In the physical and metaphysical constructs of our being memories are the objects that control all the forces of knowledge to our existence. To say a memory is an object implies that it exists. The fact that it exists is also to imply that it is held in place after death in the objects that compose the surrounding memories. There are physical building blocks to our existence that are present through birth. In the process some memories are copied into the next generation. Other memories are learned through the perception of our world by strong minded individuals able to explicate a rhyme or reason into their existence and push forth knowledge onto the whole of existence. The soul is tied to the brain which constructs knowlede. Is knowledge not then an actual compound of carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, and oxygen that holds our very bodies bound together. Our elements, which hold our knowledge, are held after death. This is to say our soul is held after death. We may no longer be among the living, but the soul has reached equillibrium with its original unintellidgable forces that guide its circular existence. From nothingness we come and into nothingness we part. We fear this nothingness that through death brings an understanding of. If only the living could understand the dead that reside in our past. The elements are all tied to our existence our knowledge. Does this mean absolute knowledge is tied to the elements themselves from hydrogen to the last known. Knowledge is power and radiates from the elements themselves. This is to say the structure holds itselfe together in an intelligent order with no absolute end to any link in the chain. It is all in existence and we fear the vaccume of nothingness instead of embracing it. "Nothing" holds itself as well as any existence together in this infinitly expanding universe that we percieve. All knowledge resides in the volume of all known elements in correct summation placed into the same area.
Not true. The fact that something exists doesn't imply that it will always exist. There are things (such as death) that can destroy "other things". When you say "in the objects that compose the surrounding memories," it sounds as though you MAY be referring to the preservation of information in the universe, in that all "information" (the state of matter and energy) is never lost, that through cause and effect all information can in theory be reconstructed through the reversal of time's arrow. Is this what you are referring to? How do you figure? It sounds like you are referring to genetic memory, but there is no evidence supporting that theory. This would suggest that knowledge is inherent in our entire physical structure, not merely our brains - which has no validity via scientific theory of which I am aware. It isn't our elements, but the neurochemical/electric patterns of our brians, which are lost after death - through decomposition. The rest of your post continues based on these assumptions, and since I cannot accept these assumption, I cannot reflect on the rest of your post.
what are memories but inexplicable thoughts that can not be expressed in words as words have their own difference of explanations. All people learn different methods of expression in their words. But what for sure I know it is the idea that is given that matters the most. nothing does not exist... What are the electrical signals? nothing or something? Just because the light that fills the chalace of life that is existance does not shine does not mean that it is not there. There has to be a physical place in which memories are stored in order for no information to ever be lost... And yes decomposition skews many memories but it actually has to remove the object doing the remembering or shinning. The chalace of life refills itself in both instances of death and birth into our DNA. One is a copy and one is the original hydrogen bond between the twisting spirals that dominate the actuality of our existence. Of corse it is impossible for the copy of existance to perfectly share the thoughts of another without removal and replacement. It is the smallest objects that are irreplacable as they hold together any sphere of existence even as protons and electrons in cosmic rays dominate the "current" reality and volume to our earth as well as rip appart our DNA. Just because we know "nothing" of death does not mean that the something which is existent within that "nothing" does not remain as a sum of its parts. Its parts remain in this infinitly expanding universe does that mean that the nothing is growing?
Sorry but, this is all supposition. Particularly troubling is the mention of "metaphysical constructs", whatever they might be.... I might also add that all of SolusCado's critiques are correct. M00se, you're jumping to many conclusions here without bridging any gaps....
does carrying an existence not imply that there is an actual box that does the carrying and there is something held within the box? metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that applies to the nature of being and world... its a long subject. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics Which may or may not include certain aspects of religion relative to Buddhist thoughts in reincarnation. To which I don't believe in the actuality of coming back with full and complete consciousness. to answer the question of "what is it?" It is what it is. Which implies an object in any aspect of being and world. Do objects remain or do they disappear? They might not remain in the same spot as some memories are inevitably forgotten but that does not mean that it is not still somewhere. "It existed, therefore we know it still exists" As for time... it is totally dependent on your perception of that "matter". as in what it means to you. does our being hold time? or does time hold our being? To make the arrow reverse would take an enormous amount of power. what does it mean to be alive other than to hold electrical signals. The potential for signals remains in the constituents of the body as they are in any aspect of world that holds existence. Does "it" all not hold some form of "conscious" as consciousness is ones ability to question and answer its purpose. It may not speak but to deny its existence is to deny its purpose. If you deny its purpose does it still not serve one? Did it not serve a purpose before you were able to consciously question its existence.
In short: no, not necessarily. But in any case, that's certainly an interesting question. To be clear (as it seems muddled to me as it stands..): is that in fact the topic here??
Yes that is in fact the topic. Im sorry for any confusion you may have encountered. all aspects of knowledge and life are encoded into our "fullest" surroundings through "experience" with the matter at hand. It is how well one knows the most basic constructs who will align the elements to their fullest potential. Any potential spreads forth an equal volume of matter between at least three relative objects. It all has a beginning, middle, and end before it turns its constituents into a "whole" that is shared already in many aspects. To say that one got lost along the way is to imply that one can be lost when one is already lost. If it is lost it has spun the wrong direction by its influences. To say one has found his resting place is to imply that he is in unrest in nature. But of great men who spread great words: Their words will always remain as a whole through our memories of their deeds. What are memories other than chaotic dreams to which can best be expressed physically through our actions along with the memories of our words. And what dreams bring benefit to the memories of others.
Good to know. Again, this is all nothing but supposition. Note: repetition does not an argument make. You still need to address SolusCado's earlier critiques.
Let me try again. On genetic memory, is it to suppose that only the genetic constructs of our being are inherent to memory or replication? Or is it the actual connection between the strings to our existence that holds the actual memories which is the essence of "being"? Are memories in a core or are they free floating ideas to our reality?
"Forces of knowledge?" 'Memories' are no more than perceived 'thoughts'; like 'image-ination-thoughts' and 'feeling-thoughts' and 'belief-thoughts', etc... nothing else but a 'thought' and not necessarily relating to anything else. To assume that a 'memory' is relevent to any other feature of 'Reality' than just the passing 'thought' is erroneous. Knowledge; The new, critically updated, all inclusive definition of 'knowledge'; 'Knowledge' is that which is perceived! ALL INCLUSIVE!!! That which is perceived by we unique individual Perspectives (all perspectives are unique, every moment/percept of existence) is 'knowledge'. All you can 'know' is what you perceive, Now! and Now! and Now!!! Everyone's perceptions are inherently (uniquely) real features of Reality! All inclusive! Existence = the complete Universe = Reality = Consciousness = Truth = 'Self!' = God = Brahman = Tao ... All INCLUSIVE!! Everything exists! Existence is all inclusive! Everything is Real! Reality is all inclusive! Reality is Truth! Everything is True! All inclusive! Existence/Reality/Truth is all inclusive! That which is perceived exists. All inclusive! That which exists is perceived. All inclusive! Not a thing exists (notice that I didn't say that 'nothing' exists, 'cause it don't! *__- ) that is not perceived. All inclusive! Not a thing is perceived that does not exist. All inclusive! There is no, nor can there be, any evidence to the contrary! We are (Conscious) Perspectives. "Consciousness is the ground of all being!" - Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics Every Perspective is unique, by definition/nature. The First Law of Soul Dynamics; "For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" - Book of Fudd The Universe/Reality is known by many unique Perspectives, but 'one' Consciousness! Everyone's perceptions are included as inherently real features of Reality! "The complete Universe (Reality/Truth/God/'Self!'/Tao/Brahman... or any feature herein...) can be defined/described as the synchronous sum-total of all Perspectives!" - Book of Fudd ALL INCLUSIVE!!! "Reality is a synchrony of moments!" Two people observe an elephant. One can only perceive the trunk; "An elephant is like a snake!" This is 'knowledge' to/for him. The other can only perceive the leg; "An elephant is like a tree trunk!" This is 'knowledge' to/for him. One thing that they can do is to argue who is correct, as they both, obviously, cannot be correct. There might even be one who out-argues the other, even gets the other to discredit his own knowledge. In this scenario, one doesn't learn anything, and the other 'loses' what he knew, replacing it with the same truncated understanding the other has. Either way it is a lose/lose scenario. Another more philosophically sound scenario is if they both attempted to understand the other's Perspective, the other's 'knowledge'; to understand the context where they are 'correct', and incorporate it into your own understanding. Then you both would have a more complete understanding of 'elephant'. Win/win! No one can give you knowledge, you must experience it yourself for it to be 'knowledge'. All 'knowledge' is unique. tat tvam asi
Mod Note: nameless, I'm going to have to ask you to keep in mind that this is a Philosophy forum. As such, it would be advisable for you to present your beliefs in the proper form: an argument. As it stands, all you've done is spout blind assertions, with not even an attempt at support. There's obviously some interesting content to your post, and so, I won't delete it, but do note that ordinarily (and in the future) posts of this ilk will indeed be removed.
I thought it was nice... Some more expressive and not as well planned thoughts reveal the subconscious better. It is just sometimes hard to follow my friend. But never-the less good metaphors. I agree with your main points, a level of disagreement is no level at all in history. What experience have you with synchrony? If you dug deep into the meaning of Tao you would notice that sometimes "nameless" is unable to communicate fully in words... and I both am and am not talking about the actual person in this instance... From that picture you can see the words are not meant to be fully "understood".-have I been?
Three points: One; "nice" is neither the subject of the thread, nor the forum. Two; whilst something may be expressive, it doesn't follow that it is also communicative. Three; if one wishes to merely opine, or spew one's beliefs, one can go to Free Thoughts for that. This is the Philosophy forum: one communicates herein by argument.
"Sharpest criticism.- One criticizes a person, a book, most sharply when one pictures their ideal"(Neitzsche) I would have much rather put "The worst readers".- But "what do you consider most humane?- To spare someone shame."(Neitzsche) The words He used in this instance held Multiple levels of Meaning, Understanding, and Connection to a multitude of philosophies from many different countries. That share an equal idea in all of philosophical thoughts. Although yes, some of it was "unnecessary". VERY Strong connections to Buddhist philosophy as well as Chinese Confucianism. As well Neitzsche. The obvious duel meaning of the name itself has to bring some amount of "laughter"(= Laughter is the silent gift of good wisdom. But I mean only good manners Glaucon.
Really? Supposition: you have gone from saying that IF a memory is an object to accepting (without support) that that is the case. How? Link please. Except that "soul" is unproven. Unsupported. Speculation. Knowledge radiates from the elements? And the particular wavelength of knowledge would be...? As usual you string words together, speculate wildly and assume some validity.
I think that it might be true that memory is a source of our awareness of things' temporal extension. It seems to be necessary for our awareness of change as well. Without memory, life would just be an instantaneous present. I think that everyone agrees that memory exists in some sense. I wouldn't say that memory is substantial though. It isn't a kind of stuff, you can't fill a bottle full of memory. I'm more inclined to imagine memory in terms of structure and function. You lost me with that. Memory is encoded neurally somehow, but death brings about the destruction of the neural system and presumably with it the loss of whatever information was encoded there. I guess that each atom that composes our bodies at the present time was somewhere else a million years ago and will be somewhere else again a million years from now. (Can atoms and sub-atomic particles really be individuated like macro-objects, where we can identify this one and that one at different points in time? I suspect that common-sensical picture might bang up against some of the quantum weirdness stuff that I don't begin to understand.) But I do think that it's a stretch to think that the atoms in our bodies are, individually or collectively, our souls. (I don't believe that humans have souls.) It would be an awfully impersonal kind of soul, and awfully diffuse in the distant past and distant future when our atoms were spread all over the place and busy being parts of other people and other things. There are some philosophers who argue for panexperientialism. They are sort of the descendents of the neutral-monists I guess, and argue that all substance possesses both physical and mental properties. So they would say that every atom not only has properties like mass, it also has its own crude little consciousness. If there's any truth to this (I certainly don't believe it), your idea might not be as far-fetched as it seems to me. I guess that our current consciousness and sense of 'self' probably isn't the most basic and fundamental levels of reality. Reality is still going to be doing its thing when the transient bit of turbulence that represents 'me' is dead and gone. If the panexperientialists are right, if all matter is conscious in some way, then maybe atoms have little memories and store records of everything they have been doing throughout the universe's history. So taken collectively, all the atoms might be said to contain all knowledge, of the past anyway. But I don't believe that. It sounds like you are trying to invent some kind of atomic pantheism or something. I don't find that idea very credible, but you are welcome to pursue it.
Only by the amount of decomposition that destroys DNA in the brain. So it is possible for memory to still remain a period of time after death even though the body's functions have shut down. Many of the atoms are replaced in the body durring a life cycle. "You are what you eat" for example. The "soul" in the context of how I am using it is not some spirit. It is only an individual concept of "self" and what it means to posess thought, which is to be in existence. It is not like the substance posesses thought it is just a building block for what we know as consciousness. More like we would contain all knowledge of past history and events if our will of existence was able to gather them collectively. Possibly keeping our existence away from the biologically programed mechanism of death that destroys information and memories.
