Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #351  
Old 08-17-2013, 07:36 PM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCLVI
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: Dar al-Hikma

There is no way of differentiating between a consciousness that has crossed a "gap" and one that has not.

It seems to me that it shares this quality with the invisible unicorn: we just cannot say for sure whether one is sitting at the foot of our bed or not.

So the next question becomes: is there any reason to assume any such thing happens?
Reply With Quote
  #352  
Old 08-17-2013, 11:23 PM
Angakuk's Avatar
Angakuk Angakuk is offline
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
Posts: MXCCCLXXXIII
Default Re: Dar al-Hikma

If it smells like a unicorn it probably is a unicorn, invisible or not. Existential passage smells like bullshit. This is a source of great confusion.
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful. :shakebible:
Reply With Quote
  #353  
Old 08-18-2013, 12:32 AM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCIII
Default Re: Dar al-Hikma

"My dog doesn't have a nose."

"How does it smell?"

"Awful."
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you donít know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (08-18-2013)
  #354  
Old 08-20-2013, 09:43 AM
wstewart wstewart is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: XCV
Default Re: Dar al-Hikma

"Does Old Paul pass to New?"

davidm's Ship of Theseus analogy points to pattern and substance as keys to the meaning of "passage". However pattern and substance do not factor into his decision wrt unfelt time-gaps, which he views as real but inapplicable to Old/New Paul due to what is basically a failure of narrative construct. "...such gaps don't apply to cases like Old Paul and New Paul... since in these cases the principal characters have no reason to believe they were in a gap." Here it's as though the narrative were essential, and continuity of bodily pattern and substance incidental.

Spacemonkey doesn't take the narrative route, but denies subjective continuity between Old/New Paul due to a lack of "numerical identity" between them. This, even as "It makes sense to speak of continuity for James where the same brain, body, and psychology is continuing after a break." Given that Old/New Paul share the same brain and body across a break, one has to wonder just how much "psychology" must be added, to count toward Spacemonkey's required numerical identity across the break. Or is psychology really required? "We don't have to know the exact role of bodily continuity to see that this is both the only factor at all capable of justifying any talk of continuation for Paul..." So maybe "bodily continuity" is the only actual requirement for Spacemonkey. But there is bodily continuity between Old and New Paul, so...

davidm and Spacemonkey aren't inclined to reconcile their various lines of reasoning, and give a unified argument for the impossibility (or ambiguity?) of Old Paul's passage to New. I can't say I blame them. I wouldn't want the job.

--

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
The question is whether it makes any sense to speak of a continuity, transition, or passage connecting them. You say it does make sense, but you insist that they are different people, different bodies, and different subjectivities, so what are you actually saying by using the words 'continuity', 'transition', or 'passage' here when you admit that nothing continues, transits, or passes? How is this anything other than an empty employment of symbols to describe the exact same objective and subjective facts as one person dying and another different person being born? How is it anything more than an abuse of language?
Subjective continuity does not fit your ready template, and it's no abuse of language to point this out. Subjectivity and the non-subjective body are different things, and the continuity of non-subjective body cannot be equated with continuity of subjectivity. At transitional limits of instantiation and dissolution, subjectivity does appear to be bracketed by common, universal principles of recursive computation, which cannot have identifier by definition. But given that our being is intimately associated with these transitions, identifiers could not apply to our being at the transitions. Nature then would have neither means nor motive to enforce any rule of identity. The transitions would be effectively the same, and it's parsimonious to think that nature would treat them indifferently, as truly the same.

Such universality makes the reliable execution of subjective continuity at unfelt time-gap transitions understandable, as no particular change e.g. in bodily continuity, numerical identity or psychological qualities could alter a universal, and render one objective/subjective transition less identical than another. This forestalls the confusion that would emerge if one were to argue, for example, against the possibility of Old Paul's passage to New, on the basis of some difference between the two.

The flip side of this universality is the lack of means for nature to distinguish subjective transitions in one body from those in another. The consequence is existential passage, which introduces one temporal rule and four basic passage types. This adds some complexity, relative to the dead-end view, but that has to be weighed against the greater complexity and difficulty of reasoning that tries to puzzle out all the means whereby even Old Paul's passage to New might be rendered impossible.

Of course, this post is only a slight restatement of some essay reasoning, and it shouldn't seem especially novel. Neither should it seem meaningless.
Reply With Quote
  #355  
Old 08-20-2013, 10:06 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXII
Default Re: Dar al-Hikma

Still no attempt to actually address my objection or answer any of my questions.

I wonder why that is?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #356  
Old 08-20-2013, 10:35 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXII
Default Re: Dar al-Hikma

Quote:
Originally Posted by wstewart View Post
Spacemonkey doesn't take the narrative route, but denies subjective continuity between Old/New Paul due to a lack of "numerical identity" between them. This, even as "It makes sense to speak of continuity for James where the same brain, body, and psychology is continuing after a break." Given that Old/New Paul share the same brain and body across a break, one has to wonder just how much "psychology" must be added, to count toward Spacemonkey's required numerical identity across the break. Or is psychology really required? "We don't have to know the exact role of bodily continuity to see that this is both the only factor at all capable of justifying any talk of continuation for Paul..." So maybe "bodily continuity" is the only actual requirement for Spacemonkey. But there is bodily continuity between Old and New Paul, so...
Why are you trying to tell me my position instead of actually addressing my posts and objections? I haven't denied subjective continuity between Old/New Paul, for you have yet to coherently explain what 'subjective continuity' is here even supposed to mean. Obviously some degree of psychological continuity is necessary for the continued numerical identity of a person, but I don't need to solve this millennia-old problem to know that your account is incoherent. And I haven't said anything at all to indicate that only bodily continuity is required. My point was only that bodily continuity is the only factor even capable of motivating the claim that Old Paul continues as New Paul. Of course, according to you he doesn't - for 'Old Paul' is the name of the person, and you deny that personal identity continues. What you have failed to identify is anything at all that continues in your alleged 'continuation'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wstewart View Post
Subjective continuity does not fit your ready template, and it's no abuse of language to point this out. Subjectivity and the non-subjective body are different things, and the continuity of non-subjective body cannot be equated with continuity of subjectivity. At transitional limits of instantiation and dissolution, subjectivity does appear to be bracketed by common, universal principles of recursive computation, which cannot have identifier by definition. But given that our being is intimately associated with these transitions, identifiers could not apply to our being at the transitions. Nature then would have neither means nor motive to enforce any rule of identity. The transitions would be effectively the same, and it's parsimonious to think that nature would treat them indifferently, as truly the same.
I'm not forcing any template, and it is indeed an abuse of language to speak of a passage, continuation, or transition when nothing at all is passing, continuing, or making the transition. I've never claimed that bodily continuity and subjective continuity can be equated. And you have here contradicted yourself by denying the applicability of identity while claiming that nature can here treat things as "the same".

Quote:
Originally Posted by wstewart View Post
Such universality makes the reliable execution of subjective continuity at unfelt time-gap transitions understandable, as no particular change e.g. in bodily continuity, numerical identity or psychological qualities could alter a universal, and render one objective/subjective transition less identical than another. This forestalls the confusion that would emerge if one were to argue, for example, against the possibility of Old Paul's passage to New, on the basis of some difference between the two.

The flip side of this universality is the lack of means for nature to distinguish subjective transitions in one body from those in another. The consequence is existential passage, which introduces one temporal rule and four basic passage types. This adds some complexity, relative to the dead-end view, but that has to be weighed against the greater complexity and difficulty of reasoning that tries to puzzle out all the means whereby even Old Paul's passage to New might be rendered impossible.

Of course, this post is only a slight restatement of some essay reasoning, and it shouldn't seem especially novel. Neither should it seem meaningless.
None of the rest of your post even tangentially addresses anything I've been saying.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (08-20-2013), LadyShea (08-20-2013), Stephen Maturin (08-21-2013)
  #357  
Old 08-20-2013, 03:57 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMCMVIII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: Dar al-Hikma

Wayne, leaving for days at a time and then, upon returning, refusing to answer the questions put to you does not make the questions go away.

First, let me again note that there is NO disagreement between myself and Spacemonkey on these matters whatever. Your attempt to gin one up for the apparent purpose of distracting us and others from the questions you won't answer reeks of desperation and, frankly, dishonesty.

In characterizing my position, you left out something crucial. Does this crucial omission account for the ellipses that you used?

Do I really need to go over this again?

No one, by definition, can feel himself to be in an unfelt time gap. On this much I'm sure we agree. So, if one cannot feel oneself to be in such a gap, how can one know that one has been? Only inferentially.

I gave the colorful example of a patient going to sleep with morning light in his room, and then, a subjective moment later, seeing evening light. What has happened? The patient understands that he has been given an anesthetic. He has been out like a light for eight hours. But he is only able to infer that he was in a gap from the fact that his current thoughts on the far shore of the gap are connected with thoughts on the earlier shore in virtue of his memory. This is what James is talking about.

This does not apply to Old and New Paul. When New Paul comes to awareness, he has no memory of Old Paul. So he cannot, in virtue of memory alone, infer an unfelt time gap. But you left out my however, Wayne, which I distinctly recall not only typing, but typing in italic.

I said that however, New Paul may come to infer that there was an unfelt time gap separating himself from Old Paul by means of evidence. His doctors can explain that he had a stroke, and that he and Old Paul share the same body. They may even have video of his suffering the stroke and undergoing an operation. And so on. Even without such evidence, New Paul may infer that there was such a gap because, after all, many people suffer brain injury and wake up with total amnesia. Typically, however, if these people's brains are otherwise intact, they will not just assume that they came into existence as a full-grown adult out of nothing. They will assume, correctly, that they have amnesia.

The point, Wayne, is that even though New Paul cannot directly infer that there had been an unfelt time gap, unlike my example of the hospital patient or the examples that James gave, he can come to believe it on the basis of strong evidence. Whether one wishes to say that Old and New Paul are two entirely different people, or whether one wishes to argue that they are two radically different manifestations of the same person, is a matter of debate in the theory of personal identity, or the theory of personhood But it's totally irrelevant for this discussion.

It's irrelevant because, as Spacemonkey and I have been repeatedly pointing out to you, and on which we are in full agreement, there remains an empirically verifiable, objective connection between Old and New Paul: They share the same body and brain. So whether we wish to say they are two entirely different people, or two radically different manifestations of the same person, we know nonetheless that they are connected in virtue of bodily continuity. In James's examples, and my example of the patient, we have continuation of substance and pattern across the gap. In the case of Old/New Paul, we have disruption and change of pattern, but continuation of substance.

What connects Nicos and Thanos, Wayne?

Nothing.

BINGO! There's your problem. Can you address it?

The larger issue is this. I have repeatedly asked you to address the point that nothing looks different for anyone involved, under existential passage, than it does under standard physicalism. Isn't that right?

Why won't you deal with this issue, Wayne? Is it because you can't? That's my guess.

I use the phrase "standard physicalism," btw, instead of the more common "metaphysical naturalism" because you and Tom Clark both claim to be metaphysical naturalists, and so I'll accept your claim at face value. Nonetheless, what you and he propose is not only impossible, but actually meaningless, under metaphysical naturalism.

Wayne, is it not true that under your EP, Nicos does not feel himself "passing" to Thanos, and that Nicos, qua Nicos, is permanently dead and gone? And is it also not the case that Thanos does not feel himself passing from Nicos, and that Thanos cannot, even in principle, have a memory of ever having "been" Nicos? Is this not all true, Wayne?

Can you then answer the question, asked for the umpteenth time: Since the above is all true, is it not a fact that EP is superfluous, and that there is no difference between saying it and saying, "Nicos dies and Thanos is later born, full stop"? If there is a difference between the two, what is it?

Since there isn't any difference, your EP stands revealed as a Potemkin Village of verbiage, behind which there is literally nothing. Now let's watch you ignore this post altogether, which is what I predict will happen.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Adam (08-20-2013), Angakuk (08-20-2013), LadyShea (08-20-2013), Spacemonkey (08-20-2013), Stephen Maturin (08-21-2013)
  #358  
Old 08-20-2013, 08:44 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMCMVIII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: Dar al-Hikma

Damn, I had the idea that Jefferson Davis might have existentially passed to Henry Miller. I knew that the former died very close to the latter being born. Alas, it turns out that Davis died in 1889, and Miller was born in 1891. Although it remains possible that Davis passed to someone born right after he died in 1889, and that this new person died in 1891 and passed to Miller. Thus Miller and Davis would be related, just by nothing actually real!

On a side note, I lately learned that old Jeff Davis once actually had dinner with Oscar Wilde! Jeff, it turns out, remained taciturn throughout the meal. When later asked his opinion of Wilde, he grumbled, "I did not like the man." Go figure!

Last edited by davidm; 08-20-2013 at 09:08 PM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Adam (08-20-2013)
  #359  
Old 08-22-2013, 10:41 AM
wstewart wstewart is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: XCV
Default Re: Dar al-Hikma

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
your EP stands revealed as a Potemkin Village of verbiage
A wish long evident, hence the risk of wishful thinking in your posts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
...if one cannot feel oneself to be in such [an unfelt time-gap], how can one know that one has been? Only inferentially.
Passage occurs or it doesn't. We can draw best inferences on the concept, but inferences have no bearing on the reality of past events. The Battle of Gettysburg occurred, irrespective of memory. Likewise any unfelt time-gap.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
...he is only able to infer that he was in a gap from the fact that his current thoughts on the far shore of the gap are connected with thoughts on the earlier shore in virtue of his memory. This is what James is talking about.
You're not quoting James, but putting words in his mouth. He didn't describe unfelt time-gaps that way, and he did not place a memory requirement on the connection across unfelt time-gaps.

Quote:
Originally Posted by William James
In the unconsciousness produced by nitrous oxide and other anaesthetics, in that of epilepsy and fainting, the broken edges of the sentient life may meet and merge over the gap, much as the feelings of space of the opposite margins of the 'blind spot' meet and merge over that objective interruption to the sensitiveness of the eye. Such consciousness as this, whatever it be for the onlooking psychologist, is for itself unbroken. It feels unbroken; a waking day of it is sensibly a unit as long as that day lasts, in the sense in which the hours themselves are units, as having all their parts next to each other, with no intrusive alien substance between. To expect the consciousness to feel the interruptions of its objective continuity as gaps, would be like expecting the eye to feel a gap of silence because it does not hear, or the ear to feel a gap of darkness because it does not see. So much for the gaps that are unfelt.
And it's with good reason he didn't place a memory requirement on unfelt time-gaps. Subjectivity and subjective continuity across time-gaps do not require episodic memory. As shown in essay, subjectivity functions in absence of memory. It's possible because the functions are quite different: one entails a competitive neural net, the other an autoassociative neural net. Hence subjectivity's functional independence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
The point, Wayne, is that even though New Paul cannot directly infer that there had been an unfelt time gap, unlike my example of the hospital patient or the examples that James gave, he can come to believe it on the basis of strong evidence.
No evidence of unfelt time-gap execution is presented in your example because no actual evidence is even theoretically possible. Instead you've put on a doctor's smock and presented your assumptions as evidence of your preferred interpretation. One could just as easily pretend to convince Thanos of passage from Nicos on the basis of temporal order history, given other assumptions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
...there remains an empirically verifiable, objective connection between Old and New Paul: They share the same body and brain. So whether we wish to say they are two entirely different people, or two radically different manifestations of the same person, we know nonetheless that they are connected in virtue of bodily continuity.
The demonstration of relevance is wanting, again.

With Old Paul:

The essential property of subjectivity was lost, so numerical identity of Old Paul does not continue. Bodily continuity cannot substitute for the lost numerical identity.

Memory is not required, per above, and needn't continue.

The execution of the unfelt time-gap is subjective, and has no need for any non-subjective function. The body may function well or poorly between time-gap terminals, or not at all.

The body can change radically during the time-gap, as due to injury, decay, or mere metabolic turnover. As the time-gap lengthens, bodily change increases and bodily continuity decreases -- without any practical lower limit to the amount of bodily continuity required for execution of the unfelt time-gap. Even a lock of hair would be "bodily continuity" enough, because, again, no non-subjective function is required.

And if you snip the lock, what then?

No particular bodily continuity is required for execution of the unfelt time-gap.

Yes, I know your rule says otherwise, but you can't apply the rule in meaningful terms, and an inapplicable rule is irrelevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
What connects Nicos and Thanos, Wayne?
Not a magical string of non-functional carbon, that's for sure.

Instead, the essay sees the connection as sameness of universal principles of subjective recursion at transitions into and out of subjective being.

At the transitions identifiers for subjective being and application of identity rule are impossible; hence disconnection is not possible. A parsimonious nature would correspondingly treat the transitions as truly the same: compatible and adequate for execution of unfelt time-gap irrespective of bodily continuity, or lack thereof.

Putting it another way, in your terms and once again: the onset of subjective recursion is a common neurocomputational pattern that needn't continue from Old Paul to New, or from Nicos to Thanos, because it forms spontaneously. Given that this common, essential pattern forms spontaneously, there is no need for another pattern to physically continue across the time-gap.

An additional pattern, connected and transmitted by physical continuity would be, to use your word, superfluous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
...nothing looks different for anyone involved, under existential passage, than it does under standard physicalism...
Subjective continuity certainly is different from the dead-end view, both conceptually and in the event. And given that existential passage is thought to occur under the same functional terms as any other unfelt time-gap, your repetitive claims of meaninglessness and impossibility are special pleading.

--

Now can you write a topical post without the big bluster, or are you locked in emotionally?
Reply With Quote
  #360  
Old 08-22-2013, 10:58 AM
Awareness's Avatar
Awareness Awareness is offline
Always keep cool.
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Netherlands
Gender: Male
Posts: MDCCCVIII
Images: 9
Default Re: Dar al-Hikma

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
There is no way of differentiating between a consciousness that has crossed a "gap" and one that has not.

It seems to me that it shares this quality with the invisible unicorn: we just cannot say for sure whether one is sitting at the foot of our bed or not.

So the next question becomes: is there any reason to assume any such thing happens?
Yes there is,

Beyond the expanding or contracting " bubble " exists also never ending space.

The " bubble " is conveniant for scientists, but without knowing that it shoves angel shit aside, or leaving angel shit behind.
__________________
REMEMBER...........THE COLOUR OF YOUR SKIN IS ONLY AND JUST ONLY THE COLOUR OF YOUR SKIN, HOW YOU ARE AS A PERSON MAKES YOU A WHOLE PERSON AND NOTHING ELSE....HOW YOU HAVE SEX , HOW YOU DRESS UP, HOW YOU PRAY only gives away your hobbies

HOW YOU ARE AS A PERSON IS THE MASTER !!
Reply With Quote
  #361  
Old 08-22-2013, 11:08 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXII
Default Re: Dar al-Hikma

Quote:
Originally Posted by wstewart View Post
With Old Paul:

The essential property of subjectivity was lost, so numerical identity of Old Paul does not continue. Bodily continuity cannot substitute for the lost numerical identity.

Memory is not required, per above, and needn't continue.

The execution of the unfelt time-gap is subjective, and has no need for any non-subjective function. The body may function well or poorly between time-gap terminals, or not at all.

The body can change radically during the time-gap, as due to injury, decay, or mere metabolic turnover. As the time-gap lengthens, bodily change increases and bodily continuity decreases -- without any practical lower limit to the amount of bodily continuity required for execution of the unfelt time-gap. Even a lock of hair would be "bodily continuity" enough, because, again, no non-subjective function is required.

And if you snip the lock, what then?

No particular bodily continuity is required for execution of the unfelt time-gap.

Yes, I know your rule says otherwise, but you can't apply the rule in meaningful terms, and an inapplicable rule is irrelevant.
What makes you think there's any continuation in this case? And what is it that continues?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wstewart View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
...nothing looks different for anyone involved, under existential passage, than it does under standard physicalism...
Subjective continuity certainly is different from the dead-end view, both conceptually and in the event.
How is it different?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (08-22-2013)
  #362  
Old 08-22-2013, 04:21 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMCMVIII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: Dar al-Hikma

Quote:
Originally Posted by wstewart View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
your EP stands revealed as a Potemkin Village of verbiage
A wish long evident, hence the risk of wishful thinking in your posts.
Ah, yes, the peacegirl approach. Accuse others of opposing some idea because their world view is somehow threatened. A form or projection and a red herring, perhaps even ad hom.

Quote:
Passage occurs or it doesn't.
Right. And nothing passes between Nicos and Thanos, which is the problem with your dogma. Contrarily, patterns and substance pass in James's examples, and there is bodily continuity in the example of Old/New Paul. And your bluster can't disguise these facts.


Quote:
You're not quoting James, but putting words in his mouth. He didn't describe unfelt time-gaps that way, and he did not place a memory requirement on the connection across unfelt time-gaps.
Am I? Let's look at the quote of James that you yourself used:

Quote:
Originally Posted by William James
In the unconsciousness produced by nitrous oxide and other anaesthetics, in that of epilepsy and fainting, the broken edges of the sentient life may meet and merge over the gap, much as the feelings of space of the opposite margins of the 'blind spot' meet and merge over that objective interruption to the sensitiveness of the eye. Such consciousness as this, whatever it be for the onlooking psychologist, is for itself unbroken. It feels unbroken; a waking day of it is sensibly a unit as long as that day lasts, in the sense in which the hours themselves are units, as having all their parts next to each other, with no intrusive alien substance between. To expect the consciousness to feel the interruptions of its objective continuity as gaps, would be like expecting the eye to feel a gap of silence because it does not hear, or the ear to feel a gap of darkness because it does not see. So much for the gaps that are unfelt.
Seems to me I've represented James quite accurately. He was talking about individuals with unitary consciousness knitted together by memory. I am sure he would find nothing recognizable to his thought in your EP.

Quote:
No evidence of unfelt time-gap execution is presented in your example because no actual evidence is even theoretically possible.
Sure, I've presented the evidence. I'm not going to repeat it. Reread the post.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
...there remains an empirically verifiable, objective connection between Old and New Paul: They share the same body and brain. So whether we wish to say they are two entirely different people, or two radically different manifestations of the same person, we know nonetheless that they are connected in virtue of bodily continuity.
The demonstration of relevance is wanting, again.
Really? How?


Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
What connects Nicos and Thanos, Wayne?
Not a magical string of non-functional carbon, that's for sure.
Er, the carbon in the case of Old/New Paul IS functioning, Wayne. There was no bodily death.

Quote:
Putting it another way, in your terms and once again: the onset of subjective recursion is a common neurocomputational pattern that needn't continue from Old Paul to New, or from Nicos to Thanos, because it forms spontaneously. Given that this common, essential pattern forms spontaneously, there is no need for another pattern to physically continue across the time-gap.

An additional pattern, connected and transmitted by physical continuity would be, to use your word, superfluous.
Right. IOW, Nicos died and Thanos was born. Well, thanks for clearing that up, but we already knew that people die and later new people are born. Been happening for a long, long time.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
...nothing looks different for anyone involved, under existential passage, than it does under standard physicalism...
Subjective continuity certainly is different from the dead-end view, both conceptually and in the event.
How are they different?

I'm asking you to name one single thing that looks different to anyone involved. What does Nicos or Thanos experience under EP that is different from under standard physicalism? When outsiders watch one die and the other born, what looks different to them under EP, than under SP? The answer is nothing. This means not only is EP superfluous, it's meaningless.

Quote:
Now can you write a topical post without the big bluster, or are you locked in emotionally?
Oh, and there we are again, the charming, slightly paranoid claim that your interlocutors are emotionally invested in opposing your idea, rather than merely oppose your idea on its lack of merits.

As with peacegirl, the reason you get responses tinged with irritation if not outright hostility is not because either I or Spacemonkey have some emotional investment against what you are preaching, but rather because you don't answer questions posed to you. You made at least a pass at answering questions in this, your most recent post, but I'm afraid the results aren't very impressive.

Please tell us the difference, either observationally or experientially, objectively or subjectively, between EP and SP. Belief doesn't cut it, and isn't an answer. If I were to say that I believe EP is true, but then can't find a single difference in observation or experience among anyone involved from SP, then I actually believe in SP.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (08-22-2013), Spacemonkey (08-22-2013)
  #363  
Old 08-22-2013, 04:34 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMCMVIII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: Dar al-Hikma

One last point about Old and New Paul, beyond which further elaboration is unnecessary because the point is established.

I say it is irrelevant whether one wishes to think of Old and New Paul as two different people, or two radically different manifestations of the same person. It's irrelevant because they share a body and brain, and this means, put more precisely, that the existence of Old Paul was a sine qua non for the existence of New Paul, however New Paul is construed. Is this not right?

Contrarily, there is no way that Nicos can be conceived as a sine qua non for the existence of Thanos, unless you simply say so, which is mere assertion in addition to being plainly question-begging. You have to SHOW this, not assert it. We can show it with Old/New Paul: New Paul's existence is inconceivable except in virtue of the prior existence of Old Paul. No such connection maintains even in principle between Nicos and Thanos, except, of course, for the incidental fact that, under your scenario, Thanos is the offspring of Nicos. But as we established long ago, and all agree, this point is incidental and irrelevant to EP. To avoid such confusion, one could present a scenario in which the two individuals in question are biologically unrelated, which state of affairs would after all pertain in the vast majority of cases of your putative EP.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (08-22-2013)
  #364  
Old 08-22-2013, 05:54 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMCMVIII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: Dar al-Hikma

Quote:
Originally Posted by wstewart View Post
Subjective continuity certainly is different from the dead-end view, both conceptually and in the event.
Bold-face mine.

Let's home in on this. Which event, Wayne? The death of Nicos? The birth of Thanos? Or both?

Show us the difference from the account of standard physicalism. Belief is not a difference. A difference must be something that can be experienced (subjective) or observed (objective).

Under EP, does Nicos feel himself pass to Thanos? Yes/No

Under EP, does Thanos feel himself passing from Nicos? Yes/No

As Thanos come to maturity, can he have, even in principle, a memory of somehow having "been" Nicos? Yes/No

When outside observers watch Nicos die and later see Thanos born, does anything, or can anything even in principle, look different to them, from what it does under Standard Physicalism? Yes/No

Now you will have to agree, from your own writings, that the answer to all these questions is "No." So what looks different, and to whom, at the event, Wayne?

The answer must be nothing, and this is precisely why superfluous is exactly the correct term for EP.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Adam (08-22-2013), Angakuk (08-22-2013), Spacemonkey (08-22-2013)
  #365  
Old 08-23-2013, 01:48 PM
wstewart wstewart is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: XCV
Default Re: Dar al-Hikma

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
What connects Nicos and Thanos, Wayne?
Not a magical string of non-functional carbon, that's for sure.
Er, the carbon in the case of Old/New Paul IS functioning, Wayne. There was no bodily death.
So now the criterion is a common pulse.

And how many heartbeats do you imagine to be required for Old Paul's passage to new?

10?

9?

8?

...

The word you've omitted is, "because".

There's no functional relevance of the pulse to execution of the unfelt time-gap, just as there's no functional relevance of bodily continuity to execution of the unfelt time-gap. Hence no "because".

And this doesn't trouble your thoughts, or the thoughts of anyone else here.

You fellows protest to much. Put some keystrokes into better reasoning.
Reply With Quote
  #366  
Old 08-23-2013, 04:34 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMCMVIII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: Dar al-Hikma

What does your post even mean, Wayne? Where did I say anything about "common pulse" or heartbeat?

I simply called attention to the fact that in a recent post, you described the body shared by Old and New Paul as non-functioning carbon, which, under the very scenario that you mooted, is false. You did not specify biological death in your scenario. It appears your disagreement is with yourself. Either that, or once again you are throwing up some pixie dust and tossing out another red herring. Why can't you stick to the point?

To that end, can you please address the post directly above your latest, which contains my series of very simple Yes/No questions? It's not doing your argument any good to ignore the key rebuttals of it. Rather, if you want to gain some traction, you are going to need to rebut the rebuttals, if you can, or at least try to do so.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (08-23-2013), Spacemonkey (08-23-2013)
  #367  
Old 08-23-2013, 05:42 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMCMVIII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: Dar al-Hikma

Blue notebook no. 2

Once there was a redheaded man without eyes and without ears.

He had no hair either, so that he was a redhead was just something they said.

He could not speak, for he had no mouth. He had no nose either.

He didn't even have arms or legs. He had no stomach either, and he had no back, and he had no spine, and no intestines of any kind. He didn't have anything at all. So it is hard to understand whom we are really talking about.

So it is probably best not to talk about him any more.

-- Daniil Kharms
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (08-23-2013)
  #368  
Old 08-24-2013, 07:47 PM
wstewart wstewart is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: XCV
Default Re: Dar al-Hikma

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by wstewart View Post
Subjective continuity certainly is different from the dead-end view, both conceptually and in the event.
Bold-face mine.

Let's home in on this. Which event, Wayne? The death of Nicos? The birth of Thanos? Or both?

Show us the difference from the account of standard physicalism. Belief is not a difference. A difference must be something that can be experienced (subjective) or observed (objective).

Under EP, does Nicos feel himself pass to Thanos? Yes/No

Under EP, does Thanos feel himself passing from Nicos? Yes/No

As Thanos come to maturity, can he have, even in principle, a memory of somehow having "been" Nicos? Yes/No

When outside observers watch Nicos die and later see Thanos born, does anything, or can anything even in principle, look different to them, from what it does under Standard Physicalism? Yes/No

Now you will have to agree, from your own writings, that the answer to all these questions is "No." So what looks different, and to whom, at the event, Wayne?

The answer must be nothing, and this is precisely why superfluous is exactly the correct term for EP.
The difference is not one of mere unreasoned belief of course, but a difference of understanding: i.e., how unfelt time-gaps should be understood, especially wrt what's required and not required for their execution. I've presented requirements as in essay, with reasoning and relevant subject matter -- subject matter that you and other thread participants have not demonstrated much familiarity with. This is the fallacy of your argument from "standard physicalism": no expert actually makes the arguments against existential passage that you insinuate but cannot present; and whether you believe it or not, your own argumentation is less informed in relevant physicalistic topics than mine.

By essay understanding, Old and New Paul satisfy the requirements for unfelt time-gap, as do Nicos and Thanos. As operation is understood across the functional limits of subjective experience, there is no expectation of the common subjective experience during unfelt time-gap; and of course there is no possibility of external observation of the subjective events entailed by the concept. None of this renders the concept false, or its application to essay scenarios impossible. It's a question of understanding.

As analogy:

You've tried repeatedly to claim that special relativity offers some strong argument on the truth of time that serves as "fatal strike" against existential passage. Those thinking otherwise you've denounced as no better than flat-Earthers. But it turns out that your "argument" was only a misreading of a historical Wikipedia article, one that failed to mention the common current interpretation of QM non-local correlation that outclasses your particular, very old interpretation of special relativity. The current interpretation leaves existential passage reasoning untouched. Here your understanding was limited by your refusal, or inability, to read relevant current, professional materials. And so the proponent view of temporal order, which is a reasonable view given the philosophy of time wrt non-local correlation, you dismissed as an irrational belief.

With much bluster.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
The relativity objection stands intact.
You wished it so, but wishing didn't make it so.

Completing the analogy: Of course, nothing can be "experienced or observed" to prove the QM understanding of temporal order beyond all possibility of doubt. And so it is with existential passage, and even with less controversial unfelt time-gaps such as those you already accept, and which you do not consider superfluous. There is no basis in this for dismissal of the understanding. Your assertion of existential passage's superfluous character just is not reasoned well.

Last edited by wstewart; 08-25-2013 at 01:03 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #369  
Old 08-25-2013, 02:36 AM
Angakuk's Avatar
Angakuk Angakuk is offline
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
Posts: MXCCCLXXXIII
Default Re: Dar al-Hikma

Quote:
Originally Posted by wstewart View Post
By essay understanding, Old and New Paul satisfy the requirements for unfelt time-gap, as do Nicos and Thanos.
This argument appears to be simply one of sufficency. It does not constitute a demonstration of necessity. In other words, just because something could be true (i.e. satisfies the requirements for it to be true) does not mean that it is true.
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful. :shakebible:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Adam (08-26-2013), Cynthia of Syracuse (08-25-2013), Stephen Maturin (08-26-2013), Vivisectus (08-30-2013)
  #370  
Old 08-25-2013, 05:47 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMCMVIII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: Dar al-Hikma

Truly, Wayne, this is absolutely pathetic.

First, I am not talking, in this thread, about the relativity objection. I only raised it once. The relativity objection shows that you cannot be certain about the temporal order of a certain class of events; this is easily demonstrated by Einstein's train example, with lightning bolts. And no, Wayne, my understanding of relativity is NOT from some "outdated Wikipedia article;" please note, non-locality in QM does not supersede or violate special relativity. That you don't understand this, proves you don't understand a thing about either SR or QM. (It must also be noted that "spooky action at a distance" occurs only on the wave-function collapse interpretation of QM; take away state vector reduction and there is no spooky action at a distance).

With that out of the way, I see you failed to answer any of my simple yes/no questions, but veered off on yet more tangents. The bottom line is that the answer to all the questions is NO, as you well know; and once this is established, EP vanishes like a mirage on a highway. It reduces to standard physicalism, i.e.: people die, and later on other people are born. Ho, hum.

And since you refuse to engage in actual dialogue, I am likely not to continue posting in this thread, though I won't rule it out absolutely. Perhaps Spacemonkey will keep trying to pin you down, though as with peacegirl it's like trying to nail a blob of quicksilver to a wall.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Stephen Maturin (08-26-2013)
  #371  
Old 08-26-2013, 03:36 AM
wstewart wstewart is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: XCV
Default Re: Dar al-Hikma

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Truly, Wayne, this is absolutely pathetic.

First, I am not talking, in this thread, about the relativity objection. I only raised it once.
You're attempting a drive-by objection now, and you have in fact attempted the objection more than once.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
The relativity objection shows that you cannot be certain about the temporal order of a certain class of events; this is easily demonstrated by Einstein's train example, with lightning bolts. And no, Wayne, my understanding of relativity is NOT from some "outdated Wikipedia article;"
I handed you a stack of clarifying, up-to-date professional papers on temporal ontology, with introductory comments, and you dismissed all unread, returning repeatedly to Wikipedia. You blustered to the end.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
non-locality in QM does not supersede or violate special relativity. That you don't understand this, proves you don't understand a thing about either SR or QM.
Your mangled straw-man text demonstrates your level of familiarity with contemporary philosophy of time, and the source of your bluster on this topic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
you failed to answer any of my simple yes/no questions, but veered off on yet more tangents. The bottom line is that the answer to all the questions is NO, as you well know; and once this is established, EP vanishes like a mirage on a highway.
Apt analogy is no tangent, even when it's an unflattering analogy.

Existential passage is conceived with function identical to that of any other unfelt time-gap. Special pleading won't disqualify the one application of the concept you don't like. Only informed reasoning could conceivably do that, and at present your reasoning is a mess. E.g., the trivial "no" answers to your latest questions. These answers deny even Old Paul passage to New, by your latest reasoning. This, despite the fact that you grant Old Paul passage elsewhere on this very same page, by different reasoning.

Your reasoning around unfelt time-gaps is, now as before, a mess. I predicted this result near the outset. The cause? "You're arguing, ultimately, for an interpretation that does not make sense when stated in functional terms."

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
I am likely not to continue posting in this thread...
I understand.
Reply With Quote
  #372  
Old 08-26-2013, 03:52 AM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default Re: Dar al-Hikma

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk View Post
If it smells like a unicorn it probably is a unicorn, invisible or not. Existential passage smells like bullshit. This is a source of great confusion.
Even more confusing is the smell of unicorn shit.



Looks that that unicorn had Lucky Charms for breakfast.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (08-26-2013), Stephen Maturin (08-26-2013), Vivisectus (08-30-2013)
  #373  
Old 08-29-2013, 09:03 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMCMVIII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: Dar al-Hikma

Tom Clark, if you are reading this: since Wayne Stewart has so badly bombed in supporting his existential passage and your generic subjective continuity, do you think you can do any better? My initial invitation to you to discuss your ideas here remains open.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 1.29324 seconds with 15 queries