You say 'THIS WORLD we see now,' but I don't really think of myself as being
in a world - instead, being in a 'world-set'.

--------- 3-line Narnia ---------
C.S. LEWIS: Finally, a Utopia ruled by children and populated by talking
animals.
THE WITCH: Hello, I'm a sexually mature woman of power and confidence.
C.S. LEWIS: Ah! Kill it, lion Jesus!
--------- McSweeney's ---------


2008/10/25 John Mikes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Stathis wrote:>Yes, previous material selves are a fact while destructive
> teleportation is not. But I don't see why you would dismiss the validity of
> a philosophical point on that basis....<
> JM::
> and why do you think that those material 'facts' are not your
> hallucinations?
> I dismiss - not the 'validity', of 'a' philosophical point',  but to deal
> with the topic - because I prefer to stay 'sane' (what I pretend to be a
> 'fact' in my own terms).
>
> My point was that nobody remembers (knows about) teleportationally previous
> state(s)  so why should we speculate about the 'coming' ones? I asked "what
> is your (or anybody else's) reason to believe that THIS WORLD we see now and
> here is indeed the FIRST existence we are in?
> (where did we die to come here? )
>
> John
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 1:06 AM, Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>>
>> 2008/10/24 John Mikes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> > JM:
>> > two contrasting reflections:
>> > 1.  I do need the sci-fi for "material" that changes. Matter is a
>> figment of
>> > conventional science upon the (mis)understood so called observations we
>> > assign to 'the world' and our partial information composes the
>> > 'mini'solipsism (Colin H) we carry about 'reality' - each of us in his
>> own
>> > variation.
>>
>> Whatever matter is or isn't, you know what I'm referring to when I use
>> the term. I can make a distinction between a "real" pen on my desk and
>> an "imaginary" pen on my desk, even if it turns out that the "real"
>> one is part of a hallucination I have been experiencing since birth.
>> The "imaginary" pen would then in some sense be *more* imaginary than
>> the "real" pen.
>>
>> > 2.  We do know indeed of the 'previous material self' series we live
>> > through, don't know about the (destructive?) teleported precursors. So
>> my
>> > questions stand.
>>
>> Yes, previous material selves are a fact while destructive
>> teleportation is not. But I don't see why you would dismiss the
>> validity of a philosophical point on that basis.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Stathis Papaioannou
>>
>>
>>
>
> >
>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to