A revolution in thought - Page 1179

Stephen Maturin · #**29451** 07-16-2013, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If Clark has the same exact knowledge, I am fine with that. This is not about who came up with it first, as your itsy bitsy brain would love you to believe because that's your shtick and all this is is a projection of your own insecurity. I am a thief. I am stealing Social Security disability benefits from the American taxpayer. Thank you, taxpayers, for supporting my shiftless ass.

ChristinaM · #**29452** 07-16-2013, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

All the frustration vented at her has been very thoroughly earned.

I've got to give her some credit because it's very hard for me to get irritated enough to say fuck twice in one post. I'm really loving not being a mod.

peacegirl · #**29453** 07-16-2013, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're just as lost here as you are in the rest of the book. This is the last time I'm going to say this: There is no you that is transferred, but this is not what gives you personal immortality. The problem is most people want there to be a connection because they cannot imagine being here and conscious of themselves, but not being who they are now.

There's no reason to be rude and insulting about it.

That post wasn't even addressed to you Christina.

peacegirl · #**29454** 07-16-2013, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

Peacegirl, let's see if you can explain it to me in completely lay terms and see if I get it because I honestly don't understand what you're saying enough to agree or disagree.

So right now there is this thing that I think of as me that includes my body and all of the thoughts, ideas, memories and other stuff that I think of as part of whatever this thing called me is. It's going to die someday and it's pretty obvious that my body is going to disintegrate eventually but no one is certain as to what happens to all of the rest of the intangible stuff that I think of as me. Personally I think that it just ceases to exist and that's fine with me. Are you saying that some part of you that isn't your body or mental constructs still exists after death and gets recycled? If so, what is that part like and what does it have in common with the person that I think of as me now?

The basic idea is this.

When I go to sleep at night, there is a "gap" in consciousness which I only recognize after the fact, because during that gap (dreamless sleep) there is no "I" to recognize the existence of the gap. If there were, there would be no gap.

When I wake up, I have a string of consistent memories that I regard as "me."

When I die, there will also be a "gap" in consciousness.

However, when "I" wake up from this death gap, "I" will be a newborn person processing its first memories, with no memory of having been the dead person.

That's the whole idea.

Absolutely false. You are still connecting the person born with a person who just died. That may be Stewart's and Clark's ideas, but it's not Lessans', so stop telling me they are the same.

Then there is no being born again and again for you or me or I or we. Consciousness is an emergent property of an individual living brain. Each person is a unique consciousness that exists only as long as that brain exists.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So when we do leave this world, as an old person, it will be a wonderful feeling to know that it's not the end.

It is the end of that individual consciousness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is the problem, you are trying to transfer something in you to a new person. It doesn't work that way. When you die, the same conditions will exist as before you were born

Which is a state of not existing ie: oblivion, nothing, nada, zilch, not being. You are merely saying that non existence is some kind of existence....why?

No, that's not what I'm saying. Read Clark's essay; it might help you more than what I am offering.

peacegirl · #**29455** 07-16-2013, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Is 4.5 billion accurately described as "billions upon billions"? Isn't that like saying a 4.5 year old child is "years upon years old"? This is just like the "trillions upon trillions of babies born" line, exaggerated to the point of silliness, and all due to simple ignorance. And what is with the "perhaps"? Was the age of Earth unknown 30 years ago? Lessans research didn't include any cosmology?

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".

peacegirl · #**29456** 07-16-2013, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can explain it any way you choose. Lessans is not wrong when he says this form of immortality is personal. This is exactly what he means because YOU, as a conscious being, that sees and hears and thinks, will always be here. If this isn't personal, I don't know what is. I don't like the term "shift" or "passage" (unless they are used metaphorically) because these words imply a movement from one person to another, as if one's consciousness after one dies is going into the consciousness of another person, which is not the case.

You are contradicting yourself to say both that there is no personal connection between the consciousness of the deceased and the reborn, and that there is a personal immortality.

Also, what is Lessans' argument for the bare consciousness that is reborn being the same one as that of a person who has just died?

Or is this just another thing that he made up and asserted without argument or support?

Yes, peacegirl contradicts herself, because she doesn't quite get what Lessans, Clark and Stewart are arguing for, though she seems to have an inkling.

I go to sleep tonight and wake up tomorrow and remember my past.

I go to sleep the next night and remember my past, plus the previous day.

I die the next night and wake up as a newborn processing its first memories.

For this argument to go through requires abandoning the idea that consciousness is entirely personal, which is why Clark calls it "generic subjective continuity." This account requires that one accept that "consciousness" just IS, in some sense, and that it can shift its context, at death, from the dead to a newborn. This idea can be supported by appeals to metaphysical idealism and panpsychism.

This has nothing to do with a spiritual realm, although consciousness is not just an individual thing, which Lessans clarified.

But this consciousness is not only an
individual thing like the various differences about yourself which we
have considered C, but also A and B, the potential consciousness that
exists in the germinal substance. Since this substance is that from
which your ego, the feel of yourself as an individual, is composed, and
since this ‘I’ or ego is also the conscious expression of the germinal
substance, both are one and the same. Consequently, the
consciousness of all mankind is the ego or ‘I’ of the germinal
substance which imparts individuality upon the birth of a child, as a
tree does to a leaf in the spring of the year.

peacegirl · #**29457** 07-16-2013, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How can there be no gap in consciousness if there is no being reborn? How is my consciousness being continued after my death without any rebirth? Where is it being continued?

We are reborn but not in the way you are thinking. You are thinking in terms of a new person being born again, which implies that there is a connection to a previous person. This is not what he means. The chain of life is never broken because we can only see this world through our very own consciousness, therefore we will always be here to say "I". This is a simple answer but very profound. If you want to study his reasoning, you should. His observations are sound and they have nothing to do with anything supernatural.

If we are reborn, then why did you lie and say there is no rebirth?

Identity is a connection. If there is no identity (between consciousness A and consciousness B) then there is no rebirth. I'm not talking about memory or psychological continuity, but just bare identity - being the same thing over time.

Added to previous post:

Being born again has nothing to do with a connection to a previous life. He used the expression "born again" because it is "I" that will come into the world again and again and again, not someone else.

Angakuk · #**29458** 07-16-2013, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no passage, which is misleading for it implies a connection between one life and another...

Again, so does claiming people will be reborn. No connection then no rebirth.

He didn't say rebirth, as if there's a connection between one individual and another. He said that our consciousness will always be here...

How can our consciousness always be here if there is no being reborn?

Because there is no gap in the chain of consciousness.

How can there be no gap in consciousness if there is no being reborn? How is my consciousness being continued after my death without any rebirth? Where is it being continued?

Have you never heard of the "stream of consciousness"? That is where your consciousness ends up, floating face down.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, there is no part of you that is recycled. When we're dead, our bodies and minds are gone forever. The understanding of personal immortality does not mean that this particular body that we're in now gets transferred to another body, or recycles into someone else, or anything that is associated with being reincarnated. Before we can discuss his observations regarding death in a productive way, this notion that a part of us will still exist after we die, has to be scrapped, or there will be no chance of understanding.

Why should this comfort me or anyone, unless the prospect of oblivion is a comfort after the trials of life? There is not even the hope of an afterlife as you have in a religion, nothing for comfort that some part of you will continue. Even non-religious people take comfort that the memory of their life will be preserved by friends and relatives, but your scenario offers nothing of the sort, just oblivion. I am not aware of my germinal substance, and I doubt that anyone else is, so how can it's continueance be any comfort to anyone?

On the other hand, I am guessing that the idea of the non-continuance of your consciousness will be a comfort to at least some people.

thedoc · #**29459** 07-16-2013, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Why should this comfort me or anyone, unless the prospect of oblivion is a comfort after the trials of life? There is not even the hope of an afterlife as you have in a religion, nothing for comfort that some part of you will continue. Even non-religious people take comfort that the memory of their life will be preserved by friends and relatives, but your scenario offers nothing of the sort, just oblivion. I am not aware of my germinal substance, and I doubt that anyone else is, so how can it's continueance be any comfort to anyone?

On the other hand, I am guessing that the idea of the non-continuance of your consciousness will be a comfort to at least some people.

Yes, and I have encountered several on the internet that have expressed that very idea. Death will be the end of everything for them, and they seem to be quite happy with that thought.

peacegirl · #**29460** 07-16-2013, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because it's real. Your consciousness will be here again...

What makes it my consciousness that will be here again?

This is the difficulty, understanding that it must be you because you are on the inside looking out, not on the outside looking in. This is a tough concept to get across, even more difficult than the eyes, so this conversation is not going to be helpful; it's going to backfire just like the rest.

p. 493 If you admit (remember, Adam, we have agreed on certain facts)
that it is mathematically impossible to see this universe through any
consciousness but your own, then when you die and are no longer here
to see this world, who will possess this next bubble of consciousness?

“If it is a boy, he will possess it. If a girl, she will.”

“But how is it possible for you to say this when you are no longer
here to say it, for this expression must pass through your
consciousness and you know it is not your consciousness because you
have just died, so whose consciousness are we talking about? Since
your body is no longer here when you die, who is the next child born?”

“I’ve seen a lot of babies born (it’s true I haven’t seen anyone die
yet), but I cannot imagine how a child born after my death could be
me.”

All through your life you say ‘he died,’ ‘she died,’ ‘they died,’ ‘he
was born,’ ‘she was born,’ ‘they were born,’ and you assume that these
same observations that you make during your life will continue after
your death. This relation is difficult to see because you must project
what actually occurs after you are no longer here. You actually extend
your reasoning beyond the grave, which is mathematically impossible
to do.

peacegirl · #**29461** 07-16-2013, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Why should this comfort me or anyone, unless the prospect of oblivion is a comfort after the trials of life? There is not even the hope of an afterlife as you have in a religion, nothing for comfort that some part of you will continue. Even non-religious people take comfort that the memory of their life will be preserved by friends and relatives, but your scenario offers nothing of the sort, just oblivion. I am not aware of my germinal substance, and I doubt that anyone else is, so how can it's continueance be any comfort to anyone?

On the other hand, I am guessing that the idea of the non-continuance of your consciousness will be a comfort to at least some people.

Yes, and I have encountered several on the internet that have expressed that very idea. Death will be the end of everything for them, and they seem to be quite happy with that thought.

It is the end of everything for them, and it's great if they are happy with that thought and it doesn't bother them, but death for a lot of people is unsettling; in fact it has been cited that this is man's biggest fear. For those people, this knowledge may be comforting.

ChristinaM · #**29462** 07-16-2013, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

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?".

I think that she expects that conversations with real live humans are going to go as smoothly as the imaginary conversations her dad had in the book where the fictional characters gushed praise and groveled in their gratitude for the pearls of wisdom.

If I get the urge to try to polish up her presentation again will someone please slap me? I'd just be setting her up for more failure because no matter how squishy the thinking of the audience is her behavior is going to turn her into a joke.

peacegirl · #**29463** 07-16-2013, 08:26 PM

[quote=davidm;1141689]

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're just as lost here as you are in the rest of the book. This is the last time I'm going to say this: There is no you that is transferred, but this is not what gives you personal immortality. The problem is most people want there to be a connection because they cannot imagine being here and conscious of themselves, but not being who they are now.

There's no reason to be rude and insulting about it. If this is what you're going to do every time someone asks a question or wants an explanation then you might as well give up now because you'll be spinning your wheels forever. Maybe you should just do a video presentation where no one else is allowed to speak if that's the way that you want it. This isn't 3rd grade and I'm not locked in a classroom where I'm not allowed to question or contradict the nuns anymore.

I've said over and over that I don't believe in personal immortality and I don't have any desire or need for there to be a connection. The problem is that you can't define "you" in any meaningful way. WTF is left after you take the body and memories, thoughts, etc out of "you"?

But you're not getting it. This IS about personal immortality. Let it go. I refuse to continue with this difficult concept when people have already decided Lessans is a crackpot. Do you have any compassion for what I'm going through? Don't answer, it was rhetorical.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

You see how ridiculous you are? How can it be personal when it's not personal? You just got through saying that the personal "I" is extinguished! If the personal "I" is extinguished, it's not persona by definition.

How can the personal "I" be extinguished when that's all it can be? I guess you didn't read what I posted earlier.

p. 499 But this consciousness is not only an
individual thing like the various differences about yourself which we
have considered C, but also A and B, the potential consciousness that
exists in the germinal substance. Since this substance is that from
which your ego, the feel of yourself as an individual, is composed, and
since this ‘I’ or ego is also the conscious expression of the germinal
substance, both are one and the same. Consequently, the
consciousness of all mankind is the ego or ‘I’ of the germinal
substance which imparts individuality upon the birth of a child, as a
tree does to a leaf in the spring of the year. But this all pervasive
consciousness which exists always in the present (and here is the
mathematical solution again) can only be your consciousness because
it is impossible to see this universe through any body but your own.

If you can see this universe through the consciousness of someone else
you will be made king of all creation. You must be on the inside
looking out because it is impossible to be on the outside of your body
and look at this universe, which means that you must be able to say
‘I’. It is our very own consciousness which is always here in the
present that enables us to say, whether a million years ago or a million
years hence, “Isn’t it strange that I was born now to see the wonders
of this amazing world?”

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

How can it be personal when, according to Lessans himself, this future person (obviously!) is different genetically and has an entirely different set of characteristics, thoughts and memories?

You ARE connecting present and future, which you cannot do because all we have is the present. You are who you are NOW, and you will always be who you are NOW. The future" doesn't exist in reality except as an abstract construct.

peacegirl · #**29464** 07-16-2013, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

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?".

I think that she expects that conversations with real live humans are going to go as smoothly as the imaginary conversations her dad had in the book where the fictional characters gushed praise and groveled in their gratitude for the pearls of wisdom.

That's not what I'm expecting, but I certainly didn't expect this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

If I get the urge to try to polish up her presentation again will someone please slap me? I'd just be setting her up for more failure because no matter how squishy the thinking of the audience is her behavior is going to turn her into a joke.

My behavior? I'm not the one that said "fuck you" twice. How do you expect me to respond? With glee? :glare:

BTW, I have been searching New Age groups and I feel so uninspired. They talk about all kinds of things that I don't believe in, so it's going to be hard for me to go this route, as much as I would like to get away from the philosophy forums.

peacegirl · #**29465** 07-16-2013, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

For what it's worth, here's the summary of Chapter Ten we had to work with at IIDB.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lessans

Let us now go back to Chapter Ten, Our Posterity. I am convinced that most of you have not understood this chapter on death, so I will attempt to clarify what might be impossible. Nevertheless, the first clue to our individual immortality comes from the fact that we are here, alive and conscious of our existence at this infinitesimal fraction of time with the earth perhaps billions upon billions of years old. This does seem rather strange at first.

Now let’s assume for the moment that immediately after your death, you, not the same genetic individual, but someone who recognizes his individuality and existence are born again, full grown. This would then explain why you are alive and conscious of your existence at this infinitesimal fraction of time with the earth perhaps billions of years old. But you are not born full grown and your experience with life shows that the babies born during your life cannot possibly be you so why should anyone of them be you after your death?

The next clue must come from the fact that consciousness is our ability to say ‘I’, which means that everyone born has the ability to say ‘I’, but here is where you get confused. I am saying I, but he says ‘I’ and she says ‘I’ and they are not me saying ‘I’ which is true. This simply means that as long as you can say ‘I’, no one born during that time can possibly be you because they are seen through your consciousness, but when you die your ability to say ‘he’ or ‘she’ is no longer possible, and the great confusion arises because you assume this relation in reasoning as to what happens after your death.

You believe that because the people born during your life are not you, they cannot possibly be you after your death, which is 100% true if you are referring to their genetic characteristics. But if you bear in mind that every child born must say ‘I’, and if you also bear in mind that when you die you are no longer able to say ‘I’, one of the children born after your death must be you because you would then be saying ‘I’, which is not the same genetic individual you were, but someone who will recognize his own individuality and existence and say, “I am alive; conscious of my existence.”

This is the reason it is not strange that we are alive and conscious of our existence at this infinitesimal fraction of time with the earth as old as it is. This knowledge should make you very happy because it reveals that we not only have been developing this planet, but that we will be here to enjoy it. Well, what do you think of God now, these invariable laws that we are at last getting to understand. Study this chapter again and it may become clearer.

On what evidence does Lessans base his statement that after a person dies that person will no longer be able to say "I". This seems to be another statement that Lessans just makes and moves on as if it's obvious and beyond question, becase He said it. Lessans didn't refer to any near death experiences and Peacegirl didn't report contacting him after death, so how would he know this? Or is it just another 'astute observation'?

We're not talking about near death experiences. We're talking about death. If you can't even agree that when a person dies he can't say "I" anymore, then this conversation is a lost cause, which we already know.

thedoc · #**29466** 07-16-2013, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

On what evidence does Lessans base his statement that after a person dies that person will no longer be able to say "I". This seems to be another statement that Lessans just makes and moves on as if it's obvious and beyond question, becase He said it. Lessans didn't refer to any near death experiences and Peacegirl didn't report contacting him after death, so how would he know this? Or is it just another 'astute observation'?

We're not talking about near death experiences. We're talking about death. If you can't even agree that when a person dies he can't say "I" anymore, then this conversation is a lost cause, which we already know.

Of course dead people can't say "I", dead people can't say anything at all. This is an idiotic idea to base this kind of thinking on. You might as well claim that because there is no evidence for Woods Fairies, they must exist. But To be honest I must admit that at one time I had photographic evidence for the existance of Woods Fairies.

Spacemonkey · #**29467** 07-16-2013, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can explain it any way you choose. Lessans is not wrong when he says this form of immortality is personal. This is exactly what he means because YOU, as a conscious being, that sees and hears and thinks, will always be here. If this isn't personal, I don't know what is. I don't like the term "shift" or "passage" (unless they are used metaphorically) because these words imply a movement from one person to another, as if one's consciousness after one dies is going into the consciousness of another person, which is not the case.

You are contradicting yourself to say both that there is no personal connection between the consciousness of the deceased and the reborn, and that there is a personal immortality.

Also, what is Lessans' argument for the bare consciousness that is reborn being the same one as that of a person who has just died?

Or is this just another thing that he made up and asserted without argument or support?

Just to let you know for your benefit (because I'm not continuing the conversation), Lessans never used the phrase "reborn". This just goes to show what gall you have to tell me what my father has discovered, and what I know and don't know. You're worse than the rest because you pretend to know, when you don't know a thing when it comes to this knowledge.

So we've found another topic you won't discuss and can't answer questions about. What will you change the subject to now? And Lessans wrote that we get born again and again. How is that not saying that we get reborn?

You clearly don't understand Lessans at all, and will lie, weasel, and evade on any and every Lessans-related topic.

Spacemonkey · #**29468** 07-16-2013, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Is 4.5 billion accurately described as "billions upon billions"? Isn't that like saying a 4.5 year old child is "years upon years old"? This is just like the "trillions upon trillions of babies born" line, exaggerated to the point of silliness, and all due to simple ignorance. And what is with the "perhaps"? Was the age of Earth unknown 30 years ago? Lessans research didn't include any cosmology?

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".

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.

Spacemonkey · #**29469** 07-16-2013, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If we are reborn, then why did you lie and say there is no rebirth?

Identity is a connection. If there is no identity (between consciousness A and consciousness B) then there is no rebirth. I'm not talking about memory or psychological continuity, but just bare identity - being the same thing over time.

Added to previous post:

Being born again has nothing to do with a connection to a previous life. He used the expression "born again" because it is "I" that will come into the world again and again and again, not someone else.

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

Spacemonkey · #**29470** 07-16-2013, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because it's real. Your consciousness will be here again...

What makes it my consciousness that will be here again?

This is the difficulty, understanding that it must be you because you are on the inside looking out, not on the outside looking in. This is a tough concept to get across, even more difficult than the eyes, so this conversation is not going to be helpful; it's going to backfire just like the rest.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

p. 493 If you admit (remember, Adam, we have agreed on certain facts)
that it is mathematically impossible to see this universe through any
consciousness but your own, then when you die and are no longer here
to see this world, who will possess this next bubble of consciousness?

“If it is a boy, he will possess it. If a girl, she will.”

“But how is it possible for you to say this when you are no longer
here to say it, for this expression must pass through your
consciousness and you know it is not your consciousness because you
have just died, so whose consciousness are we talking about? Since
your body is no longer here when you die, who is the next child born?”

“I’ve seen a lot of babies born (it’s true I haven’t seen anyone die
yet), but I cannot imagine how a child born after my death could be
me.”

All through your life you say ‘he died,’ ‘she died,’ ‘they died,’ ‘he
was born,’ ‘she was born,’ ‘they were born,’ and you assume that these
same observations that you make during your life will continue after
your death. This relation is difficult to see because you must project
what actually occurs after you are no longer here. You actually extend
your reasoning beyond the grave, which is mathematically impossible
to do.

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.

Spacemonkey · #**29471** 07-16-2013, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

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?".

I think that she expects that conversations with real live humans are going to go as smoothly as the imaginary conversations her dad had in the book where the fictional characters gushed praise and groveled in their gratitude for the pearls of wisdom.

If I get the urge to try to polish up her presentation again will someone please slap me? I'd just be setting her up for more failure because no matter how squishy the thinking of the audience is her behavior is going to turn her into a joke.

You have to understand that the last thing she wants is for anyone to agree with her or actually support any of Lessans' ideas.

ChristinaM · #**29472** 07-16-2013, 10:37 PM

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.

ceptimus · #**29473** 07-16-2013, 11:15 PM

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 :ff:

peacegirl · #**29474** 07-17-2013, 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can explain it any way you choose. Lessans is not wrong when he says this form of immortality is personal. This is exactly what he means because YOU, as a conscious being, that sees and hears and thinks, will always be here. If this isn't personal, I don't know what is. I don't like the term "shift" or "passage" (unless they are used metaphorically) because these words imply a movement from one person to another, as if one's consciousness after one dies is going into the consciousness of another person, which is not the case.

You are contradicting yourself to say both that there is no personal connection between the consciousness of the deceased and the reborn, and that there is a personal immortality.

Also, what is Lessans' argument for the bare consciousness that is reborn being the same one as that of a person who has just died?

Or is this just another thing that he made up and asserted without argument or support?

Just to let you know for your benefit (because I'm not continuing the conversation), Lessans never used the phrase "reborn". This just goes to show what gall you have to tell me what my father has discovered, and what I know and don't know. You're worse than the rest because you pretend to know, when you don't know a thing when it comes to this knowledge.

So we've found another topic you won't discuss and can't answer questions about. What will you change the subject to now? And Lessans wrote that we get born again and again. How is that not saying that we get reborn?

You clearly don't understand Lessans at all, and will lie, weasel, and evade on any and every Lessans-related topic.

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.

peacegirl · #**29475** 07-17-2013, 01:43 AM

Quote:

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 :ff:

Thank you! I'm amazed myself how long I've lasted. It's been quite a feat, but unfortunately to no avail.