I considered creating this modestly-titled thread this morning whilst in the shower. As I imagine the word "God" in the title has frightened off the bleeding physicists (and they knows who they is, like), I feel myself open to wild speculation and my complete dissonance from cosmotology.

It just seems such a staggeringly large coincidence, that there's a sun - just so hot, and no hotter - and an Earth - just so hot and so hotter - and all this very nice distance from the sun and so forth, and then there's me. How'd I end up in this head, eh? What am I doing in here, as opposed to someone else? I could be out, kicking people in the crotch like Bells, or creepily hitting on women dropping off packages to the office, like sderenzi, or just being an arse, like everyone else on the forum. What's so special that I'm located here, right in this skull, and not someone else's? Seems like an awful coincidence. And where is all this consciousness coming from anyway? Structure dictates exigence? What's it all about, then?

I'm sure this ties into Myuunitarianism somehow.

What's it all about, then?

That's what life is all about, you have the chance to figure it out for yourself. Everyone has their own meanings as I'm certain you will whenever you derive a conclusion.

What if I think it's too coincidental to be coincidental, then? Like if Chelsea won something, or something.

Maybe you are located in someone else's skull. How would you know.. ? lol
That question is void, it would always be your skull.

What if I think it's too coincidental to be coincidental, then? Like if Chelsea won something, or something.

Just don't worry about it to much for it will all be over very soon. Try not to dwell on any problem about life for to long because it just keeps changing day by day. ;) :)

Both interesting points.

I agree that it's true that I would have to be in someone's skull, so the question does appear void. But consider this - I'm me. Not anyone else but me. I've gotta be me. Who else can I be but who I am? So am I, as me, the result of the construct of my head? Or am I subconsciously and conceitedly assuming that I must exist as something prior and integral? If I had grown up in someone else's head, would I be someone else then? Perhaps I'm assuming that my consciousness is some vital factor that "must be", or something.

But consider this - I'm me. Not anyone else but me. I've gotta be me. Who else can I be but who I am?

you are the same omnipresent consciuosness that I AM (JHWH). we are not our thoughts, because they are our creations, they are not the creator. people often think they are their body or person, but that's not who we really are. we are the creator of thoughts... the absense of thoughts... nothing... emptiness.

read buddhism, try to realize nothing

Interesting thoughts - I am sure that they plague us all from time to time. Yes, it really is peculiar that I am me, living right now and writing this reply with immediate gusto. I am living in this time-frame - the year 2008 in the christian calendar - and I am surrounded by friends who have also shared the same time-frame and location. I am enjoying the priviledges of a 'well-fare nation' - poverty exists, but isn't prominent. There is work available for as long as I am able and willing to work, and I have no financial troubles -although I am not wealthy either. Somebody would consider me lucky - I don't know what to consider of myself.

The biggest 'what-if' situation that has been troubling me lately is this: what if life had never been born in this universe? What if the whole underlying construct of our universe wouldn't be able to support life? Would there be purpose to the existence of this universe if there were no sentinent beings to ponder at its purpose? You know, the analogy of a tree falling in a forest with nobody hearing...

Both interesting points.

I agree that it's true that I would have to be in someone's skull, so the question does appear void. But consider this - I'm me. Not anyone else but me. I've gotta be me. Who else can I be but who I am? So am I, as me, the result of the construct of my head? Or am I subconsciously and conceitedly assuming that I must exist as something prior and integral? If I had grown up in someone else's head, would I be someone else then? Perhaps I'm assuming that my consciousness is some vital factor that "must be", or something.

(by the way, the OP is delightful. I especially loved 'cosmotology' but there are other gems. I really like the fact that I don't know who you are mocking or even if you are. That said let me leap into the potentially ironic fray as if I didn't know better.)

I think your focusing on your localness and specificity ARE EXCELLENT points. People will try to tell you that it was random but now that you are there it seems strange that you are not elsewhere. Actually to most people it does not seem strange. Point for you. Second, perhaps you are on to something from an objective standpoint. In other words, given what we know so far about the universe, isn't it odd that specific portions have identities and limited perspectives that go with them and that these seem to be continuous?

I think it is odd.

Why localized perspectives? (a subset of 'Why perspectives at all?) The scientists and rationalists like to talk about localized consciousness as some sort of biproduct of complex neural structures. This explanation is often confused with adding information. For the life of me it seems very odd that perspective would develop, especially localized ones, and it seems easy to imagine a universe that simple ran along like a very complicated clock, completely unware of itself. In fact that seems more likely. That one of the complicated little gears, one of the mre complicated ones, wakes up and says, Hey I am a part of a clock, this one in fact, is very odd. And completely unnecessary. It certainly doesn't 'aid the survivability of that part in some Darwinian sense, at least not in a determinist universe, where it could function just as well not being aware of a damn thing like a submarines radar system only this time hooked directly to the engines.

If by any chance your OP was mocking people like me, well, touche. It was a blast. Please start more threads in this spirit. And keep this voice.

Jesus makes me wonder if we've all been half asleep.

Both interesting points.

I agree that it's true that I would have to be in someone's skull, so the question does appear void. But consider this - I'm me. Not anyone else but me. I've gotta be me. Who else can I be but who I am? So am I, as me, the result of the construct of my head? Or am I subconsciously and conceitedly assuming that I must exist as something prior and integral? If I had grown up in someone else's head, would I be someone else then? Perhaps I'm assuming that my consciousness is some vital factor that "must be", or something.

You would say that if you were someone else as well.
These questions are akin to the 'why me' questions..

you are the same omnipresent consciuosness that I AM (JHWH). we are not our thoughts, because they are our creations, they are not the creator. people often think they are their body or person, but that's not who we really are. we are the creator of thoughts... the absense of thoughts... nothing... emptiness.

read buddhism, try to realize nothing

Regrettably, I'm told I already have a mortal grip on my realization of nothing; yet my staggering abilities in the area of null conceptuality don't seem to be getting me closer to the issue of personal consciousness. Now: if I am the creator of my thoughts, am I then some mystical node of individuality, or wot? Or do they proceed - as I sowhat's rationalists would rationalize - from the structure of my head and my environment which has conditioned my poor, tired brain? Am I the egg, or was there always a chicken in it?

Interesting thoughts - I am sure that they plague us all from time to time. Yes, it really is peculiar that I am me, living right now and writing this reply with immediate gusto. I am living in this time-frame - the year 2008 in the christian calendar - and I am surrounded by friends who have also shared the same time-frame and location. I am enjoying the priviledges of a 'well-fare nation' - poverty exists, but isn't prominent. There is work available for as long as I am able and willing to work, and I have no financial troubles -although I am not wealthy either. Somebody would consider me lucky - I don't know what to consider of myself.

The biggest 'what-if' situation that has been troubling me lately is this: what if life had never been born in this universe? What if the whole underlying construct of our universe wouldn't be able to support life? Would there be purpose to the existence of this universe if there were no sentinent beings to ponder at its purpose? You know, the analogy of a tree falling in a forest with nobody hearing...

I have to confess that my naturalistic training forces me away from the purposeful universe. I sometimes have difficulty assigning purpose even in well-founded and understood organizations like MTV, or elections. All right: what if there is no purpose to the universe per se? I can still get ice cream, so should I not continue along as I have been doing?

(by the way, the OP is delightful. I especially loved 'cosmotology' but there are other gems. I really like the fact that I don't know who you are mocking or even if you are. That said let me leap into the potentially ironic fray as if I didn't know better.)

I think your focusing on your localness and specificity ARE EXCELLENT points. People will try to tell you that it was random but now that you are there it seems strange that you are not elsewhere. Actually to most people it does not seem strange. Point for you. Second, perhaps you are on to something from an objective standpoint. In other words, given what we know so far about the universe, isn't it odd that specific portions have identities and limited perspectives that go with them and that these seem to be continuous?

I think it is odd.

Why localized perspectives? (a subset of 'Why perspectives at all?) The scientists and rationalists like to talk about localized consciousness as some sort of biproduct of complex neural structures. This explanation is often confused with adding information. For the life of me it seems very odd that perspective would develop, especially localized ones, and it seems easy to imagine a universe that simple ran along like a very complicated clock, completely unware of itself. In fact that seems more likely. That one of the complicated little gears, one of the mre complicated ones, wakes up and says, Hey I am a part of a clock, this one in fact, is very odd. And completely unnecessary. It certainly doesn't 'aid the survivability of that part in some Darwinian sense, at least not in a determinist universe, where it could function just as well not being aware of a damn thing like a submarines radar system only this time hooked directly to the engines.

If by any chance your OP was mocking people like me, well, touche. It was a blast. Please start more threads in this spirit. And keep this voice.

Jesus makes me wonder if we've all been half asleep.

Thanks very much for the comments on my mocking; it was meant as a general mock for everyone, so that everyone could feel the same involvement and, hopefully, deep personal insult. (Especially for cosmologists, who are people that are astoundingly opinionated about things that no one can ever really know with much certainty and which, when correct, serve only to make everyone else wonder what they really know about anything they don't care to think too deeply about. I believe they have been designed primarily to frighten small children and other members of the public; in that sense, they sometimes seem to occupy the niche that firebrand preachers have, but in the naturalistic sense, and without the offering of hopeful redemption through faith.)

As a rationalist myself, by and large, I can easily believe the position of brain structure affecting conscious individuality, which for me means that the egg does not have a pre-eminent chicken, but rather that the egg develops into a chicken. Yet - yet - it's composed of predetermined parts, isn't it? It must become its chicken. Must I not, in some carefully partitioned proportion of total multiple-axis variance in behaviour, be the brain I was meant to be? And there we are we back to nature and nurture again. But this is about creation and existence and God and all that. But more shortly, why am I as I am? Could I not have been someone else? Does this consciousness come from somewhere? Why am I me, then?

All right, related to your question about parts and bits - we can't stretch our consciousness across parts of things we aren't. Which is to say that we our capacity for impression reaches only as far as our existence. We cannot be a spring if we are a widget. We cannot be a widget if we are a piston. Some people are joints, or spanners, constantly getting in the works. Our impression of reality extends so far as our existence of "spannerdom". Or like a local "monkeysphere" (interesting term). We can't be outside our heads. But it still doesn't seem to handle that question "why am I in this head? Why am I not in some other head?".

God, this is getting awfully soliliquous for a Thursday. If that's even a word. Thursday,I mean. Honestly, I ask you: what is a Thur? DOes he even know it's his day? Silly old Thor. All that giant-smacking and objective reality and narrative violation, and where is he now, old fellow? Oh yes, we throw him a conceptual bone every day before TGIF, but really, now. Shouldn't it just be "Day 4"? And then Freyastag is tomorrow, but then the next day is for bloody Saturn. Saturn! I ask you. Silly Norse have got almost the whole week rounded up from Tyrsday to Freiasday, but let Saturday go, and Mars knows what Sunday is named for. Sol invictus? Absurd.

You would say that if you were someone else as well.
These questions are akin to the 'why me' questions..

So is my consciousness an illusion or something then? Mind you, I've been told that before.

So is my consciousness an illusion or something then? Mind you, I've been told that before.

Of sorts, yes..

The conscience will always relates to itself. Thats why everyone can wonder about the things you wondered about in the OP. You will always be you, simple as that.

I considered creating this modestly-titled thread this morning whilst in the shower. As I imagine the word "God" in the title has frightened off the bleeding physicists (and they knows who they is, like), I feel myself open to wild speculation and my complete dissonance from cosmotology.

It just seems such a staggeringly large coincidence, that there's a sun - just so hot, and no hotter - and an Earth - just so hot and so hotter - and all this very nice distance from the sun and so forth, and then there's me. How'd I end up in this head, eh? What am I doing in here, as opposed to someone else? I could be out, kicking people in the crotch like Bells, or creepily hitting on women dropping off packages to the office, like sderenzi, or just being an arse, like everyone else on the forum. What's so special that I'm located here, right in this skull, and not someone else's? Seems like an awful coincidence. And where is all this consciousness coming from anyway? Structure dictates exigence? What's it all about, then?

I'm sure this ties into Myuunitarianism somehow.

I think you're onto something. After all, the great Myuu resided in Mewskitty's skull for 17 years before she was evicted.

As a rationalist myself, by and large, I can easily believe the position of brain structure affecting conscious individuality, which for me means that the egg does not have a pre-eminent chicken, but rather that the egg develops into a chicken. Yet - yet - it's composed of predetermined parts, isn't it? It must become its chicken. Must I not, in some carefully partitioned proportion of total multiple-axis variance in behaviour, be the brain I was meant to be? And there we are we back to nature and nurture again. But this is about creation and existence and God and all that. But more shortly, why am I as I am? Could I not have been someone else? Does this consciousness come from somewhere? Why am I me, then?

I would stay with the oddity. Imagine for a second that you have intuited a pattern. In other words the oddity of your local and specific consciousness that you have, you intuit, does not fit with some of our current assumptions about the universe. You cannot, yet, put your finger on it, but in some way a local vantage rubs you the wrong way, precisely as certain details or confirmed phenomena - which this is - rubbed scientists the wrong way and they eventually, but often not immediately, could explain why there was a fit problem.

I think it is very close to the 'Why is there somethign rather than nothing question, by the way.

All right, related to your question about parts and bits - we can't stretch our consciousness across parts of things we aren't. Which is to say that we our capacity for impression reaches only as far as our existence. We cannot be a spring if we are a widget. We cannot be a widget if we are a piston. Some people are joints, or spanners, constantly getting in the works. Our impression of reality extends so far as our existence of "spannerdom". Or like a local "monkeysphere" (interesting term). We can't be outside our heads. But it still doesn't seem to handle that question "why am I in this head? Why am I not in some other head?".
Actually given a lot of current scientific philosophy - which basically says that we do not perceive reality we recreate a virtual reality (in our heads ((note the irony))) - local consciousness would really be pinprick loci of consiousness. It is not as if it extends to your skin or something. That would be absurd. I don't know why people aren't concerned more about infinite regress here - what is the vantage from which we see the virtual reality (in our heads - I had to repeat that absurdity)

Not that I have a solid answer to 'what is really going on' or how, metaphysically (or in physics terms) local consciousness really does make sense after all. I just think that the response you are getting and will tend to get is to try to dismiss the oddity as somehow obvious.

Oh, well, of course you.......(blah blah blah)

When in fact you may be on to something interesting. Not that you are the first to think of this oddity - I've been known to myself - but I want to suggest you not dismiss it because you cannot right off confirm that it is indeed odd and does not fit somehow with what we 'know'.

(by the way, the OP is delightful. I especially loved 'cosmotology' but there are other gems. I really like the fact that I don't know who you are mocking or even if you are. That said let me leap into the potentially ironic fray as if I didn't know better.)

I think your focusing on your localness and specificity ARE EXCELLENT points. People will try to tell you that it was random but now that you are there it seems strange that you are not elsewhere. Actually to most people it does not seem strange. Point for you. Second, perhaps you are on to something from an objective standpoint. In other words, given what we know so far about the universe, isn't it odd that specific portions have identities and limited perspectives that go with them and that these seem to be continuous?

I think it is odd.

Why localized perspectives? (a subset of 'Why perspectives at all?) The scientists and rationalists like to talk about localized consciousness as some sort of biproduct of complex neural structures. This explanation is often confused with adding information. For the life of me it seems very odd that perspective would develop, especially localized ones, and it seems easy to imagine a universe that simple ran along like a very complicated clock, completely unware of itself. In fact that seems more likely. That one of the complicated little gears, one of the mre complicated ones, wakes up and says, Hey I am a part of a clock, this one in fact, is very odd. And completely unnecessary. It certainly doesn't 'aid the survivability of that part in some Darwinian sense, at least not in a determinist universe, where it could function just as well not being aware of a damn thing like a submarines radar system only this time hooked directly to the engines.

If by any chance your OP was mocking people like me, well, touche. It was a blast. Please start more threads in this spirit. And keep this voice.

Jesus makes me wonder if we've all been half asleep.

The localized perspectives aren't because we are unique or separate conscious entities, but because we view ourselves as someone "in" somewhere, when in fact we could be anybody anywhere. This is because we have an identity or "who I think and feel I am". The neo-cortex has a link to the feeling-fed fantasy that we imagine. Our self is trapped in the imagination, the body actually has no self apart from the mind. Otherwise we would always be here and now, even if we go "over there" we would still be here and now until we die. We imagine a limit or a boundary to the universe and thus imagine we are "somewhere" within the universe. Without the imagination, we would not imagine ourself as anywhere. Yet, because we developed this psychological perspective of ourself, we imagine ourselves as somewhere and someone within the universe. We must examine ourselves here and now, to disempower who we think we are until we become fully aware of what we are.