On May 6, 12:47 pm, Jesse Mazer <laserma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 11:33:52 -0700
> > Subject: Re: Temporary Reality
> > From: daddycay...@msn.com
> > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> > On May 4, 6:13 am, Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> 2009/5/4  <daddycay...@msn.com>:
> >>> I agree that religion, and a lot of other stuff, produces a lot of
> >>> fake certainty.  Not good.  So that implies that atheism is the way to
> >>> go?
> >>> But doesn't it make sense that if God were personal, and a human
> >>> person like us could relate to him/her as a person, then that would
> >>> result in expanding our consciousness?
> >> Perhaps. But saying that something would be nice doesn't have any any
> >> bearing whatsoever on whether it is so.
> >> --
> >> Stathis Papaioannou
> > The purpose of my questions was to question the suggested advantage of
> > using atheism as the [preferred] fixed point from which to view the
> > universe [by a person].  As part of the process of calling Kim's
> > suggestion into question, I'm suggesting the the consideration of the
> > possibility that the fact that we are persons is more profound than
> > simply being inescapable, but is fundamental.
> What do you mean when you say that *we* are "persons", though?

I think that knowing what a person is is sort of like knowing what
consciousness is.  We just have to go right ahead and be a person and
relate to other persons, in faith.  Rather like relating to my wife.
I've given up trying to figure her out, draw up a theory on who she is
and why, and based on that theory algorithmically (is that word
allowed in here?) come up with what therefore I should do in each
situation.  I have to just be me and it seems to usually work out,
thankfully.  Sorry I can't be more precise.

> The word can carry different hidden connotations for different people. Would 
> you say that a deterministic A.I. computer program could be a "person" or 
> does the word suggest free will or a soul? Does the word suggest we have some 
> sort of essential self that remains unchanged over time, in contrast to the 
> view of the self as an ever-changing dynamical process that's suggested by 
> modern neuroscience (and perhaps also by Buddhism)? Do "persons" have natural 
> boundaries or can there be something subjective about where one person ends 
> and another begins--for example, would it be wrong in any absolute sense to 
> view my left and right brain as two separate persons cooperating and sharing 
> information by a high-bandwidth channel? If technology allowed different 
> human brains to share information in the same way, a la the "Borg" in Star 
> Trek, could the resulting collective mind be seen as a single person? Some 
> mystical/idealist philosophies might say that our minds are already all 
> connected on a sort of subconscious or implicit level, and that "God" is a 
> name for this sort of collective self shared by all of us...I sometimes think 
> that something like this could be true in some sort of transhumanist "Omega 
> Point" theory in which intelligence is destined to expand towards infinite 
> complexity, with every "smaller" mind existing both as an entity in itself 
> but also recreated within "larger" minds further in the future (I offered 
> some speculations about this in the context of reconciling the ASSA with 
> quantum immortality 
> athttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/msg/988c1148d589747d)- Hide 
> quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to