(March 14, 2015 at 4:41 pm)rasetsu Wrote: Is the self necessarily unchanging? The Buddhists make a lot of arguments that there is no unchanging thing in consciousness which would serve as the self. But I wonder why the self has to be considered unchanging; why can't it change along with everything else about us?
If there is no unchanging thing in a self, why do we keep using the same word?
There has to be some continuity or we should be using a different word.
Or does the definition of self change with the changes in self so we can keep using that word?
Seriously, the self could be looked at as a composite object in which some aspects change and some do not. So, changing and not changing yet still under the same descriptive term because that term's definition remains fuzzy. I've only been considering the self at one moment and as that thing that is you. That moment could be now---except that now is also a fuzzy concept. Now for your foot is not the same as now for your hand (propagation delay) is not the same as now on the surface of the sun (general relativity weirdness.)
So how, exactly, does God know that She's NOT a brain in a vat? 
