Hello Reilly, Ian and Extropians All,
What a great discovery [this list]! Since I have no material contribution
to make I credit myself with 'discovering' this fab group and its concepts,
pretending to a sort of ownership. Cheap trick, I'll admit. However, I do
have a marginal aside to the present discussion; a poem I wrote in
appreciation of Reilly's mind on this matter.
Blue
If I think blue and ask you too
You will but then again you won't
For I've seen skies you've never seen
And you've said things I've not
So since my blue is blue to me
And yours to me is not
Then I'll think blue and so will you
But we'll be blue, apart
The poem - just a sentiment - merely touches on the discussion at hand, of
course. But it is a step up from my usual trick of pretending to have
co-discovered Extropian concepts.
Phil Chapman
Ian Goddard wrote:
> 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
> ________________________________________________________________
--------------573CC991B5A4CB85979D26E8
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hello Reilly, Ian and Extropians All,
What a great discovery [this list]! Since I have no material contribution to make I credit myself with 'discovering' this fab group and its concepts, pretending to a sort of ownership. Cheap trick, I'll admit. However, I do have a marginal aside to the present discussion; a poem I wrote in appreciation of Reilly's mind on this matter.
Blue
If I think blue and ask you too
You will but then again you won't
For I've seen skies you've never seen
And you've said things I've not
So since my blue is blue to me
And yours to me is not
Then I'll think blue and so will you
But we'll be blue, apart
The poem - just a sentiment - merely touches on the discussion
at hand, of course. But it is a step up from my usual trick of pretending
to have co-discovered Extropian concepts.
Phil Chapman
Ian Goddard wrote:
Reilly Jones (Reilly@compuserve.com) wrote:--------------573CC991B5A4CB85979D26E8-->...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
________________________________________________________________