Can humans reach enlightenment?

Discussion in 'Eastern Philosophy' started by Grantywanty, Nov 1, 2007.

  1. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,355
    It gets messy as there are many ways I could look at this example.
    One would be that the lego-house is merely a machine that moves blocks from pile A - through the construct of the house - to pile B. someone else can then use the same pile B to construct a similar house.
    The "house" is no longer the actual phyiscal house but the physical property at the time + the purpose (externally given, in this instance) for which it is designed.

    In the same way, if you look at a sinusoidal wave travelling through a string - it is the same wave at the start as at the end of the string - but it is surely constructed of different things (i.e. the string at the start is different to the string at the end).

    In an ideal (e.g. unrealistic) hypothetical situation, a sound-wave from a speaker would be the same sound when leaving the speaker as it is when it arrives in our ears - yet is constructed through different materials (e.g. the vibrations of different molecules etc).

    But I think the analogies with the lego-blocks start to fail - as it requires external influence to do any building.
    If we were to assume the lego-block was the reality, then the analogy would be the creation of people out of the skin / cells that other humans shed.
    It also fails because the "lego house" is clearly just a physical object - and it would require human consciousness to be able to jump from one vessel to another in order for the analogy to work.

    Which clearly it can't do.

    Another way to perhaps look at it is that the body is an ever-changing blue-print - which at any given time is composed of atoms sufficient to fulfil that blue-print. Atoms fall off and new atoms are used, but the "you" is the blue-print. Any numbers of "you" could be built - but they would have to match the exact blue-print to infinitessimal detail - and then there would be multiple "you"s.
    Using this analogy, it makes no difference if atoms fall off, are reused etc - as it is the blue-print that is "you".
    Applying this to the lego-house: because of its simplicity - it would be possible to build multiple houses - but they would have to have the same colour bricks in the same location etc.
    And also no two blue-prints are the same.
    Obviously the more complex the blue-print, the harder it is to make exact copies, and the more the blue-print changes the harder still - until it becomes impossible.

    Shared interests, perhaps - in that I am interested why people believe what they do.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    My understanding (I hesitate to call it a belief for all that the word implies) is that consciousness is merely a pattern of (self-referential) interactions within the complexity of the brain: if you could recreate the working brain exactly then you would recreate that consciousness.

    I am further brought down this path by interesting work done on analysing swarming insects - and how it is possible to model the action of swarms with just a few instructions, yet get from this rather complex behaviour and decision making. (I can possibly provide some link to it if you wish).

    But where LG sees his "you" as being a non-corporeal thing, mine is very much corporeal - i.e. the "you" is but a pattern, however complex, of the corporeal - the way a painting is corporeal: we see the paint, the brush strokes, the individual atoms etc - but the sum, when it works together, is more than that. In the painting it is an image - in the brain it is consciousness.

    Oh yes. Big lump of pink stodgy brain-matter and attendant goo.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
    GrantWanty,

    I'll give you a clue which may clear up ( fond hope ) all this confusion. If we stick with your idea of a Lego house, AT WHAT POINT DOES IT CEASE TO BE A HOUSE ?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. greenberg until the end of the world Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,811
    If something is ever-changing, then it is not a blue-print.

    To go with your ideas - If anything, identity is in the perceived continuity of the body-mind.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,355
    Strictly speaking you might be correct - but for purposes of the analogy I think it stands.
     
  8. Grantywanty Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,888
    In this analogy is the blue print conscious? It sounds a bit like DNA. But somehow it seems to me the blueprint in us is not the part that is experiencing.
    You said many interesting things and took some interesting direction, but I am going to try to stay on the continuous self issue. I was glad you essentially came forward with a proposal. (I am rooting for you, but will be nasty when possible.)
     
  9. Grantywanty Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,888
    Why not go the whole hog and lay it out?
     
  10. greenberg until the end of the world Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,811
    But how come it stands for the purposes of the analogy?
    How come you, the analogy-maker, find this analogy adequate?
     
  11. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553


    Life is too short. The house remains a house remaains a house. I'm not being dismissive but the whole question of personal identity is riddled with problems. Arguing by analogy merely confuses the issue further.

    Just think , you start with a house and continue to have a house irrespective of the changes you make. You are changing contingent properties , not necessary ones.

    Changes in the body are not discrete but continuous, so it's not a question of having a brain change every so many nanoseconds or whatever. Cells die , others are born but our sense of self , centered in the brain. is retained over time. If you doubt this . check out the many stories of what happens when the brain is damaged
     
  12. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    what you find when the brain is damaged is that the conceived self undergoes change but the self as context remains the same - its science fiction and not science to say that there is some unchanging material element in the brain
     
  13. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
     
  14. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
     
  15. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
     
  16. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
     
  17. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
    [QUOTE=lightgigantic;1647399


    one contributing factor is their ability to seek clarifications rather than character assassinations
    ..............................................

    Exactly what I was suggesting. Join them and provide them with the clarification they are seeking. If any of them ignores you or tells you that you seem to be very confused, just accuse him of character assasination.That will put him in his place !
     
  18. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    even though I gave you the benefit of the doubt by offering this as a clarification
    you responded with this

    ..... can't see any indications of seeking a clarification here
    although there are a few stabs at character assassination ....
     
  19. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
     
  20. Grantywanty Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,888
    I agree the whole issue is riddled with problems. I was interested in what sarkus was drawing out of the analogies so I don't find this wasted time for me. The house remains a house but is it the same house? (I am not expecting the answer, and further assume you realized this was the question)




    What would be a necessay change in the brain?
    Also computers, however much you think another analogy will muddy the water, can also be brought in to the topic and raise issues of identity over time. How much do we essentially copy files over time?

    Is this sense of self something we should trust? What is it based on?
     
  21. greenberg until the end of the world Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,811
    Odd that you would say this, because earlier, you said -

    If I don't resolve the mind-body problem (including the problem of identity) for me, then I will possibly die ignorant of the answers to the most important questions of my life. In other words, I will have wasted my life.

    If I am to rely on neuroscience to resolve the mind-body problem for me, then I'm doomed and I will die before they figure it out, I will die ignorant. In other words, I will have wasted my life.

    Resolving the problem philosophically is probably the best and most feasible option for an individual.
     
  22. greenberg until the end of the world Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,811
    Just today, I got an interesting-looking book:

    Keith Lehrer: Self-trust: a study of reason, knowledge and autonomy.
    Oxford University Press, 1997.

    It elaborates on sentences like "I am worthy of my trust concerning what I accept, prefer, and how I reason".
    I'll read it and see what it has to offer.
     
  23. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2007

Share This Page