Have you existed before?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by birch, Aug 10, 2017.

  1. river

    Messages:
    11,274
    Consciousness is mechanical ?

    How so ?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Michael 345 Bali tonight Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,526
    Have we? I didn't get the memo

    And concessness is not mechanical

    I'm confused

    The thread is titled
    "Have you existed before?"
    Which to me means a exact copy

    we only need the "clone" to be similar enough
    to me means - well not you but something which is close enough is good enough
    is NOT good enough
    It's me ALL of me or it's not me

    Really it is moot point because it's unprovable either way

    Considering the odds against I would consider the case for NO I have not existed before proven beyond reasonable doubt

    Now THAT is a OK use of close enough

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. river

    Messages:
    11,274
    Has your soul existed before , that is the askence .
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2018
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Andrew256 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    100
    I meant this quote

    I assume what Write4U meant is that at the fundamental level, quantum mechanics is still mechanics, just more complex than what we call classical (newtonian) mechanics. I decided to go along and agree, because, well, it's not wrong.

    It all depends on the meaning we put in the word "Me" or "Self", and though the words do have clear definitions, how each person perceive himself/herself is very subjective.

    Earlier we've discussed what makes us to be us, and quite a range of opinions were brought up. Yes, the exact copy of you probably never existed before. But what I mean by "we don't need the exact copy of you", is that we only need the set of properties of your consciousness that allows you to be "You" (and to differentiate yourself from others), to be replicated in any other consciousness. Do you think it's unreasonable?
     
  8. Andrew256 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    100
    The word "soul" is not doing a good job of explaining the nature of consciousness. Not to mention it has a lot of religious and mystical meaning which got little to do with philosophy. But I guess in a very very crude sense, as long as we understand this is not a literal question, it can be put in such a way.
     
  9. river

    Messages:
    11,274
    Soul is not about consciousness . The soul can be blind and seeing .
     
  10. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    soul has to be the least crude terminology for consciousness there is. the concept is not tethered or requires a physical medium. what are you on about?
     
  11. Michael 345 Bali tonight Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,526
    Write4U said:
    Quantum entanglement and quantum superposition are mechanical functions and therefore subject to the same argument that "classical quantum mechanics cannot explain consciousness.

    I don't know enough about quantum mechanics to have a view about it being or not being mechanical or not (although I guess the name should be a clue for me

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    )

    But the post from write4U says classical quantum mechanics cannot explain consciousness

    You appear to be going round in circles

    Of course your view of yourself is subjective - you are within yourself talking and judging yourself. You could not be anything other than objective

    You then say that "we don't need the exact copy of you", is that we only need the set of properties of your consciousness that allows you to be "You" (and to differentiate yourself from others), to be replicated in any other consciousness

    What parts of the exact copy of you would you leave out to just keep the set of properties of your consciousness that allows you to be "You" ?

    Can't be done. The exact copy is the set of properties.

    Only in the sense it's impossible

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Michael 345 Bali tonight Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,526
    The soul does not exist so it cannot explain anything religious or not

    Concessness can be measured but it's Nature is a puzzle

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. river

    Messages:
    11,274
    Why do think the Soul does not exist ?
     
  14. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,750
    Because it ain't so until it's so.
    If someone wants to assert that souls do exist, they'll have to make a case for it.
     
  15. river

    Messages:
    11,274
  16. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    there is simply things about consciousness we do not know as well as how we pick up information from our environment as well as eachother.

    there could be a case for souls. for instance, when i was pregnant with my son i was into comic books but as soon as he was born, that interest vanished or 'left me'. afterwards, all i could think was what the heck was all that about. guess what? my son was into marvel comics and figures, especially batman, superman etc.

    the downside of being strictly a literalist is they miss a lot of subtle info, events, dynamics and connections that's right under their nose if they didn't filter it out of their (even) conscious awareness. it's a choice to only notice the literal, probably it makes life a lot easier to compartmentalize.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2018
  17. Michael 345 Bali tonight Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,526
    I think the problem with literalist is they don't do stupid

    They can be fanatics about evidence. Which is a obvious failing on their part

    Of course the Woo Woo brigade never provide evidence

    Literalist seize the moment to piss off the Woo Woo's, if the Woo Woo's put anything forward, by claiming
    THAT'S NOT evidence
    Literalist follow up by giving details of what they consider evidence and proclaim
    NOW THAT'S WHAT YOU CALL EVIDENCE

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    PS - Has any survey been conducted which indicates the likelihood of a belief in one Woo Woo subset sets a person up for belief in any of the others?

    Literalist don't have any such concerns because there is only one reality

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    i noticed you took no notice of what i posted or refused to consider it since it may crack the skull. let me use my psychic powers: either you will state that is not what happened (because that's such a clever retort) or there is no 'scientific' evidence. as if reality needs scientific evidence for anything to be real first or it's all woowoo

    you know there is something to be said about stupidity and those who are unable to grasp reality. it definitely comes in all shapes and sizes and there is more than one version. one is that literalists have huge gaping blindspots of their own.
     
  19. Michael 345 Bali tonight Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,526
    There is so so so much in reality which nobody from the top Scientists to the lowest hobo knows anything about

    Hobo's don't have much of it chance of knowing anything about say Quantum mechanics (as probably top Scientists will not know anything about being a hobo and what knowledge a hobo needs to know)

    I suspect Scientists have more chance of obtaining hobo knowledge than hobo's obtaining Science knowledge

    let me use my psychic powers: either you will state that is not what happened (because that's such a clever retort) or there is no 'scientific' evidence

    Your psychic powers failed you. I didn't even read the post. My Woo Woo bin is full at the moment. If I get the chance, or Huey Dewey and Louie do some brain clean out, it will stay full

    you know there is something to be said about stupidity and those who are unable to grasp reality.

    Yes I have looked after a few in padded rooms and they are well looked after. Those are the ones at the extreme and I know most can take care of themselves

    reality. it definitely comes in all shapes and sizes and there is more than one version. one is that literalists have huge gaping blindspots of their own

    Funny. Oh you're serious. I've only ever lived in one reality. I've already booked my next Bali holiday

    If you can let me know where other realities are located and travel agents who deal with them perhaps I will try a few weeks in one of those next time. It sure would get rid of as you say my huge gaping blindspots

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    you completely miss the point. and if you are so smart being a literalist, why did you miss it?

    the point is only elitist "literalist" thinking and the consequence of that is a form of 'perpetual' ignorance of a different facet of reality. that is the point.

    it doesn't matter if someone has the capability to obtain knowledge in a certain area if they refuse to do so or incapable of realizing it's reality in the first place.

    this is not about being a scientist or a hobo is an erroneous analogy in relation to what i explained as an experiences like i described (among others who have also) has nothing to do with one's station in life or profession. they come from all walks of life, not just hobos.

    there is an unfair assessment as to what constitutes reality. for one, as someone who has been a hobo, i know that if i wanted to and wanted to seriously delve into it, i could learn quantum mechanics, physics or most any subject but that is not what my area of questions about life revolve around. but still, just because i am not knowledgeable about those subjects or very little, doesn't mean i go around discounting what their area of interest or knowledge( so far) is and make partial judgements on what is and isn't reality as if it is all known. that's because it would be stupid. many on this forum (similar to you) make those same blind assumptions of what is not possible and that is just as much an intellectual error.


    how is it that i, as a person, who is capable of just not limiting myself to a literalist view, seem to have no problems with critical thinking anymore than you do as well as just as or perhaps even more lucid (in other ways)?
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2018
  21. Michael 345 Bali tonight Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,526
    If I am smart - really I don't know my level of smartness. I know I can work things out others struggle with, I know I struggle with working out somethings others have no trouble with. I've never worried about my level of smartness and have been content to try and understand as much as I can about the Universe for no particular reason. I don't have any burning desire to be say a super villian and when I was nursing to help people recover from what ever it was that put them there

    And I still really do not have much idea about the point I am supposed to have missed

    I live in one reality. I understand some people think that there is more to reality than I can see / understand / know. If that is the point OK. You I take it from your post think there is more to reality and you are under the impression I do not see that more. Perhaps deeper than that not only do I not see it I hold the view the more does not exist

    OK if that is the point I concede. I don't see any more so I don't believe more exist

    You see more and tell me more exist

    The sticking point seems to be evidence

    It appears you, and numerous others, have had experiences others like myself have not had and those experiences have given you the knowledge about other realities. OK I get that

    Let me try to explain why I don't believe in the other realities as you do

    I am a champion swimmer (this is a fictional story). I have won numerous gold medals and trophies for various feats of swimming. This is my reality

    One day I find myself in the middle of the desert with nothing but the clothes on my back and in the company of a hermit who has never seen more water than the amount needed to fill his kettle

    How do I explain, what swimming is, a swimming pool a lake, a ocean?

    I don't think I could. It's may reality and he might smile and nod in agreement while at the same time thinking "I've got a nut case here"

    He's operating from his reality and wants evidence of these pool things and lake things and ocean things which my personal experience of them cannot give him

    Fortunately I can provide him with the evidence and he went on to become a better swimmer than me (Told you work of fiction

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    )

    Give me evidence and I will be better advocate for what I call Woo Woo now. I will be the champion of champions of Woo Woo when I have evidence

    Until then I will promote reality as I see it

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. Andrew256 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    100
    100% agree. As I've mentioned, we as species are only scratching the surface at this point.



    Regrettably, but have to agree.

    I think too many people are leaning either towards believing or not believing. There is also is a third option - to do neither, but consider the possibility. We can consider the possibility as long as the laws of reality (and what information we have about them) does not explicitly contradict this possibility, nor does explicitly prove it, plus applying some common sense. In religion, this fall on the shoulders of Agnosticism (and I'm myself an agnostic). But I think this concept can be applied not just to religion, but to other philosophical views too.

    Agree, moot point indeed. However why do we engage in conversation at all on philosophical topics (not we specifically, but humans in general)? To prove something? No. To me, we do this to stimulate thinking, to explore other's point of views, and if we find something worth noting from them, to correct our own views. I apologize to anyone who find my opinions to be credulous, but I'm always open to changing them as soon as I see convincing arguments. This is the only way to stay open-minded.


    On an off-topic note, once upon a time, a hobo came up to me, and I don't remember exactly how the conversation started, but he started to explain some complex math to me, writing huge formulas on the unfolded package from cigarettes. I didn't understand sh*t back than, and maybe it was rubbish, but knowing my country, it's pretty possible that he was an ex-mathematician or ex-teacher who lost everything.
     
  23. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    there is always more. we can see the evidence from all the discoveries that have built up from the past to the present. much of what is known today would have been considered nuts.

    as for who is a literalist, anyone can be using the five senses we use generally everyday.

    but how can one not realize the trend of the further we parse down reality, the more subtle and abstract it becomes. even math has no basis in physical reality, it is actually completely abstract and invented (made up) as a contruct to navigate or define the world (roughly, yes, roughly, not exact or encompassing all).

    we can't even see much of existence without a microscope or telescope. a hundred years ago, if you told someone that particles could possibly be waves, they would have laughed you out of the room.

    we can't see, taste, touch or even feel radio waves. electricity, electromagnetic radiation (just it's effects) or gravity etc. much of physics which is the most popular topic subsect of science on this forum is theoretical. this could all be viewed as magic (though it isn't).

    and of all the things we have yet to know is all the ways the mind/consciousness can work and it's effects and relationship to the outer world. the double split experiment indicates that consciousness can effect the behavior of matter on an unseen level and that's just by observation. we don't even know how it behaves this way still or why.

    i am a literalist in that i'm aware there is a mechanism to everything. but the point i'm making is i'm not going to pretend and stick my head in the sand when something out of the ordinary occurs or to agree with others or pretend it is impossible because it doesn't fit a current model of reality.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2018

Share This Page