I think you're continuing to put the self and memories beyond the power of word magic. You have the self actively setting out its own boundaries.

So you don't need innate knowledge to solve meno's paradox.

OK, so being a bit more obvious: there is a difference between "I see the cup on the table" and "The cup is on the table".

How do you characterise that difference? — Banno

The cup, presumably is largely unaffected, so the more limited second statement is implied by the first, which provides the source. As distinct from "The bible declares that the LORD God created the table, and placed a cup thereon." But in each case, there will be a speaker and a source, whether they are mentioned or not.

I don't think it is arbitrary; it is the basis of being able to talk about "you" and 'me" in the first place. — John

I wonder how the discussion would go if posts were numbered, but not named. One might find a sequence of consistent posts that express and amplify a POV, but one would have play the ball and not the man. It would be an interesting experiment. No contributors, only contributions...

There is no right or wrong, just differences in what is remembered.
— Rich

I don't agree. When he thinks he is Johan Ek he is wrong.

That is to say, it is Michael Thomas Boatwright who thinks he is Johan Ek. It is not John Ek that others think is Michael Thomas Boatwright. — Banno

I don't find it hard to agree with both sides of this. From the outside, one is dealing with the continuity of the body, which is born and continues 'the same body' until it dies. And that can be true, at the same time as, from the inside, he is not the man he was. There is a tradition - is it Native American? - of changing one's name after a life-changing experience (like marriage, for instance?).

Here's the contention again:

An individual is not identified by a substance or a bundle of properties, but in most cases by our treating the individual in a certain way.

If you like, an individual is an individual only because we place it in that role in our language games.

"We" is used here, not "I", so as to show that this does not take place in a private language. — Banno

So as we treat you as Banno, you are not Bob, even if you think you are. I think there is a problem here with this 'we'. Because if you think you are Bob, you are not part of the 'we' that treats you as Banno, and so it is not 'we', but 'they'. I treat myself as John Ek, but they treat me as Boatwright.

If the Nazis decide to identify you as a Jew, it doesn't matter what you think you are, as long as the Nazis are in control. But when the Nazis have been defeated, it no longer matters what they think.

But either way, I think identity is a matter of thought and custom, and anyone who has a relative with dementia can understand that this person is the same and not the same person that they loved - and again the 'we' that they used to be part of, has slipped away from them along with the 'I' that is their 'personal' identity.

They're 'anatta' which means 'not self'. — Wayfarer

Indeed, and they are also anicca - impermanent.

Buddhism doesn't accept reincarnation, strictly speaking, in the sense of there being a person or soul which transmigrates. — Wayfarer

I haven't even mentioned this, I was talking about your assertion that the Five Skandhas don't reincarnate. If the Five Skandhas don't reincarnate, and reincarnation does not happen on a soul (read permanent essence), then on what does it occur?

Clearly the answer is that the real self, which Buddha doesn't talk positively about, the same way he doesn't talk positively about Nirvana for example, isn't one of the Five Skandhas, and therefore does not reincarnate, nor is it impermanent.

What does reincarnate are the things which are anatta - matter, desires, etc.

Now, Dharma, Buddha, and Nirvana are not anicca and anatta - they are permanent. That's why morality is not ever changing in Buddhism but rather permanent, like the Law of the Old Testament. In fact, I take the Asian religions to be contemporary revelations along with Judaism, all which are completed by the Fullness of Christ.

Well, there's your authoritarian tendency again. — Wayfarer

That might be my authoritarian tendency, but the fact that it is "authoritarian" doesn't mean it is wrong. It is a fact that the religions make exclusive claims. It is also a fact that God would revealed himself across the whole planet, not only in one place. But these revelations are partial.

You would think if the revealed truth of Christ was obvious, how could that have happened? — Wayfarer

Who said that the revealed truth is obvious? On the contrary, it is not obvious, and this is an argument for Christianity not against Christianity. Is it not Christianity which tells us that God is a "hidden God" a God who hides Himself?

Let them at least learn the nature of the religion they are attacking, before they attack it. If this religion boasted of having a clear vision of God, and of possessing Him plain and unveiled, then to say that nothing we see in the world reveals Him with this degree of clarity would indeed be to attack it. But it says, on the contrary, that man is in darkness and far from God, that He has hidden Himself from man’s knowledge, and that the name He has given Himself in the Scriptures is in fact The Hidden God (Is 45:15). Therefore if it seeks to establish these two facts: that God has in the church erected visible signs by which those who sincerely seek Him may recognize Him, and that he has nevertheless so concealed them that He will only be perceived by those who seek Him with all their hearts, what advantage can the attackers gain when, while admitting that they neglect to seek for the truth, they yet cry that nothing reveals it? For the very darkness in which they lie, and for which they blame the Church, establishes one of her two claims, without invalidating the other, and also, far from destroying her doctrine, confirms it — Blaise Pascal

How could it be otherwise in a pluralistic world? Of course there is new age rubbish, but it's also a fact that human culture and consciousness really has crossed a threshold into a completely new kind of culture - a new age, in fact. — Wayfarer

A "pluralistic" world is just the effect of pride and selfishness, of man who thinks he can, alone, by his own efforts, reach up to God. A man who wants a God who is in His own image, rather than the other way around. That is much of what you yourself are doing. But on the contrary, Christ says the He is the Way - and none will come to the Father but through Him.

Our consciousness did not cross into a new kind of culture at all - largely what you're witnessing is the effect of capitalism praying on man's selfishness and encouraging diversity in order to open up new markets, create new desires, and therefore create new streams of income. Our moral consciousness has not evolved at all - we're more brutal, selfish and individualistic than ever, so I'd say quite the contrary, our moral consciousness has darkened if anything. Remember that there is always enough light for those who want to believe, and enough darkness for those who don't want to believe.

I don't find it hard to agree with both sides of this. From the outside, one is dealing with the continuity of the body, which is born and continues 'the same body' until it dies. And that can be true, at the same time as, from the inside, he is not the man he was. There is a tradition - is it Native American? - of changing one's name after a life-changing experience (like marriage, for instance?). — unenlightened

What we have here is evidence for holographic model of memory. The brain has somehow changed in such a way that is now reconstructing a different memory pattern, just as a tuner of a radio station might.

So n instead of v recognize it recognizing this situation as evidence that memory is not stored in the brain, but rather holographically, neurologists quickly come to the universally accepted opinion that something is "wrong". Hopeless.

I'm not sure that narrative memory is all that identity is. It's an unusual case, and so the evidence is not that strong. Most people do not remember their birth, but apart from Agustino, few deny that they were born.

The identity of being 'man born of woman' is presumed, not remembered, and that is a process of the internalising of social circumstances. Thus one has the circumstance sometimes of discovering that who one thought was one's sister is one's biological mother, and who one thought was one's mother is one's grandmother. There are facts about oneself, about which one can be deceived, and then undeceived. Where in the holo-sphere the real and false ideas are stored is another matter.

What interests me is the process of construction of personal identity. That certainly does involve memory, and also imagination, and also social relations. To say that one cannot be deceived about one's personal identity seems both true in one sense, that I am whoever I think I am, and false in another, that I can think I am the queen of England when I am not. I am nevertheless, the man who thinks he is the queen of England.

OK. This is a path of philosophical thought worth pursuing. Science and neurologists will not pursue this line of thinking. For them something is wrong and has to be fixed. However, a philosopher, outside of academia, can begin to inquire into new ways of looking at memory and identity that might open up completely new ways of viewing mind, body and spirituality with enormouvs amount of practical benefits, e.g. how do drugs affect the body's constructive and reconstructive memory mechanisms and are they creating permanent damage?

It's some consensus can be created in terms of lines of inquiry online subgroups can be formed to investigate new paradigms, e.g. the nature of memory. Stephen Robbins and Rupert Sheldrake are trying to form such groups that in turn can create entirely new possibilities in the realm of philosophy.

OK. This is a path of philosophical thought worth pursuing. Science and neurologists will not pursue this line of thinking. For them something is wrong and has to be fixed. However, a philosopher, outside of academia, can begin to inquire into new ways of looking at memory and identity that might open up completely new ways of viewing mind, body and spirituality with enormous amount of practical benefits, e.g. how do drugs affect the body's constructive and reconstructive memory mechanisms and are they creating permanent damage? — Rich

Yes, I think we are largely in agreement, about a lot of things. For myself, though I would say that it is a mistake to try and create a new science of the person, because it will inevitably end up as depersonalising as the old science. Let's just drop it entirely and talk and listen to each other and to ourselves. "So, unenlightened, what's it like being the queen of England? It must be annoying that nobody bows."

Most people do not remember their birth, but apart from Agustino, few deny that they were born. — unenlightened

I deny that our real self is born, not that what we most commonly attribute in common language as the self was born. That self was indeed born.

Chaos theory was once fashionable; and I am rather fond of the idea of a strange loop — Banno

I have been waiting to read this for years. It has felt like only the Owl in the tree and me understood the necessity of truly embracing the absurd.

I had understood that this demonstration was much the same as that used to show that individuation requires substance. — Banno

You are just confusing me now. You were talking about essences, now individuation and substance. My point has to do with substance, that's for sure, but not necessarily individuation. The point was to recognize the need to assume substance in order to understand the reality of existence. So for example when you look up and see blue, you recognize the need to assume "the sky" which is blue, in order to understand that particualr occurrence of blue. Likewise, when we see a living body, we need to assume "the soul" in order to understand that occurrence of a living body.

I apologise for mischaracterising you. Please, show me the logical demonstration you mention. — Banno

I accept the apology, and will demonstrate the logic. The actual physical evidence which is needed to justify the first premise, you will have to perform yourself, because it is within you. It is well suited to meditation, so position yourself such that you are seated and unmoving. Take notice of the passing of time, perhaps by listening to something, or recognizing your own breathing. After a while you will produce the desire to move some part of your body, perhaps due to some discomfort, or in this case, just to get on with the physical part of the demonstration. So let's say that you make up your mind to move your hand. You are not moving your hand just yet though, you simply recognize that it's something which needs to be done. You wait, and wait some more, recognizing that as you wait, time is passing. Now you move your hand. The cause of you moving your hand is not something external to you, nor is the moving of your hand a random act so it is clearly caused.

So this is the first premise. There is cause of movement of parts of your body which is not something external to your body, but it is properly a "cause" in the sense that the movement is not random. The second premise is that any living body is describable as parts which are moving in this way, described by the first premise. The conclusion is that this cause of movement is the cause of the living body.

So we can say that there is a cause of existence of the living body which is not external to the living body, but nevertheless precedes the existence of the body, as its cause. This is what is called 'the soul", and as the cause of existence of the living body it is what substantiates the existence of the living body as an entity, a unified thing. As the cause of it, it necessarily exists prior in time to the living body. The puzzle is, how is it possible that the soul is independent from the body in the temporal sense, (as prior to it), but not independent from the body in the spatial sense (as a cause internal to the body). But the soul is not necessarily internal to a body, this is just how it appears to us, as an internal cause. Once we apprehend that this is merely how the soul appears to us, as an internal cause (internal being the soul's spatial manifestation), and not necessarily the full extend of being that the soul has, accepting the reality of non-spatial being as the completion or perfection of the soul, then we are free to speculate about things like reincarnation.

Good call on that book reference.

Waves do not have the ocean and the ocean does not have the waves. — Rich

It's profoundly obvious, that the ocean does have waves, and not vise versa. The ocean is a body of water, and that water may or may not be waving, so waving is a property of that water. Water is the substance wave is the property.

They are one and the same. It all depends upon on how one views it. There is an ocean. There are the waves. There is the ocean. It is a continuous, inseparable whole. I do not observe any gaps anywhere. — Rich

It is a simple issue to solve. Simply ask yourself, can you imagine a body of water without waves, and the answer is yes. Then, can you imagine a wave without an underlying substance which is waving, and the answer is no. Some may insist that light is a wave without a substance which is waving, but this only results in confusion. Either we release the notion that light is waves, and recognize light as particles, or we determine the medium in which the waves exist. But to say that light is waves without substance is nonsense.

It's profoundly obvious, that the ocean does have waves, and not vise versa. — Metaphysician Undercover

The ocean is the ocean. It is continuous. We make the distinctions, when viewing the ocean from a given perspective. One can turn it upside down and say all the waves contain the ocean. There are and there isn't one or the other or both.

In the same instant, we are individuals (as the waves) but also the universe (the ocean). I've does not contain the other, but it is possible to shift perspectives to create a different.

Simply ask yourself, can you imagine a body of water without waves, and the answer is yes. Then, can you imagine a wave without an underlying substance which is waving, and the answer is no. — Metaphysician Undercover

An ocean without waves is extremely easy to imagine as is the opposite (one big wave). One only need to exercise creative imagination.

BTW, the moment someone used the word obvious, there is a problem.

Corrected Post

The ocean is the ocean. It is continuous. We make the distinctions, when viewing the ocean from a given perspective. One can turn it upside down and say all the waves contain the ocean. There are and there isn't one or the other or both.

If one can't make distinctions between the ocean and the waves within it, there's no reason to make a distinction between the Earth and the oceans and lands within it, or the universe and the objects within it.

If one can't make distinctions between the ocean and the waves within it, there's no reason to make a distinction between the Earth and the oceans and lands within it or the universe and the objects within it. — Thanatos Sand

There are practical reasons too make distinctions and there are practical reasons not to. One should not confuse practicality with what may be transpiring. Symbolics are practical but have nothing to do with what it's happening.

There are practical reasons too make distinctions and there are practical reasons not to.

Even if it was just a matter of practicality, and it isn't, you haven't shown why the separations I mentioned are any more practical to make than separating the Ocean and its waves. Feel free to do so at any time.

Every symbolic distinction has a practical application. Sometimes we talk about the universe and sometimes all the aspects of the universe but it is all on and the same. There are no guarantees gaps anywhere and everything is constantly changing.

Thanatos Sand Every symbolic distinction has a practical application

If that's true, then you were wrong when you said we shouldn't make distinctions between the oceans and their waves. Good to know.

You don't have to make distinctions which is often the case. Happy to teach you.

No, you just contradicted yourself, and you still havent' shown why one has to make distinctions between the universe and its objects, and the earth and its oceans, but not the ocean and its waves. So, all you've taught me is you've contradicted yourself and don't know what you're talking about in this subject.

Thanks for the lesson...:)

You can be so silly sometimes in your quests.

The only silly one has been you, and thanks for proving what I just said.

I'm thinking hard, but I think only children and philosophers declare themselves to victors. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Not if they're right like I was; you must spend little time around people who are right. I'm not surprised.

You clearly can't defend your erroneous point, so I'll let you enjoy your meltdown in peace. Ciao.

You're a gas.

You seem to be good at avoiding questions, can you teach me?

Take consciousness. If consciousness is the self, then who is the one who is conscious? — Agustino

The self, which is the same as consciousness. Consiousness is conscious of itself.

The self, which is the same as consciousness. Consiousness is conscious of itself. — BlueBanana

So when you sleep your self disappears? :s

So when you sleep your self disappears? :s — Agustino

Hadn't thought of that before, a very good point. But yes, unless one is dreaming.