- Aug 19, 2018
- 16,266
- 11,037
- 71
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
You can lose yourself. It's the main idea of meditation. But you can't think about who you are without, obviously, thinking about itYes, you absolutely can.
Not only can you transcend your thoughts, you can transcend yourself, and even the universe.
There is a self. It's effectively your memories, from a split second ago to decades, and how you interact with them. Lose your memories and you have no idea who you are. In any sense.To be clear, you are agreeing with the majority of my first post which stated that your position was tantamount to a denial of the existence of the self in any meaningful way.
It's not much different.How is this fundamentally different from a computer program?
If it is what you attempted to do then you'd be successful in one but not the other. As I said, it's possible to change. Different input, sometimes there's a different output. Some people are easy to convince of some things. Others take a lot of persuading. They are literally built differently.Would I even be responsible? Let's say I did this with two people, and one killed themselves and one didn't kill themselves. I am a common factor in what were two different outcomes. How can I be responsible for the outcomes? Isn't it the persons' own programming which is ultimately responsible?
As regards punishment, then trying to shoot someone and missing is the same as trying and succeeding. It'll be as I described earlier.
I think you're using the terms guilty or innocent as a way of saying 'deserves retributive punishment or not'. I prefer responsible or not responsible.If this were true, then we would also have to conclude that actual guilt or innocence were irrelevant, because only the appearance of guilt or innocence would be necessary for such deterrence. As such, punishing the innocent who appear to be guilty would be preferable to not punishing the innocent, you agree?
Upvote
0