Philosophy Now Forum

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 06, 2022 9:38 pm "Thus the saying, Christ died for your sins."

Yeah but the gratitude we have for this is significantly lessened on account of the guy (Jesus) being immortal. It's like thanking Clark Kent for taking a bullet for you. He's superman. That bullet was nuthin. Not even a flesh wound.

Jesus bled.

In the Christian faith, isn’t everyone as immortal as Jesus?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Apr 07, 2022 8:07 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Apr 07, 2022 7:23 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Apr 07, 2022 7:11 pm

Sure it is. If you really thought Mannie was a different person from moment to moment, from circumstance to circumstance, from post to post, you'd not treat him as the consistent-across-a-stretch entity you obviously see him as. You call him IC and Immanuel and Immanuel Can becuz you know the guy you contested with yesterday, last week, last year, is the same person who'll post a response to you today, tomorrow, next week, etc.

You deny unchangeable essence while behavin' and respondin' as though Mannie is one.

I behave as though Immanuel has a permanent essence of Immanuel but I can't reasonably repeat all this spiel about essences not existing every time I answer someone's post.

You wouldn't have to repeat the spiel. If you legitimately believe Mannie is literally a different person in every instance you'd treat him as a different person in every encounter.

You don't.

You treat him as the same person from encounter to encounter just as you treat me as the same person, the same Henry, from encounter to encounter. And the way you treat Mannie differs from how you treat me.

So: we can say, with confidence, you know Mannie is Mannie as an enduring, singular, being and you treat him consistently, over time, as that enduring, singular, being. And we can say, with confidence, you know I am a different enduring, singular, being who you treat consistently, and differently from Mannie, over time.

I admit Immanuel seems to be set in his ways as do you. Nevertheless any of us may change, experience an epiphany, or simply learn bit by bit, or even become a moral reprobate.

I have actually read posts, ostensibly from the same computer, that read as if the sender is the teenage daughter or son of her namesake. Where and what is the essence of the author? Again if I live to be very old, and mentally feeble , will I be essentially a happy young mother, or a thriving baby?

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 11:45 am I have actually read posts, ostensibly from the same computer, that read as if the sender is the teenage daughter or son of her namesake. Where and what is the essence of the author? Again if I live to be very old, and mentally feeble , will I be essentially a happy young mother, or a thriving baby?

What, "I," are you talking about? Don't you mean, "Again if they live to be very old, and mentally feeble , will they be essentially a happy young mother, or a thriving baby?" since there is no same, "I," and, in fact, if you are right, whatever it is that lives to be very old, it's not you, is it?

Did you just make a mistake or do you think you will be the same I for your whole life?

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 11:45 amI admit Immanuel seems to be set in his ways as do you.

As are we all.

Nevertheless any of us may change, experience an epiphany, or simply learn bit by bit, or even become a moral reprobate.

Well, people change in the sense they complexify over time, become nuanced, flavored, but no one changes in the sense I was a man yesterday but I'm a girl today, or I was a jackass yesterday and I'm sweetness and light today. Time and experience add flavor and complexity to a person, but he's still the same person, the same enduring, singular, being.

"Time and experience add flavor and complexity to a person, but he's still the same person, the same enduring, singular, being."

The Ship of Henry paradox presents the question tho; if every part of Henry is replaced over time, at what point does the original Henry stop existing.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 6:58 pm "Time and experience add flavor and complexity to a person, but he's still the same person, the same enduring, singular, being."

The Ship of Henry paradox presents the question tho; if every part of Henry is replaced over time, at what point does the original Henry stop existing.

Like you, I'm not just material; I'm also information. I'm 59: no doubt some portion of my material has been replaced, but I'm still me cuz my information has only, as I say, complexified and flavored.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 11:45 am I admit Immanuel seems to be set in his ways as do you.

There are two reasons for a person to be set in his ways: one is that he is stubborn. The other is that he actually knows something. And they are not mutually exclusive options.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 5:44 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 11:45 amI admit Immanuel seems to be set in his ways as do you.

As are we all.

Nevertheless any of us may change, experience an epiphany, or simply learn bit by bit, or even become a moral reprobate.

Well, people change in the sense they complexify over time, become nuanced, flavored, but no one changes in the sense I was a man yesterday but I'm a girl today, or I was a jackass yesterday and I'm sweetness and light today. Time and experience add flavor and complexity to a person, but he's still the same person, the same enduring, singular, being.

His DNA endures throughout his life. Are you saying his essence is his DNA? If not, what?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 1:50 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 11:45 am I have actually read posts, ostensibly from the same computer, that read as if the sender is the teenage daughter or son of her namesake. Where and what is the essence of the author? Again if I live to be very old, and mentally feeble , will I be essentially a happy young mother, or a thriving baby?

What, "I," are you talking about? Don't you mean, "Again if they live to be very old, and mentally feeble , will they be essentially a happy young mother, or a thriving baby?" since there is no same, "I," and, in fact, if you are right, whatever it is that lives to be very old, it's not you, is it?

Did you just make a mistake or do you think you will be the same I for your whole life?

There is no essence of a thing or a person. What lives to be very old is my tooth enamel such as it will be at the moment of my death. It seems to be outlasting other parts of me except for my brain which, unless I get a stroke or strokes , is in good condition, including memory.

I was at a former time a young mother all the time bidding adieu to that person. As has been said time is a running grave.

When, like a running grave, time tracks you down,.

Dylan Thomas

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Apr 09, 2022 10:50 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 1:50 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 11:45 am I have actually read posts, ostensibly from the same computer, that read as if the sender is the teenage daughter or son of her namesake. Where and what is the essence of the author? Again if I live to be very old, and mentally feeble , will I be essentially a happy young mother, or a thriving baby?

What, "I," are you talking about? Don't you mean, "Again if they live to be very old, and mentally feeble , will they be essentially a happy young mother, or a thriving baby?" since there is no same, "I," and, in fact, if you are right, whatever it is that lives to be very old, it's not you, is it?

Did you just make a mistake or do you think you will be the same I for your whole life?

There is no essence of a thing or a person. What lives to be very old is my tooth enamel such as it will be at the moment of my death. It seems to be outlasting other parts of me except for my brain which, unless I get a stroke or strokes , is in good condition, including memory.

I was at a former time a young mother ...

No you weren't. Just your tooth enamel was, but not you. There is no you.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Apr 09, 2022 2:57 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Apr 09, 2022 10:50 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 1:50 pm
What, "I," are you talking about? Don't you mean, "Again if they live to be very old, and mentally feeble , will they be essentially a happy young mother, or a thriving baby?" since there is no same, "I," and, in fact, if you are right, whatever it is that lives to be very old, it's not you, is it?

Did you just make a mistake or do you think you will be the same I for your whole life?

There is no essence of a thing or a person. What lives to be very old is my tooth enamel such as it will be at the moment of my death. It seems to be outlasting other parts of me except for my brain which, unless I get a stroke or strokes , is in good condition, including memory.

I was at a former time a young mother ...

No you weren't. Just your tooth enamel was, but not you. There is no you.

Transience is a variable attribute . It so happens tooth enamel is more durable than tooth pulp. Neither is me. If there is a finite entity that is me it would be a centre of experiences.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Apr 09, 2022 10:43 amHis DNA endures throughout his life. Are you saying his essence is his DNA? If not, what?

As I say to pro, just up-thread...

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 7:07 pmLike you, I'm not just material; I'm also information. I'm 59: no doubt some portion of my material has been replaced, but I'm still me cuz my information has only, as I say, complexified and flavored.

Mannie, like me, like you, is not just expressed DNA.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Apr 09, 2022 4:23 pm Mannie, like me, like you, is not just expressed DNA.

Yep.

Even the neuro-determinists, who insist that "mind" is "brain" admit that there is some phenomenon called "mind," that they need to explain. The way they deal with it is to call it an "epiphenomenon," meaning a thing that magically appears when the brain reaches a particular stage of complexity; but even they are not comfortable leaving it unexplained.

Their explanation may be bad, or even self-contradictory, because it can't be explained within their own Materialist presuppositions, and according to strict Materialism, requires the invention of a fake category of the "epiphenomenal."

but at least they try to have one. Nobody sane says, "Personhood" or "mind" or "consciousness" are not something more that a physical lump of meat, the physical brain. Everybody knows and admits that SOME explanation is needed for "mind," at least as a phenomenon.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 9:44 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 11:45 am I admit Immanuel seems to be set in his ways as do you.

There are two reasons for a person to be set in his ways: one is that he is stubborn. The other is that he actually knows something. And they are not mutually exclusive options.

The best part of knowledge is the knowledge that your knowledge is limited.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Apr 09, 2022 4:23 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Apr 09, 2022 10:43 amHis DNA endures throughout his life. Are you saying his essence is his DNA? If not, what?

As I say to pro, just up-thread...

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 7:07 pmLike you, I'm not just material; I'm also information. I'm 59: no doubt some portion of my material has been replaced, but I'm still me cuz my information has only, as I say, complexified and flavored.

Mannie, like me, like you, is not just expressed DNA.

That is a good idea but that idea doesn't solve the problem of where the information originates, or to put it another way, where the info is generated.

If you are religious you will claim the information about your identity is within Logos, the Word of God.