Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: D-fendr
correction: "I was most drawn to your statement:"There is no logical reason that finite things must change form."...Try to name something finite that is unchanging: it would then be perfect/infinite...Finite things are in constant change, that is part of the definitive characteristics/qualities of finite things.

Of course, everything physically existing in our spacetime is constantly changing. But I have no difficulty conceiving of a universe where this rule does not hold. Constant physical change may be a property of objects in this universe, but I don't think that it is a logically required property of finitude. Consider the resurrection body. It is a physical resurrection, because we are physical beings, and our bodies are part of our identity. It is a perfected body, in that it will not age or suffer illness, and it is free of other restrictions we have in this world. But it is still physical. Presumably, this body will be unchanging. Our minds, I would suggest, will be capable of change and growth--we could continue to learn. But our bodies will remain unchanging (unless, perhaps, we choose of our own volition to change them).

Our concept of "self" does change as we age. But this changing self is connected by the chain of memory. I propose a threefold definition of what it means to be a "self":

1. A single, autonomous, conscious being, distinct from others. (i.e., no "group mind" or consciousness).

2. An awareness of ourselves as being what is described in #1.

3. Memory of what we have experienced.

If, in the afterlife, I were to lose all memory of what I experienced on Earth, then I would no longer be "me". The same is true if I lost my distinctness or my awareness of my distinctness as an individual being.

190 posted on 10/12/2001 6:59:01 AM PDT by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies ]


To: angelo
I'll reply to the self part later, but first on the finite/changing.

Living is the process of dying. What is changing, growing is the burning of the fuel of life that becomes the residue of death. I think it would be logical impossible to have a finite unchanging body, unless it would be perfectly preserved chemical/molecules.

Resurection of the "body" IMO is not the same "body" we consider it to be now.

The only way not to die is not to be living.

191 posted on 10/12/2001 5:06:23 PM PDT by D-fendr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies ]

To: angelo
I propose a threefold definition of what it means to be a "self":

1. A single, autonomous, conscious being, distinct from others. (i.e., no "group mind" or consciousness).

Which process of the universe are you not part of? How many non-autonomous (of yours) occurred in order for you to be born, nutured, clothed, educated, speak, work, think and effect others in turn? What physical, mental or spiritual aspect of you is not interconnected with the kosmos? Which parts of your consciousness are distinct or unconnected/determined from your nation, culture, religion, family, language, shared history? Which of those could be disappeared and your "self" still exist. In which of these does the complete, distinct, essence of your "self" exist? How can you create an organism wholely distinct and autonomous? What would it breathe, eat, think and feel; what experience would it have solely of its own?

2. An awareness of ourselves as being what is described in #1.
Who is it that is aware of your "self"?
3. Memory of what we have experienced.

If you lost all your memory of what you have experienced up to now, would you cease to exist? Would there be no "self" then remaining?

192 posted on 10/13/2001 12:52:36 AM PDT by D-fendr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson