Clifford Greenblatt: If oblivion is absolute and there are no exceptions, then why are we not in a state of oblivion here and now?
I said, and I quote: "Oblivion,
by definition, is absolute" (emphasis added). Every definition has a context ~ the definition of oblivion included. The question remains: what is that context?
I propose the following definition of oblivion:
Oblivion: n., a permanent and total absence of awareness, memory and concern that obtains from the death of a person, both for the person who dies and for the persons affected by that death.From this definition, death does not equal oblivion (strictly speaking). Oblivion obtains from death if certain criteria are met, viz., if the absence of awareness, memory and concern that obtains from the death of a person, both for the person who dies and for the persons affected by that death, is both permanent and total.
How could this absence be temporary? If someone dies and is placed in cryonic suspension, that absence (for the one who died or de-animated ~ a distinction must be made here)
could be temporary if a future revival is successful, and a certain minimum of awareness, memory and concern is restored.
How could this absence be partial? If someone dies and is survived by loved ones, the absence of awareness, memory and concern can only be partial until such time that the survivors (and their loved ones) cease to remember (i.e., be aware and concerned).
Moreover, if your work is influential, and you die, your work becomes an object of study; if your work is seminal, not only does your work become an object of study,
you become an object of study. You also become an object of study if you acquire notoriety. In this context, I maintain that oblivion obtains the moment you become an object of study in history. For Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton or Einstein, oblivion obtained the moment they became objects of study. Upon death, many of us do not even become objects of study.
I will now address your post.
Clifford Greenblatt: John F. Kennedy was born on 29 May 1917 and died on 22 November 1963. A materialist may say [that] John F. Kennedy was in a state of oblivion from the origin of the universe to 1962 and from 23 November 1963 to as long as the universe continues to exist. In this way, time boundaries are placed on John F. Kennedy's existence.
First, let's be clear that oblivion is not a state, but an absence. A state implies presence. If I ever referred to oblivion as a state (and I belief that I have), then I was mistaken. Second, oblivion must make reference to the experience of awareness, memory and concern as key elements of contrast in order to be defined. For the
materialist formulation, oblivion applies only after death ~ only after the formation of awareness, memory and concern has had a chance to exist in the first place. It makes no sense to speak of oblivion before the birth of a person when that person has not even had a chance to live.
Clifford Greenblatt: People from the distant past influenced the life of John F. Kennedy and John F. Kennedy continues to influence many people long after his death. However, his life on Earth is bounded in a single segment of about 46 years of time. Time is one dimension. Why not describe the boundaries of a person's existence with four spacetime dimensions instead of just one dimension? For example, John F. Kennedy never existed on Mars, although the timing of space craft probing Mars had much to do with his vision for space exploration.
JFK may continue to influence many people, but in the absence of awareness, memory and concern, JFK would merely be an object of study in history. Obviously, loved ones still remember him, but when they cease to do so (after more than several generations, say), oblivion will obtain for JFK in spite of the fact that his influence will no doubt extend beyond that period of time.
Originally Quoted by Sophianic
But does the nature of speculation admit degrees of 'speculativeness'?
Clifford Greenblatt: Here is a rather trivial example. It is certainly less speculative to speculate that a cure for at least 99.44% of all cases of cancer will be discovered within the next thirty years than to speculate that this will be accomplished within the next thirty days. Both statements are highly speculative, but the degree of speculativeness is obviously different.
I would disagree. In the absence of evidence, both statements are equally speculative. Speculation is made in the absence of evidence. It appears you're drawing on certain facts to put forth statistical evidence for the support of certain probabilities. Only with evidence, can we speak of degrees of certainty: possibility, probability and contextual certainty. Moreover, possibility is not speculation; a statement of possibility requires at least some evidence.
Clifford Greenblatt: In an unbounded materialist reality, there is certain to be an infinite number of places in which all of the details of any person's life and mind will be instantiated to an amazingly high degree of accuracy.
But this statement ignores the role of awareness, memory and concern in the context of maintaining psychological continuity. If the details of my life and mind are instantiated elsewhere (an infinite number of times, say), what connection do these instantiations have with who I remember myself to be and with those who remember me (both with the appropriate concern at the appropriate times).
Originally Quoted by Sophianic
Yes, it would, if you accepted that information about someone is sufficient to preclude oblivion. I do not accept this, however.
Clifford Greenblatt: I do not think Mike Perry regards information about someone as being sufficient in itself to preclude oblivion. The information would need to be applied to properly organise a network of qualifying structural elements to bring the person into a state of consciousness.
Sufficient in itself? No, of course not. Even if the details of someone's life and mind are returned to multiple states of consciousness in multiple persons at different stages of a person's previous life, psychological continuity is not preserved ~ only degrees of psychological connectedness between and among replicas with respect to the original person. I maintain that oblivion still obtains for the original person if psychological continuity is not preserved.
Clifford Greenblatt: The principle of interchangeability permits some degree of freedom in substituting one type of structural element for another, provided that functionality is preserved or enhanced. This is all that is required in a materialist philosophy.
Not necessarily. Psychological continuity is essential in a materialist formulation. The principle of interchangeability is certainly applicable to resurrecting persons as objects of study in history, but as far as I can see, that's as far as it goes.
LongeCity
