To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 14714
14713  |  14715
Subject: 
Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Fri, 16 Nov 2001 21:04:09 GMT
Viewed: 
1350 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:

I could try the turn-around on you:

- Science is wrong, cuz it says the world is flat.
- That's not *real* science, that's been disproven
- Ok then, science is wrong because it professes the existance of ether.
- Well, that's not *real* science either because that's [also] been disproven.

But as you of all people konw, science doesn't declare truths; it's a
system of explanation endlessly refined to fit more closely with
observation.  Christianity, by contrast, declares certain absolutes that
remain absolute regardless of evolving comprehension.

Etc. Just because you're eager to debate someone who believes in these ideals
doesn't mean that the person you *are* debating clings to them.

If James were any kind of pal, he'd believe what I tell him to believe, so
I can refute him more easily!

which experiences are unique to *you*? How do you decide which
experience relates to you, and which relates to a part of you? And provided
that, would another being be capable of sharing certain experiences? Or does
perspective matter? And if perspective matters, then we're presupposing an
existance of something to perspect to, hence circular reasoning. Ick!

Well, if any two things exist, then each can be considered in relation to
(from the perspective of) the other.  Perspective results, at its most
basic, from
I would say an experience can be shared but can't be perfectly shared,

I'm afraid that analogy fails because any comparision between an infinite
God and any finite entity is invalid.  However, I would still be "me"
without a cell, but that cell would not still be "me."

Ooo, I tried to make you avoid the trap, but you walked in. How many cells do
you need to lose before you're no longer you? Which cells? In what grouping?

Heh.  Not really a trap, though; "I" am that portion still able to assert
that it is "I," most likely the part that retains sentience (such as it is).
If by some malfunction of the transporter "I" am split in two, then each is
able to call itself "I," but neither is the same "I" that "I" am.
In any case, the analogy still fails for God the Infinite (unless you're
finally admitting that *I'm* infinite, in which case I say "It's about time!")

Again, I think you're focusing on Christianity in general rather than James's
view on it, which I thing "should" be the subject at hand. Doubtless I agree
that certain sects of Christianity are wrong. But in order to disprove
Christianity at large, you'll have to pick it apart to its bare bones and
disprove one or all of them, not idle on the specifics which aren't universal
for Xtianity.

Ah.  Point conceded (at least as it pertains to James' view specifically).

     Dave!

This 5-response string of linear debate was so remarkably thorough and
compicated in its exigesis, and so many Jameses were postulated, quoted, and
deconstructed that I am frankly coming to doubt my own identity.

A friend and i have recently been debating issues pertaining to personhood.  A
chief subject has been to explore the intricacies of personhood if:
1) Your brain were removed to another body.
2) All of your brain's neural functions were transferred into a brain grown in a
lab such that your memories and emotional states remained unchanged in the new
organ

Where would reside your personhood?  In either scenario, are you the same
person, or a different person with the shadow of another person grafted in?

james



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Peronhood (was One of my issues)
 
(...) a (...) On initial inspection, I'd say the latter - those memories & neural functions are (IMO) based on the combination of body / brain in which they reside. Suddenly changing that would cause...well I don't really know what it would cause, (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual)
 
(...) But as you of all people konw, science doesn't declare truths; it's a system of explanation endlessly refined to fit more closely with observation. Christianity, by contrast, declares certain absolutes that remain absolute regardless of (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

117 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR