Dar al-Hikma

[davidm]

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 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.

[davidm]

Wayne, look:



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.

[davidm]

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.

[ceptimus]

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.

[wstewart]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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

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?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by wstewart

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

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

[wstewart]

Originally Posted by davidm

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...

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.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by wstewart

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.

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.

[wstewart]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have asked for a thread split to discuss W Stewarts writings separately

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

[wstewart]

Originally Posted by davidm

One can say nothing about subjective passage of Old to New since no one, by definition, can experience another's subjective state.

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

[livius drusus]

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

[thedoc]

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.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

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.

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

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Wayne, look:



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.

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.

[davidm]

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

[ChristinaM]

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.

[Megatron]

[thedoc]

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

[Angakuk]

That would make me sad. I love that thread.

[wstewart]

Originally Posted by thedoc

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

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.

[Angakuk]

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

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by wstewart

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.

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.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by wstewart

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

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.

[thedoc]

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.

[davidm]

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.