It's actually much simpler to imagine than it is to explain. I'm not arguing against that particles can be differentiated, I'm just arguing that the differentiation can't be due to physical characteristics, while he seemed to be arguing that there was no non-physical (non-measurable) distinction between them, yet they were still differentiated. It is impossible to tell which particle is which particle. There is no physical property that we know of that gives a particle a certain identity. So the property must then be unphysical. If we say that one particle has a identity and one particle as another, then we could never tell if they switched identity as there would be no indication physically of that happening. Simplicity in explanation isn't always the same as simplicity in nature. It can take a very long complex explanation to give the hints of a fairly simple natural concept. We only need to look at science in general to know that this is true, things we take for granted often have complex explanations, like the movement of fluids, gravity, and structure of matter. Generalising in the form of "it is simply what it is" is not a valuable move in a thread which tries to show that such a explanation leaves out the very nature of what it is.
I have no intention of rehashing the entirety of this discussion, but since we've had another interested party drop in the following bears mentioning: 1) you have rejected the validity of the idea that reality can have fundamental qualities. This resigns you to an infinite regress with respect to the topic of trying to explain what it is. 2) you essentially believe that all 3 sides of a perfect triangle, for example, are the same side, unless each side is assigned some unphysical identifier. This is an example of your rejection of the above idea. Specifically, it is a rejection of the idea that one of those fundamental qualities could be "shape" (or form). In this context "shape" is simply somewhat synonymous with "distribution".
And there is no need to for the point of this thread. You know you are you and I know I am I. It is irrelevant whether an outside observer can or not. A rock "knows" something bumped up against it by exhibiting an equal but opposite reaction as opposed to another rock nearby that exhibits no reaction from no input. If the rock is struck, it moves. If you're alive, you feel. If I am "reincarnated" through the natural processes of the universe, I will not remember my history or prior existence but I will always know it's "me" because I will be doing the feeling and perceiving.
you see these are the questions that science fails to answer...Only religion can answer this question...the need for existance,the reason for existance....Religion is indeed a fundamental...
I'm not rejecting the validity of the idea that reality can have fundamental qualities (in fact, I embrace that idea), I'm rejecting the idea that these qualities can be objectively measured, which means that they are unphysical in nature. What I've been trying to show throughout the discussion is that although we can objectively identify them as seperate, giving them names like "Particle A" and "Particle B", or "side A", "side B" and "side C" as in the triangle example, there are no such names or tags present that can be measured in physics. Hence any particle can be any other particle without anything being changed within the particle itself. In that context it is absurd why these particles that you are made of belongs specifically to you. You could switch all the particles that makes you up to particles taken from some other source and there would be no physical difference. As there would be no physical difference it would still be you. At least physically. If there would be a difference, then that would be a unphysical difference. If there would be no difference, then there is a identical copy problem, as the particles from the other source could be made as a exact copy of you, the only way to solve the copying problem would be if "you" was a unphysical entity (inherently unique as it is not made up of anything that could be copied in physics). There can be duplicates of everything in physics, there are no unique structures or events in physics. That is part of why physics are successful, that everything is repeatable. If a outside observer fundamentally can't know something that a subjective observer knows for sure, then how can that be a part of physics? If the rock was conscious it could wonder; "why am I the rock that got bumped against?", "why wasn't I that rock nearby?". Yes, so through natural processes of the universe you admit that you are able to be "reincarnated", couldn't there, by that same process, be two of you at the same time in the universe? How do you solve that paradox? Both of "me" would feel and perceive, but subjectivity only allows for one of you, so which one should you be? Science can only answer things that can be objectively determined, subjectivity has that name for a reason, it's simply not objective and can't be discretely measured by science (though it can measure the objective manifestations of subjectivity, but that's clearly a different matter).
u r what u know about urself, then u r always the superior present then u r the constant existing reference the thing with u all is ur lack of honesty, u r able to use everything just for an idea behind ur mind that u mean to keep to urselves if urself is a human body, then u is what realize it so can abstract the concept of being a human body, u r not the observer u r what know from what in true existence realms we are all forced to realize smthg u dont admit that i go furthur, which make us opposites i for instance, realize what is already real, then i mean a plus to it, while focusing on the freedom fresh out of it as it logically becomes the present most clearly free, n to me n how it should not matter less especially for myself being truth is everything or existence is true, mean that any can realize the end of things, so any is exclusively free then any see always the end of every perspective, that is why ur kind become exclusively subjective bc even that u dont admit it and run to take advantage of it from inventin colours to ur percepetions without doing anything nor thinking when u can realize smthg already objective then u can realize a plus to it since u become plus objectively by realizing it this is what u love god for to avoid forever having to do ensuring u, inferiors existence that forever can b used without realizing anything positively present nor existing which became a system that anyone know to live and b of individually bc u mean constant objective inferiority, for ur false superiority to free pretenses of being, then u never went over urselves while getting stuck in the ways that deny ends clarity being existing, so u became the inferiors u keep pointing when u lost the free sense out of everything u were in truth i dont know what that could mean for our dark future, but it is clear that u actively contribute for making things worse as we are forced to live through now
Then stop accusing me of copping out when I suggest that some things probably just are what they are, since that is what a fundamental quality is. Been drinking much this past weekend? I only ask because you seem to have forgotten that no-one was ever suggesting that a person is a specific collection of particles. In fact we talked about how consciousness was a dance of particles where the individual particles could come and go as long as the dance remained the same. Our discussion, at least from my perspective, only really related to individual particles in the sense that you were trying to use the identical nature of some of them to demonstrate that reality couldn't possibly be entirely physical (presumably to lend support to your contention that we must have a soul). In other words, even though the waters may have been a bit murky occasionally, we have two separate discussion points here. I do of course strongly disagree with this assertion too, but let's deal with one thing at a time. I realize you want to believe we all have a soul Cyperium. I have no problem with that. I want to believe we have one too. Who doesn't? What I have actually essentially taken issue with here is not that desire itself, or even the belief itself, but the claim that you have a philosophical argument that demonstrates it.
Either it is physical, or it is unphysical. To say that something is adequately explained physically by saying "it is what it is" is copping out. We assume things of course, but when the nature of what we try to explain is exactly what we have to assume then that strategy don't work. I only claim to show that there is something unphysical to the self, to claim otherwise by saying that "it is what it is" is not a valid argument in my book. We have covered many options, where one was that the neural architecture is precisely what constitutes you, and the argument was that the specific instance of neural architecture was you even if a identical one existed. This is what makes me question things like, what is a instance? If it is unseperable from the idea of a soul, then why not call it that? Even so, I discussed earlier that a dance could as well be copied, I don't see how making it a dance gets rid of the copying problem. Even by chance two people should be able to dance exactly the same dance. Whether or not it occurs at one place or another, it's in fact easier to see that a dance can't be unique. A dance is much like a word, if the word was written twice then we would have two selves. There are no objective descriptions of the self that would suffice, since any description could be copied while the self could not. The subjective self is, in my view, the only thing that there can't be two of. I can only demonstrate that there is something unphysical, not that it is a soul. But I don't see why a self that is unphysical couldn't be described as a soul (isn't that what a soul is anyway?).
Once again, Cyperium, you don't seem to remember what I was referring to when I said that. You've basically taken a statement out of it's context and used it to try to paint me as someone who shies away from important critical analysis. But that's complete bullshit. What I was initially referring to, and expanded upon later, was the idea that one of the fundamental qualities of reality is that it is a distribution. Again, imagine something like an electron field distributed throughout all of space. Excitations can occur at any point in that field, whether it be in the room you're in right now, or in some other galaxy billions of light years away, and those excitations wouldn't be the same excitation because they are occurring at different points in that field. As far as I am concerned there is nothing controversial about this. In fact it's painfully obvious. So rather than being a cop-out, it is instead a solid position that you would need to do some significant work to successfully overthrow. Yes, it's a claim, and no, I didn't make an invalid argument. How in the world do you equate the word "instance" with a soul? Google will tell you the following about it's definition: An example or single occurrence of something: "an instance of corruption" So what we're talking about here are individual occurrences of excitations in an electron field, or individual examples of neural architectures, still being separate even if identical simply by virtue of being manifestations of separate portions of reality, which is possible because the fabric of reality isn't all in the same place. It is distributed. And if you want to insist that concepts like location get a little fuzzy at quantum scales, go ahead. I obviously wont disagree because it's true. But it's ultimately irrelevant because 1) it doesn't necessarily strip a particle of it's fundamental separateness and 2) none of this applies when we're dealing with neural structures because at that scale quantum effects get averaged out to the point where concepts like location become properly meaningful again. I am a different instance of a subjective self than you are. My contention is that this fact (and it is a fact) wouldn't change even if my memory was wiped and your memories were implanted. Given the nature of your arguments, I would bet that you even have trouble conceptualizing the reality of my existence (or indeed the existence of anyone other than yourself). I don't mean the details, but even just the possibility. Because really, it's essentially no different from what you seem to be talking about. In both cases, the question is how can there be more than one "self"? The fact that two spatially separate brain stems might be identical poses no problem to the notion of inherent separateness because they are indeed spatially separate. And as I have said before, even if it did, you still wouldn't have made your case because the idea that any two macroscopic objects in a quantum mechanical universe could be entirely identical is highly suspect anyway. In fact I could do away with the rest of this discussion and focus on just this one point to successfully counter your argument. I guess this discussion is going to be rehashed after all, in spite of an initial lack of inclination on my part :/
Then explain how a instance differs two objects that are physically identical. In the case of subjectivity such a distinction is very important as it is the distinction that judges which instance you are. You have basically said that; "this instance differs from any other instance simply because it is a seperate instance", or which I seem to remember; "THIS rock isn't THAT rock because it is THIS rock" (again, the argument being that it is a seperate instance). You can think of each object as a instance, but it won't make it physical, and it won't explain the dilemma of why a person is the person he is. Exactly! The only physical difference is the position of them! That is what I also argue. So you basically say that my position is what makes my subjectivity be my body. So that if I were born with exactly the same physical characteristics but in a different location then I wouldn't exist but some other subjectivity would be that body? I don't think of it as the "solid" position that you do. It is painfully obvious to me too you know. It's not even a argument to be honest, to say that two physically identical things are different because they are seperate instances is obvious, however it isn't as obvious what makes them seperate instances. If we are only talking about location then it doesn't make sense subjectively as particles move to different locations and cross eachothers path or collide (where the particles would have no idea of which particle it originally was). I don't really think particles has a subjective side to it, I think they are merely objective and we can choose to tag them but it doesn't essentially matter to them. So we're back to the location argument, which means that my subjectivity is a location and yet I can move and still keep it although everything else can change about me. It wasn't about the matter after all, and it wasn't about the configuration, it was only about location in which this dance of consciousness occurs, right? Location again, but when we move we change location, how does the self follow then? It is matter that follows when we move right? It is matter and structure. That is also what I think, which is basically my argument that if we could swap the subjective there would be no difference physically. That it is extremely unlikely that any two objects are exactly alike doesn't change the fact that they could be and that there are no constraints as to how much alike objects can be. If physics were all that was available then yes, I couldn't understand how two persons could have two selves. It is only through the unphysical that we can have two selves at the same time. After all, we aren't objective, and what is objective is what is physical, so how can we have two subjectivities at the same time? Well, I think it is a interesting subject and I don't mind continuing the discussion. It would be nice to know definitely where you stand though, do you think that these qualities that are fundamental belongs to physics or that they can be determined by physics some way? If the qualities that are fundamental distinguishes two persons from eachother that are otherwise physically identical then could those qualities count as a soul?
Sticking with the idea that fields are the fundamental entities of nature, think of an excitation as a feature of such an entity. Features are not defined only by their own form, but by what they are attached to, or what they grow out of. And because the universe is not properly homogeneous, the global state of any fundamental entity will be different from the pov of any of it's individual features. If a field is physical, then anything it constitutes is physical. It's up to you to explain why a field is unphysical just because it can manifest two or more identical features at unique points simultaneously. No, because your position is always changing with respect the global state of the universe and pretty much everything else in it. Always! Spatial coordinates are not the key here. The fundamental/inherent separateness of manifestations of a distributed reality is. You can't start with "if I were born" and then end with "I wouldn't exist". But ignoring that error, you can't have two precisely identical sets of circumstances in a universe like ours. They'll always be separated in space and therefore be unique in one way or another. My argument is that two objects will never be completely alike in the sense that they will necessarily be manifested by separate portions of reality and therefore be products of different global states. I'm pretty sure I've told you where I stand. Reality is a distribution. As such, every manifestation is inherently unique simply by virtue of not occurring in the same space, or being manifested by the same slice. And that's an essential part of what distinguishes people from one another.
But is a field strictly just physical? In field theory for instance, a field is a mathematical entity. In quantum theory a field can be likened to a probablistic distribution such as a wave function. Hence with fields, as with energy, you get some overlap between the physical and the abstract (non-physical). "Field theory is a branch of mathematics which studies the properties of fields. A field is a mathematical entity for which addition, subtraction, multiplication and division are well-defined."---http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_theory_(mathematics)
I'm not overly attached to fields with respect to this topic. As I alluded to at an earlier point in my discussion with Cyperium, it's just a stand-in for the more general idea that there is some sort of fundamental substance to reality, and that everything we see is basically a manifestation of that substance.
You are a location in spacetime. That location is not shared, so you are you... everything in that location within a point of X/Y/Z.
How is it then that I can change locations in spacetime? This goes to the ambiguity of relative and absolute location. A cat in a box is at a location. Move the box across the room. Is the cat still at the same location?
I said... Think of yourself as a bubble in the sea. When you move around you move everything out of the way.
it shows the fundamental issue of ur misunderstanding to truth, why u lean on believing creations being the only reason of existence so to u, a field is what u define then u go saying that it is already defined by more complex intelligence, so god, this shows ur limits in meaning anything, why u cant mean smthg real if a field is not created and exist by its fact, do u think that u can see it??? NO u cant see but what is related to u then fields are about truth, n where true is the field is clearer n where lies are the field is reversed and where truth and lies are the field is apocalyptic do u think a lot to relate right with things around u???? NO u know wat is best for u by moving to which prove how fields are aware, even nothing is free conscious which again prove that truth exist, and fields are bc of that truth, u could see that term as pointing smthg else like a reason or a source but take it literally, truth if truth exist, then superiority is the constant definitions so u r not god as u justify urselves, u r simply any that feel the need to keep defining things u r not free in the true sense of objective existence ends like me, bc u stay in same place making jokes so enjoyin lies and roles as for u there cant b anything else defining things is truth, so what is always done taking advantage of it is forcing everything to b else inferiority existence is to freedom rights, what next
You haven't answered my question. You said the location is unshared. But when walking across the room, you are in a different unshared location. How then can continuity of location in spacetime define one's identity as a self if that location is always changing? Not only spatially but temporally as well. Did you know we are in fact speeding thru space at 905 km a second? Where is there ANY constant and unvarying point in spacetime?
