[ExI] Next moment, everything around you will probably change

Jef Allbright jef at jefallbright.net
Fri Jun 22 19:17:34 UTC 2007

On 6/22/07, Russell Wallace <russell.wallace at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/22/07, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:
> > Exactly. Or they might believe that they'll become a particular
> > sun flower, or a particular river that they're fond of. And they'd
> > be just plain wrong, if not nuts.
> >
> Nor is this entirely a straw man. For example, in Philip Pullman's classic
> 'His Dark Materials' trilogy, a dying character (with clear authorial
> approval) anticipates continued existence as "part of everything" on the
> grounds that his atoms will survive; as one reviewer puts it, "This is the
> very height of narrative dishonesty... Atoms are just atoms, and if that's
> how we end, let's not prettify it with misty-eyed descriptions." We can see
> that the reviewer is correct: while there may be room for philosophical
> disagreement about whether one is justified in anticipating continued
> existence as a duplicate, there is no coherent philosophy in which one is
> justified in anticipating continued existence as something which entirely
> lacks the capacity for thought.

So where in this thread do you think such was ever asserted or
implied?  Saying that categories have no ontological status in no way
implies validity of categorical relativism.  And on this list I would
be among the least suspected of promoting such a view, given how much
I go on about the importance of the process of increasing awareness
leading to an increasingly coherent model of perceived reality.

- Jef

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list