A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Personal immortality only means that you, your consciousness, will always be here. It has nothing to do with a connection to a previous life.

Being YOUR consciousness is a connection to a previous life.

And you still haven't told me what it is that makes it the same consciousness.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can say that this does not mean that a person is reborn, by definition, if that's how you want to define it. I really don't care...

No, you can't say that we get born again and again without ever getting reborn. That is contradictory.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Don't feel bad. She's been insulting people for the "sin" of failing to unquestioningly accept Lessans' claims as gospel since literally her first day here.

In her mind, the only truly legitimate question to ask of Lessans and his work is some variation of: "How did he get to be so brilliant, and can you please enlighten me further regarding his brilliant discoveries?".

Well, if these discoveries can bring about peace, they would be brilliant, don't ya think?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Has anyone actually read Clark's essay on this topic, here? I defy anyone to read this without coming to the conclusion that Clark and Lessans are talking about precisely the same thing.

Of course, I know peacegirl hasn't read it. She arrogantly assumes that nothing on earth except her father's idiot book is worth reading. Never has anyone (except for Lessans) displayed such a great sense of superiority, and no one has ever had fewer reasons for feeling herself superior to others.

What a joke. I have never thought I am superior to anyone David. That's all in your head.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Plenty of other people have tried to be pleasant and helpful to her, and have offered sincere, well-meaning advice and polite, reasoned criticism. Myself certainly included. She has not been at all receptive or appreciative. Presumably because, in her mind, failure to wholly and uncritically accept Lessans' claims is proof that you're a liar, an idiot, or both.

That's because in order for me to show appreciation, you expect me to say, "Oh I see the light now; you are right, this is not a discovery". Don't you see how unfair that is? I am sorry that you think I deserve the criticism. I came to these forums with a sincere desire to share this knowledge, not knowing how terrible I would be treated.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

What peacegirl craves is attention. It's to her credit that she has received so much of it. Look how long she has sustained attention in just this single thread! A quite remarkable and unique achievement at

To be honest, we should also give credit to all those who have fed Peacegirls addiction.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What is Lessans concept of why we will always be here to say "I"? You said you were trying to share this with me, but you still haven't told me.

I am not getting into this topic any deeper than I already have. This is the most difficult concept to grasp. In fact, it could be that you read the chapter and still don't agree with it just like you disagree with all of his claims. This is the end of the road because there's nothing more to talk about. I have exhausted every topic, and gotten nowhere in 2 years.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Inside of what? Outside of what? How does this mean it must be me?

How does this explain anything? Is this really the part of his text that best explains his reasons? Who will the next consciousness belong to after I die? Someone other than Spacemonkey. Will the next person and others still be able to make this same observation after I die? Yes! Yes, they will. So the next person does not have to be me.

Lessans mistakenly thought he had discovered (personal non-personal) immortality because he failed to understand the indexicality of personal pronouns. Like I said, this stuff is hilarious.

Laugh while you can, because the last laugh will not be yours.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not getting into this topic any deeper than I already have.

So you're just going to lie, weasel, and evade again, just as you did on vision?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In fact, it could be that you read the chapter and still don't agree with it just like you disagree with all of his claims.

How could that be the case? This is the chapter you've refused to share.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is the end of the road because there's nothing more to talk about. I have exhausted every topic, and gotten nowhere in 2 years.

So what are you going to do now?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

Peacegirl please stop pretending to be mortally offended by the word fuck since you made it this far and haven't keeled over from it. I could go into a long-winded explanation about how this is work for you and play for everyone else and the person working is the only one expected to keep their shit together no matter what but you wouldn't get it. I don't know wtf you want but it sure isn't a conversation or to get anyone to agree with this stuff.

You didn't say fuck. You said fuck you. I'm not as thick skinned as I thought. I'm trying to keep it together, but the tone in here has gotten worse, not better, and I'm beginning to crack at the seams.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So you're just going to lie, weasel, and evade again, just as you did on vision?

How could that be the case? This is the chapter you've refused to share.

So what are you going to do now?

I don't know yet, but what I do know is that I have invested my time and energy in this thread with very little return.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I came to these forums with a sincere desire to share this knowledge...

No, Peacegirl, you did not. Someone sincerely interesting in sharing knowledge wouldn't withhold material and refuse to answer questions.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know yet, but I have stayed here much longer than I anticipated.

So consider your options. You are in a bit of a bind, as you refuse to discuss any of your own material and you're completely incapable of leaving. Will you link to a few more anti-science crackpots for us? Provide more pointless 'intermission' links? Or perhaps just continue by insulting us and whining about how unfair we all are?

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You didn't say fuck. You said fuck you. I'm not as thick skinned as I thought. I'm trying to keep it together, but the tone in here has gotten worse, not better, and I'm beginning to crack at the seams.

I just don't know what to say to you because you seem oblivious to how rude and condescending you are even when asked for a simple clarification. I don't think that I could begin to describe to you how far off your style is from the way that serious people present themselves and their ideas.

BTW, going back and editing insult posts to say "dup" or replacing the insults with innocuous statements isn't really fooling anyone. Even if it wasn't easy to remember what it used to say it would still be obvious because most of the time it's already been requoted. It's not like a do-over.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm trying to keep it together, but the tone in here has gotten worse, not better, and I'm beginning to crack at the seams.

Then you need to get help Peacegirl, I'm sure if you ask, your family would help you find some appropriate professional help.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because you are being myopic. Just as I don't have to know the exact statistics of how many children die getting hit by a car every year, to know that teaching them how to look both ways will more than likely prevent them from being another statistic, Lessans did not have to give the exact date of the Earth (because it's an unimportant factoid) in order to explain the concept of why we will always be here to say "I".

Did you know that children perceive looming cars much less well than adults do?

Reduced Sensitivity to Visual Looming Inflates the Risk Posed by Speeding Vehicles When Children Try to Cross the Road

Almost all locomotor animals respond to visual looming or to discrete changes in optical size. The need to detect and process looming remains critically important for humans in everyday life. Road traffic statistics confirm that children up to 15 years old are overrepresented in pedestrian casualties. We demonstrate that, for a given pedestrian crossing time, vehicles traveling faster loom less than slower vehicles, which creates a dangerous illusion in which faster vehicles may be perceived as not approaching. Our results from perceptual tests of looming thresholds show strong developmental trends in sensitivity, such that children may not be able to detect vehicles approaching at speeds in excess of 20 mph. This creates a risk of injudicious road crossing in urban settings when traffic speeds are higher than 20 mph. The risk is exacerbated because vehicles moving faster than this speed are more likely to result in pedestrian fatalities.

[LadyShea]

If it was Richard Dawkins speaking, or Stephen Hawkings speaking, you would never talk the way you do.

Dawkins is yet another asshole. At least some of us don't care for the people you seem to think we highly respect and listen to.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If it was Richard Dawkins speaking, or Stephen Hawkings speaking, you would never talk the way you do.

I don't know about Christina, but speaking for myself, if it were Dawkins speaking I would be far less respectful to him than I have been to you.

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

*takes a deep breath

Oh forget it. Sarcasm is wasted on the stupid.

True, but it is not wasted on the rest of us.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Personal immortality only means that you, your consciousness, will always be here. It has nothing to do with a connection to a previous life. You can say that this does not mean that a person is reborn, by definition, if that's how you want to define it. I really don't care because the concept remains the same incoherent nonsense.

[ChristinaM]

Chances are that I would be much more rude to Dawkins because I wouldn't feel the need to pull punches most of the time just in case there really was something wrong with the guy. It's more fun when it isn't like beating up a whiny marshmallow. It's not like there's any danger of people listening to her and blaming an entire group of people for his ego.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You just described a connection to the previous life. Being the same person and not someone else is a connection of identity.

Wrong. You will always be here to say "I". That's all it means. There is no connection.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wrong. You will always be here to say "I". That's all it means. There is no connection.

Identity is a connection.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Personal immortality only means that you, your consciousness, will always be here. It has nothing to do with a connection to a previous life.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Being YOUR consciousness is a connection to a previous life.

And you still haven't told me what it is that makes it the same consciousness.

You are of the mindset that there is a connection when you say "the same consciousness", therefore you will not understand this concept. There is no "same" consciousness. All he is trying to show is that your consciousness (not Spacemonkey, the individual that makes you who you are today) will always be here.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are of the mindset that there is a connection when you say "the same consciousness", therefore you will not understand this concept. There is no "same" consciousness. All he is trying to show is that your consciousness (not Spacemonkey, the individual that makes you who you are today) will always be here.

I didn't say anything about psychological continuity (what makes me the individual I am today).

When I said "same" consciousness I didn't mean anything more than what YOU said - that it will be MY consciousness that is reborn. I am speaking of numerical, not qualitative identity.*

I've explained this all to you before. Several times.

What makes the reborn consciousness the same consciousness in the sense of still being my consciousness?


* Qualitative identity: 'We both have the same car' - i.e. we have distinct cars of the same model, make, and color.
Numerical identity: 'We both have the same car' - i.e. we have a single car between us that we share.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Identity is a connection.

The connection is that consciousness is not only an individual expression of you, as you are now (and this is where Clark and Stewart agree); it is generic in that this consciousness is the potential you which is carried along from generation to generation and expresses itself at the birth of a child, which can only be YOU because you cannot see this world through anybody else's consciousness but your own.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The connection is that consciousness is not only an individual expression of you, as you are now (and this is where Clark and Stewart agree); it is generic in that this consciousness is the potential you which is carried along from generation to generation and expresses itself at the birth of a child, which can only be YOU because you cannot see this world through anybody else's consciousness but your own.

So there is, according to Lessans, a connection of numerical identity between the previous and subsequent 'generic consciousnesses'. What is his argument for this?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I didn't say anything about psychological continuity (what makes me the individual I am today).

When I said "same" consciousness I didn't mean anything more than what YOU said - that it will be MY consciousness that is reborn. I am speaking of numerical, not qualitative identity.

I've explained this all to you before. Several times.

What makes the reborn consciousness the same consciousness in the sense of still being my consciousness?

I'm talking numerical also. What gave you the idea that I am talking qualitative? He gives an example of the hydra, whose head falls off and another head comes on. The YOU that was number 2 that just fell off is the same number 2 when the new head appears. Anyway, this is getting old. People are challenging me without really trying to understand, because they are of the mindset that he is wrong no matter what, so it's a waste for me continue talking about this difficult subject. Even after I said to thedoc that when someone dies he can no longer say "I", he gave me a hard time. How do you think I am ever going to explain this knowledge with this deliberate resistance?