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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
