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: cosmicforce who wrote (5211)	12/19/2000 5:14:59 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 28931

If you can't tell the difference between me and not me do you like, walk into walls? If you get run over by a car, was it you, or was it not you? Seems simple to me. Everything I am is me. Everything that isn't is NOT ME. AND I know it when I see it, or taste it, or smell it, etc- in practical terms it's easy to tell where I leave off and not me begins. Of course the whole thing is intensely personal- that's why it is ME.

To: cosmicforce who wrote (5211)	12/19/2000 5:26:00 PM
From: Greg or e	Respond to of 28931

More grogma, in thier eggnogma, might help them to cogna. :) Merry Christmas Greg

To: cosmicforce who wrote (5211)	12/19/2000 6:06:10 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

Easy there, cowboy! I have not followed the interaction between you and Mitch. I've just basically had time for my inbox, and was just looking at your principles on their own face. What you are stating is only simplicity because it hasn't had 16,000 pages of philosophical analysis applied to it by the academic world! Both you and Mitch seem to think the line between me and not me is very blurry Well, I was only speaking for myself. I didn't think the line was blurry for you; That is why I asked you. I prefer to let people interpret their own statements. Your principles did not define "me" or "not me". Any objective look at your theory, requires that these terms can be understood within an agreed framework. Why do you say "me" when its really "you"? (that was just kidding around, eh?!) I don't think my desire to understand whether or not your meaning was a straightforward one, or a somewhat mystical one--was a thoughtless motivation. I did not mean it to be. Your response gives me a better picture of where you are coming from. I have to go. In the morning I will see what you're referring to with Mitch.

To: cosmicforce who wrote (5211)	12/19/2000 7:41:06 PM
From: Mitch Blevins	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28931

>>This precept seems so central and obvious (to me). That's why I guess it will have to remain a personal philosophy!!<< I had a longish reply for you, but decided not to post it to avoid beating a dead horse. The reason I stopped was because you explicitly put it forth as a personal philosophy, and I really cannot have an argument with that. :-) I do think you are right that my confusion stems from some kind of identity-crises. But it is not a confusion of me-with-senses or an overzealous love of logic, as you suggested before. Since you obviously have no problem with the principles as stated, but I feel uneasy about (1) and (2), maybe it would be instructive if we discussed in more depth the nature of identity, or define the me/not-me boundary? I fully accept the fact that it cannot be defined physically, or be bounded at the senses. I am wary that taking "me" as a given will prevent "me" from understanding some things.