rationalskepticism.org

Please watch how you quote posts, I have to fix the tags everytime I respond.

cavarka9 wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

cavarka9 wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

It's also a different, not totally, person from me at any age, ergo to claim that everyone is one is woo.

The statement is to question 'I' as an entity of existence, we use it in our language to communicate. But doesnt exist for it changes .

Words are necesarrily limited in conveying concepts.
A tree is not a 'tree', doesn't change that we call it that though or that it exists.

So, you agree the limitations of the conventional words we use. So we go down to details and conventional meanings change.

You and I have perfectly reasonable meanings.
There's no point in waxing philsophically about it. In common usage it's perfectly rational to use the terms.

cavarka9 wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

cavarka9 wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

You would still be you as opposed to me or him, her, they etc.

In absence of any memories, It makes no sense to say that.

It does. You =/= me. Hence you're you and I'm me.
Regardless of whether you're a different you than 5 minutes ago.

wrong,

cavarka9 wrote: 'I' changes and hence is not the same.

It's still I though.
You're conflating an identifier with ego.

cavarka9 wrote: 'You' changes too and hence is not the same.

If someone's talking to me and referring to me, it's still perfectly rational to use you.

cavarka9 wrote: I and you are one as in we are parts of the universe.I never said I and you are equal,your use of equality sign is therefore wrong.

Except that isn't the point I'm making, I'm pointing out that 'you', 'I' and 'me' have colloquial definitions that don't require any philosophical navelgazing about ego.
They are descriptions in relation other people.

cavarka9 wrote:It is not unnecessary, it is the truth.

Blind assertion and missing the point.

cavarka9 wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

cavarka9 wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Non-sequitur.
Even if our atoms become part of other configurations, they will never be a merging of a 100% of our atoms.

Was only quoting Einstein " A human being is a part of the whole, called by us "Universe," a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest—a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. The striving to free oneself from this delusion is the one issue of true religion. Not to nourish it but to try to overcome it is the way to reach the attainable measure of peace of mind."

This is a flawed appeal to authority.
Einstein is saying we are not seperate from the universe, not that we are all one.

Wrong understanding.[/quote]
FFS. Yes, on your part.

cavarka9 wrote: Einstein is saying that the sense of who we are is an optical illusion.

Nope, he's saying that the notion that we exist seperate from the rest of the universe is an optical illusion.

his thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest

cavarka9 wrote: Comes from his understanding of General Relativity, he was alluding to its parmenides like conclusion. There is only continuity. Go to quantum mechanics, and there is still time. In quantum mechanics time 't' tells the evolution of wave function. There is no free will according to the most successful physical theories of universe.

This does not adress any point I made nor does it support your all are one claim.

cavarka9 wrote: So yes, the conclusion of physics is 'I' changes

Ego changes. I refers to something else.

cavarka9 wrote: and we are all one as we are only parts of the common universe.

True. But being part of something =/= all being one.

cavarka9 wrote:The ordinary sense of locality is wrong because there is no free will, who we are necessarily is caused by all that preceded us

This again, does not adress anything I wrote.

cavarka9 wrote: The problem is your assumption of "prophetical powers".

I think the problem is your use of language.

cavarka9 wrote: Your misunderstanding that I was claiming that "I" and "you" are equal, something which I never claimed. .

I've already explained what I actually said.

cavarka9 wrote: Now it is on you to show how exactly do you remain you in absence of your memories. Will there be any change, if there is then it is not exactly you. You start making assumptions and start arguing without asking what I meant!.

I have no obligation whatsoever to defend positions I have not claimed. Do try to adress what I actually post.