Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Wayne Stewart is, along with Tom Clark, one of the people davidm has talked about as having a similar idea to Lessans about the consciousness thing.
|
That's true, but it is not exact because it talks about "existential passage", or "shifting". This is not in accordance with Lessans at all, and to say that it is is pretentious. |
No, again, you are incorrect. Stewart's and Clark's claims are exactly in accord with those of Lessans. "Passage" or "shifting" is just in a manner of speaking, the same way that "I" and "you" is in a manner of speaking; have you forgotten that you yourself had to explain this with respect to using the word "you"? Tom Clark, in his essay at naturalism.org, is also quite explicit on this point.
Stewart is quite clear that some subject x, upon death, is extinguished qua x and is gone for good; which is precisely what Lessans and Clark said. |
That's even better because, if Mr. Stewart (can I call you Wayne; it's hard to talk so politely in here  ) he will have a major platform in which to speak, that is, if I can get Lessans' other discoveries brought to light. It's a win-win David. You may actually be helping this cause, even though you meant it do otherwise. |
It remains the case, no matter how many times you complain otherwise, that no one here is "out to get" you or Lessans; and if Lessans has a genuine discovery, we would be all ears and, if his case were convincing, we would acknowledge that and try to spread word of it.
Alas, it absolute baloney that we see in real time, and that if God turned on the sun at noon we would see it immediately, but not see our neighbor on earth for eight and a half minutes. This is easily demonstrated to be empirically false and the claim itself is incoherent. |
It's not incoherent at all when you understand that the object comes first, not light. It automatically puts the eyes in optical range, therefore it isn't teleportation or magic of any kind.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by davidm
His stuff on free will and determinism does indeed reduce to a tautology and a modal fallacy, no matter how many times you say otherwise.
|
No matter how many times you say it's a modal fallacy and a tautology, it is not. How easy it is for you to simply gloss over your error.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by davidm
There remains his third claim, which perhaps Wayne will speak to.
What you have never understood, after all this time, is that for people like us, the standard of judging a claim is evidence and sustainable argument. No one here, except for you, has a personal stake in his or her world view. We go where the evidence leads. We know that his claims on light and sight are ridiculous, and so we are going to tell you so. It's nothing personal.
|
I don't mind if he speaks on this subject, but as I said before, this is not my main focus. It would be nice if he understood Lessans' claim that when we die, it's not the end.