From: gts (gts@optexinc.com)
Date: Fri Nov 01 2002 - 09:01:56 MST
Jef,
Referees and gentle peacekeepers like you have a place in the world, and I
admire and value your good intentions here in those respects, but I'd
nevertheless very much like to see you take a firm position in this debate!
I don't accept your assessment that Lee and I are "talking about two
different things." I think I understand perfectly what he is trying to say.
Allow me to ask you the same question I asked Lee in a previous message, one
that is so far unanswered by him. Perhaps this will bring you down off the
fence.
In your opinion, is the following statement true or false?
"Two people who think differently about the same subject at the same time
must be two different people."
If you accept my statement above as true then here is the follow-up:
"It is contrary to reason to say that two different people have the same
identity." (Where "identity" is understood to be non-nominal identity, i.e.,
personality/self)
I submit that two different people can be at most only very closely related,
perhaps even so intimately related that they share some common memories in
the same way that people can share other concepts in common. Perhaps they
are so intimately related that it creates an *illusion* that they are the
same person. But to say that these different people should be considered as
actually having the same non-nominal identity is to go too far. It is to say
that "self = other." It is to abandon logic and reason.
We must draw a line between sense and nonsense if our discourse here is to
have any value.
-gts
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:55 MST