Dar al-Hikma
 

Isolating one essay scenario,

and placing it under the spotlight,

I'll ask:

Does Old Paul pass to New?

Re: Does Old Paul pass to New?
 

I think this thread is spawning crackpotpuppies :)

Re: A revolution in thought
 

:welcome: Wayne, my old adversary from the Dawkins board. :D Nice to see you again.

Re: Does Old Paul pass to New?
 

The question - an isolated and I think relevant question - was, "Does Old Paul pass to New?"

Old and New Paul present a natural scenario. The question should therefore have definite answer in nature.

What do you think the answer is?

Incidentally, I put the question to davidm three years ago. He hasn't attempted an answer.

Re: A revolution in thought
 

Actually, Wayne, I have answered the question, but let's start afresh.

I think perhaps it would be helpful to outline a taxonomy of claims about what happens when we die.

Here are the ones that come to mind:

1. Metaphysical supernaturalism holds that when I die, something about me, a "soul" or some such, survives my death, and meets God. In the Christian idea, Jesus will show his boundless love for me by hurling me, or my soul or whatever, into an eternal lake of fire. Given my particular nature, I'm sure I'm bound for the fire if MS is true. :D

2. Metaphysical naturalism holds that when I die, I am permanently extinguished, and can anticipate nothing after death. BTW, I think Tom Clark makes a big mistake in explicating this idea in the opening part of his essay at naturalism.org. The people he quotes, I think, are speaking metaphorically. No one is trying to reify nothingness, as Clark supposes. It's not as if, at death, we will find ourselves floating in a sea of blackness, and, floundering around, say, "Oh, noes! I'm in a sea of blackness!" :ohnoes: Rather, it is that all experience and sensation shall cease, as it does every night when we are in deep, dreamless sleep. No one "finds himself" in deep, dreamless sleep, and complains about it. If one were able to complain about it, one would not be in deep, dreamless sleep.

3. Reincarnation holds that some essential part of me, a soul, will transmigrate from a dead vessel to a new living vessel, thus preserving, in a different guise, some irreducible "I."

4. Existential Passage/Generic Subjective Continuity holds ... and Wayne, I invite you to fill in the blank.

BTW, it really is nice to see you again, glad you stopped by. :wave:

Re: Does Old Paul pass to New?
 

That's a demonstrably untrue statement, and it should raise eyebrows among those who are considering the question.

Review your posts and state the truth of the matter. Else you'll tie yourself willfully to a demonstrably untrue statement.

Re: Does Old Paul pass to New?
 

Well, Wayne, if you think it's demonstrably untrue, then you're entitled to your opinion. Let's suppose, arguendo, that it's demonstrably untrue that I gave an answer at the Dawkins board. I now propose to answer you here. Fair enough? I've nothing against you and genuinely enjoyed our conversation/jousting, however you prefer to characterize it. :D So I will answer any question that you have here. I propose that we start afresh. In the meantime, did you see my taxonomy of claims about what happens after we die? Can you fill in the blank for existential passage/generic subjective continuity? I would prefer you do it so there is no misunderstanding. I also would like you to take a look at Lessans' writings on this subject, if peacegirl would be so good as to share them with you, and let me know what you think of them vis-a-vis exisential passage.

Re: A revolution in thought
 

I have a question for Peacegirl, DavidM, and Wstewart, or anyone else, if any of them would choose to answer.

Useing Wstwart's example. If Nicos dies and every precedeing person who has died has been transfered (lacking a better term) to a new individual, and Thanos and Charlie are the next people who are born, and no-one else dies. Who gets this 'germinal substance' or how is it devided between the 2 new individuals if there is no-one else? If one person dies and two are born, what happenes to whatever it is that is passed from one individual to the next?

Re: A revolution in thought
 

Essay reasoning is not as you suggest.

In this thread I've isolated the essay's preparatory scenario of Old and New Paul, with reason. E.g., it's easy to see that no 'germinal substance' is posited in that scenario.

What is posited?

And in your view, is anything more required, in order to justify the essay's conclusion that Old Paul passes to New?

Re: A revolution in thought
 

It seems to me Chapter 9 is not going to be sufficient to elucidate the basic idea. It needs also at least Chapter 11.

Re: A revolution in thought
 

I think most people would reply that Old Paul has "passed" to new Paul. The reason is that the substance of old Paul remains in New Paul, including the physical brain, shared by both Old and New. What has changed is the pattern of thoughts, the mentation, that supervenes on the physical brain. But since the substance of Old Paul continues in New Paul, albeit with a different pattern, it makes sense to posit a form of passage.

We could imagine an opposite state of affairs: that the pattern remains the same, but the substance on which the pattern supervenes is constantly changed or renewed. This is a Ship of Theseus scenario. What makes us tempted to conclude that it is the same ship, even though all its constituent parts have changed over time, is that the pattern that the parts exeplify remains the same.

So: We can imagine a pattern changing while supervening on the same underlying substance, as is the case with Old Paul and New Paul; or we can imagine the underlying substance changing, but the pattern it exemplifies remaining the same over time. Both cases tend to support the continuity of personal identity, or ship identity in the case of Theseus, over time.

Re: A revolution in thought
 

TBH, I think focusing on this term "germinal substance" is a bit of red herring. I think all Lessans meant by this is a colorful way to describe the never-ending biological life processes that constantly give rise to the subjective sense of "I" among different people. The point to focus on, is the nature of these individual "I"s and not the stuff they arise from.

Re: A revolution in thought
 

Is it OK for me to ask what might be dumb questions as I read the links as I go along or would you rather that I waited until you guys were done?

Re: A revolution in thought
 

You mean about the existential passage stuff? I think you should ask any questions you want, when you want to, but I'm also thinking it might be helpful to split the discussion of existential passage to its own thread, to avoid all the background noise of the other discussion on light and sight, etc.

Re: A revolution in thought
 

OK then I'll ask just one now and then see if you split it off. I'm reading the first link and I got through all of the William James stuff just fine and then I got to the part right after Nicos died and it says

I came to a full stop right there. What subjective internal view? He's dead. That means to me that he doesn't get to have any kind of view of anything at all, subjective or not, so I don't know why anyone is talking about it like it's a thing that still exists. Am I being too literal or stuck in my atheist world view that there is nothing after death but nothing?

Re: A revolution in thought
 

Holy fuckin shit, it feels like I'm talking to a couple of idiots who can't read, I don't care what the fuck you call it, who gets it. If one person dies and two are born at the same time and only one bit of "Germinal Substance" is avaliable, Who gets it? Or how is it devided to create two new people when only one has died?

Re: A revolution in thought
 

If you would go to Wayne Stewart's book, begin at chapter nine and read all the way through to the end, all these questions will be answered. Whether you find the reasoning valid or sound is another matter, but I suggest it's important to get right on the concept that Lessans, Clark and Stewart are advocating.

Nobody "gets" any germinal substance, or anything else physical. To quote Wayne from chapter eleven:

Bold face mine.

Re: A revolution in thought
 

IOW, this explains the term "generic subjective continuity." Dropping all personal pronouns, which lead straightaway to confusion on the concept on offer, what is being said is that there is the permanent extinguishment of a consciousness x, followed by a generic subjective continuity to future person y. In the case of existential passage, what passes is not physical, or a soul, but subjective existentialism. In the case of "germinal substance," Lessans is only using this as a colorful metaphor for ongoing biological processes that keeping spawning subjective "I"s, with an identical conceptual generic subjectivity from one "I" to the next "I." Whatever one thinks of this argument, if it's going to be argued at all, the claim has to be correctly identified. If I've erred in this description, Wayne will let me know, I expect.

Re: A revolution in thought
 

You rail at Peacegirl for not providing a synopsis of the book, and now you tell me I need to go read a book rather than give me a brief account of the relevant concepts?

Re: A revolution in thought
 

Er, but I AM giving you a brief account.

As to the rest, subjective awareness created ex nihilo happens under EP, as does merger: One, two, three or many people die, and subjective continuity from all those people continues in only one future person. There can also be splits: subjectivity continuity continuance from dead x to newborn twins y and z, for example.

BTW, Wayne's book isn't that long, and especially to get to the main point you can skip the first eight chapters and read from Chapter 9 on. I don't see why doing so is such a big deal, if you want to discuss this. In the case of peacegirl, several of us, including you I believe, DID read the whole book; what we were contesting is her own inability, ever, to provide her own summary of the main points, in her own words. Now I have summarized Wayne's thesis for you; if I've erred, as I say, I expect he will inform me.

Re: Does Old Paul pass to New?
 

And that explains the passage of Old Paul to New, by your lights?

Mapping your vague statements to the Old/New Paul scenario:

Old Paul has encountered James' unfelt time-gap during the loss of thought and memory associated with the deep coma injury.

Old Paul's thoughts fail when the injury's unfelt time-gap begins. By inference, your "pattern of thoughts" must also be lost at the start.

Meanwhile the body continues non-conscious functions: e.g., cycling your "substances", through the incessant reactions of metabolism.

What then is the "same underlying substance" that remains throughout the unfelt time-gap, with the functional power to pass Old Paul to New whenever the time-gap ends?

Bone?

Water?

Pneuma?

Re: A revolution in thought
 

It seems evident to me that what links Old Paul and New Paul is the physical brain and body.

We may say, under some ideas of personhood, that Old Paul and New Paul are two different persons. But it's plain that their different "personhoods" supervene on the same brain and body.

Yes, the "pattern of thoughts" is obliterated at the moment of brain injury. There is an unfelt time gap, agreed. And then New Paul emerges. But New Paul remains supervenient on the same physical body and brain, no?

I agree that Old Paul "passes" to New Paul, but we understand this in terms of an objective physical link: brain (though rearranged) and body.

Re: Does Old Paul pass to New?
 

To be more precise:

The brain.

The brain is rearranged by the crippling coma, but in actuality, this happens to us every second of every day. Every moment I have an experience, rearranging my brain. Still, I retain a sense of personal continuity; in the case of Old Paul, personal continuity is obliterated and New Paul emerges with a clean slate. But they share the same brain. So we have an objective link between the two, though we may rightly regard them as two different persons.

Re: Does Old Paul pass to New?
 

"Every second of every day" there is at least passive awareness to provide a functional continuity to the individual's subjective existence. This corresponds roughly with James' "felt time-gaps", which are at least dimly perceived.

This functional continuity is lost in the Old/New Paul scenario. Hence the unfelt time-gap.

More to the point: The scenario's unfelt time-gap removes the functional continuity you count upon in daily life. By design. In this scenario Old Paul's injury has disabled functions that sustain thought, subjectivity and personal identity, or your "personal continuity". The functions are temporarily... gone. In their absence there is no functional link in the brain - only the non-functional "substance".

If you assert that non-functional "substance" - brain or other - can actively pass Old Paul to New, you'll be arguing for something that I cannot distinguish from magic. Is that where you're going?

Re: A revolution in thought
 

Wayne, you're saying the brain does not pass Old Paul to New Paul? But unless I misunderstand you completely, you are saying that there is a passage from Old Paul to New. Is that not right?

So what is passing? Pure subjectivity?

But what I'm pointing out is that however we want to parse this scenario, it is a plain fact that Old Paul and New Paul share an existent brain.

What do Thanos and Nicos share?

Re: A revolution in thought
 

Correct me if I am wrong, but your argument seems to presuppose that if memories are removed, all functional connection disappears between the person that was there, and the person as it is now. But that strikes me as being based on an overly simplified model of the brain as a sort of receptacle of memories.

The memories in the brain may be removed, or inaccessible, but a lot of things remain: hormonal balances, simple quirks of the way the brain is built and integrated into the rest of the nervous system, sensitivity or insensitivity to stimuli... and all of these could translate into preferences, affinities, and drives. These in turn would make a person more likely to develop in certain ways, and could even be perceived as representing significant parts of someone’s personality, or at the very least the things that drives it to develop.

We can wonder if there ever is a “blank slate” – either for the infant being born into the Elysian Fields, or for our poor stroke-victim: both start with a considerable amount of inherited baggage, especially Paul the amnesiac. For instance, one does not require a memory of a vicious dog attack to develop an deep-seated fear of dogs, just to name a simple example.

You would have to propose a much more invasive kind of stroke to achieve the kind of difference as those between a dead man in the past and a new born child: and it would be a curiously gratifying stroke for you, as it would have to be the kind of stroke that makes you correct about your example by default: you would end up saying “Let us suppose someone had a stroke that made it exactly as if this person was now someone completely different, someone without any personality at all, but still functioning as a rational person in all respects!”

Come to think of it, it seems to me you would also require a strange genetic epidemic to hit the world that makes all new-borns more or less identical.

In other words, is there not the very real risk that your thought-experiment is phrased in such a way that it already contains the conclusion you are looking for?

Re: A revolution in thought
 

Another fun thought occurs to me:

If the return of a consciousness can happen after a "gap" independent of memory or the sensation of continuity, then how do we know that the same consciousness returns after any gap in consciousness? Do you also argue that once a person becomes unconscious, the first person to wake up after that can be said to be the continuation of the consciousness of the person who fell asleep?

Re: A revolution in thought
 

I am with Christina, it makes no sense to me to talk of subjective experiences when a person has died, for without a living brain there is no subject to experience anything. I would call it "cessation" rather than suspension or disruption.
I also don't consider a newborn a blank slate, since the brain exists in the womb, neural connections have been formed, no matter how few.

Re: A revolution in thought
 

Thanks. I think that for now I'll just follow along since I'm not well-versed at all in philosophy. Most people don't want to take a break to explain the entire history of western philosophy to me so that I can follow along :) LadyShea seems to have the same sort of questions that I do but will express them using correct terminology so I'll just watch for a while and see if my questions get answered by the end of the discussion. It's really interesting.

Re: A revolution in thought
 

Ooooh critical question #5:

What distinguishes a new consciousness that has not existed before from one that has, and is a continuation of a dead person's consciousness?

Re: A revolution in thought
 

:bump:

Re: A revolution in thought
 

You'll find that Wayne addresses these points at the end of Chapter 11, I believe, and I think he even says existential passage can happen without death.

We can come up with all kinds of interesting thought experiments. But, for me, I just want to cut to the chase. We can compare what I shall call "standard physicalism" (SP) with "existential passage" (EP). Let SP stand for the usual idea of non-religious materialists, that when we die we die and that's it, though future people are born.

What I want to say is this: For both those who have subjective experiences, and for those who are objective observers, there is no difference at all between what is felt and observed under SP, and what is felt and observed under EP. It therefore follows that EP is superfluous.

Let us consider: x dies, and y is born.

Under SP, x fades out, loses consciousness but does not feel or experience any "passage" to a later person, or later point of view. EP agrees with this. Under both SP and EP, x is well and truly gone, forever. There is no "felt passage."

Under SP, y comes into existence, but does not feel that his subjective perspective has "passed" from any prior person. EP agrees with this. Under both SP and EP, y, qua y, emerged from a blank void, with no prior memories of another point of view possible even in principle.

Under SP, outside observers witness x dying, and y being born. They do not note anything "passing" from one to the other: No soul, no body or brain, and no passage of subjective continuity. Under EP the same thing is true. No soul, nothing phyiscal, and no way in principle even to observe any generic subjective continuity or existential passage, since these things, being subjective, cannot be objectively observed even in principle.

Thus, under both SP and EP, everything looks exactly alike, both to subjective persons and objective observers.

Since there is no experiential or observational difference between SP and EP even in principle, it seems that like the aether with respect to light, EP is a superfluous idea.

Re: Does Old Paul pass to New?
 

Yes, that's the essay view. But not for the reason you've given.

In essay it's the subjective/objective transitions that delimit unfelt time-gaps, and these transitions are universal, in the sense of common natural phenomena. New Paul's transition therefore seems adequate to end the unfelt time-gap, irrespective of the degree of injury, "pattern" loss, or amnesia encountered prior to the transition. The transition provides the necessary and sufficient function. Additional functions, metaphysical entities or "substances" are not specified in essay because they seem always to fall under Occam's Razor, as unnecessary, or perhaps just meaningless.

Were the passage dependent instead upon your non-functional "substance" it would be effectively magical. Can you wield Occam's Razor on that magic yourself?

Re: A revolution in thought
 

OK, I read chapter 9 and parts of the other chapters, it seems that Wayne is proposing several possibilities for 'Passage' that would account for multiple births with not enough deaths, and multiple deaths with not enough births. It really gets very speculative.

Oh, Sorry about the outburst yesterday, I was just frustrated that it seemed like no-one was addressing the actual question but answering side issues.

Re: A revolution in thought
 

Well, Wayne is here, why not pose questions to him?

Re: Does Old Paul pass to New?
 

As Vivisectus has noted, though, it's not clear that in case we should call the substance of the brain "non-functional."

Also, ironically enough, it appears you and I are wielding the Razor in cross purposes. If you read my comparison of standard materialism and existential passage, I suggest the razor lops off the passage.

In any event, we can posit another, more extreme scenario. Suppose evil doctors kidnap old Paul and, armed with advance technology, yank the brain out of his head and totally destroy it. Then they rebuild the brain such that New Paul is a blank slate. New Paul wakes up and finds the world as a newborn babe does, with no memory of Old Paul. But the totally refurbished brain is in the same body. What is the state of passage in this case?

As an alternative, we can image the evil doctors rebuilding the brain such that it creates a new Paul, with false memories of a non-existent past. In this case, when New Paul wakes up, he is in the position of anyone who wakes up in the morning after sleeping: He can remember a consistent past life, but in this case, the past is utterly fictitious. What is the state of passage in this case?

Another scenario. Joe Barnes is a plumber, 51 years old. He wakes up in the morning, and has a consistent set of Joe Barnes memories for his 51 years of life. At the end of the day, he goes to bed. Right after he goes to bed, Barack Obama wakes up in the White House. Obama, also 51, has a consistent set of Obama memories of his 51 years of life. Since Joe went to bed and right away afterward Obama woke up, can we not posit that the subjectivity of Joe passed to Obama? Maybe this happens every day, to everyone? If so, now would we know? How we would verify or disconfirm this?

Re: A revolution in thought
 

If you look back at the question as first posed it was addressed to you, Wayne, Peacegirl and anyone else who cared to answer.

I did have 2 objections to Chapter 9 but not relivant to the main subject.

Re: Does Old Paul pass to New?
 

You think persistent properties such as "hormonal balances", "quirks" and "sensitivites" can have bearing on the question of Old Paul's passage to New. But how could any of these three example properties actually determine the passage outcome, in functional terms? I don't see how they could.

I think davidm has a similar difficulty.

Re: A revolution in thought
 

As I read chapter 9 there was a refeence to 'time-gaps' and it seemed to be implying that the mind or consciousness lost track of the passage of time. I would contradict this with my own experience, in that even sleeping I do not loose track of time, and when awake and occupied in other activities my mind is accurately aware of the passage of time. 2 examples,

When sleeping, if I have determined that I need to be up at a certain time the nest morning, I can reliably wake up in time to be out of bed at the necessary hour without an alarm clock or any other external signal.

I buy on EBay, and I will usually have the urge to check an auction in time for the auction to close, even if I am not in proximity to a clock and am occupied with another activity. I have usually made some mental note of the closing time beforehand. The thought will come into my mind that a particulr auction might be closing and when I check it is shortly before the auction does close, just in time to bid if I choose.

My point is that the mind, (at least mine) is aware of the passage of time, usually quite accurately. So I question the validity of 'time gaps' of consciousness.

Re: Does Old Paul pass to New?
 

When it doesn't perform the requisite subjective function, it certainly is non-functional. No other function or property delimits the unfelt time-gap, which is concomitant with passage of Old Paul to New.

Crediting instead some non-functional brain "substance" with the passage would be effectively an invocation of magic. And of course magic explains nothing.

No. Magic gets lopped off.

Your sci-fi is non-functional, hence magical, hence superfluous.

Can you explain Old Paul's passage to New, without resorting to any form of magic?

Re: A revolution in thought
 

James was distinguishing felt from unfelt time-gaps in his treatise on the stream of thought. It's the unfelt time-gaps that differ from common experience. They entail transitions, and limits, that are made explicit in essay. E.g., the subjective/objective transition and the corresponding limit of personal identity.

Re: Does Old Paul pass to New?
 

I don't see how magic is required. "Passage" in this context is defined by materialism, but it also may just be a manner of speaking. Perhaps it's wrong to say Old Paul has passed to New Paul.

Under materialism. we just look at the bare facts. There are two different personalities, but they share the same body. They also share the same brain, but the radical reconfiguration of the brain is what explains how we get New Paul later than Old Paul. Some would say that New Paul and Old Paul are entirely different people, but it's undeniably empirically true that they share the same body and also they share a brain, albeit this brain has been radically reconfigured, which the standard materialist would say accounts for the change from Old to New.

This, it seems to me, is just an extreme example, as I've previously noted, of what happens to all of us from moment to moment: our brains get reconfigured by experience, but usually not so drastically that we suffer a mortal amnesia that robs us of all past memories and makes us a blank slate.

As I'm sure you know, many people would be inclined to turn your "magic" charge back on you, and ask what Nicos and Thanos share? They do not share the same brain, or body. One died and the other was born. How, then, does subjective point of view pass from one to the other? And given that the extinct person is well and truly gone, and feels no sense of passage, and that the new person does not feel as if he has ever been "someone else," how does this scenario differ in any respect from the standard materialist claim, viz, x dies and y is born? What does existential passage add to our understanding of this situation?

Re: Does Old Paul pass to New?
 

New Paul has initiated the objective/subjective transition that ends an unfelt time-gap. If Old Paul's unfelt time-gap ends with that transition, he encounters passage to New Paul, subjectively. If not, he doesn't. Passage should be understandable in these terms.

Do you accept these terms? Do you still think Old Paul passes to New, in these terms?

Of course in my view the transitions are necessary and sufficient for the passage. In your view something else is required. Some unspecified, apparently "un-reconfigured" portion of New Paul's brain, which somehow does something to enable the passage from Old Paul to New.

I've no idea what that addition could be. Whatever it is, it would need to have some definite, relevant and vital function which explains its necessity.

Re: Does Old Paul pass to New?
 

OK. btw, the essay has this basic structure:

• Chapters 1 - 4 are historical.
• Chapters 5 - 8 provide contemporary scientific and philosophical background.
• Chapter 9 applies the background material to William James' unfelt time-gaps, and to Old and New Paul.
• Then Chapter 9 ff. applies all that to Nicos and Thanos, with some unexpected results.

For the moment, it's Old and New Paul in the spotlight. Possibly background chapters 5 - 8, or the endnote references, will clarify the terms and their application to Old and New Paul.

Re: A revolution in thought
 

Wayne, I think I'm just so centered in my atheist view that the concept of any sort of self or subjective view after death is virtually meaningless to me and instead of a gap there's a cessation. If I stand back a bit and watch you and David discuss it I can suspend my own disbelief and follow the logic and it's a very interesting workout for my brain.

Re: Does Old Paul pass to New?
 

If no such brain function is present in the Old/New Paul scenario, how could the same-brain requirement possibly apply?

An external function, such as a comparison, maybe? That is, some comparison of the part's composition at both ends of the unfelt time-gap, to verify that the unchanging part is truly unchanged. This would entail some agency, to record composition at both times, compare them, and make enforceable judgment. Or I suppose records would be unnecessary if the agency were able to compare across time, but that would involve time-travel. And of course external agency and any record-keeping, time-travel or other actions would themselves need explanation, to put it mildly. The explanation would almost certainly lead to Occam's "needless multiplication of entities".

Re: Does Old Paul pass to New?
 

I've already posited an even more extreme scenario, that evil scientists rip Old Paul's brain out of his head, completely destroy it, and then insert a new brain. In one version of the scenario, the new brain is a blank slate, and New Paul wakes up in Old Paul's body, but with the mental outlook of a newborn infant, and of course no memories. In Scenario 2, the refurbished brain has a false set of consistent memories, so that on waking, New Paul feels as if he were just waking from ordinary sleep, from an unfelt time gap, and his memory reaches back to his existentially perceived, but utterly counterfeit, past.

For the purely materialistic point of view, there is no account in these two scenarios of existential passage even in principle, though we can say in a loose sense that Old Paul has "passed" to New Paul in virtue of the fact that they share the same body and one was changed into the other through physical means.

The problem with these "unfelt time gaps," as I see it, is this: the very use of "gap" presupposes an end to the gap, for that is what a gap is: a temporary abridging. But we already know, even under existential passage, that when x dies, the gap never ends for x as x, so x, as x, can never, as it were, come to the opposite shore. As for y, who is born later than the death of x, there is no "ending of the gap," since for y, there is only a fathomless void prior to his first becoming aware, and he has no memory of any personal past or "prior point of view." Given these states of affairs, which definitely obtain under existential passage, I submit again that there simply is no functional distinction between the claim of EP and that of standard materialism. Everything looks exactly the same for everyone under both EP and SM, so why invoke EP? if x "passes" to y, x will never experience or feel this fact; and if y passed from x, y will never be able to feel or know this in any way. How is this different from just saying, "x died and y was born," and leave it at that?

Re: A revolution in thought
 

david, I posted this recently. Until I understand why suspension and disruption were used instead of cessation, I am afraid I can't follow Stewarts reasoning.

Additionally, until peacegirl can specify the referent in the various uses of personal pronouns, I don't see that there is anything to ask questions about.

Re: A revolution in thought
 

Yes, in the situation of death, there needs to be an explination of why it is considered as a "Time-Gap" that implies a begining and an end. The usual concept of a death is the cessation of everything, it is only in a religious context that there is a continuation of anything.

Re: A revolution in thought
 

Yes, I think this is the key problem. The use of the term "gap," under the very reasoning of Existential Passage, just is NOT a "gap" for x, as x. For x as x, it's permanent cessation -- which is exactly the same thing that standard materialism says. And, again, y, avowedly under EP, has no sense of having bridged a gap -- as he comes to be consciously aware, he cannot have the sense of retroactively cognizing the existence of an unfelt time gap, since he has no memory of the "prior point of view," and hence no sense of there having been a shore on the other side of a gap that he has bridged. If he agrees with EP, he may come to believe that there had been some such prior shore, with a prior but different personal point of view, but he will never feel or remember it. For my money, this just means we must take an eliminativist or deflationist point of view, arguing that at best EP collapses into standard materialism and there is nothing more to be said.

Re: A revolution in thought
 

I should point out that Wayne also holds that the dead person "passes" existentially to the very next person born in the world. We had a vigorous discussion :D on this in Dawkinsville, because now, once again, that pesky old special theory of relativity comes in and upsets the apple cart.

The very next person born in the world, after x has died, assumes that everyone share the same inertial frame. But if different people are in different inertial frames, they typically will disagree on the temporal order of spatially separated events. Hence, in one frame, y may be born immediately after x dies, but in a different frame, y will be born before x dies. And both frames are right; there is no "true order of events."

However, having reviewed Wayne's book again, I think he can repair this problem with recourse to his theory of existential spits and mergers; but I do suggest he should update that section of the book to take into account relativity.

Re: A revolution in thought
 

Wayne, look:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._Animation.gif

In frame one, events A, B and C are simultaneous.

In frame two, the temporal order is CBA

In frame three, it is ABC.

Let those letters stand for births and deaths, and you will see the problem of "the next person born" taking passage. And it must be borne in mind that there is not a TRUE order lurking behind the scenes; all three different frames are perfectly correct about the order of events, but only within each individual frame.

However, as I say, I do think you can repair this, maybe, with reference to mergers and splits; though it might be tricky. In any event you should do it, because anyone who reads the book and knows about SR is going to wonder about this.

Re: A revolution in thought
 

It may be that you will have to revise your thesis to state that passage takes place between deaths and births separated by a time-like interval; there is no disagreement in any reference frame, after all, that the Civil War happened before World War II. See here for a technical discussion.

Re: A revolution in thought
 

I don't think relativity is that important for earth-based births and deaths. All people on earth can use a common universal time, such as the one transmitted by GPS satellites, and can agree with each other about the timing of events down to microseconds.

It's not possible to time stamp the exact moment of birth, death, or conception to a resolution of even one second, so the shared clock time is already about a million times more accurate than is needed.

Even an alien flying her spaceship past earth at close to light speed would worry more about whether person A has really died yet and person B really finished being born, than she would worry about how her perception of the order of the the events might differ from that of an earth-bound observer.

Re: A revolution in thought
 

Suspension in the sense of "suspension of operations". Cessation, yes, due to the functional disruption of the thalamocortical recursions essential to subjectivity.

As with Old Paul.

Speaking of Old Paul... well, your opinion?

Re: A revolution in thought
 

Suspension and disruption both imply, to me, a temporary state. I don't think death (as in the example with Nicos) is temporary.

Re: Does Old Paul pass to New?
 

Argument is not improved by repeated insertion of "sci-fi", or rather non-functional, magical elements. They cannot be understood literally, as by definition. Unless you address the natural scenario - sans magic - you will not be able to give a literal answer to the question of Old Paul's passage to New.

There are few options here. Mainly: Subjectively he passes, subjectively he doesn't pass, or something's wrong with the question.

By essay reasoning, he passes. Your own reasoning... often fails even to mention the subjective/objective transitions that distinguish this scenario from mere substance continuity or replacement scenarios. Yet already you've taken off to magical scenarios and other, potentially distracting arguments.

I am not distracted.

Re: Does Old Paul pass to New?
 

In that case, I believe I have already answered.

Old Paul "passes" to New Paul insofar as we can understand this "passage" materially and empirically. Old Paul's brain is damaged but not destroyed. New Paul arises from the debris. All that external, objective observers can say is that Old Paul and New Paul are connected in virtue of the fact that they share a brain, albeit one that has been rearranged, and a body. One can say nothing about subjective passage of Old to New since no one, by definition, can experience another's subjective state. But I also think that if New Paul has no memory at all of Old Paul, then they are two different people. I don't understand why you contend that what I'm saying here is "magic." As previously noted, someone else might consider "magic" the idea of x dying and passing to y, when, unlike the case with Old and New Paul, x and y are physically distinct individuals and share nothing in common except being members of the same species. Speaking of species, I'm also curious why x can't pass to a different species, under EP, or even a space alien living in a solar system many light years distant.

I do hope you will address peacegirl. I know from reading your book that you are gratified to find supporters past or present. It seems obvious to me that what her father, Lessans, wrote, is in accordance with what you and Tom Clark are arguing, though Lessans uses his own distinctive and, shall we say, idiosyncratic language.

Re: A revolution in thought
 

Incidentally, there's an archive of 1500+ related posts with sample exchanges, here.

Re: Does Old Paul pass to New?
 

What definition? And how would it apply to Old and New Paul specifically?

Re: Dar al-Hikma
 

This thread has been split from somewhere in the late 1100s of the A revolution in thought thread.

Re: Dar al-Hikma
 

I believe that it might be advisable to revise certain points of discussion, till now the terminis of 'passage' in Wayne Stewarts account and Lessans account has been birth but there is some speculation that birth may not be the begining of human consciousness. It might be better to simply say that the transfer takes place when the new person is at an advanced enough stage of development to receive the transfer. Birth seems to be much too late in a pratical sense. Birth is convient for discussion but realistically if such a transfer does take place it is likely much earlier.

Perhaps we could say at the 'birth of consciousness' and let it go at that.

Re: Does Old Paul pass to New?
 

In the case of 'old Paul' to 'new Paul' there is no birth except for the birth of consciousness.

Re: A revolution in thought
 

I don't think that our preception of which happend first will matter, the exestential passage will happen to whichever new person is ready when it happens. The individual time frames will not dictate the timing of the events, the overall time frame will be the determining factor. I would suggest that is will be an automatic event over which human preception will have no control, and apparently we are not aware of it.

Re: Dar al-Hikma
 

Nice job, Christiana. :wave: So far as I can tell, the only relevant post missing is that by Ceptimus responding to my relativity objection, here.

Re: Dar al-Hikma
 

Sorry, I must not have seen that one because it's clearly about this topic. If you tell liv in the admin thread and give her the post number she can move it over and it will end up in the right place in the thread.

Re: Dar al-Hikma
 

Re: Dar al-Hikma
 

If this thread takes off, it could kill the 'revolution in thought' thread, especially if Peacegirl doesn't find it.

Re: Dar al-Hikma
 

That would make me sad. I love that thread.

Re: Does Old Paul pass to New?
 

Or more specifically the onset of subjectivity, understood primarily in terms of the thalamocortical function sketched in the papers of Ch. 8, sections 3 and 4. This transition seems paramount.

Re: Dar al-Hikma
 

Old Paul and New Paul is really lame. You should have gone with Pete and Repeat.

Re: Does Old Paul pass to New?
 

Let me try to explain my point of view in a different way. In order to speak of something that passes, you need to identify that which passes, and you need to identify what constitutes such a passage.

In this case we have some problems: by definition it is impossible to identify what it is that is supposed to pass, as it has nothing to do with anything that might be used for that purpose.

This being the case, it is also impossible to determine if a passage has occurred at all, since we cannot differentiate between a passage that has occurred: both states, where one has occurred and where one has not, are exactly the same for all intents and purposes.

Re: Does Old Paul pass to New?
 

Well, that seems to be the key to the issue. Subjectively, he does not pass -- under your EP, he does not "feel himself become," so to say, New Paul. And New Paul does not feel be came out of some prior person. Same with Nicos and Thanos. So how is this different from saying Old Paul died and new Paul was born, sans connnection, and that Nicos died and Thanos was born, sans connections? The only difference with Old and New Paul is that they share a body and a brain that was radically reconfigured. We can say, in a manner of speaking, that there is a transition between the two, in virtue of the fact that they share the same body and the brain was reconfigured. I'm not sure what else we can say. Absent some other argument, I don't think it makes sense to speak of any kind of transition from Nicos to Thanos.

Re: Dar al-Hikma
 

Then there are 2 issues here, first to determine if it is reasonable to think of some transition or passage, and the other is to compare Nicos' passage to Thanos, and Lessans use of pronouns. Wayne Stewart has very nicely provided a multitude of scenarios where one can pass to one, one to many, or mant to one, while Lessans has only stated that one person passes to the next but doesn't address the issue on mismatching numbers of death and birth. The real matter is to investigate te concepts to see if Stewarts and Lessans ideas are equivalent, and for that Mr. Stewart should be able to examine Lessans chapter for himself. Can anyone help with that other than Peacegirl.

If the chapter is made avalable it should be done so without any preface, so as not to bias the reading in any way.

Re: Dar al-Hikma
 

Mark Sharlow's very similar take on this subject may be found here. Scroll down to "Why Science Cannot Disprove the Afterlife." Unfortunately, he doesn't provide anchor links so you have to scroll.

Re: Dar al-Hikma
 

They key quote from the Sharlow essay is here:

Re: Dar al-Hikma
 

I think the main question is whether or not these electrical signals (radio waves) persist after death? Or, whether they are wholly fabricated within the brain and dissipate upon the death of the brain/body.

But, then again, since our whole awareness of reality is based solely upon the existence of these radio waves, first and foremost, it would seem the awareness (and existence) of a body is a only secondary and, that awareness itself is preeminent.

Re: Does Old Paul pass to New?
 

Consider James' 1890 reasoning from the Principles of Psychology, wrt unfelt time-gaps:

James' "broken edges of the sentient life", his "opposite margins", or "gaps" -- these phrasings are understandable, yes? I can't remember an author or correspondent who has found James' phrasings incomprehensible. Likewise it's also commonly understood that James' "merge over the gap", does not identify, and need not identify, some particular physical thing that passes between subjective terminals, to effect the merger, closure, or whatever one might call it. Notice James' ending statement: "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." That is a difficult but memorable and respected statement. For James, the closure is not thought to be effected actively by transfer of some particular physical thing; but passively, by the unavoidable limitations, including temporal limits, which injury imposes on consciousness.

Of course, external observers cannot see the closure; it would be encountered subjectively, only. But external observers and their "determinations" are not relevant to the closure; its reality must be independent of external observations, determinations and theories, just as the reality of any other subjective event is independent of these things.

James restricts his inferences to cases of uninjured persons, e.g. the Peter and Paul illustration, and persons with reversible injuries, e.g. from anaesthetics and fainting. I, and others, see no reason however to restrict our view to just those familiar cases. As long as scenarios of injury depict natural conditions, even under irreversible injury James' framework for unfelt time-gap closure should still serve, as with Old and New Paul.

Why shouldn't it?

Re: Does Old Paul pass to New?
 

These "key" assertions are unrelated to yesterday's key assertion, which I challenged. When you abandon a line of reasoning, say so, and say why.

And I see you've jumped away from Old/New Paul again. Although you are clearly eager to leave Old/New Paul behind, your inability to hold to a consistent line of reasoning on the Old/New Paul scenario gives me good reason to keep the spotlight there. I hope that reason is appreciated by other forum participants.

Re: Does Old Paul pass to New?
 

I've already given you, several times, my analysis of Old Paul and New Paul. Now, as to the "key assertion," you say you challenged it, but it seems to agree with your own, just upthread:

Basically, though, under your own scenario, there really is no "gap" here, except objective. Outside observers can see Old Paul "change" into New Paul. But Old Paul does not feel himself to make this transition, hence there is no opposite gap shore. And New Paul awakes a clean slate, hence there is no prior shore that he can recall.

Given these states of affairs, it seems reasonable to deem them to be two separate people who share the same body and a radically reconfigured brain. I don't quite follow why you find this analysis wrong or incomplete.

Re: Dar al-Hikma
 

Here's the thing, though. So what? Even if we take the whole argument at face value, such as it is, then we're left with person A being connected, continued, to person B in a way that makes no difference to the experience of persons A, B, or anyone else for that matter. It's a distinction without a difference, a 0-point advantage, a platitude, "it is what it is," or "everything's connected, man..."

So, you tell me, and let's say for a moment that I believe, that when I die I will pass to some new life, but in a way that I cannot detect and cannot affect me, before or after, even in principle. So... what?

Re: Does Old Paul pass to New?
 

What is apparent to me is that DavidM's post was primarily about Paul and Paul and it seems that you are making false claims to put him on the defensive. Not a good move in your favor, even though the comments were irrevelant, it speaks to your technique of argument.

Re: Dar al-Hikma
 

Right, as I previously noted here.

Re: Does Old Paul pass to New?
 

You've conflated observation of an event with the event itself. It's a confused line of reasoning that really should be abandoned, but with stated reason.

As for Old Paul:

Old Paul would not feel an unfelt time-gap, obviously. No one would, or does. That's why James spoke of it as... unfelt. You're therefore asserting, effectively, that James' unfelt time-gap cannot exist. I haven't seen such an argument in the professional literature, or even in forum, I think. Do you intend to argue for this, explicitly?

As for New Paul:

His amnesia would be irrelevant to the reality of time-gap closure, as with any event. Whereas previously you confused the observation of an event with the event itself, now you've confused the memory of an event with the event itself.

The memory of an event does not determine the reality of an event. In court the defendant may say, "I don't recall," but that doesn't get him off the hook.

Re: Does Old Paul pass to New?
 

If you still see something you think false in my post, highlight it and of course I'll make amends if it seems false to me upon reflection.

Re: Dar al-Hikma
 

Unless of course it entails the process of purifying the soul and its ultimate attainment of enlightenment, or Nirvana. Albeit no, I don't believe in reincarnation myself. One thing good about it though, I think, is it does free you up from a morbid fixation on hell, with all this hell-fire and damnation crap. Although I believe in a version of hell too, except not in the way it's commonly understood.

Re: Does Old Paul pass to New?
 

No, that is not what I'm saying. Obviously, no one feels an unfelt time gap. Nor is there anything mysterious here. We have such gaps every night when we enter deep sleep, and all sensation and experience temporarily ends.

However, when I wake up, I can retroactively deduce that there WAS such an unfelt time gap, because I can compare my current self with memories of myself before I fell alseep, and I can look at the sun in the window when, a subjectively felt moment earlier it was night, and I can look at the clock, and see that the time is 7 in the morning when, a moment earlier from my subjective point of view, the time was 11 p.m. or whatever.

This is not the case with New Paul and Old Paul, nor is it the case with Nicos and Thanos. Old Paul, as Old Paul, has no end to his "gap" (which is why it's not really a gap) and New Paul, as New Paul, does not recall some "prior shore" before the gap -- which is why it's not a gap for him, either. It's just the first awareness of being in the world, with no prior memories, under your own scenario.

Same thing with Nicos and Thanos.

While one cannot, be definition, experience an unfelt time gap (otherwise it would not be unfelt) once can deduce that such a gap took place, by comparing one's present circumstances to past circumstances before the gap. To do this, however, requires that one be a unified, continuous subjectivity. Old Paul and New Paul are NOT a unified, continuous subjectivity, and neither are Nicos and Thanos.

Re: Dar al-Hikma
 

I don't see how this theory has any power - if it's not able to explain anything observable (in other words if there's no way of testing if it's true) then I don't see the point of it.

As an analogy, let me put forward the theory of ceptino particles. These are sub-atomic particles possessing no mass, charge or spin. Like neutrinos they can travel at great speed (almost the speed of light). Unlike neutrinos they never interact with any other particles or fields in any way. So they are completely undetectable - there is no method, even in principle, of detecting whether or not a ceptino is present.

So I've formulated the theory of ceptino particles, and for all we know they may really exist. However, even though it may be true, the theory is still useless as it has no explanatory power - it makes no difference whether it is correct or not.

Re: Does Old Paul pass to New?
 

DavidM is not attempting to "Jump Away" from Old Paul and New Paul, and does not appear "Eager to Leave" that discussion. Since his post was mostly about Old Paul and New Paul, your statements were false, in an apparent maneuver to discredit him, or to gain "Face" over him.

BTW I've also highlighted DavidM's references to "Old Paul and New Paul" in his post so you can more easily see them.

Re: Does Old Paul pass to New?
 

Actually, no. Passive awareness, including the somatosensory linkage between postcentral gyrus and thalamus, continues in sleep; which explains sensation of pain in sleep.

It also explains why sleep is considered a felt time-gap, not unfelt. In James' terms, "With the felt gaps the case is different. On waking from sleep, we usually know that we have been unconscious, and we often have an accurate judgment of how long." And of course this is due primarily to a sense of time's passage during sleep; a sense not present in deep coma or other unfelt time-gap.

Does this difference change your view of unfelt time-gaps?

Re: Dar al-Hikma
 

So deep sleep, without dreams, is not actually an unfelt time gap, but coma is, or being put under aneasthesia for an operation is? OK, I can grant that. But I still don't understand how any of this gets to the central point.

What I, and ceptimus and Kael would like to know is, what difference does any of this actually make? Is it not a fact that everything subjectively looks the same to Old Paul and New Paul, as well as to Nicos and Thanos, under existential passage as it would under a standard physicalist account of life and death? And doesn't everything look the same to outside observers?

Under EP, Old Paul does not feel himself "pass" to New Paul, and Nicos does not feel himself "pass" to Thanos. Neither New Paul nor Thanos have any memory of having a different, prior subjective point of view; they have their own subjctive awarenesses solely, with no clue as to a forgotten past point of view. The point is, we can grant EP is true for the sake of conversation, but ask, if it makes no difference to anyoene, if nothing is experientially or observationally different for anyone under EP than it is under SP (standard physicalism), then what exactly is EP explaining and why should we prefer it over SP?

Re: Does Old Paul pass to New?
 

On this I can agree that the unconscious in some people is aware of the passage of time, as I stated before, if I need to wake up at a certain time in the morning, no matter when I go to sleep, I will wake up at that time.

But I would ask what is the evidence that a coma or sleep induced by anesthesia. Is it anecdotal, or are there studies to verify this assertion.

Re: Dar al-Hikma
 

Peacegirl would say that it is a great comfort to know that we will in some incomprehensible way live again. But you know how much stock you can put into Peacegirl's statements? Perhaps Stewart believes this would be a comforting thought?

Re: Dar al-Hikma
 

Your ceptino falls under Occam's Razor, as a "needless multiplication of entities". As it happens, arguments which deny passage of Old Paul to New seem always to entail a multiplication of entities - often far more than posited in the essay view, which is comparatively parsimonious. These arguments have to multiply entities in order to justify the assertion, or at least to try. And of course these arguments "do not explain anything observable".

You're holding Occam's Razor. Where do you cut first?

Some brief and incompatible examples from another forum.

Re: Does Old Paul pass to New?
 

What was the question? Looks like a typo there.

Re: Does Old Paul pass to New?
 

Yes I missed a phrase in my haste,
"But I would ask what is the evidence that a coma or sleep induced by anesthesia produces a 'Non-felt gap' as opposed to a 'felt-gap'?" Is it anecdotal, or are there studies to verify this assertion.

Re: Dar al-Hikma
 

Occam's Razor is a useful principle to apply in most situations but it is not an absolute rule that is applied in all cases. In reality many situations are much more complicated than they need to be, and in Nature organisims are often much more complicated that human observation would think they would need to be. A better principle would be that when all other explinations fail, what is left, no matter how complicated or irrational, must be true.

Re: Dar al-Hikma
 

The discussion of the biology and philosophy of the relation between Old and New Paul is certainly interesting. It'll be interesting to see how you then connect this to Nicos and Thanos.

But you've again invoked parsimony is ruling out ceptinos. Agreed! But that was ceptimus's point. Ceptinos are unparsimonious -- in fact superfluous -- which is why we wouldn't care about them even if they existed.

His point was that existential passage is unparimonious in exactly the same way as ceptinos are. If it it makes NO difference to anyone involved, from what standard materialism says, it's superfluous. Believing it is true might, conceivably, make a difference in one's outlook on life. But what I mean is it doesn't make any difference to any subjective or objective observer, as previously noted. x does not feel passage to y. y does not feel passage from x. Outside observers see x die and y born and nothing else. If there is no difference between what people feel and observe on the two accounts, then plainly it is EP that is unparsimonious, because it makes one additional claim beyond standard physicalism that is not observable, verifiable or falsifiable even in principle.

Re: Does Old Paul pass to New?
 

Evidence? Well, for example, clinical self-report, after coma, noting unawarenesss of the passage of time. Preferably the self-report would be augmented by staff observation and scans.

There's always the possibility that a self-report could confuse a period of memory loss with an unfelt time-gap; both could produce the same self-report, after. But in that case observation would distinguish, by noting awareness during that time period.

Why do you ask?

Re: Dar al-Hikma
 

Arguments against Old Paul's passage to New do fail, as you're seeing presently in the confusion of this forum. Essay argument for Old Paul's passage is not as complicated as the attempted arguments against, and no one has demonstrated irrationality in the essay argument.

So what's Sherlock's take on that?