know it, but I know that they don’t know
it and that’s what disturbs me because one day I will also be in their
position, and I don’t like to know that I won’t know from nothing.”
“I know this is a disturbing thought, and one that science has not
yet been able to solve — that is, how to get rid of this disturbance, but
once the laws relating to death are thoroughly understood, then this
disturbance will come to an end.”

“The problem, then, is simply to discover and understand the
various laws of this universe...”

“But it isn’t that simple. It took me two years to understand what
it meant that man’s will is not free, and an additional three years to
break through this sound barrier of words.”

“Not ignorance anymore?”

“Just words; this is the source of the unconsciousness and the
ignorance. However, without these words we could never have
discovered the laws necessary for an adequate understanding of
ourselves and the world in which we live.”

“How do words play a role in death? There is certainly a big
difference between the theory of free will and the obvious evidence
that when you’re dead you’re dead. What’s that saying, “Ashes to
ashes, and dust to dust.”

“But when you use the words ‘you, I, him, she, he, etc.,’ you are
making an assumption and not using mathematical language. We
discussed this once before. The word ‘orange’ circumscribes an
undeniable bit of substance, but the word ‘I’, what word does that
circumscribe?”

“It circumscribes me; little ole me, from the tip of my toes to the
top of my head.”

“And you feel that when they lay you out in a coffin…”
“Do you have to use that word? It sends shivers up my spine.”
“When they lay you out in a box, this body is still you? Is that
the way you think?”

“I don’t feel this way, I know for a fact that when I looked at my
dead uncle it was my uncle, not anybody else.”

“But if I can prove to you, beyond a shadow of doubt, that the
word ‘I’ not only pertains to you as you are now existing but also to
the sperm and ova that are still living in an unborn state, then you
will know that when this part of you dies, the other still lives on.”

“Is that supposed to satisfy me? To know that when I die I am
part of a stream of ova and sperm that still continues to float around
in a protoplasmic world?”

“Of course not; but it is supposed to reveal that when you say a
certain word circumscribes you from the tip of your toes to the top of
your head, this is an assumption because before you were born you
were nothing but the union of a spermatozoa with an ovum and,
according to you, if that particular spermatozoa had never united with
that particular egg, you would never have been born, is that right?”

“That’s exactly right.”

The actual reason it is not strange that we are conscious now is
because you, no one else (that is, not you as you are now, but you as
someone else), will always be conscious as long as mankind exists (I
shall prove this, remember?). It is we who will exist many years from
now, not our posterity.

The fact that your consciousness is the only
consciousness that can exist does not mean that other people are not
conscious of their existence also, only that they cannot be seen except
through your consciousness. It would therefore make no difference
when the question is asked, ‘Doesn’t it seem strange...’ because you,
your consciousness, will always be present to answer. As you begin to
understand what death actually is, your fear will be replaced by the
certain knowledge that death is truly not the end.

Originally Posted by Dictionary

1. Biology . (no longer in technical use) the colloidal and liquid substance of which cells are formed, excluding horny, chitinous, and other structural material; the cytoplasm and nucleus.

2. Obsolete . the living matter of organisms regarded as the physical basis of life, having the ability to sense and conduct stimuli.

As you failed to provide a link to the source of your quote below, I have done so for you. It appears to be a thrown together site with links to money making online and bad translations to English. There isn't even an author named for chrissakes. There is nothing scientific or authoritative about it at all. Do you do even the slightest vetting of the sources you use to determine if they are likely to provide valid information?

WHAT IS PROTOPLASM?

Science has made many great advances. In its laboratories it can duplicate many of the wonders of nature. But there is one substance that no scientist has yet been able to make. That substance is protoplasm, which is the living part of all plants and animals. All organisms, whether they are plant or animal, are composed of cells. There may be millions of cells, as in the human being, or there may be one, as in the Protozoa. But whether the organism is a whale, a man, or a rose, the walls of the cells enclose the same life substance—protoplasm. In each cell the protoplasm consists chiefly of two parts. One is the more solid, central part called “the nucleus.” The other is the softer, more liquid part called “the cytoplasm.” All protoplasm is not alike. In fact, each type of living thing has its own kind of protoplasm. And the different types of cells within an organism each have special forms of protoplasm.

So this is not an accurate definition? Aren't there internet checkers who make sure these definitions are correct, or remove them altogether if they are no longer used? My goodness, how else can we know for sure of anything? We would be spending an enormous amount of time checking up on the honesty and integrity of every person we ever meet. I'm not willing to do that. I have to trust some sources and take my chances.

[LadyShea]

So this is not an accurate definition of what people used to use the word "protoplasm" for?

Maybe a hundred years ago they did.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Aren't there internet checkers who make sure the definitions are right.

Internet checkers that make sure what definitions are right? Any old web page that happens to be put up? Are you serious with this question? Do you even understand how the web works?

OMG this, combined with your thinking that a doctor being quoted indicated he had posted the quote himself leads me to think you have no clue, whatsoever, what the hell you are doing.

That website appears to put up some slapshod pages with frequently searched keywords, in order to get people to see the ads, and click on them, for money. It's called affiliate marketing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My goodness, how else can we know for sure of anything?

We research and try to find authoritative sources for information, and try to find if there is a consensus or corroborating evidence, and critically analyze whatever we read. That's how most of us here at do things anyway

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We would be spending an enormous amount of time checking up on the honesty or integrity of others.

Um yes, people that care about facts do spend a lot of time verifying the veracity of the sources of information and critically analyzing the things they read and hear. This often leads to knowing some trusted sources that have been reliable in the past to go to.

This also leads one to easily spot huge red flags...like an article has no author listed, and that a website has no real theme or explanation as to it's purpose but is filled with affiliate ads

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not willing to do that. I have to start trusting people and take my chances.

Trusting who? Random people who post sites on the Internet?

Not vetting your sources, and not even trying to determine if your sources are trustworthy or authoritative, is the sloppy gullibility seen in those who fwd urban legend emails and spread misinformation gleaned from headlines.

[LadyShea]

To know that when I die I am part of a stream of ova and sperm that still continues to float around in a protoplasmic world?”

Ova and sperm do not float around in a protoplasmic world.

Protoplasm referred to the semi-fluid substance found inside individual cells