GENIUS FORUMS

Jason,

(Sorry for the delay getting back - I've been busy with Youtube stuff).

Jason wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:

Jason wrote:Do you think that my example of the self being caused first by a tree, then by a duck, then by a car, is a valid example of the principle of non-inherent existence?

I need extra info to answer you: specifically, does the self in your "timeline" change or remain static?

I'm not sure that information is necessary. Put simply, self=self. It's a specific example of, and consistent with, A=A. That's enough for it to be in accordance with the principles of identity and non-inherent existence espoused by you, David and Kevin isn't it?

It is, if one takes identity to automatically imply "other".

Perhaps you could tell me if you think the self must or must not remain static, and how or if you think this impacts on my example.

The reason I asked for more info from you is that your timeline hypothetical isn't really possible as it stands. How does the tree become a duck? How does the "self" not escape modification by way of these forces? Given we're talking about empirical objects here, how can the self remain static throughout these changes of that which demarcates it (given you're saying these are the only other things in existence)? Basically I can't make sense of your argument because there's no explanation of the dynamics. It also doesn't make sense unless you're arguing that the duck or tree etc are the sufficient cause of the self (and thus each other) - and I don't see how that's possible.

You didn't respond to the part of my post relating to David's post. Should I take it that you changed your mind on the issue?

The fountain does exist because of specific things. What is a fountain without water and gravity? How can a duck and/or a tree make a fountain, a fountain?

Dan Rowden wrote:

Jason wrote:Perhaps you could tell me if you think the self must or must not remain static, and how or if you think this impacts on my example.

The reason I asked for more info from you is that your timeline hypothetical isn't really possible as it stands. How does the tree become a duck?

For the sake of the example, the tree simply disappears and the duck appears out of nowhere to take its place.

How does the "self" not escape modification by way of these forces? Given we're talking about empirical objects here, how can the self remain static throughout these changes of that which demarcates it (given you're saying these are the only other things in existence)?

I don't think the self necessarily has to escape modification or be static. It simply has to continue to have the identity of "self."

Basically I can't make sense of your argument because there's no explanation of the dynamics. It also doesn't make sense unless you're arguing that the duck or tree etc are the sufficient cause of the self (and thus each other) - and I don't see how that's possible.

If I understand you, then yes, I am arguing that they are sufficient cause of the self. Why don't you believe that's possible?

Dan Rowden wrote:

Jason wrote:You didn't respond to the part of my post relating to David's post. Should I take it that you changed your mind on the issue?

The fountain does exist because of specific things. What is a fountain without water and gravity? How can a duck and/or a tree make a fountain, a fountain?

The original point was that a fountain fundamentally exists because there is not-fountain. A and not-A, the fundamental principle of non-inherent existence according to you and David. A duck and a tree are both possible examples of not-fountain, therefore they can "make" a fountain.

David Quinn wrote:The trouble is, the causal conditions which sustain such a thing would themselves be required to maintain their existence forever, and for that to happen their own causal conditions would need to be maintained forever, and so on. It wouldn't be possible for a thing, or a group of things, to last forever without it having drastic implications for everything else in reality.

---

Dan Rowden wrote:How does the "self" not escape modification by way of these forces? Given we're talking about empirical objects here, how can the self remain static throughout these changes of that which demarcates it (given you're saying these are the only other things in existence)? Basically I can't make sense of your argument because there's no explanation of the dynamics.

---

Here's a visual representation of how a thing "A" can continue to exist, in static form and potentially indefinitely, whilst not-A undergoes massive changes(in this case between cars, a duck and a tree):

Image Link