A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

No one is stopping you from continuing. You refuse to move forward until everyone in the conversation agrees that the discoveries are correct and that never happens. I'm probably not the only one that would hold my nose and assume for the sake of argument that the discoveries were true if it meant that you would finally stop repeating yourself and get to the other chapters.

No, othere have tried that and it doesn't work, Peacegirl will not go on till everyone is at her feet worshiping her as the one true Goddess of Lessanology and the high Prestess of Lessanism. But if that really happened she wouldn't know what to do and she would bail and look for a site where people attacked her.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I can understand your wanting to protect yourself from Tom Clark's participation, as he is someone well known and would add an air of credability (at least in your eyes, as he is a bit of a celebrity) to the arguments against Lessans. The truth is that you do want to debate it, in the sense that you present the material and everyone is just so overwhelmed with the awsomeness of it that they agree at once. You are more afraid that Tom Clark, as one crackpot, will recognize and expose Lessans as another crackpot.

Not sure I follow your comments here. I think Clark would support Lessans' claims, and make the case for them as ably as possible.

[thedoc]

I just hope that if Tom Clark, Waller, or Wayne Stewart come to the thread, they take the time to review the thread and read the book to get a true understanding of what they are debating.

[davidm]

Well, personally, I don't think they need to review anything in the book except the claim on being born again, a subject to which they can speak since they are making the same claims.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Not sure I follow your comments here. I think Clark would support Lessans' claims, and make the case for them as ably as possible.

That would depend on how much of the thread, and book, Clark read before joining the debate.

I think that Peacegirls biggest fear is that Clark will not support Lessans, since she probably doesn't understand what Clark wrote.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

That would depend on how much of the thread, and book, Clark read before joining the debate.

I think that Peacegirls biggest fear is that Clark will not support Lessans, since she probably doesn't understand what Clark wrote.

Well, Clark's claims are identical to those of Lessans, even though he articulated them in different words, so he will support Lessans' claims.

I don't think he needs to read the rest of the book, or any of this thread, if he wanted to join the discussion. The other claims in the book are irrelevant to the claims on being born again.

Of course it's doubtful he'll show up in any case, but in my e-mail message to him, I forewarned him that the thread was some 1,200 pages long, and made it clear he didn't have to bother wading through all that in order to join this particular discussion on death and birth. In any case, no one in their right mind is going to read a 1,200 page thread, no matter how interesting it is, and no one can be expected to.

[LadyShea]

I wasn't as concerned with protecting Clark as protecting myself from a debate that I'm not interested in. I told everyone that I've gotten off onto another tangent, and if someone else comes on board, that will keep me here defending my father's 3rd discovery, which could take who knows how long. I want to start marketing my books, which is coming soon. I am trying to work on an outline of what to do to jumpstart the process.

You need not participate, you need not visit at all. Go do what you prefer to do.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's why I say, let's end this on a friendly note.

I think it is probably much too late for that.

Originally Posted by davidm

Now we can all start talking in the third person, like

* Angakuk thinks that this would be very awkward.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea is a specific name; YOU is not, unless qualified.

Lady Shea, you is not you. Peacegirl has said so.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But you are forgetting that these evils are coming to an end. We will no longer live in the middle ages, and we will have developed to a point where there will be no poverty so how could there be paupers? No one will be on a higher pedestal than another when we learn the truth of our intrinsic equality, and there will be no dictators running our lives. You have projected your life now into the future, which makes being born as I, with no relation to me as I am now, rather risky.

This all assumes that the Golden Age has been instantiated. In the meantime, there are significant class distinctions, substantial gaps in wealth, dictators and all kinds of misery. Therefore, this "I", that "I" and the other "I" are all being born, right now, into a world that is far from perfect. How is that comforting?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The confusion with pronouns is what he is trying to clarify.

He failed. Rather spectacularly

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's out of the question because it is coherent...

Is not!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have to focus on Lessans' other discovery...

Why don't you do that then? BTW, what discovery was that again? It couldn't be one of the other discoveries that you have already said you aren't going to discuss anymore, could it?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There's nothing more I can say, just as there's nothing more I can say about light and sight, and there's nothing more I can say about determinism. Actually, there's a lot more I can say about determinism and how a no blame society will change the landscape of our world, but you wouldn't let me continue.

No one here has ever prevented you from saying whatever you want to say.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If he is going to come here, I would want him to discuss determinism, since I already talked to him on the phone and he is interested in the book.

Unfortunately for you, you don't get to dictate who talks to whom about what.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because I think David should have asked me first since I'm part of this discussion. Maybe I don't want to discuss this topic any further, which I have already expressed.

You are so right. He should have asked all of us before he went ahead and invited some stranger to the party. Just who the hell do you think you are David?

Originally Posted by davidm

Well, Clark's claims are identical to those of Lessans, even though he articulated them in different words, so he will support Lessans' claims.

I don't think he needs to read the rest of the book, or any of this thread, if he wanted to join the discussion. The other claims in the book are irrelevant to the claims on being born again.

Of course it's doubtful he'll show up in any case, but in my e-mail message to him, I forewarned him that the thread was some 1,200 pages long, and made it clear he didn't have to bother wading through all that in order to join this particular discussion on death and birth. In any case, no one in their right mind is going to read a 1,200 page thread, no matter how interesting it is, and no one can be expected to.

I am pretty sure that peacegirl is trying to run her own scam on Clark and she is afraid that if he shows up here we will sour the deal. Which we surely will.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yet the initial objection was worded as concern for Clark's time and energies, disguising the true intent.

Not completely true. I was thinking that he would be too busy to come here, but I also didn't appreciate that David took it upon himself to invite him to this debate without asking if I wanted to be a part of it. I am part of it, ya know.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because this is not how I wanted to present the book to him. I wanted him to read the first three chapters, which is in accordance with his understanding of determinism.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Was the link to the first three chapters on the website not offered during the initial discussion?

I gave him the website but I don't know if he actually read it. If I was going to talk to him again, that is what I would have wanted to discuss.

At this point I really don't care. I would be very surprised though if he does show up but I need to mention that I hope people would be on good behavior.

I will be embarrassed if people call me names in his presence. It would be disrespectful to me, and I would have to back out. He probably wouldn't think very highly of this group either.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, children listen up!

Sometimes people need a refresher course. Basic courtesy.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If there are 100 people living, and a person suddenly dies making it 99, the next person born is not 101, but 100.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What? That's another weaseling non-answer. Do you not actually know what Lessans' reasoning was on this point? Why did he think the subsequent consciousness would be numerically the same as a previous one?

Would you please stop telling me I'm weaseling? The reason you are numerically 100 and not 101 is because there is no numerical difference between the YOU that was 100 who just died, and the YOU that is now being born, which is not 101 (as if you're still here), but 100. He gave the following example.

Our Posterity

p. 499 Now that mom and dad have you they decide to have another
child, and when it is born it is not you because you already exist.
Soon mom gives birth to a total of ten. Then several years later you
get married and give birth to two children, making a total of 14 in
your family. Before long there are 50 family members in all. After
reaching a ripe old age of 100 years you drop dead from heart failure,
so this body, this bubble of consciousness is gone which makes it
impossible for you to say that the next child born is him or her
because this relation must pass through your consciousness which is
no longer here.

If you, the 50th member of your family said ‘I’ just
before your death, and the remaining members of your family are still
alive at the time that you died; and if it is impossible to be born and
not say ‘I’ because everything must be seen through your
consciousness, the next infant born cannot possibly be him or her,
number 51, but YOU, number 50. In other words, since your family
just lost YOU, which decreased the population to 49, and since these
remaining 49 members are not you because they have their own
consciousness, but they still want YOU, when you are born YOU will
not be him or her, number 51, but you, number 50, who will grow,
develop and become conscious of your existence.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's why I say, let's end this on a friendly note.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why are you refusing to discuss this? Why are the only options for you weaseling and evasion or ending the discussion?

Why are you not listening? I told you I'm doing the best I can but I am not going to continue the discussion on death. No one is going to understand it or even give him any credit because he didn't use the scientific method.

[Vivisectus]

It may be true that our bodies get recycled or used for fertilizer, or become nutrients for others, but this still doesn't explain a greater truth; that YOU, not the same individual, will always be here to say "I wonder why I was born at this time in history, and not some other time" as long as mankind is able to reproduce himself.

When populations grow beyond the size they were before, where do the extra "I's" come from?

Also, when extinction events dramatically reduce the size of the human population (as they have done in the past), where do the extra "I's" go?

Also, what exactly is it that makes a consciousness "I"? If there is no memory, or indeed no causal link at all between a future and a present "I", then what is it that makes that future I the same I as the one that exists now? What distinguishes it from a completely different "I"?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

This directly contradicts your claim that the subsequent consciousness will be numerically identical with a previous one. The consciousness either gets reborn or it ceases to exist. It can't do both.

It is numerically identical, but there is no connection to anyone who just died. He was just showing that when someone dies, the next child born is not 101 (which is reasoning beyond the grave), it's 100.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

When populations grow beyond the size they were before, where do the extra "I's" come from?

Extra "I"s? I don't understand what you mean.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Also, when extinction events dramatically reduce the size of the human population (as they have done in the past), where do the extra "I's" go?

Again, I don't know what you mean? I believe you are thinking that the "I"s get replaced from a previous "I", which means there would be leftovers. That's not how it works.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Also, what exactly is it that makes a consciousness "I"? If there is no memory, or indeed no causal link at all between a future and a present "I", then what is it that makes that future I the same I as the one that exists now? What distinguishes it from a completely different "I"?

What distinguishes it as a completely different "I" is the fact that it is a completely different "I". You are still trying to connect "I"s, which is not what Lessans is saying. This is not about not remembering the past YOU. There is no relationship between any "I" and the YOU that you are now.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Would you please stop telling me I'm weaseling?

No. When you weasel instead of answering I will point out that you are weaseling. You are a self-confessed weasel, and you are once again weaseling. If you don't like this being pointed out then stop doing it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The reason you are numerically 100 and not 101 is because there is no numerical difference between the YOU that was 100 who just died, and the YOU that is now being born, which is not 101 (as if you're still here), but 100.

That's not a supporting reason. You've just repeated what I asked you to show his reasoning for. Did Lessans not actually support this point with any reasoning? Is this just another assertion from him? Or is the problem just that you don't understand what his reasoning was?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Our Posterity

p. 499 Now that mom and dad have you they decide to have another
child, and when it is born it is not you because you already exist.
Soon mom gives birth to a total of ten. Then several years later you
get married and give birth to two children, making a total of 14 in
your family. Before long there are 50 family members in all. After
reaching a ripe old age of 100 years you drop dead from heart failure,
so this body, this bubble of consciousness is gone which makes it
impossible for you to say that the next child born is him or her
because this relation must pass through your consciousness which is
no longer here.

If you, the 50th member of your family said ‘I’ just
before your death, and the remaining members of your family are still
alive at the time that you died; and if it is impossible to be born and
not say ‘I’ because everything must be seen through your
consciousness, the next infant born cannot possibly be him or her,
number 51, but YOU, number 50. In other words, since your family
just lost YOU, which decreased the population to 49, and since these
remaining 49 members are not you because they have their own
consciousness, but they still want YOU, when you are born YOU will
not be him or her, number 51, but you, number 50, who will grow,
develop and become conscious of your existence.

Where is the reasoning here? He points out that it is impossible for you to be reborn while you are still alive, but then simply asserts without any supporting reasoning that once you die the next born individual will be you.

Where is his reasoning to support this claim?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why are you not listening? I told you I'm doing the best I can but I am not going to continue the discussion on death.

What a crock of shit. Refusing to even continue the conversation is obviously not doing the best that you can to explain things or answer questions.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is numerically identical, but there is no connection to anyone who just died.

Numerical identity is a connection.

[Vivisectus]

[quote]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Extra "I"s? I don't understand what you mean.

Well, if the population grows, only a part of the current population can be made up of people who were the same I but had a different identity. Let us say that in 1900 there are 100 people, but in 1920 there are 150.

Where did the 50 extra "I"'s come from if they did not keep going? And is there a difference between new "I"'s and recycled ones?

Again, I don't know what you mean? I believe you are thinking that the "I"s get replaced from a previous "I", which means there would be leftovers. That's not how it works.

Ok, so how does it work and what happens to the surplus ones?

What distinguishes it as a completely different "I" is the fact that it is a completely different "I". You are still trying to connect "I"s, which is not what Lessans is saying. This is not about not remembering the past YOU. There is no relationship between any "I" and the YOU that you are now.

Ok, so it is not memories. But what does distinguish an "I" that was another "I" before from one of the brand new ones that never existed before?

[LadyShea]

The only continuity is that individuals refer to themselves as I. It really is nothing more than that hot new game Playing With Pronouns.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then what's the point of bringing him here? To help me? How is he going to help me?

Originally Posted by davidm

Er, by helping lay out the argument, and supporting your contentions and those of Lessans, maybe?

I hope so, but somehow I doubt it. How could you after all the horrible things you have said to me? You think that you can easily slip by and not account for your disgusting actions?

And what's your motive David. Somehow, I don't get the feeling that you are on my side.

Originally Posted by davidm

Yes, everyone has to have an anti-peacegirl/Lessans motive, according to you.

Stop playing this sick game, will you? You tried to destroy Lessans in every post for the last year. Why should I all of a sudden think you are warm and fuzzy for any other reason than to destroy Lessans?

Originally Posted by davidm

My motive is I would like to discuss with Tom Clark his generic subjective continuity, which is identical with Lessans' claims,

You are wrong right there. You are making subjective continuity personal, which is not what Lessans is saying. But you won't hear me because you are determined to crush Lessans at all costs. You know why? You can't stand that special relativity and clocks don't mean time bends. Please be honest David, or you will be looked at as the biggest liar of this thread.

Originally Posted by davidm

...and ask him some questions about it. He seems like a very bright guy and runs a substantial Web site, so I imagine he'd be interesting to talk to. That's my "motive."

I don't trust you with a ten foot pole. It would have been nice if you alerted me of your motives, since I'm involved. Talk about selfishness.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The only continuity is that individuals refer to themselves as I. It really is nothing more than that hot new game Playing With Pronouns.

HERE YE HERE YE: ANNOUNCEMENT FROM LADYSHEA WHO IS THE SMARTHEST WOMAN ON EARTH WHO CLAIMS...

Originally Posted by LadyShea

IT IS REALLY NOTHING MORE THAN HOT NEW GAME PLAYING WITH PRONOUNS.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It would have been nice if you alerted me of your motives, since I'm involved. Talk about selfishness

A) We are all "involved". You are not special.

B) This is an open public discussion forum, and inviting people to it is not any kind of imposition warranting notification of participants.

C) davidm is the one who introduced Tom Clark's work to the discussion, obviously because he was interested enough to already be familiar with it. He need not justify his wanting to talk with the man to you, or anyone. It's not your business.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

HERE YE HERE YE: ANNOUNCEMENT FROM LADYSHEA WHO IS THE SMARTHEST WOMAN ON EARTH

SHE SAYS: IT IS REALLY NOTHING MORE THAN HOT NEW GAME PLAYING WITH PRONOUNS.

Has peacegirl been able to make Lessans argument without the use of pronouns? No! If the "discovery" is reliant on pronouns then it is nothing more than a word game.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

IF YOU BELIEVE HER, YOU ARE ENTITLED TO LEAVE RIGHT NOW, NO QUESTIONS ASKED. IF YOU STAY, YOU ARE ADMITTING THAT YOU'RE NOT SURE OF HER EXPERTISE IN THIS AREA. PLEASE BE CLEAR OF THE REASON FOR THIS POST SO YOU WON'T WEASEL, BACKTRACK, OR HAVE HISSY FITS ON HER BEHALF.

HERE YE HERE YE! PEACEGIRL HAS DECIDED SHE IS THE BOSS! PEACEGIRL HAS DECREED THAT ALL MOTIVES ARE WHAT SHE DECREES THEM TO BE! FEAR THE WRATH!

[LadyShea]

There are languages, such as Japanese, that do not use personal pronouns. Can peacegirl rewrite the chapter so that it can be translated to Japanese?