Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mitch Blevins who wrote (5185)	12/18/2000 1:27:14 PM
From: cosmicforce	Respond to of 28931

The division between me(1) and not-me(2) is not only difficult to define, but also is constantly expanding and contracting both spatially and temporally. Some might even claim it is an illusory division It seems that you are doing what Greg did a while back. If your central tenet is that you question, should you sometimes "question that you question" (i.e., believe)? Sure sometimes you believe, but it is not an absolute belief because you must "question that you question that you question" (and so on). That is circular and self referential. But according to Godel, this is a necessary situation for a closed system. Their validity can not be verified from with in the system (the ol' "This sentence is true" example). My answer, of course, is that if you have a tenet, the tenet is generally accepted as true. There is me. That is my 1st principle and my tenet. I accept that as being almost completely true, yet not absolutely provable (nor absolutely true). To that extent it is a belief. But it is a belief with many zeroes in front of it. Here are my propositions in concrete terms (if this helps): P0: I am me p=0.99999999999 P1: I am not me p=0.00000000001 Of course the sense of "me" is dynamic. How often are you not sure if it is "me" or "not me"? I certainly don't have this problem very often. I know when it is me and when it is not me. Is "me" constrained to a particular set of physical media? Absolutely not. It is independent of the media. I think our problem is from one of two possible causes: 1. You believe in absolute logic 2. You are confusing sensor input with the identity of self. If it is #1, then I disagree and I refer you to this post to Solon: Message 14503130 If it is #2, then: I can guarantee you that nerve damage (I have some) will change the perception of self that you have. I have two hands but one is a heck of a lot more accurate for some measures. The other one is more tolerant of pain. So if I had to choose a finger to be lopped off for some reason, I could actually make that choice with very little thinking. Similarly, if I need to make an accurate touch, I don't think about it - I use my left hand. Now this finger lopping isn't a likely choice (I hope not!) but it is one based upon "me" subjectively experiencing the inputs from these "devices". I have two channels and I know which carries more bandwidth and is, therefore, more representative of me.