From: Ian Goddard (igoddard@erols.com)
Date: Tue Mar 03 1998 - 02:37:50 MST
Reilly Jones (Reilly@compuserve.com) wrote:
>...there still is a subjective "I" separate from everything else in the
>universe. This separation is what makes it impossible for anyone to ever
>produce a valid scientific theory of consciousness, each individual
>consciousness is utterly unique and totally inaccessible.
IAN: OK, so you posit that because an identity is
unique it is separated and not connected to other
identities. While that is the prevailing case for
identity limitation, I can show that it is false:
Mr. Jones is uniquely short, indeed he is exactly
4 feet shorter (-4) than the next smallest adult,
Mr. Smith. So the numerical expression of the uni-
que identity attribute of Jones is -4, and from
where did Jones get his this attribute? Smith.
If the unique identity attribute of Jones comes
from relation to Smith, the claim that the unique
identity of Jones defines a separation between
Jones and Smith is inherently false.
So right there we have shown that unique identity
attributes * define * holistic unity, not deny it.
>You, Ian, cannot ever feel what I feel inside, nor can any experiment
>test any theory about what I feel, subjectivity is impenetrable.
IAN: True, but that limitation only defines a
limit on my nervous system, not my identity/self.
If the nerves to my right leg were cut, I could
never know how my "right leg feels inside," but
that does not impose a limit on that which is
properly defined as myself, i.e., my numb leg
is still properly defined as a part of Ian.
Therefore, the fact that you are a numb part
of me, relative to me, as I am to you, does
not mean that we fall outside the proper
defitnions of who each of us are, and
thus ID "seperation" is a fallacy.
>There is a boundary between "I" and the rest of the universe,
>and this boundary is definite, not indefinite.
IAN: I think we just ran out of "definite."
The two cases for identity separation and
limitation, 1. uniqueness and 2. nervous
system limits, have been deconstructed.
>There really is something that gives coherency to the subjective
>"I" and that something constructs a boundary between one quark
>or bit of substance and the quark immediately next to it.
IAN: What is this "something."
****************************************************************
VISIT Ian Williams Goddard ----> http://www.erols.com/igoddard
________________________________________________________________
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:48:41 MST