From: Emlyn O'regan (oregan.emlyn@healthsolve.com.au)
Date: Tue Jul 01 2003 - 20:23:42 MDT
> Emlyn O'regan writes:
>
> > I'm still stuck on "I exist" => "Something exists" =>
> > I don't exist" => "Nothing exists". Ack.
>
Brett Paasch wrote:
> I think (but am not sure) you are mixing up your levels of
> abstraction.
>
> I (undefined and possibly including *nothing*) exist
> does *not* imply that *something* exists.
(I've snipped the rest of what you said; I need to think about it more, and
get back to it)
I postulate that I is something; that's my axiom. I exist. I am, and I am
something, therefore something exists.
As I've said, I could start from "Something exists", but it wont change the
fact the "I exist" would also be axiomatic; I know it to be true (that's the
point of this whole discussion).
What it all highlights is that "I am" produces "I am not". ie: the big "I"
concept just can't be consistent, as many philosophies seem to have
acknowledged (further, to have been based upon).
***
Why I bring this up is the following: If there is no "I", if "I" am merely a
self-reinforcing, self replicating pattern of information, what is my driver
to prolong the existence of said pattern? Why would I want to continue it,
or copy it?
In other words, if there is no self, then why do I care about life
extension, uploading, issues of teleportation or even staying alive one more
minute? What is (can be) the point of it, if all I am is bits in the
information maelstrom?
Emlyn
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 01 2003 - 20:36:13 MDT