The definition of life

[coldcanuk]

Hello,
I am wondering if anyone here knows if there is a consensus on the definition of life? I know that there will be many, religious, legal etc. How do we define an organism as alive? Though I should add some specificity here. I am looking for a definition of sentient life.

[The True Scotsman]

I think the definition would have to fall under the category of a posteriori knowledge, or something that needs to be experienced. I think any definition is going to seems lacking, because it requires one to know what life is before understanding any definition of it. That said, my definition for sentient life would be "an organized set of chemical compounds that has the ability to absorb information about its surrounding and interrupting it."

[Trent Wray]

Life = a box of chocolates :)

[Wowbagger]

"Life" can be defined in any number of different ways, depending on what you are doing.

To define "life", one must first ask: "What is it that I want to find out?"

If one is interested in how self-replicating, complex adaptive pattern recognition systems can emerge from a given environment, then one would define life very broadly: "A Complex adaptive pattern recognition system, that self replicates". This is soooo broad, that it includes computer programs that simulate "life".

If one is more interested in the bio-chemical specifics of life's origins (abiogenesis studies, for example), then one's definition would be a lot more specific. One would ask: "How do I get from this pool of chemicals to these particular molecular structures?"

If one is going to resolve philosophical questions, then... who knows? It depends on how "life" is being modeled in one's particular head, that day, I guess.

It is important to remember that we humans define what life is or is not, and the definitions we use are going to change, depending on how our needs and interests regarding life will change, over time.

Nature does not provide us with an automatic, convenient way to determine the difference between life and non-life. We humans are basically in charge of doing that.
ETA: And, I see no reason why there should be one, single, all-purpose definition, anyway.

[MrQhuest]

RE: Life in general
AFAIK, for any definition of life you can come up with, there are going to be exceptions. Nature is not bound by our rules and definitions.

RE: Sentient life
I'm still not convinced that we have any examples of that yet.

:)

MrQ

[Cainkane1]

Hello,
I am wondering if anyone here knows if there is a consensus on the definition of life? I know that there will be many, religious, legal etc. How do we define an organism as alive? Though I should add some specificity here. I am looking for a definition of sentient life.
I always thought that the definition of life was self replicating molecules.

[Wowbagger]

I always thought that the definition of life was self replicating molecules.I would say that might be slightly too broad, for anything meaningful, in most usages of the term.

I always like to throw in the word "adaptive" in there, to separate us from the supersaturated solutions of hypo fixer.
(Read The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins.)

[LightningStrike]

Life is being defined here as a life form, or form of life. A body or form is the only ever the vehicle of life. David Attenborough never studied life on earth, he studied life forms.

The only place I can study life is in my own body. I am life.

From the consciousness threads we see that it is impossible to define what I am due to the fact that there has to be some 'distance' to know it.

Being it is sufficient.

[Mojo]

I am wondering if anyone here knows if there is a consensus on the definition of life?


"That property which a being will lose as a result of falling out of a cold and mysterious cave, thirteen miles above ground level."

[Hux]

Think of life as a syndrome requiring many factors to be recognisable. Make a list.

[athon]

To add to what has been said already, you cannot treat life as a dichotomy. Rather, it's a steadily increasing complexity of factors that can be applied to a system.

My simplistic definition of life that I feel we could apply universally is 'any system of imperfectly replicating chemistry'.

We teach school students the acronym 'MRS GREN' (or NERG, for some cultural variation :D) to encourage discussion on the matter. It stands for 'movement, respiration, sensitivity, growth, reproduction, excretion and nutrition'.

Basically, a living thing will:



have some form of movement associated with it (even if it's just the transfer of molecules from one place to another)
require the use of energy to metabolise
be affected by changes in the environment
expand in size
create discrete new systems that differ to the parent system in some fashion
produce chemicals that are not required by its system
require novel chemicals it did not produce itself

Of course, there are some problems with this view. For instance, 'a system' is not something that is easy to define. Viruses themselves are discrete units, on one hand, yet require involvement within another discrete system to be considered alive. Genes can also jump around between such discrete units of cells and bacteria and viruses, seeming almost to be units unto themselves and yet unable of existing on their own. Commensals and parasites require provision of certain functions performed by other organisms to survive as well, again calling into question what is meant by 'a system'.

So, life itself, IMO, is relatively easy to spot, even if we find a puddle of chemicals that seem to have only some of its features. We might struggle to apply the term 'life' to it, but there'll be little question as to what we're seeing, even if it merely sits on the border of the term.

Athon

[Dancing David]

I always thought that the definition of life was self replicating molecules.

That is a good strat, but then we have to consider viruses, they are sort of self replicating, but they don't have a metabolism.

:)

[William1965]

Actually, I just found this article from space.com that provides a rather complete definition. news.yahoo.com/s/space/20100212/sc_space/whatislifeanewtheory

Makes sense to me, and I'm not a biologist!

William

[Darth Rotor]

Answer = Life

Question: "What prison term are you likely to get for first degree murder?"

Next, I'll take Sports for fifty, Alex ...

[Loss Leader]

Hello,
I am wondering if anyone here knows if there is a consensus on the definition of life? I know that there will be many, religious, legal etc. How do we define an organism as alive? Though I should add some specificity here. I am looking for a definition of sentient life.


The mistake is in believing that "life" is a thing - an object with exact borders and edges.

It is, instead, a concept, or even a collection of concepts. As such: there are plenty of things that are definitely alive; plenty of things that definitely aren't; and a whole lot of things sitting in the gray area where the concepts and reality differ.

Arguing about one example or another is just dancing back and forth across a line that was arbitrarily drawn in the first place.

[KingMerv00]

Life = a box of chocolates :)

Incorrect.

Life ≈ a box of chocolates

[Kihon]

Back in my college philosophy class, I argued that for any definition of life based on ability to carry out a given set of functions, one could either design a "non-living" machine that carries out an equivalent function or provide an example of a "living" biological organism that does not carry out that function. If, however, the definition is not based on function but instead on morphology, history, ect., it seems there is bias towards reserving the term for things more like us. (The robot-overlords will not be happy when skynet takes over.)

[rocketdodger]

These are better, from the wikipedia page on "Life."

**Living things are systems that tend to respond to changes in their environment, and inside themselves, in such a way as to promote their own continuation.[18]

**A network of inferior negative feedbacks (regulatory mechanisms) subordinated to a superior positive feedback (potential of expansion, reproduction).[19]

**A systemic definition of life is that living things are self-organizing and autopoietic (self-producing). Variations of this definition include Stuart Kauffman's definition as an autonomous agent or a multi-agent system capable of reproducing itself or themselves, and of completing at least one thermodynamic work cycle.[20]

I say they are "better" because they don't implicitly reference what we consider "biology," other than that biological entities are the only ones we have observed with these properties. In other words, these definitions allow for non-biological life, if it is ever encountered.

[Beerina]

Hello,
I am wondering if anyone here knows if there is a consensus on the definition of life? I know that there will be many, religious, legal etc. How do we define an organism as alive? Though I should add some specificity here. I am looking for a definition of sentient life.

Religion has long held the granting of life to be a special property animating lifeless matter, and that only (major) gods could grant it -- indeed, it seemed to be the prime requisite to define a god vs. some other lesser spiritual/magical creature.

Science now knows there is no magical "life force", and that is't just complicated chemistry. Hence there really isn't a dividing line per se, as evidenced by, say, viruses and seeds. One quote: "Scientists no longer argue about whether a virus or seed is 'alive'." They know what they are and how they work. Calling them "alive" or not is just an artificial, and inaccurate either-or label born of the ignorant past of human history.


So there is no need to have a good definition of "alive", especially w.r.t. religious or philosophical discussions, which often carry baggage of said ignorant past and the leftovers of life as a magical animating force.

[annnnoid]

Beerina

…..science knows this and science knows that and science knows this and science knows that…

Typical skeptic nonsense. I could waste a bunch of time responding but…it’s just boring. Want evidence….just watch and see if anyone can answer the OP question. It won’t happen. ‘Why’ is a good question.

....and to the question at hand...

There is life that exists within that which is incapable of self-definition.
There is life that exists within that which is capable of asking ‘what is self definition’?
And….there is life that exists within that which is capable of actually answering the question.

I’d bet Randi’s million bond bucks that there’s nobody at JREF capable of answering the question (any lurkers?). The question really is not….’what is life’….but why is it that things (us) that supposedly exist as this phenomenon (life) do not know….and, for the most part, do not know that we do not know? Something to do with the prerogatives of security methinks (and QM…………Quality Meaning). As always, The Higher Reformed Church of Bungee Jumping has the answer.

So the question becomes….are we alive, if we don’t know what life is? We could say that life is the ‘something’ that we are. But….somehow….that is a lie. Life is not the ‘something’ that we are, we are the ‘something’ that life is. A rather significant distinction. How do we know this?.....nothing more than honesty (and a few simple facts). So, if we are the ‘something’ that life is, is there something that is not known about it? The answer would seem to be ‘yes’…both individually and collectively (whatever ‘collectively’ might describe). How do we know this? Chicken bones….obviously. We don’t know how to ask the question ‘what is life’ in a way that answers why we ask it (even the most scientific of questions is asked by a scientist …but this question obviously is rather personal….however much anyone might protest otherwise). So what is it that isn’t known…..and how to find out?

We don’t seem to know what we are. What a curious defect. How about this for an interesting question: Would you rather know what you are by default….or have free will and the responsibility of finding out for yourself (and if you choose option ‘A’….where do you go to complain?)? What choices are, in fact, possible…and what decides the answer.

Perhaps this thread might occupy a single step on the brazillion inch journey of all those who exist within the central category (being composed of things incapable of understanding what it means to be a thing that asks questions that it can’t answer). But asking itself to answer the question of the permanent imagination…what are the odds (having done so I pursue the holy grail… where the words speak for themselves)? So rhetorical games keep us preoccupied….and perhaps someone notices a gap and forgets to remember it shouldn’t be there. Unlikely I suppose.

Addressed to:
No One Really
Purple Haze Crescent
No Introduction Required
Nere-How

What is life? So I called God just to find out…..’God here (this is a translation, God doesn’t usually speak English…God just speaks)…….do you really want to know?....how shall I put this…..remember those pills, the blue one….the red one….viagra?....or, as Stephen Colbert put it …”why is Canada?”…..so whadya want….I’m God, until you are too I get to be me and you get to be you.’

[Yoink]

What is life? So I called God just to find out…..’God here (this is a translation, God doesn’t usually speak English…God just speaks)…….do you really want to know?....how shall I put this…..remember those pills, the blue one….the red one….viagra?....or, as Stephen Colbert put it …”why is Canada?”…..so whadya want….I’m God, until you are too I get to be me and you get to be you.’

Well, this certainly isn't "skeptical" nonsense...but I'm not sure how it's supposed to help, exactly.

[KingMerv00]

So the question becomes….are we alive, if we don’t know what life is?

So bacteria aren't alive because they don't know what life is?

[annnnoid]

Help....? The most relevant skill in the pursuit of knowledge is the ability to ask the right questions. ‘What is sentient life?’ is the wrong question.

Sentient life (as defined in human terms….which are the only ones that we know of) is defined as the ability of the life that is sentient to know what it means by ‘sentient life’. As I said, what is relevant is not the question ‘what is sentient life’ but the question ‘why does nobody know how to answer the question’ …..given the fact that we are supposedly the thing that we are attempting to define ? The obvious conclusion is that something very fundamental is missing (speaking very simplistically). What?

Like I said. You want a definition of sentient life. You won’t get one (all you’ll get is a bunch of guesses). Why? ….considering that every answer comes from something that is supposed to be exactly that….a sentient life.

I'll give you a hint....nobody can answer the question, because nobody actually knows what it means to be alive. That's the meaning of religion....and everybody, to one degree or another, is religious. Intentionally, unintentionally, explicitly, implicitly, by choice or by default.....those are the dimensions of the human condition. Curious scientific facts actually.....all explained by QM (...............quality meaning of course, though quantum mechanics no doubt is involved in....well, everything).

[KingMerv00]

Help....? The most relevant skill in the pursuit of knowledge is the ability to ask the right questions. ‘What is sentient life?’ is the wrong question.

Sentient life (as defined in human terms….which are the only ones that we know of) is defined as the ability of the life that is sentient to know what it means by ‘sentient life’. As I said, what is relevant is not the question ‘what is sentient life’ but the question ‘why does nobody know how to answer the question’ …..given the fact that we are supposedly the thing that we are attempting to define ? The obvious conclusion is that something very fundamental is missing (speaking very simplistically). What?

Like I said. You want a definition of sentient life. You won’t get one (all you’ll get is a bunch of guesses). Why? ….considering that every answer comes from something that is supposed to be exactly that….a sentient life.

I'll give you a hint....nobody can answer the question, because nobody actually knows what it means to be alive. That's the meaning of religion....and everybody, to one degree or another, is religious. Intentionally, unintentionally, explicitly, implicitly, by choice or by default.....those are the dimensions of the human condition. Curious scientific facts actually.....all explained by QM (...............quality meaning of course, though quantum mechanics no doubt is involved in....well, everything).

The OP didn't ask about sentience. He asked about life in general.

[annnnoid]

So bacteria aren't alive because they don't know what life is?

....don't start splitting stupid hairs KM....the dude was talking about sentient life, which, for the sake of argument, we'll confine to human beings (because there is no explicit way to do otherwise). Human beings obviously exhibit a unique variety of life (we call it sentient....without really knowing what the word means or what others mean by it [if you doubt this I suggest you simply go read through the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of pages of the consciousness threads]). The only people who have ever been able to recognize the qualities that truly differentiate that uniqueness have been 'religious' (defined very generally). That is my opinion of course but I am fairly certain that eventually this will be recognized as a fact. Eventually may take quite some time though simply because the central issues of human reality are virtually impenetrable mysteries.

[annnnoid]

The OP didn't ask about sentience. He asked about life in general.

OP: Hello,
I am wondering if anyone here knows if there is a consensus on the definition of life? I know that there will be many, religious, legal etc. How do we define an organism as alive? Though I should add some specificity here. I am looking for a definition of sentient life.

[Pure Argent]

Typical skeptic nonsense. I could waste a bunch of time responding but…it’s just boring.

If it's nonsense, show why it is nonsense, rather than acting smug and condescending. You only make yourself look like an even bigger *** than you do already.

Want evidence….just watch and see if anyone can answer the OP question. It won’t happen. ‘Why’ is a good question.

Because "life" is very vaguely defined, and each person draws the line somewhere else.

There is life that exists within that which is incapable of self-definition.

Your typical mumbo-jumbo. What does this mean?

I’d bet Randi’s million bond bucks that there’s nobody at JREF capable of answering the question (any lurkers?).

Yourself excepted, of course. :rolleyes:

The question really is not….’what is life’….

I'm afraid that, yes, that is the question. Says so in the OP and everything.

but why is it that things (us) that supposedly exist as this phenomenon (life) do not know….and, for the most part, do not know that we do not know? Something to do with the prerogatives of security methinks (and QM…………Quality Meaning). As always, The Higher Reformed Church of Bungee Jumping has the answer.

Again, the definition of "life" is subjective. That's why we don't have a strict definition.

So the question becomes….are we alive, if we don’t know what life is?

And the answer is yes.

Duh.

We could say that life is the ‘something’ that we are. But….somehow….that is a lie. Life is not the ‘something’ that we are, we are the ‘something’ that life is. A rather significant distinction.

Explain how. Don't just assert.

How do we know this?.....nothing more than honesty (and a few simple facts).

These facts are?

So, if we are the ‘something’ that life is, is there something that is not known about it? The answer would seem to be ‘yes’…both individually and collectively (whatever ‘collectively’ might describe). How do we know this? Chicken bones….obviously. We don’t know how to ask the question ‘what is life’ in a way that answers why we ask it (even the most scientific of questions is asked by a scientist …but this question obviously is rather personal….however much anyone might protest otherwise). So what is it that isn’t known…..and how to find out?

Gibberish.

Perhaps this thread might occupy a single step on the brazillion inch journey of all those who exist within the central category (being composed of things incapable of understanding what it means to be a thing that asks questions that it can’t answer). But asking itself to answer the question of the permanent imagination…what are the odds (having done so I pursue the holy grail… where the words speak for themselves)? So rhetorical games keep us preoccupied….and perhaps someone notices a gap and forgets to remember it shouldn’t be there. Unlikely I suppose.

Addressed to:
No One Really
Purple Haze Crescent
No Introduction Required
Nere-How

What is life? So I called God just to find out…..’God here (this is a translation, God doesn’t usually speak English…God just speaks)…….do you really want to know?....how shall I put this…..remember those pills, the blue one….the red one….viagra?....or, as Stephen Colbert put it …”why is Canada?”…..so whadya want….I’m God, until you are too I get to be me and you get to be you.’

Try and actually make some sense if you want us to take you seriously.

Help....? The most relevant skill in the pursuit of knowledge is the ability to ask the right questions. ‘What is sentient life?’ is the wrong question.

By whose standard?

You know, annnnoid, you strike me in the same way that several other posters have over my time here at the JREF have. You fancy yourself as the intellectual superior of the world, and deign to interact with us peasants - against your better judgment, of course, but you can't just leave us to wallow in our own poor intelligences. But you can't quite manage to bring yourself down off your cloud far enough to try and talk to us: rather, you talk to yourself, and dangle the little tidbits of your thoughts over our heads and try to get us to jump for them.
This is what you think of yourself. But this image is incorrect. You know what you are? You're just another pseudo-intellectual in a long line of pseudo-intellectuals. Just like all the posters that have occupied this spot in the JREF hierarchy before you, you believe yourself to be superior and capable of formulating philosophy to rival the likes of Socrates. In truth, you are simply gibbering incoherently in a condescending tone.
Wake up, annnnoid. Try thinking for once in your life.

[KingMerv00]

OP: Hello,
I am wondering if anyone here knows if there is a consensus on the definition of life? I know that there will be many, religious, legal etc. How do we define an organism as alive? Though I should add some specificity here. I am looking for a definition of sentient life.

Oops...my mistake.

[Yoink]

I'll give you a hint....nobody can answer the question, because nobody actually knows what it means to be alive. That's the meaning of religion

The "meaning of religion" is that "nobody knows what it means to be alive"? Well, that's a rather provocative way of describing a "god of the gaps" kind of religion, but it's not indefensible. There are certain key things about which we are profoundly ignorant (though less so than we once were, and with reasonable hopes of becoming still less ignorant in the future), and rather than accept our ignorance, we project the fuzzy and ultimately meaningless notion of "god" into that void.

....and everybody, to one degree or another, is religious.

Speak for yourself, sparky. Some of us are happy enough to confess our ignorance; and would rather remain ignorant, if we can't find the answers, than accept shopworn myths to paper over the gaps in our knowledge.

As for "sentient life"--I think the only useful definitions are pragmatic ones. That is sentient whose behavior appears to me to be sentient. A robot whose behavior is indistinguishable from a human being's is sentient. The robot that builds cars in a factory assembly line isn't. Both of these claims are claims, ultimately, about the extent of my willingness to grant a special status to certain types of behavior. It is impossible to "prove" sentience and always will be (I cannot "know" that even my fellow humans are sentient in the way that I perceive myself to be).

[kittynh]

Typical skeptic nonsense. I could waste a bunch of time responding but…it’s just boring. Want evidence….just watch and see if anyone can answer the OP question. It won’t happen. ‘Why’ is a good question.

....and to the question at hand...

There is life that exists within that which is incapable of self-definition.
There is life that exists within that which is capable of asking ‘what is self definition’?
And….there is life that exists within that which is capable of actually answering the question.

I’d bet Randi’s million bond bucks that there’s nobody at JREF capable of answering the question (any lurkers?). The question really is not….’what is life’….but why is it that things (us) that supposedly exist as this phenomenon (life) do not know….and, for the most part, do not know that we do not know? Something to do with the prerogatives of security methinks (and QM…………Quality Meaning). As always, The Higher Reformed Church of Bungee Jumping has the answer.

So the question becomes….are we alive, if we don’t know what life is? We could say that life is the ‘something’ that we are. But….somehow….that is a lie. Life is not the ‘something’ that we are, we are the ‘something’ that life is. A rather significant distinction. How do we know this?.....nothing more than honesty (and a few simple facts). So, if we are the ‘something’ that life is, is there something that is not known about it? The answer would seem to be ‘yes’…both individually and collectively (whatever ‘collectively’ might describe). How do we know this? Chicken bones….obviously. We don’t know how to ask the question ‘what is life’ in a way that answers why we ask it (even the most scientific of questions is asked by a scientist …but this question obviously is rather personal….however much anyone might protest otherwise). So what is it that isn’t known…..and how to find out?

We don’t seem to know what we are. What a curious defect. How about this for an interesting question: Would you rather know what you are by default….or have free will and the responsibility of finding out for yourself (and if you choose option ‘A’….where do you go to complain?)? What choices are, in fact, possible…and what decides the answer.

Perhaps this thread might occupy a single step on the brazillion inch journey of all those who exist within the central category (being composed of things incapable of understanding what it means to be a thing that asks questions that it can’t answer). But asking itself to answer the question of the permanent imagination…what are the odds (having done so I pursue the holy grail… where the words speak for themselves)? So rhetorical games keep us preoccupied….and perhaps someone notices a gap and forgets to remember it shouldn’t be there. Unlikely I suppose.

Addressed to:
No One Really
Purple Haze Crescent
No Introduction Required
Nere-How

What is life? So I called God just to find out…..’God here (this is a translation, God doesn’t usually speak English…God just speaks)…….do you really want to know?....how shall I put this…..remember those pills, the blue one….the red one….viagra?....or, as Stephen Colbert put it …”why is Canada?”…..so whadya want….I’m God, until you are too I get to be me and you get to be you.’

Wait wait wait dude! Blaise Pascal said that WAY WAY better and WAY more interesting and WAY more informative and thought inducing WAY WAY before you posted here acting all like you just thought that up.

Dude, go buy a copy of his epic and classic. It's more than the "thinking reed" and "bet" (that was small potatoes for him).

Yeah, it's neat, but let's not make MANKIND the only creature able to appreciate the finality of life and engage in compassion and deeper thinking. Biologist will attest to different. But most religions disregard this also, beause it's all NEW (like even newer than that newfangled Darwin stuff).

Look, someone just copy and past Pascal here ok? He's dead and I'm sure he'd be thrilled to be on a skeptic forum. But please, second rate Pascal? Oh come ON, you even used the word "bet". Sigh, read the ENTIRE pensees please... then just cut and paste.

[jiggeryqua]

So there is no need to have a good definition of "alive".

Well I sincerely hope someone comes up with one before anybody tries to bury me.

[annnnoid]

Argent….Beerina’s post was simply another example of pseudo science. A not uncommon attitude among skeptics…that science knows far more than it does. I’ll give you some other examples of it.

‘ You can argue all you want that science does not know how things work...but it's simply not true. ’
…and…
‘ This is false. We know how things work. ’

…so do you know who wrote these two statements? The same person who wrote the following statement:

‘Skeptics do not know all the answers, nor do we pretend to.’

That person was you.

As for the rest of it….

If it's nonsense, show why it is nonsense, rather than acting smug and condescending. You only make yourself look like an even bigger *** than you do already.

To put it bluntly, I will (generally speaking) be pleasant to skeptics who do not pretend to have answers to things that have no answers. This is the exact attitude that generates all the ridicule, contempt, and dismissal that is so frequently aimed at religious perspectives. Many skeptics are so convinced they know what’s going on and that this gives them a legitimate platform to denounce religion and religious people. The platform is, for the most part, a complete illusion. It’s just a lot more effective to blow it to pieces than dismantle it gently.
Quote:
Want evidence….just watch and see if anyone can answer the OP question. It won’t happen. ‘Why’ is a good question.
Because "life" is very vaguely defined, and each person draws the line somewhere else.
….which, of course, begs the question that occupies every consciousness thread at JREF. Why is it vaguely defined? What is it that is vaguely defined? How can it be defined not vaguely?
Quote:
There is life that exists within that which is incapable of self-definition.
Your typical mumbo-jumbo. What does this mean?
Typical mumbo-jumbo means ….a houseplant (or your pet worm, or the squirrel that is about to be flattened by a car, etc. etc.) is incapable of ‘saying’….’I am a houseplant because Argent just watered me and I live in a teacup with brown stuff in it and I like warm sun and I wonder what it would be like to be a 747….etc. etc. etc.’…..compared to a human being who can ask ‘who / what am I?’
Quote:
I’d bet Randi’s million bond bucks that there’s nobody at JREF capable of answering the question (any lurkers?).
Yourself excepted, of course.
….did I somewhere suggest that I could answer the question?
Quote:
The question really is not….’what is life’….
I'm afraid that, yes, that is the question. Says so in the OP and everything.
….and I ask ‘why can nobody answer the question’? Since nobody can, it can hardly be considered irrelevant. Usually if a scientist has a question that they can’t answer they try to figure out why they can’t answer it rather than simply wasting endless time asking the question over and over and over and over.
Quote:
but why is it that things (us) that supposedly exist as this phenomenon (life) do not know….and, for the most part, do not know that we do not know? Something to do with the prerogatives of security methinks (and QM…………Quality Meaning). As always, The Higher Reformed Church of Bungee Jumping has the answer.
Again, the definition of "life" is subjective. That's why we don't have a strict definition.
What the hell does this mean? The ability to define life is subjective (so every description will be different but we will all be describing the same thing)? Or each of us experiences something different? Or each of us will describe a different thing in a different way but it’s actually the same thing seemingly experienced and described in a different way? Or we each know exactly what life is but we just can’t describe it? Or we don’t know what it is so we can’t describe it? Or we know what it is but we can’t be too ‘strict’ because it’s different for each of us? Or what….exactly! And what do you mean by a ‘strict definition’? I (and, no doubt, every cognitive scientist on the planet) am interested to know why we don’t know what life actually is…..sorry, why we don’t have a ‘strict definition’ of what life actually is.
Quote:
So the question becomes….are we alive, if we don’t know what life is?
And the answer is yes.

Duh.
….oh yeah…so the answer is duh. How clever.

Wittgenstein had this saying. That which cannot be spoken of must be passed over in silence (of course, he was just one of the smartest philosophers of the past century, no doubt you know more). So are you insisting you know the meaning of the word ‘alive’ as it relates to a human being (you have insisted that we are, in fact, described by this word [you claimed we are, in fact, alive]…so what does it mean)? Perhaps you might enlighten us with your wisdom because so far every cognitive scientist on the planet has been utterly unable to explain or understand the reality.
Quote:
We could say that life is the ‘something’ that we are. But….somehow….that is a lie. Life is not the ‘something’ that we are, we are the ‘something’ that life is. A rather significant distinction.
Explain how. Don't just assert.
Oh of course Argent….thank you for the education.
Did you create you? Do you create you? Do you control you? Do you know what you are? Do you know how you happen? Do you know who you are? Do you explicitly and specifically and comprehensively and indisputably know anything at all about yourself? Prove it!
Quote:
How do we know this?.....nothing more than honesty (and a few simple facts).
These facts are?
…see above!
Quote:
So, if we are the ‘something’ that life is, is there something that is not known about it? The answer would seem to be ‘yes’…both individually and collectively (whatever ‘collectively’ might describe). How do we know this? Chicken bones….obviously. We don’t know how to ask the question ‘what is life’ in a way that answers why we ask it (even the most scientific of questions is asked by a scientist …but this question obviously is rather personal….however much anyone might protest otherwise). So what is it that isn’t known…..and how to find out?
Gibberish.
….this coming from the dude who couldn’t decide if science does, or does not, know everything.

Try and actually make some sense if you want us to take you seriously.
…whether or not you take me seriously is not something I take seriously. There are quite a number of ‘people’ here who I take seriously. So far you are not one of them. That may change….depending, perhaps, on your inclination to make claims that have no substance.

Kittynh….no doubt Mr. Pascal did do a better job. Never read the ‘Pensees’ (or anything else by Blaise…except maybe a bit of the math in high school) but I guess I’ll take it as a compliment that I managed to have generated a similar POV. Maybe you’d like to expand on the rest of what you wrote cause it’s not all that clear.

[Yoink]

Wittgenstein had this saying. That which cannot be spoken of must be passed over in silence (of course, he was just one of the smartest philosophers of the past century, no doubt you know more).

You might want to notice that Wittgenstein did not say "That which cannot be spoken of is a handy place to put our ideas of god into."

To say "it is impossible to provide a universal and objectively-grounded definition of 'sentient life'" is not to offer a proof of the existence of God, anymore than saying "we cannot prove that there is some upper limit to the number of angels who could, in theory, dance upon the head of a pin" is proof of the existence of God.

That there are some questions to which science will not provide a definitive answer is not proof that those questions will receive a better answer (or, indeed, any answer) from religion.

[Pure Argent]

Argent….Beerina’s post was simply another example of pseudo science. A not uncommon attitude among skeptics…that science knows far more than it does. I’ll give you some other examples of it.

…and…

…so do you know who wrote these two statements? The same person who wrote the following statement:

That person was you.

Yes, I know.

Your point?

….which, of course, begs the question that occupies every consciousness thread at JREF. Why is it vaguely defined? What is it that is vaguely defined? How can it be defined not vaguely?

Dunno.

Typical mumbo-jumbo means ….a houseplant (or your pet worm, or the squirrel that is about to be flattened by a car, etc. etc.) is incapable of ‘saying’….’I am a houseplant because Argent just watered me and I live in a teacup with brown stuff in it and I like warm sun and I wonder what it would be like to be a 747….etc. etc. etc.’…..compared to a human being who can ask ‘who / what am I?’

Gotcha. Thank you for clarifying. In future, try to make your arguments clear from the get-go, so that you don't have to come back and restate it. We can't read your mind.

….did I somewhere suggest that I could answer the question?

No, you did not. Your attitude suggested that you were capable of doing so. If this was not intended, I apologize, but I still believe that your condescending attitude needs work.

….and I ask ‘why can nobody answer the question’? Since nobody can, it can hardly be considered irrelevant. Usually if a scientist has a question that they can’t answer they try to figure out why they can’t answer it rather than simply wasting endless time asking the question over and over and over and over.

Yes. Your point?

What the hell does this mean? The ability to define life is subjective (so every description will be different but we will all be describing the same thing)? Or each of us experiences something different? Or each of us will describe a different thing in a different way but it’s actually the same thing seemingly experienced and described in a different way? Or we each know exactly what life is but we just can’t describe it? Or we don’t know what it is so we can’t describe it? Or we know what it is but we can’t be too ‘strict’ because it’s different for each of us? Or what….exactly!

What I mean is that each person has a different definition of what constitutes life. We can experience the exact same thing, but some things may be considered "life" by me that would not be considered "life" by you.

And what do you mean by a ‘strict definition’? I (and, no doubt, every cognitive scientist on the planet) am interested to know why we don’t know what life actually is…..sorry, why we don’t have a ‘strict definition’ of what life actually is.

I mean a concrete, quantifiable definition, such as "a self-replicating series or collection of chemical reactions".

….oh yeah…so the answer is duh. How clever.

Yes. It is. Don't ask stupid questions if you don't want answers that are so blatantly obvious.

Wittgenstein had this saying. That which cannot be spoken of must be passed over in silence (of course, he was just one of the smartest philosophers of the past century, no doubt you know more).

Straw man.

So are you insisting you know the meaning of the word ‘alive’ as it relates to a human being (you have insisted that we are, in fact, described by this word [you claimed we are, in fact, alive]…so what does it mean)? Perhaps you might enlighten us with your wisdom because so far every cognitive scientist on the planet has been utterly unable to explain or understand the reality.

As I have said, the definition of life is subjective. My definition of "life" happens to encompass humans.

Did you create you?

No.

Do you create you?

No.

Do you control you?

No.

Do you know what you are?

What, you mean down to the last detail? No. But I don't know what a rabbit is down to the last detail either. I know who I am well enough to be able to identify myself.

Do you know how you happen?

Define "happen".

Do you know who you are?

Yes.

Do you explicitly and specifically and comprehensively and indisputably know anything at all about yourself?

Some things, yes. Other things, no. For example, I know that I was born on October 19. I know that I have lived in Leominster, Massachusetts. I know how tall I am. Et cetera.

Prove it!

To what end?
Again, I don't know every detail about myself. But I know enough about myself to know who I am.

….this coming from the dude who couldn’t decide if science does, or does not, know everything.

Nice straw man, there.

I have stated that we know how things work. This does not mean that we know how all things work. Or are you unable to distinguish between "all" and "some"?

…whether or not you take me seriously is not something I take seriously.

Good thing, too.

There are quite a number of ‘people’ here who I take seriously. So far you are not one of them. That may change….depending, perhaps, on your inclination to make claims that have no substance.

THE IRONY
IT BURNS

[kittynh]

Please do not take the comparison to Pascal as a compliment. Your arguement is to his a poor and poorly thought out imitation. Also it should be noted that Pascal wrote a book, not just posted for the heck of it on a skeptic forum.

Ask yourself as someone that obviously has some spiritual foundation in their life where is the theist foundation for what you are doing now?

Really, unless you are a fundamentalist that assumes everyone that posts here is an atheist (sorry dude, you have Quakers, Buddhists and Christians to say nothing of our friends that give their kids Bar and Bat Mitzvahs) what is your point? The same point a snarky skeptic makes when they go over to "Biblebelievers.com" to make a fuss and get a cheap thrill?

You aren't accepting that indeed as believers and skeptics should agree, there are times when we have to say "well we dont know YET". Indeed we can't know it all. Problem is with over the top believers every time something IS explained by science there is always something else science hasn't explained yet. That's why science is flexible and changes, building upon itself. Religion when it uses "well explain THAT, can't huh? That's cause it's GOD" is acting just like the Bigfoot and ufo fanatics.

I work with alien abductees and the ufo community. Every weird photograph or abduction experience I can not in detail explain becomes "oh well SEE? That is a UFO as you have NO explaination for it." If I do have an explaination, they throw another grainy photograph as me and say, "well explain THAT huh?"

Problem is, they have to prove there are aliens out there FIRST. For all I know, it could be unicorns or leprachauns flying around. You can't explain an unknown with another unknown.

You can't use God as an explaination unless you can prove there is a God. If you are going that route.

Myself, I give science credit and due respect. I don't mock or make fun of it or claim there is anything really more important that another human being can do than to look at our world and explain it. This curiosity that leads scientists to explore the unknown has lead to not only many inventions and medications that have extended human life. It also has lead to a great understanding of the beauty and complexity of this universe in which we live. It has, even more than formal religion, given mankind a sense of how small he trully is, and yet given us the tools to make life better not only for ourselves but for those less fortunate. The earthquake in Haiti is a great example. The planes, medicine and trained doctors and nurses and rescue people saved so many lives. One day science may be able to predict such quakes before hand saving even more lives.

Now, Haiti is also a place that many good groups, some religious and some not, have worked hard for years to make life better for Haitians. The religious groups use science, the science of medicine and engineering and education to make life better. A partnership between religion and science that works very well in many parts of the world. That's because there is respect on both sides.

I have a number of Islamic families that I know. Part of their religion is the highest calling anyone can have is a job where they serve others. It just so happens the Islamic families I know are all doctors. Brain surgery, and one of the doctors is a brain surgeon, requires science not prayer! His religion gave him the inspiration and dedication to decide on medical school, but his respect for science, and his ability to see that religion and science can and need to viewed as seperate, lead to his being a world class surgeon.

Science and religion, its apples and oranges. No make that apples and a shoe. You can fight and compare, but until you understand the very real difference - you will never be able to fully appreciate either.

[kittynh]

Go read "Spook" it's a good book and covers a lot of your questions you seem to have. It's not a skeptic book either, so you may learn something as you'll be more open about it. The chapter where they weigh the people just after death is neat.

How about you are dead when your Hayflick wears out. There is a scientific definition for you!

[Beerina]

Beerina

…..science knows this and science knows that and science knows this and science knows that…

Typical skeptic nonsense. I could waste a bunch of time responding but…it’s just boring. Want evidence….just watch and see if anyone can answer the OP question. It won’t happen. ‘Why’ is a good question.

I am rather used to people responding to me with, "You're wrong and it's not worth my time to to say why." However, they are rarely capable of actually explaining how I'm wrong.

That's how I know I have them trapped in a corner.

....and to the question at hand...

There is life that exists within that which is incapable of self-definition.

I assume you mean animals or microbes.


There is life that exists within that which is capable of asking ‘what is self definition’?

Certainly. But there may also be things which are capable of asking that question which are not alive.

At this point, I suspect you are confused on what "life" means. Are you referring to consciousness or to some kind of biological notion? As I stated above, the concept of a "life force" animating matter is now known to be incorrect.


And….there is life that exists within that which is capable of actually answering the question.

Again, yes, but is not necessarily limited to "alive" things, say, AI of the future. Which returns again to how, exactly, are you trying to define "life".



I’d bet Randi’s million bond bucks that there’s nobody at JREF capable of answering the question (any lurkers?).

Let's see if we can extract a succinct, actual question, since my earlier post, though correct, was not what you were looking for.

The question really is not….’what is life’….but why is it that things (us) that supposedly exist as this phenomenon (life) do not know….and, for the most part, do not know that we do not know? Something to do with the prerogatives of security methinks (and QM…………Quality Meaning). As always, The Higher Reformed Church of Bungee Jumping has the answer.

Hahahaha.


Wait. I'm not done holding my sides.


Hahahaha.


Ok, proceed.



So the question becomes….are we alive, if we don’t know what life is?

We do, I explained it earlier. It's chemistry. Moreover, the dividing line is blurry and technically irrelevant, viz seeds or viruses.


(Much deletia re: knowing and something and something)

We don’t seem to know what we are.

We are biological entities with a powerful brain that, we have evidence for, somehow gives rise to the conscious experience.

When we die, we die, and that's that, although there's an outside chance this is some kind of simulation or experimental universe or there will be a techno-rapture when advanced science of the future resurrects the dead of the past.

I give maybe a 30-40% chance of any of those latter scenarios from playing out, and I may very well be optimistic. "Die" seems a certainty, though.


What a curious defect. How about this for an interesting question: Would you rather know what you are by default….or have free will and the responsibility of finding out for yourself (and if you choose option ‘A’….where do you go to complain?)? What choices are, in fact, possible…and what decides the answer.

We did find out for ourselves, and we did so in a deterministic universe with, perhaps, true random influences percolating up from the quantum level from time to time.

But determinism or computational capacity (which is what you are really saying when you say "what choices are...possible") have nothing to do with either life or, I submit, intelligence.

[Beerina]

Help....? The most relevant skill in the pursuit of knowledge is the ability to ask the right questions. ‘What is sentient life?’ is the wrong question.

Sentient life (as defined in human terms….which are the only ones that we know of) is defined as the ability of the life that is sentient to know what it means by ‘sentient life’.

As a derivate, corollary definition, this might be equivalent and thus sufficient. But more importantly, are you referring to the distinction between the pre-reflective and reflective cogito? The pre-reflective is generally accepted as intelligent.



As I said, what is relevant is not the question ‘what is sentient life’ but the question ‘why does nobody know how to answer the question’

I gave you the answer.

…..given the fact that we are supposedly the thing that we are attempting to define ?

This really doesn't have anything to do with defining it. There are specific classes of problems that choke on self-reference, and that's dealt with elsewhere (Goedel, Turing, Halting problem et al.) and is beyond the scope of "what is life", and in any case, creating a definition of life isn't one of them.


The obvious conclusion is that something very fundamental is missing (speaking very simplistically). What?

Like I said. You want a definition of sentient life. You won’t get one (all you’ll get is a bunch of guesses). Why? ….considering that every answer comes from something that is supposed to be exactly that….a sentient life.

I, a sentient life form, gave you a definition. You haven't said how it is wrong, only claimed that it is wrong.

Moreover, it should be irrelevant to you whether I am sentient, a god, or an unconscious AI from some aliens. You have been presented with a brute fact of a definition, and haven't addressed it.

[Pure Argent]

Go read "Spook" it's a good book and covers a lot of your questions you seem to have. It's not a skeptic book either, so you may learn something as you'll be more open about it. The chapter where they weigh the people just after death is neat.

I second the recommendation. Spook was great.

[annnnoid]

Kittynh…

I am not a Christian, I am not a theist, my spirituality and interpretation of the word ‘God’ resemble nothing that you have demonstrated the slightest understanding of and I also have a substantial involvement in the world of science. The conclusions you jump to are typical though….and I’ve seen almost all of them written before by any number of skeptics. So far I’ve not received any such response from anyone who has professed any other POV (the Christians, Buddhists, Quakers, etc. that you refer to). It’s always just the skeptics who make all these simplistic and superficial assumptions. I don’t really care, but they are, for the most part, all wrong. The conclusions you come to about my points are wrong, the conclusions you come to about me are wrong, and very often, the conclusions you come to about your own conclusions are wrong as well.

Sometimes I respond….when I have some time for cheap thrills. This isn’t one of them. Really Kittynh….over twenty thousand posts….and the best you can come up with is the tired old ‘prove there’s a God’ line. Even I can do way better than that, and I’m not even an atheist! If that’s the level at which you wish to have discussions that’s fine, I have no issue with it….no doubt there are numerous individuals here who are happy to oblige….I’m just not one of them.

As for your book suggestion, thanks but not interested. But if you, on the other hand, would like a real challenge, I’d suggest this one ‘Immortal Remains: The Evidence for Life After Death.’

Beerina….ok…what it all comes down to is very very simple. The OP is asking for a definition of sentient life (that’s what it says…sentient life…for which there is no definition…because no one knows what it means [obviously, or else there would be a definition and this thread wouldn’t happen]). He / she is simply asking ‘what is me?’ A bunch of words describing the current state of our collective scientific understanding of human electro-bio-chemical phenomenon does not equal an answer. It just means you know how to be religious (IOW….you believe a whole bunch of words [or even one word] describe something but you do not know what the whole bunch of words actually describe [nobody else does either so I’m reasonably certain you don’t …..unless your name is Jesus]). One of the most respected cognitive scientists in the world, Noam Chomsky, has described our scientific understanding of human nature as ‘very thin….and likely to remain so’. Ergo, we don’t have anything resembling a definition for the word ‘life’. Period. If you want more evidence of this fact, go and read all the consciousness threads at JREF. The only conclusion anyone ever comes to is that no one ever comes to any conclusions.

Conclusion: We don’t know what a human being (aka: you) is! ………..Deal with it.

I present two simple related points…which, IMO, are the questions that actually matter:
-how is ‘scientific’ ignorance related to personal ignorance (IOW…if I don’t know what I am, do I not know who I am?)
-why do we not know our own identity?...or…why do we not know how to answer the question ‘what am I?’….what does this imply?

[I Ratant]

I always thought that the definition of life was self replicating molecules.
.
I'd go with that also, sentience isn't a factor.
Bacteria, viruses, plants, they're alive.
An ice cube isn't.

[I Ratant]

OP: Hello,
I am wondering if anyone here knows if there is a consensus on the definition of life? I know that there will be many, religious, legal etc. How do we define an organism as alive? Though I should add some specificity here. I am looking for a definition of sentient life.
.
Quest on, Don Quixoat!
And read and comprehend the OP.
It's not even a windmill.

[Yoink]

-how is ‘scientific’ ignorance related to personal ignorance

Meaningless question and unrelated to what follows.

(IOW…if I don’t know what I am, do I not know who I am?)

If I can't explain how an internal combustion engine works, do I not know what a car is? If I am ignorant as to a horse's anatomy, do I not know what a horse is?

These are simply silly questions.

-why do we not know our own identity?

We all know our own identity. Someone who doesn't know their own identity is suffering from a rather dramatic mental illness.

...or…why do we not know how to answer the question ‘what am I?’….what does this imply?

You're simply smuggling in a very peculiar definition of the question 'what am I.' You're insisting, illegitimately, that it include a complete understanding of how a sense of selfhood is generated. But why should it? By that standard there is no "what is..." question that anybody can answer. Knowing what I am is not the same as knowing who I am. Not knowing absolutely "what" I am has no implications whatsoever for whether or not I know "who" I am.

[Pure Argent]

So far I’ve not received any such response from anyone who has professed any other POV (the Christians, Buddhists, Quakers, etc. that you refer to).

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that kittynh is, herself, a Christian.

It’s always just the skeptics who make all these simplistic and superficial assumptions.

HA

I don’t really care, but they are, for the most part, all wrong.

Demonstrate how. Don't just assert. Especially don't assert if, when challenged, your only reaction is to ignore the rebuttal in favor of more arrogance.

The conclusions you come to about my points are wrong

Then show how. Don't just assert. It isn't that difficult a concept to grasp.
This is a discussion forum. If you aren't going to discuss, don't post.

the conclusions you come to about your own conclusions are wrong as well.

Evidence?

<snip arrogant BS>

He / she is simply asking ‘what is me?’ A bunch of words describing the current state of our collective scientific understanding of human electro-bio-chemical phenomenon does not equal an answer.

Actually, it does. Just because you want there to be something more doesn't mean that there necessarily is.

[Pure Argent]

.
I'd go with that also, sentience isn't a factor.
Bacteria, viruses, plants, they're alive.
An ice cube isn't.

This is also the definition which I use. Life doesn't depend on consciousness - come to it, consciousness doesn't depend on life, either.

[kittynh]

wow annnoid, everyone here knows I am a practicing Christian. That's why the believers on this forum often don't have much to do with the drop in theist. Or fundie.

People have given you some good definitions of life.

I say when your Hayflick stops you are dead, before that there is both a scientific definiton and a religious definition. They are different.

Living with uncertainty is a part of both science and most religions. Finding answers is also a part of science and most religions.

I know that my daughter at MIT works with many great scientists that seek answers, both of science and faith.

I know that at my church people also seek answers. But asking for almost any answer that covers both science and religious belief is risky.

Life is by definition uncertain (unless you buy into astrology!).

So that is a good definiton of life, or being alive, you exsist in a state of uncertainty as the state you are in can end - and that ending can be unpredicatable. Unless you are talking about cell renewal.

OK, Lisa, it's time for a Buddhist to take a shot at this. This half hearted "I'm a theist" poop is not an outright insult to the believers here, but even though this was MY turn, someone else give it a try.

yeah Jesus is my homeboy, but then again Darwin rocks my world also.

[annnnoid]

Yoink

Yeah of course….silly questions. Cognitive scientists ask, very specifically, what is consciousness. Not just how does it happen, or what are the quantum-electro-bio-chemical realities involved….but what is it. The single most defining feature of consciousness is subjective reality. One of the defining features of subjective reality is the ability to ask questions…..like ‘what am I’. IOW…’who am I’ asks ‘what am I’….obviously no connection.

…what a silly question.

So we all know our own identity do we? So are you saying you know what it means to be a human being? I really find it bizarre the degree to which everyone simply assumes they know the answer to this question. Like….’ yeah…I know exactly what a human being is….I am one.’

…until we take even a cursory glance at the mountains of available evidence….at which point just about anyone with a gram of common sense would have to conclude that they neither know what a human being is (as in scientifically), nor can they say with any remote degree of confidence that their own ‘identity’ is free of even superficial flaws, let alone fundamental ones (and don’t ask me to defend this patently obvious statement Argent….just ask Kittynh the definition of the word ‘sin’).

…so while you may know your own identity (the most deranged serial killer quite obviously, by default, ‘knows’ their own identity) you can in no way shape or form claim either to know what a human being is (you) nor can you claim that your own version of it is even partially free of systemic flaws…let alone substantially.

[Yoink]

Yoink

Yeah of course….silly questions. Cognitive scientists ask, very specifically, what is consciousness. Not just how does it happen, or what are the quantum-electro-bio-chemical realities involved….but what is it. The single most defining feature of consciousness is subjective reality. One of the defining features of subjective reality is the ability to ask questions…..like ‘what am I’. IOW…’who am I’ asks ‘what am I’….obviously no connection.

…what a silly question.

No. The question "what is consciousness" is a good and useful question. The question I described as "silly" was this one:
(IOW…if I don’t know what I am, do I not know who I am?)
THAT's a "silly question."

So we all know our own identity do we? So are you saying you know what it means to be a human being? I really find it bizarre the degree to which everyone simply assumes they know the answer to this question. Like….’ yeah…I know exactly what a human being is….I am one.’

Good God, annnnoid--can you not actually read a SINGLE one of the posts you respond to?

My whole point was that knowing our "identity" IS NOT THE SAME THING as knowing "what it means to be a human being." If I say "I know who I am" I AM NOT SAYING "I know every possible thing there is to know about me and how I came to be me."

…so while you may know your own identity (the most deranged serial killer quite obviously, by default, ‘knows’ their own identity) you can in no way shape or form claim either to know what a human being is (you) nor can you claim that your own version of it is even partially free of systemic flaws…let alone substantially.

And once again: the claim "I know who I am" DOES NOT ENTAIL, either logically or in ordinary parlance the claim "I know what a human being is."

Just as the claim "I know what a car is" does not entail the claim "I know how internal combustion engines work and how they are made." Just as the claim "I know that that is my calculator" does not entail the claims "I know how a calculator works and all the intricacies of silicon chip technology." Get it?

[John Jones]

Typical skeptic nonsense. I could waste a bunch of time responding but…it’s just boring.



[snipped for brevity]



You seem to be upset and impatient about anything having to do with JREF and skepticism in general.

Do you have any specific points or questions in mind? Slurs of "nonsense and waste of time" are not credible criticisms when you repeatedly appear here to repeat them without explanation.



I hope you don't choose to respond with empty vituperation.

[annnnoid]

‘We all know our own identity. Someone who doesn't know their own identity is suffering from a rather dramatic mental illness.’

……..this statement is BS. The OP question is ‘what is sentient life’. I am assuming the dude actually wants an answer….not some vague statement that belongs in an English lit class. What does it mean to
‘know’ something? What is ‘identity’? What does it mean to know our own identity? How the hell can you even make such a ridiculous claim…that we all know our own identity (typically people here would call that an assertion and insist on evidence….but typically people here blatantly ignore infractions perpetrated from certain points of view). Are you suggesting that a Charles Manson knows his identity to the same degree as an Albert Schweitzer or a Henry Thoreau? And what does it mean to ‘not know your identity’…and how does this imply psychosis…specifically? But I suppose that’s just hypothetical, since we all do, in fact, know our identities. So does that include all those who are locked up in psychiatric hospitals…do they know their identities as well.

The point Yoink (in case you haven’t been reading any of the consciousness threads) is that science is now asking quite specifically what the hell a human being actually is. They’re not interested in some vague assertion like ‘yeah I know my own identity’ (which, by the way, means a whole bunch of nothing when it comes to the OP question), but what exactly is this thing that is a human being. If some cognitive scientist comes knocking and starts asking you very explicit questions about you… you will very quickly discover just how much of your identity you don’t actually know. Anyone can wave their hands around and claim ‘I know who I am’. What matters …scientifically …is whether you actually do…or not. What are the ingredients of the question? Is there an answer? Yes or no. What is it? What is knowing…what is understanding…what is identity…what is behavior…what is an idea…what is the experience of a thought…how does consciousness exists and how does it interact with the architecture of the brain. These are the questions that science is asking. They don’t give a sweet s**t if you ‘know your identity’ or not. They want to know what knowing is, and what an identity is…and whether you even are one….or not.

Human beings are the only phenomena in the universe that exist as a function of degree. Meaning a human being is more, or less, the thing that it is depending upon its ability to become the thing that it is (please don’t waste my time by challenging this obvious fact…if you doubt it then, like I said, just ask Kittynh to explain the meaning of ‘sin’). This is what cognitive scientists are studying (among many other things). What is it that determines the ‘somethingness’ of a human being (the quality and dimensions of the subjective experience). A human being is something that doesn’t know what it is, but which can know if, somehow, it knows how to (the more a human being knows how to be a human being, the more a human being actually seems to find out what it means to actually be one…..so who you are is very directly related to what you know of what you are). The entire landscape of human history is blanketed with endless examples of the range of human activity. Range…from the mass of men who lead lives of quiet desperation….to the guy who wrote those words.

There is something called human truth. What has changed is that it’s no longer arbitrated by religion. Science is looking at human reality and asking what it’s looking at. The range of human experience occurs from the animal to the sublime. There are mechanisms that determine the experience of this reality….mechanisms that science wants to explain. You can scream and wail all you want but science is quite indisputably NOT interested in ordinary parlance. Science wants to know exactly who and what you are and where you came from and the fact that you or anyone lives happily in their ignorance itself becomes a relevant issue (as in…what is the phenomenon of ignorance and how does this relate to the greater phenomenon of consciousness). What do you think will happen if it does? The question is remote and hypothetical right now, but what are the questions being asked, and where do the answers actually lie?

So this is quite specifically now a scientific issue (though certainly not exclusively)….and claiming to ‘know my identity’ means absolutely zero when it comes to answering the question ‘what is sentient life’ (or ‘why don’t we know’). Consciousness exists, so there must be an explanation for it. Waving your arms around and insisting you know your identity may be a valid approach in drama class, but when it comes to the cog sci lab it is worthless.

Kittynh….we live in risky times. There are scientists who are asking very explicit and very specific questions about every single detail of religious activity. A lot of this study occurs outside of mainstream science. There may become an eventually when mainstream science and religion no longer exist separately. How and why that might happen is pretty much science fiction right now, but reality exists...and science wants to find out how and why scientists want to find out what it is. That is religion, until science finds the answer.

[Yoink]

……..this statement is BS. The OP question is ‘what is sentient life’. I am assuming the dude actually wants an answer….not some vague statement that belongs in an English lit class. What does it mean to
‘know’ something? What is ‘identity’? What does it mean to know our own identity? How the hell can you even make such a ridiculous claim…that we all know our own identity (typically people here would call that an assertion and insist on evidence….but typically people here blatantly ignore infractions perpetrated from certain points of view). Are you suggesting that a Charles Manson knows his identity to the same degree as an Albert Schweitzer or a Henry Thoreau? And what does it mean to ‘not know your identity’…and how does this imply psychosis…specifically? But I suppose that’s just hypothetical, since we all do, in fact, know our identities. So does that include all those who are locked up in psychiatric hospitals…do they know their identities as well.

The point Yoink (in case you haven’t been reading any of the consciousness threads) is that science is now asking quite specifically what the hell a human being actually is. They’re not interested in some vague assertion like ‘yeah I know my own identity’ (which, by the way, means a whole bunch of nothing when it comes to the OP question), but what exactly is this thing that is a human being. If some cognitive scientist comes knocking and starts asking you very explicit questions about you… you will very quickly discover just how much of your identity you don’t actually know. Anyone can wave their hands around and claim ‘I know who I am’. What matters …scientifically …is whether you actually do…or not. What are the ingredients of the question? Is there an answer? Yes or no. What is it? What is knowing…what is understanding…what is identity…what is behavior…what is an idea…what is the experience of a thought…how does consciousness exists and how does it interact with the architecture of the brain. These are the questions that science is asking. They don’t give a sweet s**t if you ‘know your identity’ or not. They want to know what knowing is, and what an identity is…and whether you even are one….or not.

Human beings are the only phenomena in the universe that exist as a function of degree. Meaning a human being is more, or less, the thing that it is depending upon its ability to become the thing that it is (please don’t waste my time by challenging this obvious fact…if you doubt it then, like I said, just ask Kittynh to explain the meaning of ‘sin’). This is what cognitive scientists are studying (among many other things). What is it that determines the ‘somethingness’ of a human being (the quality and dimensions of the subjective experience). A human being is something that doesn’t know what it is, but which can know if, somehow, it knows how to (the more a human being knows how to be a human being, the more a human being actually seems to find out what it means to actually be one…..so who you are is very directly related to what you know of what you are). The entire landscape of human history is blanketed with endless examples of the range of human activity. Range…from the mass of men who lead lives of quiet desperation….to the guy who wrote those words.

There is something called human truth. What has changed (in case you haven’t noticed) is that it’s no longer arbitrated by religion. Science is looking at human reality and asking what it’s looking at. The range of human experience occurs from the animal to the sublime. There are mechanisms that determine the experience of this reality….mechanisms that science wants to explain. You can scream and wail all you want but science is quite indisputably NOT interested in ordinary parlance. Science wants to know exactly who and what you are and where you came from and the fact that you or anyone lives happily in their ignorance itself becomes a relevant issue (as in…what is the phenomenon of ignorance and how does this relate to the greater phenomenon of consciousness). What do you think will happen if it does? The question is remote and hypothetical right now, but what are the questions being asked, and where do the answers actually lie?

So this is quite specifically now a scientific issue (though certainly not exclusively)….and claiming to ‘know my identity’ means absolutely zero when it comes to answering the question ‘what is sentient life’ (or ‘why don’t we know’). Consciousness exists, so there must be an explanation for it. Waving your arms around and insisting you know your identity may be a valid approach in drama class, but when it comes to the cog sci lab it is worthless.

Kittynh….we live in risky times. There are scientists who are asking very explicit and very specific questions about every single detail of religious activity. A lot of this study occurs outside of mainstream science. There may become an eventually when mainstream science and religion no longer exist separately. How and why that might happen is pretty much science fiction right now, but reality exists...and science wants to find out how and why scientists want to find out what it is. That is religion, until science finds the answer.

You don't actually finish reading a single post before you start "replying" do you? Amazing.

ETA: Just to try one last time to get you to understand my point. I have said not one single thing in this thread that is an attempt to respond to the OP. I have responded solely to your inane comments. You have tried to suggest that there is some paradox inherent in claiming "I know who I am" when one cannot say "I understand fully and absolutely what it means to say who I am." That is a false claim. I have pointed out why it is false.

That the statement "I know who I am" is not a useful response to the question "what is the nature of sentient life" is a fantastically obvious one. Thank you very much for pointing out the utterly, blindingly obvious at such tedious length. Had anyone in the entire world every argued otherwise your refutation would no doubt be terrifically useful.

[Trent Wray]

I hope I'm not helping to derail the OP .... BUT ....

What I'm wanting to know, is if it's possible for there to be multiple me's inside of my own consciousness .... and I'm not talking about multiple personalities and all that. I'm trying to describing something else.

There seems to be a part of me that understands objectivity. I can distinguish certain aspects of it, to degrees. A table is a table, not an entity with emotions and feelings, etc and so forth. Practically speaking, this can be scientifically demonstrated to be "true", blah blah blah.

But then there is that subjective, irrational side of me that is of course privy to emotional whims and fantastical ideas ... again etc and etc.

Now, what I'm stating so far isn't all that interesting or exciting in and of itself. We can attribute why I know a table is inanimate, yet can get angry at it if I stub my toe into it .... as types of statistical association errors and such, and we can recognize that various types of "thinking" take place in various parts of the brain, etc etc. We understand certain ideas behind evolutionary traits and why perhaps certain patterns of thought form from environmental factors and stimuli.

BUT here is what I'm wondering .... does our brain essentially compartamentalize itself into various ENTITIES? In other words ... the part of me that is subjective has, essentially, it's own identity. The part of me that is more objective has it's own identity. The part of me that is more "from the gut" and runs on "instinct" has it's own identity.

So I am not merely "Trent". But I am Trent1 Trent2 and Trent3, etc and so forth. But the fact that I'm AWARE of this is what separates me, seemingly, from other animals.

In other words ... I am OBSERVING this fact. I am observing myself being subjective. I am observing myself being objective. I am observing myself acting and reacting instinctually. This observation of the different identities --- is this the thing that is my conciousness?

If it is ... and this will sound elementary since I quit behavioral neuroscience in college ..... but if it is, is it possible that there is a section of my brain that is trying to unite the multiple identities into one identity ... and is in essence observing all the other aspects of the brain functioning and the inputs and output results, trying to decide, "okay, is Trent going to be mostly Trent1, or Trent2, or Trent3?" In other words ... I am trapped and imprisoned by my own conciousness, because it cannot decide how to reconcile the varies parts of my brain that have compartamentalized.

And what I'm wondering, is if this is somewhat the case .... this could show how our brains "evolve". At some point, our brains grew larger, and before "activating itself", that part of the brain begin to register data. The first stages of it registering data appeared as "self-awareness". In other words, that section of the brain said, "I exist". It recognized itself. After that, it began to recognize other aspects of the brain and how it functioned ... and the data it interpreted. Based on the way the other parts of the brain interpreted data, it decided to augment it and enhance it, working as a "team" more or less, to "adapt". And then that part of the brain grew, and became more efficient at synerigizing with the other "identities" of the brain .... and each time a part of our brain grew larger ... those other parts became "self aware" ... and then spent ages "observing" the other parts of the brain, to see how best to enhance and augment itself to provide a function for the person.

So in other words, what I'm saying is this:
conciousness is merely a part of our brains that isn't fully functioning yet. It is merely "aware" of itself, and is also aware of various other aspects of the brain that are working and interpreting data. As it observes the other "Trents" fuctioning, it is deciding what kind of "trent" it's going to be. So we call this self-awareness conciousness, and when we are able to observe our ownselves observing our ownselves (i.e. ---- I know I am thinking about knowing that I think ... therefore I am) .... we are actually observing that "new" part of our brains that is somewhat a blank page, and we are observing it from ONE OF OUR OTHER IDENTITIES. So I might be observing it from my instinct, or my subjective identity, or my objective identity, etc.

The seemingly endless "argument for conciousness" stems from the fact that we cannot properly identitify this newly developing stage of our brains, because it hasn't been developed yet to form an identity. So we are, in essence, incomplete.

And it would seem to make sense to me, that at some point in our evolution, our brains greatly increased their capacity to function almost in excess, like a body builder who gets a ridiculous amount of muscle he will not yet use for any known purpose .... and we are essentially made up of "void" .... unused conciousness waiting to be formed, shaped, and used. It is experiencing this void that could perhaps cause a person to feel spiritual and trapped at the same time .... spiritual in the sense that they are "nowhere but somewhere, experiencing something beyond comprehension" ----- yet trapped because they are in a "place" -- an identity --- that is primordial yet desiring to "become something".

And perhaps the purpose of our own lives, is to essentially find a purpose .... but not a meaning and purpose like "I have a mission in life to save the souls of the lost" ..... but a purpose for the REST OF OUR BRAINS. Once the rest of our brain is actually used and decided upon by us collectively, thus shaping our own evolution, then perhaps our conciousness will become "one" ... and we will no longer be separate identities within one person, striving to figure out the meanings to ourselves and life. The conciousness "endless loop" will be "closed" for the lack of a better term.

In other words, we will no longer have a new place to observe ourselves from. We will be observing everything else, as one single observer.

that is, of course, unless our brains grow larger and get more space. Then we would have a new "empty room" to observe the other rooms from, etc and so forth.

Am I smoking the good stuff again, or am I way off base?

[annnnoid]

Trent…you appear to be one of the few JREF posters who writes more than me. There is quite a learning curve to your POV though...so don’t be too surprised if it takes others a little while to get it. I’ll give it another try later.

Yoink………..my ‘inane comments’ were specifically an attempt to respond to the OP. The dude was explicitly asking for a definition of sentient life. If you would waste two seconds of your life and read a few of the consciousness threads you would understand that no such definition exists (and as I have clearly pointed out in the post you just responded to….you may be quite happy with what you refer to as ‘ordinary parlance’ but in the cog sci labs it is worthless).

Perhaps it escapes your substantial intelligence but the question of ‘why’ no such definition exists might just be relevant.

…duh….as in…duh

The fact that the defining feature of consciousness is subjective experience…ie: a ‘who’ leads me to believe, IMO quite reasonably, that ‘who’ we are is somehow relevant to our ability to know what we are (in case it has escaped your omniscient attention, we aren’t studying toenails here, we are studying, in part, the thing called a ‘who’). Whether your brain can comprehend such a profound connection has yet to be demonstrated.

…and quite obviously, people everywhere understand there to be some variety of specifically subjective meaning to the statement ‘I know who I am’. I’m sure if you had asked Charles Manson the question ‘do you know who you are’ just before he went off and slaughtered those people he would likely have answered yes. So would you have agreed with him?

So people obviously use the phrase generally speaking. Just as obviously…I was not speaking generally. I was speaking very specifically. Because the OP question asked ‘what is sentient life’…and here we have a bunch of ‘sentient lifeforms’ that can’t answer the question. Which suggests either an objective obstacle, or a subjective obstacle….and since the phenomenon under question is the subjective reality it is quite reasonable to conclude that the deficiency may somehow be related to the subjective reality….but that’s advanced logic so I’ll understand if it escapes you. So in relation to the OP question, science is now quite specifically interested in answering this question of what we know about ourselves…and what we don’t. Whether or not you think what we don’t know matters is utterly irrelevant.

Basically you are saying that a human being does not need to know all there is to know about a human being to be able to say ‘I know who I am’. Of course not. A human being can say whatever they want, and even believe it to be true (I’m sure even Hitler would have insisted ‘I know who I am’….right up until he blew his brains out). But this isn’t drama class….this is science. Did Manson or Hitler ‘know who they were’?. Did Thoreau? Did Jesus? What does it actually mean to ‘know who you are’? What issues are actually involved…and, ultimately, if someone cannot definitively answer (in some vocabulary) the question ‘what is my life’, do they ‘know who they are?’ This is obviously abstract, but when science asks the question ‘what is sentient life’, they want an answer, not a guess. That’s why we have religion, because all we’ve discovered are guesses…..and because the question is the biggest one there is, so anything else is quite a challenge (which is exactly why you and everyone else are so convinced ‘I know who I am’ is a definitive statement….it isn’t [it is, as anyone who looks at the issue closely realizes, an approximation][....so, however colloquial the usage...speaking purely literally, it is somewhat inaccurate to say 'I know who I am' ).

[Yoink]

Trent…you appear to be one of the few JREF posters who writes more than me. There is quite a learning curve to your POV though...so don’t be too surprised if it takes others a little while to get it. I’ll give it another try later.

Yoink………..my ‘inane comments’ were specifically an attempt to respond to the OP. The dude was explicitly asking for a definition of sentient life. If you would waste two seconds of your life and read a few of the consciousness threads you would understand that no such definition exists (and as I have clearly pointed out in the post you just responded to….you may be quite happy with what you refer to as ‘ordinary parlance’ but in the cog sci labs it is worthless).

Perhaps it escapes your substantial intelligence but the question of ‘why’ no such definition exists might just be relevant.

…duh….as in…duh

The fact that the defining feature of consciousness is subjective experience…ie: a ‘who’ leads me to believe, IMO quite reasonably, that ‘who’ we are is somehow relevant to our ability to know what we are (in case it has escaped your omniscient attention, we aren’t studying toenails here, we are studying, in part, the thing called a ‘who’). Whether your brain can comprehend such a profound connection has yet to be demonstrated.

…and quite obviously, people everywhere understand there to be some variety of specifically subjective meaning to the statement ‘I know who I am’. I’m sure if you had asked Charles Manson the question ‘do you know who you are’ just before he went off and slaughtered those people he would likely have answered yes. So would you have agreed with him?

So people obviously use the phrase generally speaking. Just as obviously…I was not speaking generally. I was speaking very specifically. Because the OP question asked ‘what is sentient life’…and here we have a bunch of ‘sentient lifeforms’ that can’t answer the question. Which suggests either an objective obstacle, or a subjective obstacle….and since the phenomenon under question is the subjective reality it is quite reasonable to conclude that the deficiency may somehow be related to the subjective reality….but that’s advanced logic so I’ll understand if it escapes you. So in relation to the OP question, science is now quite specifically interested in answering this question of what we know about ourselves…and what we don’t. Whether or not you think what we don’t know matters is utterly irrelevant.

Basically you are saying that a human being does not need to know all there is to know about a human being to be able to say ‘I know who I am’. Of course not. A human being can say whatever they want, and even believe it to be true (I’m sure even Hitler would have insisted ‘I know who I am’….right up until he blew his brains out). But this isn’t drama class….this is science. Did Manson or Hitler ‘know who they were’?. Did Thoreau? Did Jesus? What does it actually mean to ‘know who you are’? What issues are actually involved…and, ultimately, if someone cannot definitively answer (in some vocabulary) the question ‘what is my life’, do they ‘know who they are?’ This is obviously abstract, but when science asks the question ‘what is sentient life’, they want an answer, not a guess. That’s why we have religion, because all we’ve discovered are guesses…..and because the question is the biggest one there is, so anything else is quite a challenge (which is exactly why you and everyone else are so convinced ‘I know who I am’ is a definitive statement….it isn’t [it is, as anyone who looks at the issue closely realizes, an approximation][....so, however colloquial the usage...speaking purely literally, it is somewhat inaccurate to say 'I know who I am' ).

Good lord. I have never, in my life, seen someone so amazing self-satisfied with so little apparent reason to be. It is quite clearly pointless to try to discuss anything with you because you have no interest whatsoever in understanding what your interlocuters are trying to say. You take a brief glance at comments, take a wild guess at what you think might be the argument being made, and then set about destroying the straw men you've created.

Allow me to quote from one of my earlier posts:
The question "what is consciousness" is a good and useful question.
I have proposed no answer to that question. I have not claimed that "I know who I am" is an answer of any kind to that question. All I have done is point out that you are hopelessly confused if you think there is any logical relationship between the claim "I know who I am" and the claim "I know everything there is to know about what it means to be a sentient life form."

I have read many of the consciousness threads. I've read quite a lot of scientific and philosophical treatments of the issue. I fully understand that this is one of the great scientific challenges of the day. Your posts, however, are a string of hopeless inanities and logical non-sequiturs. The fact that we cannot fully explain consciousness does not in any way validate an appeal to the divine. That is just tedious "god of the gaps" nonsense. The fact that we can perfectly well say "I know who I am" does not in any way imply that we should also be able to say in any detailed way what we are or how we came to be that way.

I await yet another post from you demonstrating the fact that you have not actually read (or are incapable of understanding) the post to which you are replying, and lecturing me, yet again, on the fact that the scientific understanding of consciousness is an important matter (no, really??) and that the claim that "I know who I am" doesn't answer the question "what does it mean to be sentient" (you don't say??).

[annnnoid]

Yoink….you insist that there is absolutely no logical relationship between the following two statements:

"I know who I am"

"I know everything there is to know about what it means to be a sentient life form."

So what you’re saying is that if I did in fact know everything there is to know about what it means to be a human being (the only sentient life form we know of)…..it actually has no bearing what-so-ever on whether or not I know who I am….or the degree to which I know who I am.

Do I really need to explain how stupid this is….or shall we take a vote.

….and you suggest that I am the one who is hopelessly confused!?!?!??!?

As for the rest of your response….a typical skeptic POV. You answered not a single one of my questions (as usual), preferring instead to resort to accusations of religious bias (as usual). Maybe you are the one who actually needs to read what I wrote. In the four odd thousand words I’ve posted at this thread, not once….not once….have I made a…what do you call it… ‘appeal to the divine’ or introduced anything resembling a ‘god of the gaps’ argument (go and look if you want, you won’t find anything).

Not……..once.

And not only that, if you actually had read what I’d written you would discover that the exact opposite is actually the case….just about everything I’ve referred to has been related to the scientific points of view explored in cog sci related fields. I even made a point of insisting that I was not religious nor a theist.

…so who’s the one who isn’t reading?

…so who’s the one creating strawmen?

Y’know Yoink, I suggest you quit while you’re behind. I’ve really no interest in pursuing this discussion any further. Trent has actually made some interesting points and I’d much rather concentrate on that.

[Yoink]

Yoink….you insist that there is absolutely no logical relationship between the following two statements:

"I know who I am"

"I know everything there is to know about what it means to be a sentient life form."

So what you’re saying is that if I did in fact know everything there is to know about what it means to be a human being (the only sentient life form we know of)…..it actually has no bearing what-so-ever on whether or not I know who I am….or the degree to which I know who I am.

Do I really need to explain how stupid this is….or shall we take a vote.

Yes, you need to explain why that's stupid. Because it isn't. You don't seem to understand basic English, annnnnoid. The question "who are you" simply does not contain within it "and what is the meaning of sentient life?" as you seem to think.

It is perfectly possible that someone could know everything there is to know about the nature of sentient life and yet not know who they are (imagine a brilliant philosopher scientist who has cracked the problem of understanding consciousness who suffers from amnesia; s/he knows how consciousness works and why it works but does not know who s/he is; QED).

….and you suggest that I am the one who is hopelessly confused!?!?!??!?

Yes. Because you demonstrably are.

As for the rest of your response….a typical skeptic POV. You answered not a single one of my questions (as usual), preferring instead to resort to accusations of religious bias (as usual).

Your questions are inane garbage (as usual) because you have shown no ability to think clearly (as usual).

Maybe you are the one who actually needs to read what I wrote. In the four odd thousand words I’ve posted at this thread, not once….not once….have I made a…what do you call it… ‘appeal to the divine’ or introduced anything resembling a ‘god of the gaps’ argument (go and look if you want, you won’t find anything).

Here's just one (of several):

I'll give you a hint....nobody can answer the question, because nobody actually knows what it means to be alive. That's the meaning of religion....and everybody, to one degree or another, is religious.

Not……..once.

Oh, you want another? Here you go:

This is obviously abstract, but when science asks the question ‘what is sentient life’, they want an answer, not a guess. That’s why we have religion, because all we’ve discovered are guesses…..and because the question is the biggest one there is, so anything else is quite a challenge

And not only that, if you actually had read what I’d written you would discover that the exact opposite is actually the case….just about everything I’ve referred to has been related to the scientific points of view explored in cog sci related fields. I even made a point of insisting that I was not religious nor a theist.

You also said you weren't an atheist and have repeatedly attacked everybody you imagine to be an atheist. Given your profound problems with the simplest logical relationships I see no reason to assume that any of your posts need be consistent with any others.

…so who’s the one who isn’t reading?

You're apparently not even reading your own posts.

…so who’s the one creating strawmen?

That would still be you, annnnnnoid.

Y’know Yoink, I suggest you quit while you’re behind. I’ve really no interest in pursuing this discussion any further. Trent has actually made some interesting points and I’d much rather concentrate on that.

Fine by me. It's abundantly clear that we're not going to get anything remotely resembling an actual claim out of you. The only thing you appear to be interested in is proclaiming your brilliance and sighing over the stupidity of everyone else in the world.

[annnnoid]

Yes, you need to explain why that's stupid. Because it isn't. You don't seem to understand basic English, annnnnoid. The question "who are you" simply does not contain within it "and what is the meaning of sentient life?" as you seem to think.

…of course not. How on earth could I be so stupid as to make a connection between sentient life, the defining feature of which is subjective reality…and the question ‘who are you’…the defining feature of which is a subjective reality.

It is perfectly possible that someone could know everything there is to know about the nature of sentient life and yet not know who they are (imagine a brilliant philosopher scientist who has cracked the problem of understanding consciousness who suffers from amnesia; s/he knows how consciousness works and why it works but does not know who s/he is; QED).

Again….the defining feature of the only sentient life form that we know of is subjective reality. IOW…who am I. If a particular sentient reality did not know ‘who am I’ they would quite obviously not know everything there is to know about the nature of sentient life.

…and you accuse me of having problems with simple logical relationships?!?!?

As for your brilliant philosopher, he/she is too ridiculous to even respond to.

Your questions are inane garbage (as usual) because you have shown no ability to think clearly (as usual).

I’ll just refer to the above for an example of who may have difficulty thinking clearly.

As for my questions...I ask why we don’t know how to answer the question ‘what is sentient life.’ …how is this an inane question exactly?

…and then you actually you go and find the only two places I mentioned religion. That’s impressive, out of four thousand words you manage to find two very oblique references to religion. Do you know what I even mean by religion Yoink (good name by the way, describes you very well)? I actually presented a brief definition in an earlier post. I guess you missed that too.

But in your response you didn’t mention religion…you mentioned, quite specifically…an appeal to the divine…and the god of the gaps.

Where?

You also said you weren't an atheist and have repeatedly attacked everybody you imagine to be an atheist. Given your profound problems with the simplest logical relationships I see no reason to assume that any of your posts need be consistent with any others.

I haven’t repeatedly attacked atheists….I have repeatedly attacked scientism and people who make unsupported scientific assertions. It just happens that those people are almost exclusively skeptics.

As for ‘making a claim’…what the hell does this mean. The OP is about the question ‘what is sentient life’. What kind of claim are you waiting for? My whole point is why the question is not answered.

[Yoink]

Yeah. What was I thinking? As if "religion" and "the divine" could ever be remotely related in anyone's mind?

Once again, annnnnoid, the fact that we don't know certain things (including some very significant things) about the nature of consciousness
A) does not provide an opening for 'religion'
B) does not mean we cannot say with absolute correctness and certainty "I know who I am."

[Trent Wray]

Yeah. What was I thinking? As if "religion" and "the divine" could ever be remotely related in anyone's mind?

Once again, annnnnoid, the fact that we don't know certain things (including some very significant things) about the nature of consciousness
A) does not provide an opening for 'religion'
B) does not mean we cannot say with absolute correctness and certainty "I know who I am."
Can we say with absolute correctness and certainty, "I know who I will never be?"

ETA: not trying to jump into the middle of your conversation, just reading your post made me think of the question ... :)

[Yoink]

Can we say with absolute correctness and certainty, "I know who I will never be?"

ETA: not trying to jump into the middle of your conversation, just reading your post made me think of the question ... :)

Be my guest. It's hardly a conversation. It's also an intriguing question. Can we ever become "someone else"? If I "become" someone else then how is there a constant "I" who was person A but is now person B?

If I ask "who will I be in two year's time" we understand what the question means ("will I be happy, will I be sad...que sera sera etc."), but I think we have to realize that it's a figurative expression. The question is begged, after all, by that pesky "I." If I know that "I" will be the person who in two year's time asks "who am I now" then I know that "I" will remain constant.

What I'm really asking is "what will be some of the properties I ascribe to/discover in myself in two year's time"--which is a rather different question.

[annnnoid]

Yeah. What was I thinking? As if "religion" and "the divine" could ever be remotely related in anyone's mind?

Once again, annnnnoid, the fact that we don't know certain things (including some very significant things) about the nature of consciousness
A) does not provide an opening for 'religion'
B) does not mean we cannot say with absolute correctness and certainty "I know who I am."

As I said Yoink….I wrote over four thousand words…..the word religion may have appeared twice (and even then it was obliquely referenced)…but naturally that’s what you focus on and my argument becomes an ‘appeal to the divine’ and a case for the ‘god of the gaps’. Stop making excuses Yoink, I’ve seen it all before.

…so there are some ‘significant’ things we don’t know about consciousness are there. Like, what is it and how does it happen….just for example. Basically, science cannot with any even remote degree of certainty tell anyone who or what they are. Those are some pretty big gaps. Religion fills them. So the fact that we don’t have answers to these huge questions quite obviously does provide an opening for religion….whether you agree with it or like it or not. That is what happens.

Point ‘A’ is wrong.

As for point ‘B’…get a dictionary.

[John Jones]

Yoink….you insist that there is absolutely no logical relationship between the following two statements:

"I know who I am"

"I know everything there is to know about what it means to be a sentient life form."

So what you’re saying is that if I did in fact know everything there is to know about what it means to be a human being (the only sentient life form we know of)…..it actually has no bearing what-so-ever on whether or not I know who I am….or the degree to which I know who I am.

Non sequitur and nonsense.

Nice try, though.

[Trent Wray]

Be my guest. It's hardly a conversation. It's also an intriguing question. Can we ever become "someone else"? If I "become" someone else then how is there a constant "I" who was person A but is now person B?

If I ask "who will I be in two year's time" we understand what the question means ("will I be happy, will I be sad...que sera sera etc."), but I think we have to realize that it's a figurative expression. The question is begged, after all, by that pesky "I." If I know that "I" will be the person who in two year's time asks "who am I now" then I know that "I" will remain constant.

What I'm really asking is "what will be some of the properties I ascribe to/discover in myself in two year's time"--which is a rather different question. I've pondered the following (and if I'm repeating something already said in this thread or another, sorry) ...

But technically, I can be "somebody different" whenever I want to. Every moment in time that passes, I can choose a set of choices that can radically alter the way the world perceives "Trent". And although over time I've learned certain behavioral responses and formed certain neural pathways that are more likely to be triggered than others, I can to a certain degree "go against my own programming" and force myself to do things I normally wouldn't. This would trigger a range of emotions, thoughts, biological reactions, etc and so forth. I could even violate the principles my conscience has adopted, etc and so forth.

In many ways, I'm describing nothing more than learning and forming habits, changing patterns, etc. This is nothing new.

So we never really are one person in particular. We identify others by their physical appearance (a husk, so to speak :D) ... but their personality and character traits are also a way we identify them, along with their motives, etc and so forth. Change these, and you can change the "I" in their person at any moment in time. Perhaps one of the biggest hindrances to this freedom we have to "be what we want to be" --- is society itself. We somehow feel that we "owe it to others" sometimes to be a certain type of person in particular, or it is more advantageous to maintain a certain persona, etc and so forth.

BUT ---- there are "stages" in our lives that we go through where who we are is radically altered as a "natural process". Consider puberty for example. Within a short time frame, a person can become almost a completely different individual compared to who they were before.

So ----- Combine this with my ideas above of the the brain attempting to "form" a new area of ourselves as an addition to our conciousness that already exists .... in other words, an area of our brain that is in it's "basic evolutionary foundation" ---- it's aware of it's own existence but is trying to decide what to "do" with itself, either make itself subjective, objective, imaginary, a combination, etc and so forth. It's like a blank room in an apartment that is unfurnished, except that there is on occupant standing in it ---- looking around at the other rooms that are furnished trying to decide how to furnish the new one (our meta conciousness). Combine this with the idea that we can essentially change "who we are" at any time ...with the idea that occassionally the body FORCES a change ... and I'm wondering the following:

It may sound sci-fi .... but are we trying to adapt via evolutionary techniques ... AND ... will this adaptation be forced via some kind of physical change somehow? I'm thinking along the lines of a butterfly (but not the radical physical change obviously) .... a butterfly goes through obvious stages of metamorphosis in it's lifetime, becoming something different entirely from what it was before. We go through puberty ... which is similar. Are we on the verge (perhaps, within 5-10 thousand years away from the verge I should say) of seeing ourselves develop a "third stage" ... and our brains are trying to figure out what to do next?

I mean think about it .... look at the needs around us. Our societies are no longer defined by mere survival alone. The more "advanced" we become, the more we branch out in "imaginary ways" ..... we have time to paint and draw and create and feed our inspirations, etc. And our world is getting smaller ... the need to communicate across vast distances instantly is becoming commonplace. We have satellite reception and air conditioning and vitamin supplements and workplace stressors and intelligence demands, etc and so forth.

I mean ... why wouldn't our bodies attempt to adapt to this themselves, even without our concious awareness of it? Seeing the needs we now have, why wouldn't our minds try to adapt a way to NATURALLY communicate via telepathic means, or receive satellite transmissions? Why wouldn't such thinking effect a "blank slate" in our minds that responds by saying, "okay ... I see what you are thinking, I see what stresses you out, I see what society demands, I will form a way to adapt"? Elephants communicate via infrasound and dolphins use echolocation, etc etc. So why wouldn't our brains try to figure out a way to communicate according to the needs of our environment?

Right now ... we look at mental disorders and things like synesthesia as abnormalities and so forth. Perhaps SOME of them, are attempts of our species to test and try new things. Some of them are no doubt due to genetic defects and deficiencies, but perhaps some mental disorders (like bipolar for example, or types of schizophrenia) are the result of a person not "exploiting" a part of their brain properly that is trying to "make sense of it's newness" so to speak. Perhaps too much magical thinking or too much paranoia or too much this/that lead that part of the brain to lock itself into something it wasn't ready for yet ... as it was trying to adapt and create something new.

Anyway, I know I'm rambling a bit .... and the "what have you been smoking" thing may apply to this post as well .... but what if the "point to our lives", again, is to "become" something else than what we are now, an extended species. If we came from apes, why would this be so hard to imagine? ... especially considering the rate at which our environment is currently changing? Perhaps these out-of-body experiences and "feeling one with the cosmos" and "higher realms of enlightenment" and all of that are essentially our "new" conciousness trying to EXPAND and GROW into something new, something which will quite possibly involve our species developing a "new stage" ... like a second puberty so to speak. And these "ethereal, euphoric feelings" we sometimes feel are attributed to our species trying to decide exactly HOW to create such changes. Now, I'm not saying we will develop the ability to have our "souls leave our bodies" or anything like that. I'm not even talking about souls or gods or anything. But what I am saying is that if our body will need to go through an actual physical change for our species, how the hell will this effect our conciousness? What would our developing conciousness recognize that as? Wouldn't be akin at times, perhaps, to ourselves "leaving our bodies" as our bodies gather data and information to pass on genetically to our children and their children, etc and so forth? And wouldn't it be akin to "I'm speaking to god!" as our bodies try to figure out how to solve the communication needs we have today, perhaps even attempting to communicate via "psionic" methods or whatever they are called?

Anyway, I'll stop for now ..... just thinking outloud :D

[John Jones]

I have repeatedly attacked scientism and people who make unsupported scientific assertions.

How about addressing their 'unsupported scientific assertions', and refrain from attacking people?

How would that be?

[LightningStrike]

In other words ... I am OBSERVING this fact. I am observing myself being subjective. I am observing myself being objective. I am observing myself acting and reacting instinctually. This observation of the different identities --- is this the thing that is my conciousness?



Trent'I' you are confusing the brain with what I call self. In subjective experience there is no brain there is only self occuring in that which is natural, the sensational subjective reality inside the body. The thing to do is separate the man-made stuff from the natural place.
Self splits itself and observes one part from another and eventually realises a positional observation point of unjudging clarity. From that objective position I can observe vital life in me. However that is a transitional position and soon you will realise that to even know that position you must be actually behind that position in the same moment aswell!!!!! Behind the final position there is place. Place is consciousness, place is life but I can not know it for to know it 'I' has to appear. I can only intuit that I am consciousness. 'I' being the position in that place.

Speed of stillness is the way!

[Trent Wray]

Trent'I' you are confusing the brain with what I call self. In subjective experience there is no brain there is only self occuring in that which is natural, the sensational subjective reality inside the body. The thing to do is separate the man-made stuff from the natural place.
Self splits itself and observes one part from another and eventually realises a positional observation point of unjudging clarity. From that objective position I can observe vital life in me. However that is a transitional position and soon you will realise that to even know that position you must be actually behind that position in the same moment aswell!!!!! Behind the final position there is place. Place is consciousness, place is life but I can not know it for to know it 'I' has to appear. I can only intuit that I am consciousness. 'I' being the position in that place.

Speed of stillness is the way!Are you trying to describe in this "self" what you are equating to a "spirit"? Because you are essentially saying, if I'm understanding you, that the "Self" just inhabits the body, but in no particular place. It sort of wanders around viewing the multiple bodily systems until it finds it's perfect resting spot where it can be objective ..... and then in that place it is able to step back from itself, viewing itself, behind that final position ... being in two different "places" at the same time, looking at itself. That final place is conciousness (where it is viewing itself in its' final place), and the position that is created as a result is "I".

Is this what your hypothesis is?

Okay, I'll bite for a moment.

So where is this place, if not in the brain ... ? You are saying it is "life" itself, correct?

[annnnoid]

Non sequitur and nonsense.

Nice try, though.

What a privilege it must be to be able to make an argument without ever having to actually make an argument (your name wouldn't be Pixy would it). I’ll have to try it sometime. I write thousands of words to make my points. You, on the other hand, are only required to use four. Did you go to school to learn that, or is it some kind of divine right…to not ever actually have to explain what you’re talking about?

Let me see, how about I try it. You are wrong. There. I’ve completely made my point. Now I can go to bed.

[AlBell]

... Life doesn't depend on consciousness - come to it, consciousness doesn't depend on life, either.
mu

[Pure Argent]

mu

Meh?

[Yoink]

I've pondered the following (and if I'm repeating something already said in this thread or another, sorry) ...

But technically, I can be "somebody different" whenever I want to. Every moment in time that passes, I can choose a set of choices that can radically alter the way the world perceives "Trent". And although over time I've learned certain behavioral responses and formed certain neural pathways that are more likely to be triggered than others, I can to a certain degree "go against my own programming" and force myself to do things I normally wouldn't. This would trigger a range of emotions, thoughts, biological reactions, etc and so forth. I could even violate the principles my conscience has adopted, etc and so forth.

In many ways, I'm describing nothing more than learning and forming habits, changing patterns, etc. This is nothing new.

So we never really are one person in particular. We identify others by their physical appearance (a husk, so to speak :D) ... but their personality and character traits are also a way we identify them, along with their motives, etc and so forth. Change these, and you can change the "I" in their person at any moment in time.

After about this point your post gets into territory I find, frankly, baffling. But on this point, which addresses what I was saying, I can engage.

Yeah, sure, our "nature" changes all the time. But I think that the philosophical heavy weather you're making out of this amounts to little more than a play on words. Yes there is one sense of the question "who am I" that means "who am I really?" or "what is the bundle of attributes that I can apply to the person known generally as 'John Smith"" etc. But that simply is not the same question as the one we normally mean by "who am I."

If I paint my house red, is it still my house? Well, it was "my house" before but then it was blue, wasn't it? And OMFG it's red now! Epistemological crisis! Let's fire up the psionics machine! Do you get the analogy?

If I walk down the street with you and ask you "is this your house?" or "which house is yours?" or "do you know which house is yours?" you can answer what those questions mean to my and your perfect satisfaction without, necessarily, knowing or caring anything about the color of the house, the construction of the house, the contents of the house, the design of the house etc. etc. etc. You can add rooms to the house, change carpets in the house, repaint the house inside and out etc. etc. etc.--and it's still, clearly, "your house." Your house has undergone some changes (in fact, it undergoes changes all the time, with or without your input).

That, it seems to me, is equally true of people. "Who are you?" means "identify yourself"--it does not mean--as annnnnnoid seems to think--"tell me every single possible thing there is to know about you, right down to how many white blood cells are currently present in your blood stream." That the self identified is undergoing continual changes in attributes is no more philosophically challenging than the fact that your house does, or your car does, or your cellphone does.

Now, as for whether you can become an entirely new "who"...that seems to me to be highly problematic. This is a problem I've always had with the notion of reincarnation: the (vulgar) idea that one will come back as some sort of "lowly" animal as a "punishment" for poor behavior. I, frankly, have never understood why I should care that some time in the future there will be a worm (say) who is somehow "me" because of my misbehavior in this life. In what possible sense is that worm "me"? It has no physical relationship to me, it has no memories of being me, it has no consciousness of being "me." In my view the claim that it somehow "is" me simply makes no sense.

That's what I mean by saying that the very statement "I will be someone different in the future" contradicts the more extreme reading of what it says. Because just as much as it says "my attributes will change in the future" it ALSO says "I will still be I in the future; I will be aware of these attributes as changes to a constant underlying substrate." If I were to claim that I will "literally" be "someone else" in the future, then why not claim that I will suddenly cease to be me and will become you and you will cease to be you and will become me. Hey Presto Chango! Of course, "you" have no longer any memories of being you, or live where you lived, or have any of your former physical attributes--"you" now occupy my body, live my life, have all my memories etc. etc.

Well...how could that statement be meaningful? What's the continuity of "you" that would tell me that you "became" me?

Again: if you own a house and paint it a new color and I visit you and say "is this the same house you had when I last saw you, ten years ago?" the appropriate response is "yes, I just painted it a different color." If, on the other hand, you completely bulldozed the original house and built a new one from scratch, the appropriate response is not "yes, it just became a new house," it's "no, I knocked that house down and built a new one."

[Yoink]

What a privilege it must be to be able to make an argument without ever having to actually make an argument...

Where's that "The irony, it burns" image when you need it?

[Trent Wray]

After about this point your post gets into territory I find, frankly, baffling. But on this point, which addresses what I was saying, I can engage.

Yeah, sure, our "nature" changes all the time. But I think that the philosophical heavy weather you're making out of this amounts to little more than a play on words. Yes there is one sense of the question "who am I" that means "who am I really?" or "what is the bundle of attributes that I can apply to the person known generally as 'John Smith"" etc. But that simply is not the same question as the one we normally mean by "who am I."

If I paint my house red, is it still my house? Well, it was "my house" before but then it was blue, wasn't it? And OMFG it's red now! Epistemological crisis! Let's fire up the psionics machine! Do you get the analogy?

If I walk down the street with you and ask you "is this your house?" or "which house is yours?" or "do you know which house is yours?" you can answer what those questions mean to my and your perfect satisfaction without, necessarily, knowing or caring anything about the color of the house, the construction of the house, the contents of the house, the design of the house etc. etc. etc. You can add rooms to the house, change carpets in the house, repaint the house inside and out etc. etc. etc.--and it's still, clearly, "your house." Your house has undergone some changes (in fact, it undergoes changes all the time, with or without your input).

That, it seems to me, is equally true of people. "Who are you?" means "identify yourself"--it does not mean--as annnnnnoid seems to think--"tell me every single possible thing there is to know about you, right down to how many white blood cells are currently present in your blood stream." That the self identified is undergoing continual changes in attributes is no more philosophically challenging than the fact that your house does, or your car does, or your cellphone does.

Now, as for whether you can become an entirely new "who"...that seems to me to be highly problematic. This is a problem I've always had with the notion of reincarnation: the (vulgar) idea that one will come back as some sort of "lowly" animal as a "punishment" for poor behavior. I, frankly, have never understood why I should care that some time in the future there will be a worm (say) who is somehow "me" because of my misbehavior in this life. In what possible sense is that worm "me"? It has no physical relationship to me, it has no memories of being me, it has no consciousness of being "me." In my view the claim that it somehow "is" me simply makes no sense.

That's what I mean by saying that the very statement "I will be someone different in the future" contradicts the more extreme reading of what it says. Because just as much as it says "my attributes will change in the future" it ALSO says "I will still be I in the future; I will be aware of these attributes as changes to a constant underlying substrate." If I were to claim that I will "literally" be "someone else" in the future, then why not claim that I will suddenly cease to be me and will become you and you will cease to be you and will become me. Hey Presto Chango! Of course, "you" have no longer any memories of being you, or live where you lived, or have any of your former physical attributes--"you" now occupy my body, live my life, have all my memories etc. etc.

Well...how could that statement be meaningful? What's the continuity of "you" that would tell me that you "became" me?

Again: if you own a house and paint it a new color and I visit you and say "is this the same house you had when I last saw you, ten years ago?" the appropriate response is "yes, I just painted it a different color." If, on the other hand, you completely bulldozed the original house and built a new one from scratch, the appropriate response is not "yes, it just became a new house," it's "no, I knocked that house down and built a new one."Okay, but when someone different moves into the house ... regardless of it's color ... it now becomes their house, and is no longer yours.
So ten years earlier the house belonged to Sam (for example). It got painted red, but was still Sam's house. Then part of it even burned down, got rebuilt ... but it's still Sam's house. But then Sam sold it to Joan, and now it's Joan's house.

It's not the house that changes the ownerships. The house is always going to be the same address basically. "123 Forest Drive" for example. It's the occupant that decides whose house it is. "That's Joan's house on 123 Forest Drive."

So in this sense, our bodies are merely our address housing an occupant. So when I look at you and say, "Hello Yoink" --- I'm really saying, "Hello 123 Forest Drive." Anyone can recognize you from a picture in this way, they don't even have had to talk to you. They see your picture and say, "right there, that's Yoink." Its no different than recognizing architecture or a painting. But do they know the occupant? Would they recognize the occupant if they went "inside the house"?

Taking this a step further ... suppose you got a sex change. In other words, you not only painted your house, but you added an addition LOL (or perhaps knocked out some walls LOL). Your house might look radically different.

Is the occupant still the same occupant that lived in the house before the changes?

[Cainkane1]

I always thought the definition of life was any collection of self replicating molecules.

[Yoink]

Okay, but when someone different moves into the house ... regardless of it's color ... it now becomes their house, and is no longer yours.
So ten years earlier the house belonged to Sam (for example). It got painted red, but was still Sam's house. Then part of it even burned down, got rebuilt ... but it's still Sam's house. But then Sam sold it to Joan, and now it's Joan's house.

It's not the house that changes the ownerships. The house is always going to be the same address basically. "123 Forest Drive" for example. It's the occupant that decides whose house it is. "That's Joan's house on 123 Forest Drive."

So in this sense, our bodies are merely our address housing an occupant. So when I look at you and say, "Hello Yoink" --- I'm really saying, "Hello 123 Forest Drive." Anyone can recognize you from a picture in this way, they don't even have had to talk to you. They see your picture and say, "right there, that's Yoink." Its no different than recognizing architecture or a painting. But do they know the occupant? Would they recognize the occupant if they went "inside the house"?

Taking this a step further ... suppose you got a sex change. In other words, you not only painted your house, but you added an addition LOL (or perhaps knocked out some walls LOL). Your house might look radically different.

Is the occupant still the same occupant that lived in the house before the changes?

I'm not sure why you think the body comes into this at all. I wasn't comparing the house to the body. I was comparing the house to the "self." It's easy to imagine the body being taken over by a different "self." Spirit possession, for example, or vampirism or what have you. In those fictional cases we have no difficulty at all in recognizing that there is no continuity of "I" (Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde are not versions of one self, they are two selves sharing one body). Similarly, we have no difficulty in imagining (it's a common sci fi story) the self inhabiting a new body (brain in a bottle, brain in a robot, Avatar etc.). We recognize in those cases that the continuity of the "I" is absolute. And in the real world we are all familiar with people who undergo radical physical changes (illness, accident, sex-change etc.) without in any sense losing continuity of "selfhood."

A more challenging and interesting case is mental disease. If someone suddenly becomes "a different person" do we still know "who they are"? If they don't recognize their former friends and acquaintances, don't remember their former life, don't answer to the same name etc. etc. have they become a different person? I think a plausible argument could me made that they have (though disease, by its nature, is an exceptional case). Certainly we're familiar with people saying of family members suffering from extreme psychosis or advanced alzheimers or what have you "I didn't know who they were anymore." I think if we say of that person "no, it's still So-and-so" we really mean something like "if it weren't for the disease, it would still be so-and-so."

But that doesn't seem to be quite the utopian model of self-alteration that you're searching for, Trentwray.

[Pure Argent]

Where's that "The irony, it burns" image when you need it?

Right here.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u65/Maestro134/irony.jpg

Glad you like it. I thought it was pretty clever myself. One of my few moments of comedic genius.

:cs:

[Trent Wray]

I'm not sure why you think the body comes into this at all. I wasn't comparing the house to the body. I was comparing the house to the "self." It's easy to imagine the body being taken over by a different "self." Spirit possession, for example, or vampirism or what have you. In those fictional cases we have no difficulty at all in recognizing that there is no continuity of "I" (Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde are not versions of one self, they are two selves sharing one body). Similarly, we have no difficulty in imagining (it's a common sci fi story) the self inhabiting a new body (brain in a bottle, brain in a robot, Avatar etc.). We recognize in those cases that the continuity of the "I" is absolute. And in the real world we are all familiar with people who undergo radical physical changes (illness, accident, sex-change etc.) without in any sense losing continuity of "selfhood."

A more challenging and interesting case is mental disease. If someone suddenly becomes "a different person" do we still know "who they are"? If they don't recognize their former friends and acquaintances, don't remember their former life, don't answer to the same name etc. etc. have they become a different person? I think a plausible argument could me made that they have (though disease, by its nature, is an exceptional case). Certainly we're familiar with people saying of family members suffering from extreme psychosis or advanced alzheimers or what have you "I didn't know who they were anymore." I think if we say of that person "no, it's still So-and-so" we really mean something like "if it weren't for the disease, it would still be so-and-so."

But that doesn't seem to be quite the utopian model of self-alteration that you're searching for, Trentwray. I think it might still boil down to a matter of faith ... a belief in the "self" as being "something" instead of nothing or everything.

Either the self is an after effect of synaptic transfers and brain function (making it the same as everything ... elemental particles arranged, etc) ... or it's nothing (an illusion of the brain looking at itself and saying, "Huh?")

To single your"self" out as a unique entity because you are aware of the self ... is almost the same as saying you believe in a god. You have faith that you are not just a self, but something more than a "self". A something of something.

I now wonder how closely related the faith in one's self is compared to a faith in god. Do they go hand in hand or can they be mutually exclusive?

If you believe in "yourself" but not in god, are you essentially saying you are god? Or are you at the very least taking on that role without any of the responsiblities?

If you claim we all are unique "selves" .... then are you saying we are collectively god?

And if one feels they are more than a just the same stuff as everything, or an illusion ... and they think, "maybe I am SOMEthing ... a unique something ..." ... then one would naturally ask: "What am I then? Am I something from something else?"

That would be like saying we are god from god ... in other words, the concept of Jesus Christ, Buddha perhaps, etc and so forth?

What was always interesting to me was the first name "god" gave himself in the OT. "I Am". It seems very profound. When I say it to myself, "I am" ... it's as though that phrase in and of itself has no meaning apart from the fact I'm observing it and realiziing it.

So, just for fun .... when I say, "I am" --- the "I Am" part is actually what god is. The part of me that is realizing "I am" .... that's me. Perhaps :)

[Yoink]

I think it might still boil down to a matter of faith ... a belief in the "self" as being "something" instead of nothing or everything.

Either the self is an after effect of synaptic transfers and brain function (making it the same as everything ... elemental particles arranged, etc) ... or it's nothing (an illusion of the brain looking at itself and saying, "Huh?")

To single your"self" out as a unique entity because you are aware of the self ... is almost the same as saying you believe in a god. You have faith that you are not just a self, but something more than a "self". A something of something.

I now wonder how closely related the faith in one's self is compared to a faith in god. Do they go hand in hand or can they be mutually exclusive?

If you believe in "yourself" but not in god, are you essentially saying you are god? Or are you at the very least taking on that role without any of the responsiblities?

If you claim we all are unique "selves" .... then are you saying we are collectively god?

And if one feels they are more than a just the same stuff as everything, or an illusion ... and they think, "maybe I am SOMEthing ... a unique something ..." ... then one would naturally ask: "What am I then? Am I something from something else?"

That would be like saying we are god from god ... in other words, the concept of Jesus Christ, Buddha perhaps, etc and so forth?

What was always interesting to me was the first name "god" gave himself in the OT. "I Am". It seems very profound. When I say it to myself, "I am" ... it's as though that phrase in and of itself has no meaning apart from the fact I'm observing it and realiziing it.

So, just for fun .... when I say, "I am" --- the "I Am" part is actually what god is. The part of me that is realizing "I am" .... that's me. Perhaps :)

WTF?

[annnnoid]

Y’know Yoink…when I write thousands of words to make my points….and when neither you nor Mr. Jones can come up with anything better than ‘oh you have no argument’….I think it’s pretty obvious who, exactly, are the one’s who have no argument.

"Who are you?" means "identify yourself"--it does not mean--as annnnnnoid seems to think--"tell me every single possible thing there is to know about you, right down to how many white blood cells are currently present in your blood stream."

I pointed out quite clearly on numerous occasions that I was NOT speaking colloquially when I referred to the question ‘who am I’. I guess you didn’t read those parts either. Do you get it now….or shall I go and dig out my Jack and Jill grammar book and explain it in basic English?

Trent….I will admit that I truly admire your POV and the insights you achieve…but when someone replies ‘WTF’ to something like you just wrote I think you’ve simply gotta realize that they just don’t have a clue. What you talk about is pretty conceptually advanced y’know. You summarize very large amounts of meaning in very small spaces and move those meanings around very fast and often in very unique ways. You are like an artist who has achieved a unique style. The problem is that you use words ….the same words you think everyone else uses….so maybe you think it’s a simple matter for anyone else to understand. Everyone else doesn’t use the same words. Not only do many people rarely use the words you use, you also create a whole bunch of words that are rather unique to your own style….so in a common forum such as this, you’ve got to be prepared to explain a lot more than usual (which, I’ve noticed, you often do). You’ve also got to be prepared to recognize that lots of folks simply won’t have any idea what you’re talking about. Maybe you do….maybe you don’t. I just figure you could probably save yourself a lot of writing (and perhaps have more productive discussions) if you just concentrated on responding to those who clearly have some understanding of what you’re saying. But then again…maybe you just like writing…and exploring these ideas for yourself. That’s cool….but don’t be surprised if you get more ‘wtf’.

[Yoink]

I pointed out quite clearly on numerous occasions that I was NOT speaking colloquially when I referred to the question ‘who am I’.

Care to name one of these posts?

[Trent Wray]

WTF? FTW? lol

Trent….I will admit that I truly admire your POV and the insights you achieve…but when someone replies ‘WTF’ to something like you just wrote I think you’ve simply gotta realize that they just don’t have a clue. What you talk about is pretty conceptually advanced y’know. You summarize very large amounts of meaning in very small spaces and move those meanings around very fast and often in very unique ways. You are like an artist who has achieved a unique style. The problem is that you use words ….the same words you think everyone else uses….so maybe you think it’s a simple matter for anyone else to understand. Everyone else doesn’t use the same words. Not only do many people rarely use the words you use, you also create a whole bunch of words that are rather unique to your own style….so in a common forum such as this, you’ve got to be prepared to explain a lot more than usual (which, I’ve noticed, you often do). You’ve also got to be prepared to recognize that lots of folks simply won’t have any idea what you’re talking about. Maybe you do….maybe you don’t. I just figure you could probably save yourself a lot of writing (and perhaps have more productive discussions) if you just concentrated on responding to those who clearly have some understanding of what you’re saying. But then again…maybe you just like writing…and exploring these ideas for yourself. That’s cool….but don’t be surprised if you get more ‘wtf’. Thanx annnnnoid ... I appreciate it. I think I use words sometimes in a way that I personally view them, but take for granted that others might not have the same understanding of the word I'm using. When I try to "explain" better what I'm trying to say, I get sick of my own long-windedness and figure others wouldn't want to read a longer post as well.

It does bum me out on occasion when I get the "wtf's" because it either means I've said something idiotic or confusing, and either one of those possibilities can be good or bad depending on what I was wanting to get out of stating my opinion in the first place LOL :clap:

But all in all ... just typing the junk out is often times good enough for me to explore the thing myself. So it's cool. I don't think it's all that conceptually advanced though, and I'm aware that sometimes folks will or won't see what I'm trying to say. But I'll share it anyway ... especially if I think they have something to offer me in return and offer me a viewpoint on it that I can't see on my own ... even if it's just a few words ...

ETA: thanx again annnnoid for your kind words, I really appreciate it

[Beerina]

I hope I'm not helping to derail the OP .... BUT ....

What I'm wanting to know, is if it's possible for there to be multiple me's inside of my own consciousness .... and I'm not talking about multiple personalities and all that. I'm trying to describing something else.

...

Am I smoking the good stuff again, or am I way off base?

Each lobe is completely capable of consciousness, as people with "hemispherectomies" demonstrate. Whether this consciousness merges or just has two work together as if they were merged I don't know. Some people with lobotomy splitting the halves from communicating get phantom hand syndrom, which is the other lobe asserting itself, "other" being defined as the lobe that doesn't have speech capability.

[Yoink]

FTW? lol

I apologize, Trentwray, if that "WTF" seemed rude, but again and again I've noticed that you have this tendency to start out from quite an interesting little problem and then suddenly jump to the most bizarre and abstruse philosophical/theological speculations without seeming to care about a single one of the intervening steps.

If you would just slow down you might actually make some progress. Tell me, for example, how you are getting from my account of the self to the idea of this self being "god." I see no more reason to call the self as I have described it a "god" than to call it a toaster-oven or a shamwow.

Why not start there and see if you can actually explain how you're getting from A to Z without skipping over all the letters in between?

[Trent Wray]

Each lobe is completely capable of consciousness, as people with "hemispherectomies" demonstrate. Whether this consciousness merges or just has two work together as if they were merged I don't know. Some people with lobotomy splitting the halves from communicating get phantom hand syndrom, which is the other lobe asserting itself, "other" being defined as the lobe that doesn't have speech capability. Interesting ...

I apologize, Trentwray, if that "WTF" seemed rude, but again and again I've noticed that you have this tendency to start out from quite an interesting little problem and then suddenly jump to the most bizarre and abstruse philosophical/theological speculations without seeming to care about a single one of the intervening steps.

If you would just slow down you might actually make some progress. Tell me, for example, how you are getting from my account of the self to the idea of this self being "god." I see no more reason to call the self as I have described it a "god" than to call it a toaster-oven or a shamwow.

Why not start there and see if you can actually explain how you're getting from A to Z without skipping over all the letters in between? Oh I honestly didn't think it was rude at all ... really :)

Yes I should slow down and describe how I get from point A to B more. Sorry ... my bad. I might add to my previous thought later because I think it's kind of an interesting one ... so please don't take my lack of further explanation for the moment in the wrong light .... :)

[Yoink]

Interesting ...

Oh I honestly didn't think it was rude at all ... really :)

Yes I should slow down and describe how I get from point A to B more. Sorry ... my bad. I might add to my previous thought later because I think it's kind of an interesting one ... so please don't take my lack of further explanation for the moment in the wrong light .... :)

I'm glad we're cool.

Here's something that might (or might not) help your thinking about this. Is "the United States" god? After all, no one can claim to know exactly what "the United States" is (you can't know every single person, every single rock, tree, blade of grass etc...that comprises 'the United States'). We all know that "the United States" exists, but we also know that whatever we name "the United States" at one instant is something slightly different the following instant (some United States citizen just died, after all, and another one just got born; some fraction of the soil of the United States washed into the ocean, and some fraction of soil got deposited on the coasts etc. etc.). The exact entity described by "the United States" is inevitably somewhat hazy (we mean the Government, of course, but we also mean the people and the land). "The United States" endures through time despite the fact that the population changes, the land changes, the constitution changes, the laws (and particularly the laws of citizenship) change etc. etc. etc.

Does this mean that nations are Gods?

[Trent Wray]

Okay ... here is what I was trying to say:

Essentially, we are nothing more than a collection of elemental particles which make up an organism, which is part of an evolutionary process we have some understanding of, so on and so forth. But so are rocks, and trees, and comets, etc and etc. In other words, there is very little that separates us from everything else. We are basically made up of the same stuff as everything else.

So in this sense, just to observe the fact that we are animate objects that grow and rot and die ... and that a rock, for instance, isn't an animate object .... isn't really saying a whole lot about us being "special". We are still not that much different than a rock. I mean ... look at water for example. It moves and changes it's structure depending on the temperature, and it can come together with other things and form solutions, etc and so forth. But this doesn't mean that water is "alive" or animate. Other animals which exhibit free-will and other aspects we typically attribute to something being "alive" aren't that much different than us either. We're still just different forms or representations of the arrangements of molecules and atoms, etc and so forth.

BUT ---- for some reason, humans think that they are "special". We think we are different than everything else. Not only are we alive, but we are different than all the other animals. We are self-aware, and we are aware that we are self aware. We see our actions and what we do during our lifetime, and we seek to understand more and more about the nature of our universe and existence, blah blah blah. Other animals that are animate don't seem to do this kind of behavior, but we do.

So it eventually gets down to the idea of "self". Not only are we unique as a species (in our minds) ... but we are also uniquely individual. That is to say, that each one of us believes we are one of a kind, have some sort of "value", and that we "deserve" certain rights and liberties, etc etc. We also feel as though we give rights and liberties to other inanimate things and other living things as well. So, when it boils right down to it, we think we are more than just "stuff". We think we are more than just the same as everything ... so to speak. We think we are some-thing. Something special.

This is partially why I posted this thread here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=166542). I wanted to understand why ... if we are nothing more than just biological machines running around ... then why would someone who believes we are "nothing special" be willing to inflict harm upon another or even claim a "right" of any kind. Boiling it down to "instincts" isn't good enough for me, because I can still say that I'm "just a bunch of carbon" ... but I will still act and behave and live as though I'm special.

It seems the "fact" that I'm special is inescapable. Once I become aware of the idea that "I exist" or in other words ... that "I am" ... it seems I'm trapped. I begin to ask "what am i?" and "who am I" and "why am I". And almost regardless of my conclusion ... whether I think I'm something special or nothing much different from rocks and worms ... I'm still aware now that I exist. I can either pursue the answer to the question of what I am, or be content with an "I don't know".

And this is what I'm saying. If once I'm aware that I exist, and I put a label on it ... I'm giving it validity. I'm claiming that the existence of self is REAL ... in other words, it's not an illusion. The existence of self could easily be attributed to a consequence of a thinking brain ... like oceans are the consequence of water collecting together to form pools. What makes the fact my brain behaves a certain way that's different from the way water behaves ... or the way electricity shoots across the sky ... anything that makes my brain special?

And yet it is special, because I am aware of it.

The fact that I am aware of it's existence, makes it special. If I don't understand what it is, I'm basically claiming this: "I'm not really sure the self is there ... it may or may not be there. Since I can't put my finger exactly on what it is, I'm saying it might be an illusion or it might not be. It might be part of something bigger or it might not be." But to put a label on it ... is to acknowledge it's existence. If you claim it's "merely a combo of the id and ego," etc and so forth ... then you're claiming the Self exists.

And this is why I'm likening the idea of self to a faith in a god that exists. If you believe you exist as something special ... something of value above water or squirrels or electricity or rocks or ANYTHING ELSE THAT EXISTS ... you are then separating yourself out from the very same stuff that makes up you and everything else. You are saying, "I am a self ... and that is different than everything else. It might be the result of elemental particles ... but it is found nowhere else in the universe. There is only one me, in one place, at one time. I am not a rock or water or a skunk or whatever. I am Yoink." ---- you are separating yourself out. You may or may not be elevating yourself above everything else ... that I don't know. But ... you are at least separating yourself out for some reason.

You are, in effect, saying that you are SPECIAL. I dare say that you would be saying you are holy. Holiness is a term that I think has been perverted ... it is supposed to describe an object of worship or something righteous and worthy of veneration. I head, one time long ago, that the term holy was originally meant to mean "separated". Different, in other words. Different from everything that is.

And so to recognize yourSELF ... is akin to having faith that you ARE a self. It's similar to believing in god ... something you cannot see or directly experience, yet you can experience it indirectly through a sort of observation ... perhaps.

So you're observing yourself, more or less, having faith that you ARE. Now, I know that you are a thing. You're a human, formed and shaped by your environment, culture, genetics, so on and so forth. But to believe that you are unique in the sense that there is SOMETHING to YOU in particular that cannot be found anywhere else in the entire galaxy/cosmos/etc and that the only one of you there is will leave with you when you die or be carried over the rainbow to play harps or whatever .... to believe you are unique in that sense is extraordinary, and it requires a certain amount of faith on my part. A certain amount of belief that you have value in a way that water, squirrels, plants, comets, rocks, planets, etc do not have. They may all be unique because no two things exist in exactly the same format (like snowflakes maybe). But you are unique in that there is only one you ... and to believe that takes faith. Faith in something that isn't intrinsically obvious.

And yet it is. It is a sort of faith we take for granted ... a faith that most of us have. Some of us don't have that faith. Some of us don't believe we are anything special at all ... just more humans amongst the universe. A collection of matter that is here today and gone tommorrow.

But if there is a self ... it is akin to having a faith. Furthermore ... the idea of how God identified himself in the OT initially to Moses intrigues me, because when asked who he was and what his name was, he replied, "I AM".

In some ways, I can identify with god on that level. Because I believe that I am unique. I can't explain why. I can try, but that best I can do are hypothesis. But I believe I have value ... not a value that makes me more valuable than another or less valuable ... but separate. There is only one "trentwray" to purchase on the shelf at Walmart so to speak. I maybe a human, of a certain race, from a certain point in time, a certain culture, etc etc ... but there is only one Trent. At least I believe that. And my parents believe that as well. Who I am is a therefore, a question that answers itself. I merely am. I am unique.

So (for the sake of argument) if god is saying the same thing: "I am" ... then what does that make god?

Initially, one might assume that god is therefore "everything I am not". And so the classic interpretation is that "god is everywhere". He's just some invisible force that exists behind the scenes, hidden behind every corner of every atom, occassionally letting part of himself be seen like a ghost in a window every once in awhile. But clearly ... we look for god but don't find him. And we try to find evidence, and it's usually woo at best. Jesus on a frito? Flying planes into buildings in the name of Allah? WTF?

But if I look again at what God (for the sake of this argument) said his name was: "I am" ... I might find something profound in that statement. Something that might tell me, perhaps, "what" god is exactly. Maybe.

If god is "I am" ... it might not mean that "he is an I am". In other words, god is not saying, "you are you, and I am me. I am different from you, therefore I am not you." That's not what god might have said. God said, "I am."

So when I say those words to myself ... "I am". I think immediately of myself. I think immediately to my own self, and that thing that takes faith for me to believe exists ... the self "inside of me" .... the "I am" part of myself.

But then I realize .... what I'm thinking is me, might not be me afterall. I mean, that "self" business .... it seems like such an illusion. It seems like I'm trying to make myself out to be special or something when perhaps I really am just a machine running around with a brain in my own personal jar of fluid. And this thinking I go through is tricking my ownself into thinking I'm something when I'm really nothing at all .... I'm an illusion.

So what am I then? Well ... if God answered that question, then perhaps that gives me a clue. Again ... when I say, "I am." ... maybe it's not me I'm pronouncing the existence of .....
..... maybe it's "god". Whatever that "god" thing is. THAT is the "I am". And so when God says his name is "I Am" .. he's saying it more for our benefit. So when I look at myself and say, "How do I know I exist? I know because I think ... therefore I am ..." god is hoping we'll recognize what we're really saying. "I think, therefore god." god isn't a who or a what or a where. He isn't any of those things anymore than "I know myself" or whatever. God is SEPARATE. He is different. He is the "I am" in the statement "I am".

And what does that really make me then? That makes me the person saying those words: "I am". The self ... the Trent ... that is the entity that is separate from god and everything else ... a unique thing ... a seperate thing in and of itself ... that is OBSERVING GOD ... and I'm observing god when I observe "I am.". It's not when I observe myself. That's different. That's concisouness. Conciousness is when I'm observing myself perhaps. But when I realize "I am" ... it is me, myself, making that realization. And that realiziaiton is God. It isn't that "god is" or that "god isn't" or that "I am god." It's merely .... God. That realiziation is god.

It is the idea. The concept. The concept in an of itself. So what I'm positing, is that god is concept. Potential. Possibility. God is the neither and the maybe in an if \ then formula. He might exist, he might not exist. He is concept .... potential ... unrealized yet. Maybe he created everything, maybe he didn't. It hasn't been decided yet. Because it's a maybe.

And that's why I rambled on and on about the idea of concept and possibility and so on and so forth earlier (in this thread I believe) ... because I was exploring the idea of it all.

And so in this way ... god is concept like I am concept. I was made in his image. Concept from concept perhaps. The difference is, of course, that there is a physical world built upon physical laws and I am a bunch of stuff held together until I decay and return to carbon ash or whatever. So if god is a physical "thing" .... then I see no evidence that he exists. And if god is "everything" ... then I see no evidence that god is the whole universe either. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't.

But in the same way god is a hypothesis ... so am "I". My body isn't a hypothesis. Trent, the human being isn't a hypothesis ... I exist. But Trent ... the unique, one of a kind "entity" that exists only in this place at this time and will exist no more when I "die" ..... to believe in that "self" takes a certain amount of faith.

And so what I'm finally wondering is this:
What does it mean, for a person who believes in themselves as a unique "person" of value, but doesn't believe in "god"? Does that mean that they essentially believe in "god" without realizing it? Or does that mean they are declaring themselves as "god" without realizing it?

And what about people who do not believe in "themselves" ... but perhaps they do believe in "god"? Is it even possible for them to believe in a god if they cannot believe in themselves?

Now, I could go on and on and on rambling ... but I tried to be more descriptive. And to answer the question of the USA thing ... the idea of the USA is again, a concept. It's separating out the land and thinking a certain amount of "special" people own it, and can name it, and change it's environment and radically alter it's flora and fauna. We can assign laws determining who or what can operate on a certain piece of land a certain way. But this is all an illusion as well. Somewhat. Because we can only control it so much. We can only control the concept to a certain degree ... and then it spins out of control. We become enslaved by our own laws ... we become imprisoned by our own choices of what to do with "our country" perhaps, because at some point someone else will want the "USA" and possibly want to destroy it, and so we will risk nuclear holocaust in the name of "defending the concept" of what we believe we have a right to.

So, i don't think the USA is god (unless we worship it). The USA is a concept, an umbrella term. Once all the people disappear, the USA will no longer exist. The land might still be here, the forests might still exist. But the laws and tax dollars and all that crap ... those ILLUSIONS that we created will disappear. They will have been no more real than the Avatar movie. Even the impact on the planet we think we will have left .... won't matter if no one is here to observe it.

And so our man-made world is largely an illusionary construct dreamworld that exists because we believe we are special and have a right to do what we do ... another possible illusion. So perhaps our society in general is a dreamworld. One which we can touch and taste and enjoy the benefits of ... so it seems real. But what isn't real is our ownership of it. Practically it is real ... but literally, it isn't. It takes faith to believe in it. Because a virus could destroy us, or an earthquake, or any number of things could end our "dream" at a given moment. In fact, when you die, the real-illusion is over.

And so how practical is it to really think like this? "The self is an illusion which I have exists. The world is a dreamworld that exists but is built on illusionary principles resting on hard physical empirical laws which are in turn resting upon the probabilites of quantum physics" etc and so forth. I mean ... how practical is it to really think this way day to day? It isn't. And yet ... is it true? Is it a true way to describe the universe?

If it is ... then again ... we exist and yet we don't. We are concepts built upon concepts. Just because we can interact with them doesn't make them "real". They are still possibilities and probabilities. And to believe in them, takes a certain amount of faith.

-----

Anyway ... did I describe this better? I rambled for quite awhile. And I'm not even sure I believe what I said LOL .... I'm thinking outloud. My opinion could easily change. It's just exploring ideas .... :alc: ..... and I didn't even get into what I think god really might be and not be LOL

[Yoink]

Okay ... here is what I was trying to say:

Essentially, we are nothing more than a collection of elemental particles which make up an organism, which is part of an evolutionary process we have some understanding of, so on and so forth. But so are rocks, and trees, and comets, etc and etc. In other words, there is very little that separates us from everything else. We are basically made up of the same stuff as everything else.

So in this sense, just to observe the fact that we are animate objects that grow and rot and die ... and that a rock, for instance, isn't an animate object .... isn't really saying a whole lot about us being "special". We are still not that much different than a rock. I mean ... look at water for example. It moves and changes it's structure depending on the temperature, and it can come together with other things and form solutions, etc and so forth. But this doesn't mean that water is "alive" or animate. Other animals which exhibit free-will and other aspects we typically attribute to something being "alive" aren't that much different than us either. We're still just different forms or representations of the arrangements of molecules and atoms, etc and so forth.

BUT ---- for some reason, humans think that they are "special". We think we are different than everything else. Not only are we alive, but we are different than all the other animals. We are self-aware, and we are aware that we are self aware. We see our actions and what we do during our lifetime, and we seek to understand more and more about the nature of our universe and existence, blah blah blah. Other animals that are animate don't seem to do this kind of behavior, but we do.

So it eventually gets down to the idea of "self". Not only are we unique as a species (in our minds) ... but we are also uniquely individual. That is to say, that each one of us believes we are one of a kind, have some sort of "value", and that we "deserve" certain rights and liberties, etc etc. We also feel as though we give rights and liberties to other inanimate things and other living things as well. So, when it boils right down to it, we think we are more than just "stuff". We think we are more than just the same as everything ... so to speak. We think we are some-thing. Something special.

This is partially why I posted this thread here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=166542). I wanted to understand why ... if we are nothing more than just biological machines running around ... then why would someone who believes we are "nothing special" be willing to inflict harm upon another or even claim a "right" of any kind. Boiling it down to "instincts" isn't good enough for me, because I can still say that I'm "just a bunch of carbon" ... but I will still act and behave and live as though I'm special.

It seems the "fact" that I'm special is inescapable. Once I become aware of the idea that "I exist" or in other words ... that "I am" ... it seems I'm trapped. I begin to ask "what am i?" and "who am I" and "why am I". And almost regardless of my conclusion ... whether I think I'm something special or nothing much different from rocks and worms ... I'm still aware now that I exist. I can either pursue the answer to the question of what I am, or be content with an "I don't know".

And this is what I'm saying. If once I'm aware that I exist, and I put a label on it ... I'm giving it validity. I'm claiming that the existence of self is REAL ... in other words, it's not an illusion. The existence of self could easily be attributed to a consequence of a thinking brain ... like oceans are the consequence of water collecting together to form pools. What makes the fact my brain behaves a certain way that's different from the way water behaves ... or the way electricity shoots across the sky ... anything that makes my brain special?

And yet it is special, because I am aware of it.

The fact that I am aware of it's existence, makes it special. If I don't understand what it is, I'm basically claiming this: "I'm not really sure the self is there ... it may or may not be there. Since I can't put my finger exactly on what it is, I'm saying it might be an illusion or it might not be. It might be part of something bigger or it might not be." But to put a label on it ... is to acknowledge it's existence. If you claim it's "merely a combo of the id and ego," etc and so forth ... then you're claiming the Self exists.

And this is why I'm likening the idea of self to a faith in a god that exists. If you believe you exist as something special ... something of value above water or squirrels or electricity or rocks or ANYTHING ELSE THAT EXISTS ... you are then separating yourself out from the very same stuff that makes up you and everything else. You are saying, "I am a self ... and that is different than everything else. It might be the result of elemental particles ... but it is found nowhere else in the universe. There is only one me, in one place, at one time. I am not a rock or water or a skunk or whatever. I am Yoink." ---- you are separating yourself out. You may or may not be elevating yourself above everything else ... that I don't know. But ... you are at least separating yourself out for some reason.

You are, in effect, saying that you are SPECIAL. I dare say that you would be saying you are holy. Holiness is a term that I think has been perverted ... it is supposed to describe an object of worship or something righteous and worthy of veneration. I head, one time long ago, that the term holy was originally meant to mean "separated". Different, in other words. Different from everything that is.

And so to recognize yourSELF ... is akin to having faith that you ARE a self. It's similar to believing in god ... something you cannot see or directly experience, yet you can experience it indirectly through a sort of observation ... perhaps.

So you're observing yourself, more or less, having faith that you ARE. Now, I know that you are a thing. You're a human, formed and shaped by your environment, culture, genetics, so on and so forth. But to believe that you are unique in the sense that there is SOMETHING to YOU in particular that cannot be found anywhere else in the entire galaxy/cosmos/etc and that the only one of you there is will leave with you when you die or be carried over the rainbow to play harps or whatever .... to believe you are unique in that sense is extraordinary, and it requires a certain amount of faith on my part. A certain amount of belief that you have value in a way that water, squirrels, plants, comets, rocks, planets, etc do not have. They may all be unique because no two things exist in exactly the same format (like snowflakes maybe). But you are unique in that there is only one you ... and to believe that takes faith. Faith in something that isn't intrinsically obvious.

And yet it is. It is a sort of faith we take for granted ... a faith that most of us have. Some of us don't have that faith. Some of us don't believe we are anything special at all ... just more humans amongst the universe. A collection of matter that is here today and gone tommorrow.

But if there is a self ... it is akin to having a faith. Furthermore ... the idea of how God identified himself in the OT initially to Moses intrigues me, because when asked who he was and what his name was, he replied, "I AM".

In some ways, I can identify with god on that level. Because I believe that I am unique. I can't explain why. I can try, but that best I can do are hypothesis. But I believe I have value ... not a value that makes me more valuable than another or less valuable ... but separate. There is only one "trentwray" to purchase on the shelf at Walmart so to speak. I maybe a human, of a certain race, from a certain point in time, a certain culture, etc etc ... but there is only one Trent. At least I believe that. And my parents believe that as well. Who I am is a therefore, a question that answers itself. I merely am. I am unique.

So (for the sake of argument) if god is saying the same thing: "I am" ... then what does that make god?

Initially, one might assume that god is therefore "everything I am not". And so the classic interpretation is that "god is everywhere". He's just some invisible force that exists behind the scenes, hidden behind every corner of every atom, occassionally letting part of himself be seen like a ghost in a window every once in awhile. But clearly ... we look for god but don't find him. And we try to find evidence, and it's usually woo at best. Jesus on a frito? Flying planes into buildings in the name of Allah? WTF?

But if I look again at what God (for the sake of this argument) said his name was: "I am" ... I might find something profound in that statement. Something that might tell me, perhaps, "what" god is exactly. Maybe.

If god is "I am" ... it might not mean that "he is an I am". In other words, god is not saying, "you are you, and I am me. I am different from you, therefore I am not you." That's not what god might have said. God said, "I am."

So when I say those words to myself ... "I am". I think immediately of myself. I think immediately to my own self, and that thing that takes faith for me to believe exists ... the self "inside of me" .... the "I am" part of myself.

But then I realize .... what I'm thinking is me, might not be me afterall. I mean, that "self" business .... it seems like such an illusion. It seems like I'm trying to make myself out to be special or something when perhaps I really am just a machine running around with a brain in my own personal jar of fluid. And this thinking I go through is tricking my ownself into thinking I'm something when I'm really nothing at all .... I'm an illusion.

So what am I then? Well ... if God answered that question, then perhaps that gives me a clue. Again ... when I say, "I am." ... maybe it's not me I'm pronouncing the existence of .....
..... maybe it's "god". Whatever that "god" thing is. THAT is the "I am". And so when God says his name is "I Am" .. he's saying it more for our benefit. So when I look at myself and say, "How do I know I exist? I know because I think ... therefore I am ..." god is hoping we'll recognize what we're really saying. "I think, therefore god." god isn't a who or a what or a where. He isn't any of those things anymore than "I know myself" or whatever. God is SEPARATE. He is different. He is the "I am" in the statement "I am".

And what does that really make me then? That makes me the person saying those words: "I am". The self ... the Trent ... that is the entity that is separate from god and everything else ... a unique thing ... a seperate thing in and of itself ... that is OBSERVING GOD ... and I'm observing god when I observe "I am.". It's not when I observe myself. That's different. That's concisouness. Conciousness is when I'm observing myself perhaps. But when I realize "I am" ... it is me, myself, making that realization. And that realiziaiton is God. It isn't that "god is" or that "god isn't" or that "I am god." It's merely .... God. That realiziation is god.

It is the idea. The concept. The concept in an of itself. So what I'm positing, is that god is concept. Potential. Possibility. God is the neither and the maybe in an if \ then formula. He might exist, he might not exist. He is concept .... potential ... unrealized yet. Maybe he created everything, maybe he didn't. It hasn't been decided yet. Because it's a maybe.

And that's why I rambled on and on about the idea of concept and possibility and so on and so forth earlier (in this thread I believe) ... because I was exploring the idea of it all.

And so in this way ... god is concept like I am concept. I was made in his image. Concept from concept perhaps. The difference is, of course, that there is a physical world built upon physical laws and I am a bunch of stuff held together until I decay and return to carbon ash or whatever. So if god is a physical "thing" .... then I see no evidence that he exists. And if god is "everything" ... then I see no evidence that god is the whole universe either. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't.

But in the same way god is a hypothesis ... so am "I". My body isn't a hypothesis. Trent, the human being isn't a hypothesis ... I exist. But Trent ... the unique, one of a kind "entity" that exists only in this place at this time and will exist no more when I "die" ..... to believe in that "self" takes a certain amount of faith.

And so what I'm finally wondering is this:
What does it mean, for a person who believes in themselves as a unique "person" of value, but doesn't believe in "god"? Does that mean that they essentially believe in "god" without realizing it? Or does that mean they are declaring themselves as "god" without realizing it?

And what about people who do not believe in "themselves" ... but perhaps they do believe in "god"? Is it even possible for them to believe in a god if they cannot believe in themselves?

Now, I could go on and on and on rambling ... but I tried to be more descriptive. And to answer the question of the USA thing ... the idea of the USA is again, a concept. It's separating out the land and thinking a certain amount of "special" people own it, and can name it, and change it's environment and radically alter it's flora and fauna. We can assign laws determining who or what can operate on a certain piece of land a certain way. But this is all an illusion as well. Somewhat. Because we can only control it so much. We can only control the concept to a certain degree ... and then it spins out of control. We become enslaved by our own laws ... we become imprisoned by our own choices of what to do with "our country" perhaps, because at some point someone else will want the "USA" and possibly want to destroy it, and so we will risk nuclear holocaust in the name of "defending the concept" of what we believe we have a right to.

So, i don't think the USA is god (unless we worship it). The USA is a concept, an umbrella term. Once all the people disappear, the USA will no longer exist. The land might still be here, the forests might still exist. But the laws and tax dollars and all that crap ... those ILLUSIONS that we created will disappear. They will have been no more real than the Avatar movie. Even the impact on the planet we think we will have left .... won't matter if no one is here to observe it.

And so our man-made world is largely an illusionary construct dreamworld that exists because we believe we are special and have a right to do what we do ... another possible illusion. So perhaps our society in general is a dreamworld. One which we can touch and taste and enjoy the benefits of ... so it seems real. But what isn't real is our ownership of it. Practically it is real ... but literally, it isn't. It takes faith to believe in it. Because a virus could destroy us, or an earthquake, or any number of things could end our "dream" at a given moment. In fact, when you die, the real-illusion is over.

And so how practical is it to really think like this? "The self is an illusion which I have exists. The world is a dreamworld that exists but is built on illusionary principles resting on hard physical empirical laws which are in turn resting upon the probabilites of quantum physics" etc and so forth. I mean ... how practical is it to really think this way day to day? It isn't. And yet ... is it true? Is it a true way to describe the universe?

If it is ... then again ... we exist and yet we don't. We are concepts built upon concepts. Just because we can interact with them doesn't make them "real". They are still possibilities and probabilities. And to believe in them, takes a certain amount of faith.

-----

Anyway ... did I describe this better? I rambled for quite awhile. And I'm not even sure I believe what I said LOL .... I'm thinking outloud. My opinion could easily change. It's just exploring ideas .... :alc: ..... and I didn't even get into what I think god really might be and not be LOL

If this is you simplifying and clarifying an argument, I'd hate to see what happens if you try to obfuscate it!

I'll try to be brief. Your equivalence between "faith in self" and "faith in god" is valid--to a point--in certain instances. If, for example, I were to insist that my "self" is a "soul" (if I were to insist that I knew for a fact what the self was and that it was some kind of immanent, absolute identity) then, sure, there's a sense in which that is a kind of "faith." But our options are not either to insist upon that or to say "there is no such thing as a self." We can (and I have done in prior postings) refer to the self solely as we experience it phenomenologically. It is obviously true that the self is in many ways an "illusion." It is obviously true that we experience a continuity and 'solidity' of identity that is, in fact, the emergent epiphenomenon of a whole host of processes which are far less continuous and holistic than our experience of selfhood would suggest. But so what? If I'm not insisting that the illusion is anything but an illusion, that doesn't mean I can't refer to the illusion coherently and consistently, does it?

And here's where the analogy between "self" and "god" breaks down. The problem with the "god" illusion is that there isn't even a phenomenological illusion to name. I can't say "well, I experience God, even though I know God's not really there, or isn't quite really what I think of as "God."" There's no "God-experience" in the first place. Or, to anticipate a potential quibble, while there may be experiences that people attribute to God's agency (trance states, visions etc.), there are always better-attested and more plausible causes at hand for those experiences. There is no direct phenomenological experience of God. There is, however, a direct phenomenological experience of "selfhood."

[Trent Wray]

If this is you simplifying and clarifying an argument, I'd hate to see what happens if you try to obfuscate it! If I was going to obfuscate an argument, I'd actually only have a couple of sentences I'd use ... one of which would include the word "dude". LOL

I'll try to be brief. Your equivalence between "faith in self" and "faith in god" is valid--to a point--in certain instances. If, for example, I were to insist that my "self" is a "soul" (if I were to insist that I knew for a fact what the self was and that it was some kind of immanent, absolute identity) then, sure, there's a sense in which that is a kind of "faith." But our options are not either to insist upon that or to say "there is no such thing as a self." We can (and I have done in prior postings) refer to the self solely as we experience it phenomenologically. It is obviously true that the self is in many ways an "illusion." It is obviously true that we experience a continuity and 'solidity' of identity that is, in fact, the emergent epiphenomenon of a whole host of processes which are far less continuous and holistic than our experience of selfhood would suggest. But so what? If I'm not insisting that the illusion is anything but an illusion, that doesn't mean I can't refer to the illusion coherently and consistently, does it?

And here's where the analogy between "self" and "god" breaks down. The problem with the "god" illusion is that there isn't even a phenomenological illusion to name. I can't say "well, I experience God, even though I know God's not really there, or isn't quite really what I think of as "God."" There's no "God-experience" in the first place. Or, to anticipate a potential quibble, while there may be experiences that people attribute to God's agency (trance states, visions etc.), there are always better-attested and more plausible causes at hand for those experiences. There is no direct phenomenological experience of God. There is, however, a direct phenomenological experience of "selfhood."Okay dude ... (j/k) :cheerleader2 ...
... if you are insisting the illusion of "self" is an illusion, but you are still referring to the illusion coherently and consistently, you are acknowledging that it exists to some degree. You can call it ego, id, conciousness, soul, spirit, Inner Pink Unicorn, whatever you want.

If you believe it exists and can prove it somehow and show the mechanism of how it works, then you have taken away the "faith" aspect more or less. Because you are no longer relying on faith to explain it. You are replying on proof. If you claim, that beyond the shadow of a doubt, your "self" is nothing more than an illusion caused by your brains operation, then that is provable. There is evidence of this. One way to test it, is to turn off your brain and see the "self" that was "you" magically go *poof* .... in other words, you die. Another way to prove it is to alter stimuli and environmental factors, or neurological factors, etc and so forth.

BUT ... there is also evidence you are more than an illusion. There is evidence that you are a unique creature, in and of yourself. That there is more than meets the eye ... that you might have a "self", spirit, soul, IPU (inner pink unicorn), etc etc. One of the ways I can test this illusion, is to ask you. If you insist that you "exist", I can see by your actions that you exist. If you claim to be different than a computer or anything else that resembles manufactured non-AI .... then I can believe you if I want. Also, if you have others claiming this about you as well ... then that is further evidence. Perhaps your parents love you more than they would love me ... or perhaps your wife/husband sees something "special" in you. You can break these connections down to sociobiological factors ... or you could also say that you had more value to your parents and your wife because they did see "something in you" that made you "special".

The point it ... when it comes to the idea of "self" ... we are basically a bunch of robots running around trying to figure out if we're really "alive" or not. We're trying to figure out if we are really alive and unique from other things that do not appear to be alive.

One of our problems, is that we have no "higher intelligence" to compare ourselves to. We have only ourselves. We can look to dolphins or pigs or whales and whatnot, and compare our"selves" to them ... but we appear to possess unique traits and abilities compared to them that make our "lives" different in some dramatic ways.

Thus, as bio-robots, we are still trying to answer the question of whether or not we are alive and unique, or just the result of some space goop coming together and forming "trent" instead of a comet.

For those who think they are a unique thing, claiming to be "alive" --- there is evidence for this, but it takes a step of faith to believe this. Because when we dissect ourselves and chop ourselves up, we are in fact composed of the same junk as everything else. But the evidence lies in our own claims and the phenomenological experience of self that we almost all universally experience ... and the choices we make as an apparent result.

And so there is also evidence that we are not "alive" ... as stated above.

Those who are unsure of whether or not they are "alive" are still trying to decide what to call themselves, if they even exist. Maybe you fall into this category.

BUT ---- much of this boils down to the observer. I can only speak for myself in claiming I'm "alive" and that I have a "self". I can't prove it. I can try, and I can compare experiences ... but there are many explanations and many possibilites to describe and put a name on my IPU. You will say one thing, I will say another, 6 million peeps in India will say one thing, 6 million peeps in the US will say another. All throughout history the attempts at describing what "we" are is obvious.

But again ... by even speaking of the Inner Pink Unicorn, you don't have to believe it is more than an illusion. You are declaring it "something" by even being aware of it. If it's an illusion, it is obviously a real one ... because you acknowledge it's existence. By declaring the idea of a teacup orbiting Jupiter as an illusion or falsehood, you are declaring the illusion itself is real ... whether the teacup is there or not. In other words ... the hypothetical situation itself exists ... even if it's only hypothetical.

Now, if we all were to examine the orbit of Jupiter and find no evidence of the teacup orbiting it .... then we could safely rule out it's existence. But when it comes to the "self" ... as with "god" ... we have several different "eye-witness" accounts of that tea-cup. some people claim the tea-cup exists because they can see it with their "inner vision".

How convenient, since we cannot access that individuals "inner vision". But it is no more convenient then you or I claiming that "I am a self and I exist." It is almost as unprovable. And so in the same way we acknowledge the "Self" but don't know what to call it (even if it's an illusion) ... then whenever we discuss "god" we are essentially acknowledging god is real as well, even if it's just a real illusion.

And this is where my points break down with you, for example, because from your observational standpoint, there is no god. And maybe there is a "you". You aren't fully convinced yet there is a "you", so it would make sense that you do not observe "god" ..... because, perhaps, in order to verify there is a "you" and that you are "alive" you would have to compare yourself to something different from yourself that is alive as well. And we have nothing .... except the animals. And it's easy to recognize we are dramatically different from them.

But the fact we have each other to compare ourselves to, and that each one of us is so different from the other yet so similar, and the idea we are all alive but maybe just a bunch of space junk collected together for extinction one day .... those ideas themselves are fascinating ... and those ideas exist.

And that was my point. That whether or not the ideas are illusions or are real ... they are still ideas and concepts. And ideas and concepts exist, independent of how real they are or not. The idea of Avatar exists, even though Avatar is fiction. The idea of electrons exist, and electrons are non-fiction.

So in this sense, illusions play an odd role. Because some are true, and some aren't. Ideas and concepts are the same ... some are real while others aren't. To believe in one that you cannot understand takes faith. To seek to understand that is something else (and I have no idea what that seeking might be). To believe in the ones you can prove takes little to no faith. And in the sense I'm using the word faith, I'm using it in a neutral manner (neither good nor bad).

And this is why I made the parallel to the idea that God is the "I am" aspect of "self". Because the idea of "Self" is a concept ... a concept that may or may not be an illusion, may or may not exist ... yet we experience it phenomenlogically anyway, and then choose what to believe about it .... God is the "I am" part of the self, perhaps. He is the illusion of the illusion ... the idea of the concept. When I step back and say, "that's an illusion" ... it's not the illusion that is god. It's the idea of the concept that is perhaps what god was trying to say he is.

In other words, he is unnamed concept. He is a blank page of potential, perhaps. Maybe he's real, maybe he isn't. No wait ... he does exist yet he doesn't. He's both a particle and a wave, and yet he's neither because it hasn't been decided yet what he is. God isn't imagination realized ... and he isn't imagination that will never be realized. He's inbetween ... and I am the thing noticing the in-between. And I can prove neither. :) So it's up to me whether or not I believe in myself, and whether or not I believe "I am".

In your case, it would seem that believing "you are" doesn't necessarily lead you to believe "I am" or in god, in other words. I posit that If a person hasn't made up their mind whether or not they are "alive" and a "self" and are "a unique self" .... then they probably haven't made up their mind about god yet either. And that is faith, in and of itself. Perhaps it's an ideal place to be .... allowing the possibilities at all times. I don't know.

But I would venture to say that if someone acknowledges their "self" as being unique, but doesn't acknowledge god as existing or other people for that matter .... then I would say they believe in an illusion for their existence, but discount the idea that I exist or god exists. I would call that person deluded LOL .... because they believe in their own illusion to be true but not any other illusions LOL. And I think that, in essence, describe the average believer :cheerleader2 ----- whether they believe in the "all things came from god" or "all things came from space soup and there is no god". If they believe one of those two things, yet still think they are "alive" and special or "concious" in some unique, separate way .... they are most likely deluded ... giving credence to one illusion but not considering some of the ramifications of that illusion. And that illusion would be that they have a "self" and no one else does, or only a few people do, etc and so forth.

On the other hand, I think that if a person believes in them"selves" as unique and alive, and gives this same benefit of the doubt to everyone else, they are in effect ... acknowledging the value of the illusion. This is making the illusion real for us all with that person being the observer they are being. Because that person is placing value on everyone in a unique and special way .... in essence, they are making the illusion real. I think in general, we refer to such a person as "loving" :). And those who devalue others and claim that the "self" only applies to a limited few, we call them "unloving" and on occasion "evil". And so I mention all this to point out the following: perhaps if you choose to acknowledge "life" as being valuable and unique, you are in essence acknowledging the idea of life ... the idea being "god". The idea of the idea. So believing in god is irrelevant ... because you are LIVING that belief, not just sitting and pondering it. Whether there was a god or not, your life would be no different at all, and you wouldn't change a thing about "you".

I personally think this is the point to life .... the point is to live your life in such a way, both realisticaly and fantastically, so that whether or not you found out there really is a "self" or a "god" it would make no difference ... you would behave the same way, learning the same way, growing and changing the same way, etc and so forth. If you learned there was no god and set out to kill yourself or blow up some buildings, then the existence of god isn't your issue. If you learned there was a god and all of a sudden you'd run and hide behind a rock or bow down and worship, then I'd say again that the existence of god isn't your issue.

But if god appeared and said, "hey Yoink, it's me," .... and it had zero impact on your life right now one way or another, or at the very least it merely coincided with how you already are living your life (perhaps searching for answers, etc and so forth) --- then I would say you're in a pretty good spot and do not need "god" in your life one way or another. Because you're already being true as you know how to be to your "self". You are already living by "faith" in something that is amazing and fantastic and real, regarldess of whether or not you're an atheist or a charismatic Xtian .... you are living by faith in you and the value of life and others. You are essentially, what we hope god to be like if he were a person. So what's the difference then, between the self and the "I am" part of that? Exactly.

This last paragraph might not have made much sense ... I started to think outloud a little more in an area I hadn't considered yet ....:mysteryma

[Yoink]

BUT ... there is also evidence you are more than an illusion. There is evidence that you are a unique creature, in and of yourself. That there is more than meets the eye ... that you might have a "self", spirit, soul, IPU (inner pink unicorn), etc etc. One of the ways I can test this illusion, is to ask you. If you insist that you "exist", I can see by your actions that you exist. If you claim to be different than a computer or anything else that resembles manufactured non-AI .... then I can believe you if I want. Also, if you have others claiming this about you as well ... then that is further evidence. Perhaps your parents love you more than they would love me ... or perhaps your wife/husband sees something "special" in you. You can break these connections down to sociobiological factors ... or you could also say that you had more value to your parents and your wife because they did see "something in you" that made you "special".

I don't think I understand your usage of the word "evidence" here. There are claims, yes, but I don't see how they're supported by "evidence." "Uniqueness" doesn't seem to me germane here. There's nothing particularly "divine" about uniqueness; each snowflake is "unique" but not therefore divine. I'm quite happy to grant "uniqueness" to every "self" without thinking in any way that that forces me to grant them a "soul." The same, I think, can be said for "specialness."

The only thing here that is really germane is whether there is some fundamental and necessary difference between my selfhood and some imaginable possible AI selfhood. I, personally, doubt it. But I can't see that there is, as yet, "evidence" one way or the other on this question. The fact that you might choose to believe one way or the other seems to me neither here nor there.

This last paragraph might not have made much sense ... I started to think outloud a little more in an area I hadn't considered yet ....:mysteryma

Really, Trentwray? How unlike you!;)

[Trent Wray]

I don't think I understand your usage of the word "evidence" here. There are claims, yes, but I don't see how they're supported by "evidence." "Uniqueness" doesn't seem to me germane here. There's nothing particularly "divine" about uniqueness; each snowflake is "unique" but not therefore divine. I'm quite happy to grant "uniqueness" to every "self" without thinking in any way that that forces me to grant them a "soul." The same, I think, can be said for "specialness."

The only thing here that is really germane is whether there is some fundamental and necessary difference between my selfhood and some imaginable possible AI selfhood. I, personally, doubt it. But I can't see that there is, as yet, "evidence" one way or the other on this question. The fact that you might choose to believe one way or the other seems to me neither here nor there.
Yes I'm still getting used to what most on this forum consider evidence, and I told myself I wouldn't use such a heated word LOL :)

And I'm not suggesting that something unique is divine per se, rather I'm suggesting that something unique is SEPARATE, but not in a sense that it's just separate from this or that ... but separate from everything. One of a kind.

Taking the snowflake analogy ... no two snowflakes are supposedly the same, yet they are all still snowflakes. No two wolves are the same, yet they are all wolves. No two people are the same, YET --- even though we are all people, there is only one "me".

So ... forget that I even mentioned "god". In this way, it's not that I've declared myself divine by saying there is only one "me" ... but I've declared myself separate from everyone and everything. Snowflakes don't do this. Wolves don't seem to be self-aware that they do that on occassion. We slice and dice wolf behavior up and attribute their choices to instinct. But I don't survive solely on instinct. And I am not you and you are not me. I maybe a human, and I maybe unique ... but I take it a step further. I declare myself unique even amongst the unique. There is not only a "trent", but there is the "idea of Trent".

It's not divine. It's just separate. Separate even from myself perhaps. Maybe. THAT is what I'm describing as the possible illusion. Some people call it the soul, spirit, etc and so forth ... whatever. It's not necessary to bring those terms into it really ... it's only necessary to decide whether or not the illusion is real or not. And so I do think that it's akin to deciding whether or not you are merely a biomachine exhibiting the illusion that you are alive (in other words, signifficantly advanced evolutionary technology :) ) ... or the illusion is real and there is "something" else involved in you: an idea that is more than just an idea. An idea that takes the form of a reality on some level.

And as you claim you haven't seen evidence one way or another to affirm the situation in a certain direction ... then I'm assuming you are claiming the illusion exists but may or may not be an illusion. In other words ... the effect is real, but could just be a sleight of hand. A magic trick. Something explainable that involves no "magic" whatsoever.

If this is the case, just to say my own personal opinion .... I actually believe it's both an illusion that is explainable with "reality" and also it is an illusion that is, more or less, an unexplainable magic trick. But that's just me ;-)

But .... I am curious now about something you said ---- and if you are tired of continuing the conversation that's totally cool, but if you're interested in answering:

Why are you happy to grant uniqueness to each "self"? If I understand you correctly, you're not sure whether or not "self" is any different from some form of pseudo-AI, correct? If that is the case, and I understood you correctly ... are you "erring on the side of caution" so to speak? Assuming there is something unique about everyone else just out of respect for their own beliefs concerning them"selves" ... even though you're not sure they're realistically anything more than oxygen bandits?

If this is the case, and you "err on the side of caution" ... giving the benefit of the doubt that people are "unique" in that "special" way ... then this is what I mean by "faith in the self" .....

Really, Trentwray? How unlike you!;) Yeah I know LOL :hb:

[LightningStrike]

One of our problems, is that we have no "higher intelligence" to compare ourselves to. We have only ourselves. We can look to dolphins or pigs or whales and whatnot, and compare our"selves" to them ... but we appear to possess unique traits and abilities compared to them that make our "lives" different in some dramatic ways.



We have the intelligence of the body. My body does everything. It is possible to switch off the self by realising the intelligence of the body. Give up thinking and see if the body function fails. Thought is separation from now. Life is now in the body. Pure intelligence of the body knows and is this now. Thought hasn't got a clue as it is too slow to be now. Thought can not be the senses.

I found your bit about idea and concept good.

[Trent Wray]

We have the intelligence of the body. My body does everything. It is possible to switch off the self by realising the intelligence of the body. Give up thinking and see if the body function fails. Thought is separation from now. Life is now in the body. Pure intelligence of the body knows and is this now. Thought hasn't got a clue as it is too slow to be now. Thought can not be the senses. Okay, so following this train of thought ... what makes my life in the body anything more than machine parts whirring and spinning due to a bio-battery?

And what good is thought if it's so detached from now? And saying it's too slow ... why isn't it too fast? Wouldn't it be more likely to consider it outside of "time" all together?

And supposing that some form of meditative technique is needed to understand the "state of now" ... what keeps me from permanently detaching thought and just experiencing my body?

I found your bit about idea and concept good.Thank you very much :):bananalama:

[Yoink]

But .... I am curious now about something you said ---- and if you are tired of continuing the conversation that's totally cool, but if you're interested in answering:

Why are you happy to grant uniqueness to each "self"? If I understand you correctly, you're not sure whether or not "self" is any different from some form of pseudo-AI, correct? If that is the case, and I understood you correctly ... are you "erring on the side of caution" so to speak? Assuming there is something unique about everyone else just out of respect for their own beliefs concerning them"selves" ... even though you're not sure they're realistically anything more than oxygen bandits?

If this is the case, and you "err on the side of caution" ... giving the benefit of the doubt that people are "unique" in that "special" way ... then this is what I mean by "faith in the self" .....

I don't think I know what you mean by "unique in that 'special' way." All I meant by unique was that each self is, experientially, different from every other self. Now, if the question is "can a self be copied" (e.g., downloaded into a computer and uploaded into a robot simulacrum of my body...say), then I would have to say that I suspect that it probably can. In fact I cannot imagine that it is literally impossible that there could be some machine that would replicate my experience of selfhood (and be able to perform my form of selfhood satisfactorily for others).

On the other hand I can't declare that such replication is possible because I've never seen it done and nor do I (or, so far as I know, anyone else) know enough about the nature of consciousness and its relationship to brain processes to be able to prove this.

I also don't understand the dichotomies that you keep trying to force on this issue. Why are we nothing more than "oxygen bandits" if we're not special magical snowflake souls? Why can't we be both nothing more nor less than physical beings running fully explicable physical processes AND still be willing to recognize that that makes each of us fully human, to be valued no less because of this fact?

This is, again, an example of you just going too fast, Trentwray. You smuggle in all sorts of unexamined and unjustified premises which make most of your arguments just exercises in begging the question.

[PhiloKGB]

There is, however, a direct phenomenological experience of "selfhood."
I am having trouble identifying the entities involved here. What is it that experiences selfhood?

[Yoink]

I am having trouble identifying the entities involved here. What is it that experiences selfhood?

Me. By report, of course, others do too, but I cannot directly access their experience in order to compare what they experience with what I experience. But I am conscious of being a "self." I am aware that many aspects of that consciousness may in fact be largely illusory, but that doesn't in any way mean that it is possible for me to extract myself subjectively from carving the world up into "me" and "not-me" and carving experiences up into "my experiences" and "experiences that occurred to others."

ETA: just to be clear, I'm not arguing that the experience of selfhood "proves" anything at all about the nature (or even "existence"--strictly speaking) of the self. I'm simply saying that I am incapable, when conscious, of encountering the world outside the framework of that experience--and that it is therefore reasonable to provide that experiential framework with a name "the self").

[PhiloKGB]

Me. By report, of course, others do too, but I cannot directly access their experience in order to compare what they experience with what I experience. But I am conscious of being a "self." I am aware that many aspects of that consciousness may in fact be largely illusory, but that doesn't in any way mean that it is possible for me to extract myself subjectively from carving the world up into "me" and "not-me" and carving experiences up into "my experiences" and "experiences that occurred to others."
For sure, that's part of what it means to be conscious. But I don't think "I" experience consciousness any more than "I" could not experience consciousness.
ETA: just to be clear, I'm not arguing that the experience of selfhood "proves" anything at all about the nature (or even "existence"--strictly speaking) of the self. I'm simply saying that I am incapable, when conscious, of encountering the world outside the framework of that experience--and that it is therefore reasonable to provide that experiential framework with a name "the self").
Just when I think I might be on to something, I see you qualify "I" with "when conscious." Is there an "I" when not conscious? Maybe we just intrinsically lack the language to 'brass tack' these topics, so to speak.

[Yoink]

For sure, that's part of what it means to be conscious. But I don't think "I" experience consciousness any more than "I" could not experience consciousness.

You don't think that the "I" who, in your own sentence, has an opinion about "experience consciousness" is conscious of having that opinion? I think you're making up some very idiosyncratic definitions of your terms here. Which might be fine for certain very highly refined technical discussions, but seems like a bit of a cheat in this context.

Just when I think I might be on to something, I see you qualify "I" with "when conscious." Is there an "I" when not conscious? Maybe we just intrinsically lack the language to 'brass tack' these topics, so to speak.

Is there an I when not conscious? Well, no. I guess we could quibble about dream states: I would argue that if you have a dream in which you are self-aware then during that dream you have an "I" and you are, in fact, experiencing a particular kind of consciousness--but if you are truly out-cold, with no self-awareness at all then of course there is no "I" there. How would that "I" manifest itself? It is, as I say, purely experiential. If no experience of "I-ness" is occuring, then there's no "I." Seems pretty straightforward, really.

And yes, we do almost certainly lack the language to really nail down the underlying facts of our experiences, but it's simply untrue to say that there's anything mysterious or challenging about saying "this happened to me." You know what I mean by that; I know what I mean by saying it. That neither of us can fully explain the underlying material causes that brought the experience of X "happening-to-me" and my consciousness of X "happening to me" about is another question entirely.

[Trent Wray]

I don't think I know what you mean by "unique in that 'special' way." All I meant by unique was that each self is, experientially, different from every other self. Now, if the question is "can a self be copied" (e.g., downloaded into a computer and uploaded into a robot simulacrum of my body...say), then I would have to say that I suspect that it probably can. In fact I cannot imagine that it is literally impossible that there could be some machine that would replicate my experience of selfhood (and be able to perform my form of selfhood satisfactorily for others).

On the other hand I can't declare that such replication is possible because I've never seen it done and nor do I (or, so far as I know, anyone else) know enough about the nature of consciousness and its relationship to brain processes to be able to prove this.

I also don't understand the dichotomies that you keep trying to force on this issue. Why are we nothing more than "oxygen bandits" if we're not special magical snowflake souls? Why can't we be both nothing more nor less than physical beings running fully explicable physical processes AND still be willing to recognize that that makes each of us fully human, to be valued no less because of this fact?

This is, again, an example of you just going too fast, Trentwray. You smuggle in all sorts of unexamined and unjustified premises which make most of your arguments just exercises in begging the question.I'm not saying we have to be one or the other .... magical snowflake souls or biocomputing o2 banditos .... I'm saying that regardless of whether or not we view ourselves either way, we still behave and treat ourselves as though we were magical snowflake SOMETHINGS.

We typically view ourselves as more special than cockroaches and more deserving of entertainment than snails, etc etc etc. I will kill a fish for food, but I won't kill a person for food .... or for the fun of it for that matter ..... even if I lived in a country where it was allowed and viewed as status quo. I value things above other things, where as animals seem to have no understanding of why they value certain things above other things.

The point is not to discover whether or not we are special snowflakes or arteries and veins hooking up to a mother board. The point is to find out WHY we think we are special, even when we don't care why or whether we "deserve" it or not? It would be one thing if there were no other alive creatures on our planet with us. I think the answer would be simple: "Who gives a crap. Eat, drink, and be merry!". But there are other creatures who exist with us, and we take from them and use them and kill them for our needs and goods .... thus we elevate ourselves above them. And we do the same to each other. So why? Why do we think we are special ... especially considering that we finally realized we are nothing more than some space goop assembled together for a few years and then we're back to the goop. If we have this knowledge, why not view ourselves as the machines that we are and stop placing our "selves" at the apex of everything?

I'm not looking at it in terms of right or wrong, or soul or no soul .... but WHY. Why continue to treat yourself as valuable above any other thing, furthermore why view each person as uniquely valuable? It doesn't seem logical ... and it seemingly goes outside the realm of natural instinct observed in most creatures. And does it really benefit us to view ourselves as uniquely valuable beings each in our own right?

Perhaps the answer to "life" and what is our "self" isn't found in what they are, but why we view them as being anything worth noticing or valuing in the first place.

Anyway .... I think all the answers to the questions this thread poses will be solved by the end of Caprica Season One anyway LOL :)

[Yoink]

I'm not saying we have to be one or the other .... magical snowflake souls or biocomputing o2 banditos .... I'm saying that regardless of whether or not we view ourselves either way, we still behave and treat ourselves as though we were magical snowflake SOMETHINGS.

We typically view ourselves as more special than cockroaches and more deserving of entertainment than snails, etc etc etc. I will kill a fish for food, but I won't kill a person for food .... or for the fun of it for that matter ..... even if I lived in a country where it was allowed and viewed as status quo. I value things above other things, where as animals seem to have no understanding of why they value certain things above other things.

The point is not to discover whether or not we are special snowflakes or arteries and veins hooking up to a mother board. The point is to find out WHY we think we are special, even when we don't care why or whether we "deserve" it or not? It would be one thing if there were no other alive creatures on our planet with us. I think the answer would be simple: "Who gives a crap. Eat, drink, and be merry!". But there are other creatures who exist with us, and we take from them and use them and kill them for our needs and goods .... thus we elevate ourselves above them. And we do the same to each other. So why? Why do we think we are special ... especially considering that we finally realized we are nothing more than some space goop assembled together for a few years and then we're back to the goop. If we have this knowledge, why not view ourselves as the machines that we are and stop placing our "selves" at the apex of everything?

I'm not looking at it in terms of right or wrong, or soul or no soul .... but WHY. Why continue to treat yourself as valuable above any other thing, furthermore why view each person as uniquely valuable? It doesn't seem logical ... and it seemingly goes outside the realm of natural instinct observed in most creatures. And does it really benefit us to view ourselves as uniquely valuable beings each in our own right?

Perhaps the answer to "life" and what is our "self" isn't found in what they are, but why we view them as being anything worth noticing or valuing in the first place.

Anyway .... I think all the answers to the questions this thread poses will be solved by the end of Caprica Season One anyway LOL :)

Heh. I've been thinking of Caprica quite a lot in this discussion too (no doubt the uploading selves into robots bit gave that away!). As for why we think we're special, I think one can find pretty self-evident evolutionary reasons for that. ALL creatures try to preserve their own life (again, if they don't it's going to be hard for them to pass on their DNA). If we tended to regard our own limbs as food ("hey, why should I care, it's all meat anyway") then we'd have died out quite a long time ago.

And then there's also the fact that we find people pretty terrific (as well as endlessly frustrating!). As I say, just because I think that there's no "mystery" in life doesn't mean there's any reason for me to stop loving the people I love or any reason to stop enjoying their company. I'm not likely to be "reasoned" out of ethical commitments that I wasn't reasoned into in the first place.

[Trent Wray]

Heh. I've been thinking of Caprica quite a lot in this discussion too (no doubt the uploading selves into robots bit gave that away!). As for why we think we're special, I think one can find pretty self-evident evolutionary reasons for that. ALL creatures try to preserve their own life (again, if they don't it's going to be hard for them to pass on their DNA). If we tended to regard our own limbs as food ("hey, why should I care, it's all meat anyway") then we'd have died out quite a long time ago.

And then there's also the fact that we find people pretty terrific (as well as endlessly frustrating!). As I say, just because I think that there's no "mystery" in life doesn't mean there's any reason for me to stop loving the people I love or any reason to stop enjoying their company. I'm not likely to be "reasoned" out of ethical commitments that I wasn't reasoned into in the first place. Yeah I actually watched part of the pilot to Caprica and stopped because I didn't want it to give me too many ideas LOL.

So does that make me a paranoid woo sketpic? LOL

Anyway ..... everything you just pointed out, imo, can still be attributed to evolutionary factors (which you basically said). i.e. ---- we try to preserve our own life (well, there are lemmings and highway-deer, but that's besides the point) --- we find our own kind to be likeable and unlikeable, we find baby animals cute and are horny during puberty, etc etc etc.

BUT .... we are still seemingly the only ones aware that we are special and unique. And in that awareness, we begin to make choices from that POV. We are no longer simply making choices on instinct and what feels good .... etc etc. We are no longer just simply machines. It is that awareness that not only seems to separate us from everything else ... but it's also the thing that allows us to be aware that we separated out. It is the awareness of the awareness.

And it is with that meta-awareness if you want to call it ... that I still ask the same question. We think we know better now ... we think we know there is a soul or we know there is no soul or it doesn't matter, whatever and what have you. But at some point, like yourself, I realized I am not that much different than anything else in the universe. I am not much different from a squirrel or a planet or anything. What makes me different ... is the fact that I'M AWARE that I'm different.

Dogs know they aren't cats. But they aren't aware of the fact they know that. They cannot examine themselves in that way.

That is the thing that is the self. And even if we believe it to be a trick or an illusion ... it still doesn't change how we act towards ourselves. We still are unable to "shut it off". Just looking at it, and saying, "Oh that? It's not a soul or anything like it. It's just a side effect." We are unable to stop it without killing ourselves.

Why?

[Yoink]

Yeah I actually watched part of the pilot to Caprica and stopped because I didn't want it to give me too many ideas LOL.

So does that make me a paranoid woo sketpic? LOL

Anyway ..... everything you just pointed out, imo, can still be attributed to evolutionary factors (which you basically said). i.e. ---- we try to preserve our own life (well, there are lemmings and highway-deer, but that's besides the point) --- we find our own kind to be likeable and unlikeable, we find baby animals cute and are horny during puberty, etc etc etc.

BUT .... we are still seemingly the only ones aware that we are special and unique. And in that awareness, we begin to make choices from that POV. We are no longer simply making choices on instinct and what feels good .... etc etc. We are no longer just simply machines. It is that awareness that not only seems to separate us from everything else ... but it's also the thing that allows us to be aware that we separated out. It is the awareness of the awareness.

And it is with that meta-awareness if you want to call it ... that I still ask the same question. We think we know better now ... we think we know there is a soul or we know there is no soul or it doesn't matter, whatever and what have you. But at some point, like yourself, I realized I am not that much different than anything else in the universe. I am not much different from a squirrel or a planet or anything. What makes me different ... is the fact that I'M AWARE that I'm different.

Dogs know they aren't cats. But they aren't aware of the fact they know that. They cannot examine themselves in that way.

That is the thing that is the self. And even if we believe it to be a trick or an illusion ... it still doesn't change how we act towards ourselves. We still are unable to "shut it off". Just looking at it, and saying, "Oh that? It's not a soul or anything like it. It's just a side effect." We are unable to stop it without killing ourselves.

Why?

Why need there be a "why"? This is just the way we turned out.

I think we need to know a vast deal more about the nature of consciousness before we can even start to meaningfully ask "and how did it come to be that way" questions. At this point all we have is "this is how it feels to us." I think next we have to tackle "but how does it actually work?" before we can get anywhere near "and how might it have developed?"

In any event, I think the "why" question you want to ask is more "what is it all FOR" rather than "how did it end up this way" and that's just another begged question. Who says it has to be "for" anything?

[uruk]

life is like pornography, you know when you see it.

[Trent Wray]

Why need there be a "why"? This is just the way we turned out.

I think we need to know a vast deal more about the nature of consciousness before we can even start to meaningfully ask "and how did it come to be that way" questions. At this point all we have is "this is how it feels to us." I think next we have to tackle "but how does it actually work?" before we can get anywhere near "and how might it have developed?"

In any event, I think the "why" question you want to ask is more "what is it all FOR" rather than "how did it end up this way" and that's just another begged question. Who says it has to be "for" anything?In asking "why" I'm not asking "why am I like this," ...
... what I'm asking is "why can't I change it now that I "see" it."?

We're aware of elemental particles so we collide them at the LHC. We're aware of how to make ice cubes so we do that as well. We're aware of how to transplant a heart, and monitor various aspects of the brain. We are also aware of some of the various effects of brain damage, and the resultant behavior a person might present with.

But we cannot point to, or turn off, or remove, or replace (yet) conciousness and "self".

So in trying to find out "what" it is (which is essentially what you're saying is more important than the why's and how's) I think it's good to find out what it is not as and part of that involves asking whys.

For example. When did my "self" begin? With my earliest memory? Or do I remember my earliest members through the lens of my"self" now --- skewing them? As my self evolves, I think it becomes apparent the view on my previous "self" changes. Thus, I can change my own internal history to a degree, rewriting the back up data on my HD if you will.

Will my self end simultaneously with brain death, or just before it, or five minutes after it?

I basically agree that trying to find out the "what" seems to be the more pressing thing when it comes to conciousness and self-awareness.

But we often find out about the world by dissecting it and smashing it to pieces. How do we find out about the "self" in a similar manner?

Also ... for me at least ... just simply saying, "Why ask why? It just is .." isn't practical. Because I ask why all the time and am asked why all the time on various levels from the mundane to the ridiculously overthought topics LOL. So practically, it is one of those apex questions that seems to be an umbrella question over everything in many ways (for me). Some are not content to explore why we opened the umbrella in the first place, and some want to know if it's really raining outside or not and what it feels like to get wet.

Personally, i honestly don't care all that much about "why" anything. Really. But others do care, and I have to live with all of you :) And sometimes someone discovers that life offers them a fun ride when they ask "why" --- or when I ask them "why" for that matter, and in that case ... if that fun ride comes along because I prompted them to seek it out, I expect to get on for free while they are driving the lead car ;)

But anyway ... one last thing. I think the idea that conciousness can be viewed as a concept in and of itself has weight to it. I know it's somewhat metaphysical ... but if we describe what conciousness or self-awareness is as we "know" it ... that is really what we begin describing. Ideas of concepts of ideas of concepts, etc and so forth. "Etheral fluffy stuff". So I have wondered, if a concept is a "thing", how do we know there isn't an elementary particle for it ... or a specific "string" for that matter? Maybe it's present in a potential form and "activates" at a certain time, etc etc.

But that's clearly another rabbit trail all together :)

Gotta go pick up my kid from school :)
life is like pornography, you know when you see it. Can you provide sources / links please? :clap:

[Yoink]

Just to be clear: I'm not saying that "how" is more important than "why," I'm saying that we can't really say anything about "why" until we can answer "how." We're an awful lot further along on the "how" of subatomic particles than we are on the "how" of consciousness (and the smashing in supercolliders thing is all about "how," not "why"), and we still can't really answer the "why" there in any ultimate way.

A lot of what we know about consciousness's "hows" comes precisely from smashing stuff apart. When we observe split-brain people, for example, we learn interesting things about the non-holistic nature of the "self." I think the most promising routes into understanding how consciousness "works" are to look at moments where it doesn't, or doesn't quite.

And as to your "but why can't I turn it off" question: well, again, we have to know how it works before we can answer that. Maybe there is some way to do it that we'll discover in future? Maybe when we finally really understand consciousness we'll develop a mode of self-perception that "sees through" the illusion of selfhood? Maybe we'll learn that the illusion of selfhood is simply inescapable--just as we can't pick ourselves up off the ground, no matter how hard we try.

But the "why can't I?" question seems premature when we just don't really know if we can't or if we can't yet.

[fallout]

Science now knows there is no magical "life force", and that is't just complicated chemistry.



Science doesnt "know" it. It is a supposition based on the conclusions on what was possible to study up till now. As life couldnt be created in lab from more elementary matter, as for demonstrating the theory of the random creation of life in the oceans, nothing can be concluded about life being only complicated chemistry, in the scientific sense of proof. It may well be the truth in the end, but science still don't know about it at the moment.

Or did I completely misunderstood what you said? If so, i'm really sorry.

[Trent Wray]

Just to be clear: I'm not saying that "how" is more important than "why," I'm saying that we can't really say anything about "why" until we can answer "how." We're an awful lot further along on the "how" of subatomic particles than we are on the "how" of consciousness (and the smashing in supercolliders thing is all about "how," not "why"), and we still can't really answer the "why" there in any ultimate way.

A lot of what we know about consciousness's "hows" comes precisely from smashing stuff apart. When we observe split-brain people, for example, we learn interesting things about the non-holistic nature of the "self." I think the most promising routes into understanding how consciousness "works" are to look at moments where it doesn't, or doesn't quite.

And as to your "but why can't I turn it off" question: well, again, we have to know how it works before we can answer that. Maybe there is some way to do it that we'll discover in future? Maybe when we finally really understand consciousness we'll develop a mode of self-perception that "sees through" the illusion of selfhood? Maybe we'll learn that the illusion of selfhood is simply inescapable--just as we can't pick ourselves up off the ground, no matter how hard we try.

But the "why can't I?" question seems premature when we just don't really know if we can't or if we can't yet. I agree :)

Now I want to know the "hows" and I'm going to start with "concepts", neuroscience, and these two:

http://i969.photobucket.com/albums/ae174/trentwray/Toreson_Caprica_auction-thumb-330x5.jpg?t=1267148185

Science doesnt "know" it. It is a supposition based on the conclusions on what was possible to study up till now. As life couldnt be created in lab from more elementary matter, as for demonstrating the theory of the random creation of life in the oceans, nothing can be concluded about life being only complicated chemistry, in the scientific sense of proof. It may well be the truth in the end, but science still don't know about it at the moment.

Or did I completely misunderstood what you said? If so, i'm really sorry. I'm totally cool with the idea that "life" is just a result of chemical reactions. And if my conciousness is just sparks flying that's fine as well. What I want to know, is what is the observer observing my conciousness and life at the same time that seems to know something I don't understand. In other words, when I look at my internal pilot and co-pilot, who is that that's looking at them and myself at the same time.

The circular self. It's like the singularity of a black hole that absorbs concepts and ideas ...

[fallout]

I'm totally cool with the idea that "life" is just a result of chemical reactions. And if my conciousness is just sparks flying that's fine as well.


Yes I'm not judging the merits of those who tend to believe the result of chemical reactions hypothesis as being more tenable than panspermy or even the god creation "hypothesis" . But as I just said, it's just a hypothesis. If it is purely made of chemical reactions, it is still unknown how, it's like unknown chemistry. :)


What I want to know, is what is the observer observing my conciousness and life at the same time that seems to know something I don't understand. In other words, when I look at my internal pilot and co-pilot, who is that that's looking at them and myself at the same time.

The circular self. It's like the singularity of a black hole that absorbs concepts and ideas ...

When I think about these paradoxes this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DrawingHands.jpg) often comes to my mind. Far from being an explanation for anything. :)

[LightningStrike]

Okay, so following this train of thought ... what makes my life in the body anything more than machine parts whirring and spinning due to a bio-battery?
What is the power in the bio-battery? Separating Life from self in the body is much like separating Idea from concept. Life is idea. All your moving parts are the concept, your self. You are the idea behind the concept. The Life of the life on earth is a powerful idea.
And what good is thought if it's so detached from now? And saying it's too slow ... why isn't it too fast? Wouldn't it be more likely to consider it outside of "time" all together?
Thought is no good, you won't find the truth by thinking you find it by looking which is stillness. Try being now, that is being in the senses seeing the day at the same time as feeling what you are feeling, within and without staying with the present. You will notice you can't think. Think and you enter the past. Thought is powered by the energetic substance of the past. Life is outside of time. Life is now, moving so fast it is absolutely still. It has no time in it.
And supposing that some form of meditative technique is needed to understand be the "state of now" ... what keeps me from permanently detaching from thought and just experiencing my body?
Excuse me for editing your post but it makes more sense now. You are a body. There is Consciousness-Life-Body, that is what is. Man has made a self because he thinks that he is the body. Really self is the 'ham in the sandwich' and it is not a good ham. I get rid of the ham. Nothing wrong with permanently getting rid of thought, the body is much more real. Consciousness still is.

[Trent Wray]

What is the power in the bio-battery?
Well, my heart won't pump without an electrical current flowing down it's conductive pathways due to the interchange between the sodium and potassium pump. So, I could say it's electricity in some parts of myself. Are you saying that life exists within electricity --- that idea is carried within electricity, and that electricity is full of "idea" so to speak?

Separating Life from self in the body is much like separating Idea from concept. Life is idea. All your moving parts are the concept, your self. You are the idea behind the concept. The Life of the life on earth is a powerful idea.

Thought is no good, you won't find the truth by thinking you find it by looking which is stillness. Try being now, that is being in the senses seeing the day at the same time as feeling what you are feeling, within and without staying with the present. You will notice you can't think. Think and you enter the past. Thought is powered by the energetic substance of the past. Life is outside of time. Life is now, moving so fast it is absolutely still. It has no time in it.

Excuse me for editing your post but it makes more sense now. You are a body. There is Consciousness-Life-Body, that is what is. Man has made a self because he thinks that he is the body. Really self is the 'ham in the sandwich' and it is not a good ham. I get rid of the ham. Nothing wrong with permanently getting rid of thought, the body is much more real. Consciousness still is.Believe it or not, although some might find what you're saying to be zen/chi/tao/meditative woo ... I actually think I understand, more or less, what you're trying to describe and say. However, practically speaking, how would a person get rid of self and thought? Is this possible? For example, I find meditation to be useful ... for about five minutes or so. And then my mind wanders and my thoughts wander and reality "re-appears" so to speak. So, I have a friend that attempts to perfect a sort of walking meditation, where he is performing these mental hoops and jumps constantly in an attempt to be in the "now". Everything else beyond the now is illusion to him. At least this is what he claims. Although practically he cannot live that way. He spends his time perfecting it.

How can someone separate their ham from the sandwich, without the meditation/enlightenment seeking mental/emotional gymnastics. I've basically compared it to speaking in tongues with your mind. It is non sense to me, practically speaking.

It would not be nonsense, if say, I lived as a wild animal following my desires and listening only to my body. But then wants, unwants, ethics, morality, all pop up and my "self" re appears with ideas of right and wrong, and what's better than best and what isn't good, etc and so forth. And I will eventually end up taking from someone who didn't want to give, or imposing my will on someone who didn't ask for it.

Animals seem to do this without any problems of the "self". Do animals do what you are describing naturally? Animals other than us obviously.

Anyway, please keep talking if you wish because I'm listening. But I'm looking for a way to accomplish what you're describing by turning on and off biomechanical switches, not magical thinking where I visualize the switches, if you know what I mean. :)

[LightningStrike]

Well, my heart won't pump without an electrical current flowing down it's conductive pathways due to the interchange between the sodium and potassium pump. So, I could say it's electricity in some parts of myself. Are you saying that life exists within electricity --- that idea is carried within electricity, and that electricity is full of "idea" so to speak? No, that might be so but what I am pointing to is my most real reality and that is the idea that I am life. To perceive that, thought has to stop because otherwise I will see it then quickly rationalise my way away from the truth by thinking about the organs of the body and visualising an unreal concept that may or may not be true.


Believe it or not, although some might find what you're saying to be zen/chi/tao/meditative woo ... I actually think I understand, more or less, what you're trying to describe and say. However, practically speaking, how would a person get rid of self and thought? Is this possible? For example, I find meditation to be useful ... for about five minutes or so. And then my mind wanders and my thoughts wander and reality "re-appears" so to speak. So, I have a friend that attempts to perfect a sort of walking meditation, where he is performing these mental hoops and jumps constantly in an attempt to be in the "now". Everything else beyond the now is illusion to him. At least this is what he claims. Although practically he cannot live that way. He spends his time perfecting it.
Once something is seen to be false it is discarded. Thought is mostly unnecessary. If I don't intend to take action then why am I thinking - just to get the sense that I exist. Who is that I ? That is the pinning question, it disappears as soon as it is examined in stillness once I have enough power to contain it without thought. And so I realise I am not that. I haven't realised what I am but I have pulled back to see another deeper reality from whence I came. It is like wearing clothes and then undressing and being comfortable naked. Thought and feelings are the clothes we wear. Meditation is to still the mind and anchor the perception in the body. A right meditation practice substitutes thinking for something equally interesting and yet more real which in my practice is sensation of the whole body. Once this is done enough the perception is permanently anchored in the sensational reality of the body every moment which is in perfect harmony with being in the senses. So the consciousness is perceiving sensational reality within and the awareness is fully in the senses. There is no room for the 'ham' now. The self slips in between the world of awareness and the world of consciousness, those are the two 'slices of bread' that make up the entire universe.



How can someone separate their ham from the sandwich, without the meditation/enlightenment seeking mental/emotional gymnastics. I've basically compared it to speaking in tongues with your mind. It is non sense to me, practically speaking.
Staying present in the senses and feeling the sensation within the body. No room for the self-ish entity. I live like this.


It would not be nonsense, if say, I lived as a wild animal following my desires and listening only to my body. But then wants, unwants, ethics, morality, all pop up and my "self" re appears with ideas of right and wrong, and what's better than best and what isn't good, etc and so forth. And I will eventually end up taking from someone who didn't want to give, or imposing my will on someone who didn't ask for it.
Self consciousness thrust into an animal body is a terrible burden the animal becomes cunning. That is my self. Suffering eventually leads to a turning within of the perception to find out the source of this emotional suffering and thus discovers the tyranny of the selfish ruler - emotion itself.

Animals seem to do this without any problems of the "self". Do animals do what you are describing naturally? Animals other than us obviously.
Animals have no ham in the sandwich. Their world of awareness and consciousness is one. You can see they have no past they are so present there is no self-reflection so there is no self. Doing what you do is the equivalent action and getting rid of the monitoring is the key. You will find that the intelligence of the body is the greater reality you are looking for.

And the self says 'I am that'. And that is the error of self it can't be the truth. The only valuable thing it can do is acknowledge a greater reality than itself and then get out the way.



Anyway, please keep talking if you wish because I'm listening. But I'm looking for a way to accomplish what you're describing by turning on and off biomechanical switches, not magical thinking where I visualize the switches, if you know what I mean. :)
It is the mind that creates our unreality and that is the only thing worth uncovering. How are you going to throw a bio-mechanical switch?

[Trent Wray]

No, that might be so but what I am pointing to is my most real reality and that is the idea that I am life. To perceive that, thought has to stop because otherwise I will see it then quickly rationalise my way away from the truth by thinking about the organs of the body and visualising an unreal concept that may or may not be true.


Once something is seen to be false it is discarded. Thought is mostly unnecessary. If I don't intend to take action then why am I thinking - just to get the sense that I exist. Who is that I ? That is the pinning question, it disappears as soon as it is examined in stillness once I have enough power to contain it without thought. And so I realise I am not that. I haven't realised what I am but I have pulled back to see another deeper reality from whence I came. It is like wearing clothes and then undressing and being comfortable naked. Thought and feelings are the clothes we wear. Meditation is to still the mind and anchor the perception in the body. A right meditation practice substitutes thinking for something equally interesting and yet more real which in my practice is sensation of the whole body. Once this is done enough the perception is permanently anchored in the sensational reality of the body every moment which is in perfect harmony with being in the senses. So the consciousness is perceiving sensational reality within and the awareness is fully in the senses. There is no room for the 'ham' now. The self slips in between the world of awareness and the world of consciousness, those are the two 'slices of bread' that make up the entire universe.



Staying present in the senses and feeling the sensation within the body. No room for the self-ish entity. I live like this.


Self consciousness thrust into an animal body is a terrible burden the animal becomes cunning. That is my self. Suffering eventually leads to a turning within of the perception to find out the source of this emotional suffering and thus discovers the tyranny of the selfish ruler - emotion itself.

Animals have no ham in the sandwich. Their world of awareness and consciousness is one. You can see they have no past they are so present there is no self-reflection so there is no self. Doing what you do is the equivalent action and getting rid of the monitoring is the key. You will find that the intelligence of the body is the greater reality you are looking for.

And the self says 'I am that'. And that is the error of self it can't be the truth. The only valuable thing it can do is acknowledge a greater reality than itself and then get out the way.



It is the mind that creates our unreality and that is the only thing worth uncovering.

How are you going to throw a bio-mechanical switch? In many ways, I agree with what you're saying. However, the thing I keep getting stuck on is how I could realistically become more like an "animal" with no ham in the sandwich so to speak.

At first glance, animals appear to have no sense of self, etc etc. However they do utilize concepts of right/wrong, fight/flight, feed/breed, etc etc. They also use memory and access it, although their self-relfection does seem to be absent or lacking. They do not seem to examine the past and ask themselves questions about it in order to better control the now or the future. In this sense, they are free from the burdens you speak of that we have with our thoughts.

But to turn off my thoughts --- this is what I'm describing as the "bio-switch". If I want to throw out thought, I need to know what turned it on in the first place.

Now thought benefits me, but perhaps introspective, reflective thought doesn't. It quite possibly presents more problems than I need to be aware of to experience the now.

And in many ways, not worrying about the past or the future might be freeing and helping me to get rid of the "Self". But at the same time, it's making my existence completely self-centered. I'm always doing whatever the "flow" around me is telling me to do or how I feel like responding to the now. If I want to take off hiking for two weeks, my son will be broken hearted that I'm away for two weeks. If I want to sleep with another woman, my wife will be broken hearted. And they might hold me accountable in the future and the now. So thinking about my choices proves beneficial, unless I am not afraid of the consequences for myself. But what about the consequences for them? Should I fear the consequences for them and live with their illusions of self as well, or should I be willing to sacrfice them in the hopes they can experience the "now" also with me?

So to accomplish this practically, I would almost have to live a double life. I can experience the now whenever I wish so long as others aren't holding me accountable and suffering consequences as a result. And if they are going to suffer consequences or hold me accountable, then it's up to me to decide to continue living in the now, or sacrificing my own right to live in the now to live in their illusionary world they've created of rights/wrongs, etc and so forth.

I have found that certain people I love are more valuable to me than my own right to live in my "now", and thus I've sacrificed my "life" so to speak to help continue living in their illusion. It's not indefinite though ... I have the hope they will eventually see the delusions they are living under and stop sacrificing themselves and me as well ... and thus I can experience the "now" with them in it.

So, in this previous example, how do you categorize sacrificing the "now" to continue to live in the illusion ... death? And if it's for another person whom you value and cherish, is this still death, or something else?

Finally .... the biomechanical switch .... what, in your opinion, caused our"selves" to turn on? I'm not talking about god or anything like that ... but I'm asking what part of our thought became "corrupt" and began the process of separating ourselves from the now, creating a huge difference between us and the animals who are "in balance"?

For me, it keeps coming down to our knowledge of what we think to be good and evil. If we somehow could "turn off" that knowledge that we reflect on concerning good and evil, we would still live based on concepts of right and wrong (as some animals do), but we would be unaware of it, and thus we wouldn't spend so much time reflecting on who is responsible for right or wrong, and how to prevent right or wrong, and how to seek out and find means to create "perfect" when "perfect" already exists if we just stopped analyzing it. Does this make sense? Our knowledge of good and evil is the switch that got turned on which started our separation from reality and lead us to religion, ethics, morality, and b.s.

Do you agree or have another theory, if any?

Forgive the jumping around from point to point ... :)

[LightningStrike]

In many ways, I agree with what you're saying. However, the thing I keep getting stuck on is how I could realistically become more like an "animal" with no ham in the sandwich so to speak. I am a self, or ham in my analogy, and in some quarters self is said to be illusory. This is true but only when it is true in my own experience. Self can not be eliminated as it's position is immortal. See through it in the moment and it is gone yet it reappears don't I, because I identify with my body which is positional in physical space. Eliminating the unhappiness in the animal is the best outcome and this means eliminating the unhappiness in the self. Subjectively the result is union with the sensational reality of now.

At first glance, animals appear to have no sense of self, etc etc. However they do utilize concepts of right/wrong, fight/flight, feed/breed, etc etc. They also use memory and access it, although their self-relfection does seem to be absent or lacking. They do not seem to examine the past and ask themselves questions about it in order to better control the now or the future. In this sense, they are free from the burdens you speak of that we have with our thoughts.
Experience is stored in the 'flesh' one doesn't have to think to act.

But to turn off my thoughts --- this is what I'm describing as the "bio-switch". If I want to throw out thought, I need to know what turned it on in the first place.
Is it the desire to know. Error is I identify with everything but what I am.
Now thought benefits me, but perhaps introspective, reflective thought doesn't. It quite possibly presents more problems than I need to be aware of to experience the now.

And in many ways, not worrying about the past or the future might be freeing and helping me to get rid of the "Self". But at the same time, it's making my existence completely self-centered. I'm always doing whatever the "flow" around me is telling me to do or how I feel like responding to the now. If I want to take off hiking for two weeks, my son will be broken hearted that I'm away for two weeks. If I want to sleep with another woman, my wife will be broken hearted. And they might hold me accountable in the future and the now. So thinking about my choices proves beneficial, unless I am not afraid of the consequences for myself. But what about the consequences for them? Should I fear the consequences for them and live with their illusions of self as well, or should I be willing to sacrfice them in the hopes they can experience the "now" also with me?

So to accomplish this practically, I would almost have to live a double life. I can experience the now whenever I wish so long as others aren't holding me accountable and suffering consequences as a result. And if they are going to suffer consequences or hold me accountable, then it's up to me to decide to continue living in the now, or sacrificing my own right to live in the now to live in their illusionary world they've created of rights/wrongs, etc and so forth.

I have found that certain people I love are more valuable to me than my own right to live in my "now", and thus I've sacrificed my "life" so to speak to help continue living in their illusion. It's not indefinite though ... I have the hope they will eventually see the delusions they are living under and stop sacrificing themselves and me as well ... and thus I can experience the "now" with them in it.
You describe everyone's dilemma well. Two opposing pulls creates confusion, one pull is to be true to a sense of rightness and harmony within. To be true to that first creates harmony in the life.

So, in this previous example, how do you categorize sacrificing the "now" to continue to live in the illusion ... death? And if it's for another person whom you value and cherish, is this still death, or something else? Well big question. We would have to go into the areas of somone's life that made them unhappy. The purpose of life is to enjoy my life. With that clear aim one can be ruthless and die for it, with intelligence one can see which circumstances are mirroring my emotional unhappiness.

Finally .... the biomechanical switch .... what, in your opinion, caused our"selves" to turn on? I'm not talking about god or anything like that ... but I'm asking what part of our thought became "corrupt" and began the process of separating ourselves from the now, creating a huge difference between us and the animals who are "in balance"?
The energetic past started to enter the human body I now identify with that as what I am.
It is all God being God, but God in this furthest bastion of the cosmos has not yet realised it is God. Yet there is the paradox that I am a self separate from the whole. So as a self there is only one fundamental choice; surrender and die into the state of being, or go on struggling trying and wanting as a self. The choice is presented every moment, we can leave it to life to turn us around with suffering or we can voluntarily go the easy way of self dissolution and return to the original state of being with the knowledge of having been a suffering self and the knowledge that I don't want that ever again.
For me, it keeps coming down to our knowledge of what we think to be good and evil. If we somehow could "turn off" that knowledge that we reflect on concerning good and evil, we would still live based on concepts of right and wrong (as some animals do), but we would be unaware of it, and thus we wouldn't spend so much time reflecting on who is responsible for right or wrong, and how to prevent right or wrong, and how to seek out and find means to create "perfect" when "perfect" already exists if we just stopped analyzing it. Does this make sense? Our knowledge of good and evil is the switch that got turned on which started our separation from reality and lead us to religion, ethics, morality, and b.s.
The good is known in our own experience as the love or rightness in our body(sensational) and in our lives (circumstantial). The final reference point of the good that has no opposite is within us, it is what we are behind the self. Self is the divider the judger the lesser creator. In my experience self is the only evil. The most important thing to realise is that consciousness comes first. This is true in everybodys experience if they are intelligent enough to see it. From this place all is created so anything between it and sense is projected into this place of sense just like the film in the original cinema projector. That is my sense of it and I am empowered in being true to that place.

[Trent Wray]

I am a self, or ham in my analogy, and in some quarters self is said to be illusory. This is true but only when it is true in my own experience. Self can not be eliminated as it's position is immortal. See through it in the moment and it is gone yet it reappears don't I, because I identify with my body which is positional in physical space. Eliminating the unhappiness in the animal is the best outcome and this means eliminating the unhappiness in the self. Subjectively the result is union with the sensational reality of now.


Experience is stored in the 'flesh' one doesn't have to think to act.


Is it the desire to know. Error is I identify with everything but what I am.

You describe everyone's dilemma well. Two opposing pulls creates confusion, one pull is to be true to a sense of rightness and harmony within. To be true to that first creates harmony in the life.

Well big question. We would have to go into the areas of somone's life that made them unhappy. The purpose of life is to enjoy my life. With that clear aim one can be ruthless and die for it, with intelligence one can see which circumstances are mirroring my emotional unhappiness.


The energetic past started to enter the human body I now identify with that as what I am.
It is all God being God, but God in this furthest bastion of the cosmos has not yet realised it is God. Yet there is the paradox that I am a self separate from the whole. So as a self there is only one fundamental choice; surrender and die into the state of being, or go on struggling trying and wanting as a self. The choice is presented every moment, we can leave it to life to turn us around with suffering or we can voluntarily go the easy way of self dissolution and return to the original state of being with the knowledge of having been a suffering self and the knowledge that I don't want that ever again.
The good is known in our own experience as the love or rightness in our body(sensational) and in our lives (circumstantial). The final reference point of the good that has no opposite is within us, it is what we are behind the self. Self is the divider the judger the lesser creator. In my experience self is the only evil. The most important thing to realise is that consciousness comes first. This is true in everybodys experience if they are intelligent enough to see it. From this place all is created so anything between it and sense is projected into this place of sense just like the film in the original cinema projector. That is my sense of it and I am empowered in being true to that place. And yet the dillema exists and is real. Right? In your understanding, this is where I get stuck ... the dillema. When to sacrifice my own "life" for another (not physically, but the daily self/life) ... and why would I do it? Is it love when I do it? Or something else?

[LightningStrike]

And yet the dillema exists and is real. Right? In your understanding, this is where I get stuck ... the dillema. When to sacrifice my own "life" for another (not physically, but the daily self/life) ... and why would I do it? Is it love when I do it? Or something else?

There is no dilemma if you are true to life. I am here to enjoy my life, right? Any thing I do or am involved with that causes me to get emotional is something that I define as not yet right.

If it were possible to blank out the physical appearance of things and just experience the associated subjective reality you would see that there is no 'other' involved. It is all happening in 'you' or if you like it is all happening in the brain. There is no one else here, when the ramblings of the self are examined in the moment it is all subjectively happening in my universe and there is no one else here. There is only self talking to itself and the background in which it appears. This back ground is of fundamental importance. It is perceived as nothing.

To get the idea/sense of this place of nothing is the key and then to be true to it is the union or action of loving it for when the self stops or is gone that 'it' is all there is. So for this practice one must develop a self detector, or have a keen sense of personal selfishness. This can be quite healthily taken to the extreme.

There is no dilemma when living is acted out from this single'I' universe. That is the truth, there is only one I in the universe and there is only one life in the universe and that is in that body reading and writing these words.

There is no confusion in this reality, there is my self and there is the natural sensational state of the body. That is so easily dismissed and yet it is so richly endowed with all that we call good, it is truly the sacred place of life. Now if one hasn't practiced living as a sensation the mind might think I am referring to the surface sensations of touch feeling, hot and cold etc when sensation is mentioned. This is not what I mean. There is a place deeper than that in the subjective sense of the body, that is a delight to be in, a garden of eden so to speak. Every moment fresh and new and yet always the same place, there is no past here. It is an upwelling of life. It is what is called in everyone's experience- uninterupted wellbeing. ((('Chemicals' I hear my self say having read your posts.))) Now to explain the relative positions of self and this place of life I can use a spatial analogy. Down inside the body is where I am talking about but the doctor won't find this place. Just inside is what is called the subconscious and that is where my self lives in the dark. It is the guardian to the lower levels and this is why one needs a keen sense of self because self will do it's best to prevent my attention or perception looking into this place and discovering it's hideout. Self's purpose is to distract me until I am still enough or real enough to perceive the place I am.

Watch it throw up those thoughts like red herrings. Mixing science with the subjective is doomed to lead to one question after another ad nauseam. The self win's hands down in that department. See the pattern?

So getting one's life right is paramount if one is going deep psyche diving.

[Trent Wray]

There is no dilemma if you are true to life. I am here to enjoy my life, right? Any thing I do or am involved with that causes me to get emotional is something that I define as not yet right.

If it were possible to blank out the physical appearance of things and just experience the associated subjective reality you would see that there is no 'other' involved. It is all happening in 'you' or if you like it is all happening in the brain. There is no one else here, when the ramblings of the self are examined in the moment it is all subjectively happening in my universe and there is no one else here. There is only self talking to itself and the background in which it appears. This back ground is of fundamental importance. It is perceived as nothing.

To get the idea/sense of this place of nothing is the key and then to be true to it is the union or action of loving it for when the self stops or is gone that 'it' is all there is. So for this practice one must develop a self detector, or have a keen sense of personal selfishness. This can be quite healthily taken to the extreme.

There is no dilemma when living is acted out from this single'I' universe. That is the truth, there is only one I in the universe and there is only one life in the universe and that is in that body reading and writing these words.

There is no confusion in this reality, there is my self and there is the natural sensational state of the body. That is so easily dismissed and yet it is so richly endowed with all that we call good, it is truly the sacred place of life. Now if one hasn't practiced living as a sensation the mind might think I am referring to the surface sensations of touch feeling, hot and cold etc when sensation is mentioned. This is not what I mean. There is a place deeper than that in the subjective sense of the body, that is a delight to be in, a garden of eden so to speak. Every moment fresh and new and yet always the same place, there is no past here. It is an upwelling of life. It is what is called in everyone's experience- uninterupted wellbeing. ((('Chemicals' I hear my self say having read your posts.))) Now to explain the relative positions of self and this place of life I can use a spatial analogy. Down inside the body is where I am talking about but the doctor won't find this place. Just inside is what is called the subconscious and that is where my self lives in the dark. It is the guardian to the lower levels and this is why one needs a keen sense of self because self will do it's best to prevent my attention or perception looking into this place and discovering it's hideout. Self's purpose is to distract me until I am still enough or real enough to perceive the place I am.

Watch it throw up those thoughts like red herrings. Mixing science with the subjective is doomed to lead to one question after another ad nauseam. The self win's hands down in that department. See the pattern?

So getting one's life right is paramount if one is going deep psyche diving.Okay ... I want to respond more in-depth and with a couple of more questions, especially concerning your use of the word guardian to describe part of the self. Awhile back, I actually used this term specifically (guardian) to describe a similar concept to what you are describing. I had to a degree my own hypothesis of the structure of the psyche and self, and "the guardian" as I called it was a part, as was an "inner child".

But before I go off on those rabbit trails, I want to know ... according to your understanding obviously ... if you believe it's possible for two people to experience those deeper parts of themselves with each other, and what that might look like. It would seem the experience of the self you are describing is exclusive to oneself by it's very nature (esp from your post I used for quoting). This is, more or less, intuitively factual by default LOL (since I can never be in another person's "self"), but there is a reason I'm asking in particular based off someone I used to know ...

As you have time. I appreciate your posts :)

[LightningStrike]

... if you believe it's possible for two people to experience those deeper parts of themselves with each other, and what that might look like.

Human love is emotion and attachment and is felt in the body. This occurs and is felt on the 'surface'. The source of love is below that and is absent of 'feelings' and thus impersonal and yet sensational in the body. When man and woman meet in love the meeting occurs in the body and the meeting is of me and my love. This particular energy of love of woman is something that I as man do not have intrinsically. That energy is unique to woman and psychically I enter her and she me and we are united in love deep in the body/psyche. No persons, no I just the sensational reality 'updated' every moment. This female energy of love is man's fulfillment. He is restless without it. Union with this energy produces an increase in conscious perception or consciousness generated by the dissolution of self or I.

This all requires a knowledge of the difference between sex and love or self and life.

[Trent Wray]

Down inside the body is where I am talking about but the doctor won't find this place. Just inside is what is called the subconscious and that is where my self lives in the dark. It is the guardian to the lower levels and this is why one needs a keen sense of self because self will do it's best to prevent my attention or perception looking into this place and discovering it's hideout. Self's purpose is to distract me until I am still enough or real enough to perceive the place I am.
Okay (small anecdote warning), many years ago I had a friend who counseled individuals who had experienced sexual trauma / abuse. With some of the individuals, he explained to me that they almost developed a sort of second personality which they used to "shield" themselves in order to deal with everyday life. He referred to this personality as a "guardian". He claimed that the formation of the guardian usually took place either during or immediately following the traumatic event, in order to help the individual begin coping quickly. This guardian began to dictate to the individual their new personality, how they filtered thoughts and the world around them, emotions, etc and so forth. In some ways it sounds sociopathic ... and almost like a "possession" but that isn't how he meant it. It was merely a term he used to describe this personality in people which seemed to take a life on all it's own.

I've since tried to google the term in the way he was using it but never was able to really nail down a place where the term was used in that way. I think it might have been, more or less, one of his own terms perhaps? Anyway .... having no real working knowledge of psychological theories, I found this concept intriguing and began to examine others in this way at times, looking for hints of a "guardian" if you will.

To keep it as short as possible ... the way I would describe the guardian is exactly that ... a protector. It is a personality that comes out in people to hide or mask a deeper part of themselves. I'm sure it has a pop-psych equivalent that I am butchering to death :( ..... but anyway, the guardian is most of the time, ineffectual at doing it's "job". It does indeed protect part of the individual from being violated again emotionally and mentally. However, this protection often entraps the individual in a sort of prison, and the guardian becomes more of an illusion-creator than a protector/nurturer. The illusions, are that people and situations in the environment are not to be trusted when often times, they are more or less harmless. This is of course a defensive mechanism triggered from the trauma to the person, and in that sense it served the person well to "survive" ... but it can lead to false concepts about the personalities of others, social dynamics, magical thinking, and almost form a sort of sociopathic dynamic in the person ... the guardian being the charming and/or magnetic part of the personality of the person which is almost completely fake and experiences "reality" in a distant and detached manner, only serving to attempt to control the environment with it's mask so the "deeper person" doesn't experience the "dangers" that exist (although they are not really there of course). This further detaches the person from a "true moral sense" if you will, not unlike certain types of sociopaths.

Now the deeper person, is what I personally referred to as an "inner child".

Now before I go on (disclaimer again), I understand I can't substantiate anything I'm describing here and that I'm butchering psychology. These are my observations and my own attempts at forming hypothesis on the psyche of certain close friends and individuals I've gotten to know more personally, etc and so forth. These labels are a mish-mash or my own junk (i.e. woo :) ) and I realize that. I usually try to formulate my own ideas with my own labels from bits and pieces here and there, and then go and study later about the actual thing to see if I got anywhere close to the more collectively accepted terminology and theories. So I'm not claiming any of this is fact ... it's always being added to and taken away from with me as I learn ... hence, the learning aspect of it :) I could easily change my mind later today on the very thing I'm typing out. So I'm examining it.

So the inner child as I started calling it, was whom the guardian was protecting. More or less, I saw the inner child as being the opposite of whatever the guardian essentially was. If the guardian was more logical and critical in it's thinking process ... the inner child was more emotionally immature and underdeveloped (so to speak). Likewise, if the guardian was much more emotional and fantastical in nature ... manic at times, more or less in a dynamic and charismatic sort of way .... then the inner child was objectively immature and underdeveloped when it came to critical thinking.

Regardless of what the inner child "was" .... it was almost always extremely immature. And I don't mean this in a negative way, rather I mean it in a "life experience", nurturing sort of way. For example, a friend of mine was traumatized by witnessing a murder as a toddler. This friend is extremely analytical, intelligent, critically thinking, and quite magnetic and authoritative. Their emotions are very shallow on the surface, even though they appear genuine ... but when cornered in a deep way, this person freezes. As this person begins to trust and "open up" if you will, becoming vulnerable, they become extremely emotionally unstable and almost the polar opposite of the logical, rational thinking person who is in much control most of the time. As it were, I began to look at this persons outward personality as a guardian, and this inward personality that behaved almost like an emotional toddler (even using toddler tactics and behavior, like temper tantrums, etc) ... as their inner child. This proved extremely useful at times, as I was able to be a "Safe place" if you will for this person to open up and trust me, and I them.

But the difference between the guardian and the inner child was night and day in terms of maturity. As time went by, rather quickly in fact ... the inner child side of the personality began to mature some and it was something to watch this person "open up" and essentially enjoy a part of themselves that was buried deep, deep within (to use your terminology).

In fact, whenever this person opened up and we'd get into our vulnerable, personal talks ... we called this "deep talk" and we joked we needed our swimsuits most of the time to be around each other.

So I mention all of this to explain my own personal observations about how a persons self sometimes works, and the role this guardian plays to protect the inner child.

After much talking and exploring, one of the conclusions I came to initially was that this guardian was an obstacle more or less, to a more "real" and deep self, and that the guardian nature of a person needed to change to accomodate that deeper child, in order for the inner child to be more free from an illusory prison that was no longer needed. But I learned the psyche was fragile (obviously LOL) ... and that attacking the guardian wasn't wise. Rather, the guardian needed to be shaped and formed to learn how to protect the inner child PROPERLY, instead of imprisoning it and enslaving it to basically starve.

So do these observations and terms I've used line up with any of your own thoughts? The guardian type concept you used seems to somewhat coincide with mine, and I'm curious to understand why you claim the guardian would want to detract a person (even myself) from the deeper inner child.

And you don't have to use my terminology of course :)

To get the idea/sense of this place of nothing is the key and then to be true to it is the union or action of loving it for when the self stops or is gone that 'it' is all there is. So for this practice one must develop a self detector, or have a keen sense of personal selfishness. This can be quite healthily taken to the extreme.

Could you please expand on what it is that can be healthily taken to an extreme ... the keen sense of personal selfishness? How? And I'm assuming you are talking about selfishness in this light: focussing on what my whole body is telling me I need (not just what I want) and giving it to it, more or less, fulfilling the defecit.

Watch it throw up those thoughts like red herrings. Mixing science with the subjective is doomed to lead to one question after another ad nauseam. The self win's hands down in that department. See the pattern?

This is another thing. I have previously tried to "live" using basically an extremely strict, flat affect type of lifestyle where I paid no heed to emotion and feeling and thought. It was my goal to essentially eradicate the unnecessary ills that came with them. I have also lived the inverse to test the benefit of that (i.e. following my "heart"). Both had their advantages and disadvantages, but what I have found up to this point in my life (and it may be my youth or some other factor), is that the "heart" seems to be the most powerful. And when I use that term, I'm not saying my emotions and feelings ... I'm saying this deep seeded drive to fulfill certain "needs" that do not seem like desire alone. Like a need to have a partner, or a need to relieve myself of unnecessary "baggage" and stressors. A need to be "free" more or less, unrestrained in an internal way to experience "myself" whatever that is. This is actually what I call the heart, which believers might call a spirit/soul perhaps. And as I've said .... in the end, it seems to be an underlying driving force that fuels even my best attempts to evade it and switch to purely "logical critical thinking mode" for extended periods of time. And I'm talking years. It is still there, silently looking to be fed a certain type of experiential meal if you will.

Is this what you are describing as the self always winning and the pattern? Because I have noticed often the same thing ... mixing the objective with it is useful at times, but tends to be a dog chasing it's tail round and round and round ... and eventually a rut is dug by the dog running in circles and nothing is accomplished ... and the strongest winner is still that self from within, near my heart (if it's not my "heart")

This particular energy of love of woman is something that I as man do not have intrinsically. That energy is unique to woman and psychically I enter her and she me and we are united in love deep in the body/psyche. No persons, no I just the sensational reality 'updated' every moment. This female energy of love is man's fulfillment. He is restless without it. Union with this energy produces an increase in conscious perception or consciousness generated by the dissolution of self or I. I'm not bragging, but only mentioning this to address this point. I'm no stranger to relationships, and I'd like to think I'm pretty seasoned when it comes to them. I'm obviously not going to go into detail on a public forum, BUT ---- the woman I love more than anything, we have this experience when we're with each other. This is going to sound like a bag of woo chips coated in dripping cheese ... but there is something that is an indescribable sensation between the two of us I have previously described as "life". It was almost as if, if it were possible, that we could create life around us with this sensation. Like I said, I'm seasoned in relationships. I know the ups and downs of romance, and lust, and puppy love, and "being in love" and all that crap. This was and is different. It is almost like two halves a planet making a whole ecosystem. It doesn't really cause us to feel much ... rather experience much. Is this what you are describing? Is calling this "life" too woo-ish and off the mark from what it "is" in your observations and opinion?

Sorry for the long post and lack of editing of it (I'm tired) :)

ETA: again, I know it's a lot of woo talk and psychobabble butchering on my part ....

[LightningStrike]

So do these observations and terms I've used line up with any of your own thoughts? The guardian type concept you used seems to somewhat coincide with mine, and I'm curious to understand why you claim the guardian would want to detract a person (even myself) from the deeper inner child.

And you don't have to use my terminology of course :)

I think you make a good observation here. Self can split itself and have that guardian aspect, an analogy of which would be; making friends with the bully in the playground to gain some strength. With regard to the inner child thats got to come from not having life explained in a meaningful way. Other than that I have not got that overtly in my experience. But I did used to be petrified that people would see me as my self (inner child), I was sure that people could see my emotional subjective condition and so psychically closed up in any social situation. And I know I longed to have the best personality. So there you go I fit your theory.

These two parts of self, to be free of them, have to be seen together and the whole lot fits into the self basket. It has to be contained by seeing it as it is. Like an animal it is focused on self preservation. For this reason it does not want to die and thus when my consciousness/ stillness starts to look in here it has got to hide or get me to think. It is protecting it's eggs as it were. Those eggs are the emotional pains of living. They are there in the stomach region. They are the force behind worry and aimless thought. I have got to be present in the moment to see which circumstance in my life they relate to.
I don't have to look into the past to work them out there will be a current situation that brings them up. Just seeing it is enough. This whole entity is my self.

I would say the whole self is the guardian. And the inner child is the sweet innocent place of the 7 year old who knows the joy of life and is still in that very real place of life within. I call that place 'me' to differentiate it from my self.


Could you please expand on what it is that can be healthily taken to an extreme ... the keen sense of personal selfishness? How? And I'm assuming you are talking about selfishness in this light: focussing on what my whole body is telling me I need (not just what I want) and giving it to it, more or less, fulfilling the defecit.



Yes selfishness goes in degrees of subtlety all the way down to the shadow of my self as a position in consciousness i.e. subject and object . This is then the crossing point to subject and object merging i.e. really no 'I'. This can be taken to an extreme quite healthily if I am willing to go all the way.1 Denying self it's experience of thinking. 2 Not talking about the past 3 observing but not judging. All balanced by feeling the good in the body and being in the senses and getting my love life right. It is all a purification of the body. The body is the holy temple.



This is another thing. I have previously tried to "live" using basically an extremely strict, flat affect type of lifestyle where I paid no heed to emotion and feeling and thought. It was my goal to essentially eradicate the unnecessary ills that came with them. I have also lived the inverse to test the benefit of that (i.e. following my "heart"). Both had their advantages and disadvantages, but what I have found up to this point in my life (and it may be my youth or some other factor), is that the "heart" seems to be the most powerful. And when I use that term, I'm not saying my emotions and feelings ... I'm saying this deep seeded drive to fulfill certain "needs" that do not seem like desire alone. Like a need to have a partner, or a need to relieve myself of unnecessary "baggage" and stressors. A need to be "free" more or less, unrestrained in an internal way to experience "myself" whatever that is. This is actually what I call the heart, which believers might call a spirit/soul perhaps. And as I've said .... in the end, it seems to be an underlying driving force that fuels even my best attempts to evade it and switch to purely "logical critical thinking mode" for extended periods of time. And I'm talking years. It is still there, silently looking to be fed a certain type of experiential meal if you will.
It sounds like your own self knowledge. I think we all have that in us.
One can't suppress the self it has to be dissolved by knowing what I am doing to it. Otherwise I am still operating from being attached to self while trying to get rid of it, self knowledge is the only way. Self knowledge is knowing what I know without thinking about it i.e. no self reflection.
Discovering the final desire is the end of self identification and then wouldn't that be the last experiential meal, the last supper.
Is this what you are describing as the self always winning and the pattern? Because I have noticed often the same thing ... mixing the objective with it is useful at times, but tends to be a dog chasing it's tail round and round and round ... and eventually a rut is dug by the dog running in circles and nothing is accomplished ... and the strongest winner is still that self from within, near my heart (if it's not my "heart")
Yes the whole scientific endeavour is an attempt to gain complete understanding of life. And in that moment, if any one ever achieves it, their mind will be completely still and in wonder at the pure idea they have united with. That is beyond the mind.

I'm not bragging, but only mentioning this to address this point. I'm no stranger to relationships, and I'd like to think I'm pretty seasoned when it comes to them. I'm obviously not going to go into detail on a public forum, BUT ---- the woman I love more than anything, we have this experience when we're with each other. This is going to sound like a bag of woo chips coated in dripping cheese ... but there is something that is an indescribable sensation between the two of us I have previously described as "life". It was almost as if, if it were possible, that we could create life around us with this sensation. Like I said, I'm seasoned in relationships. I know the ups and downs of romance, and lust, and puppy love, and "being in love" and all that crap. This was and is different. It is almost like two halves a planet making a whole ecosystem. It doesn't really cause us to feel much ... rather experience much. Is this what you are describing? Is calling this "life" too woo-ish and off the mark from what it "is" in your observations and opinion?



You don't need me to tell you anything that is beautiful.






.

[swhite44]

There's a Derren Brown video (search 'derren brown advertisers') where he gets 2 ad men and asks them to create a campaign. He sets up certain stimuli on their ride to the studio, and they come up with a campaign that is almost identical to Derren predicted. The ad men, like anyone else, think they are individual and creative, but it shows they (we) are completely stimulus-response machines, as Gurdjieff called us.

[Trent Wray]

There's a Derren Brown video (search 'derren brown advertisers') where he gets 2 ad men and asks them to create a campaign. He sets up certain stimuli on their ride to the studio, and they come up with a campaign that is almost identical to Derren predicted. The ad men, like anyone else, think they are individual and creative, but it shows they (we) are completely stimulus-response machines, as Gurdjieff called us. I know which one you are talking about ... it is the only Derren Brown epi I ever watched actually LOL :)

I agree with it, to a point ... and it is basically, at least imo, the fuel that could drive the idea that "there is nothing new". In other words, everything we create, invent, experience, relate to, discover about "life" etc is just a variation on previous "stuff" that influenced us to think of it and "create it".

An example of this would be the fire breathing dragon analogy. There are no fire breathing dragons, but the idea came from observing dinosaur bones, alligators in streams, and talking about the fear of both over a campfire at night.

In this way, everything we "create" and imagine had an origin based in reality. And this would beg to question where there origin of some of our ideas and concepts actually point to. Are we capable of creating a "concept" from absolutely nothing whatsoever that influenced it?

This is why I'm fascinated with "concept" in and of itself ...

[Trent Wray]

Discovering the final desire is the end of self identification and then wouldn't that be the last experiential meal, the last supper.
Yes the whole scientific endeavour is an attempt to gain complete understanding of life. And in that moment, if any one ever achieves it, their mind will be completely still and in wonder at the pure idea they have united with. That is beyond the mind.
I think I already know this answer, but I want to ask you. What happens when a person discovers the final desire and the end of self identification, realizing who they are and what the "meaning of life" is for them .... and then eats the last supper, entering into that "forever now" moment. But the moment is stripped from them and refuses to return, and no amount of effort or thought or belief or following of the self will allow re-entry into that moment. The now-moment chooses of it's own to disappear and shield itself from your vision and being. The now is gone, and all that seems to remain are the past and the future, which cannot be seen or experienced because they are concept and idea that was and isn't yet.

Have you experienced this?

You don't need me to tell you anything that is beautiful.
Well said :)

[LightningStrike]

I think I already know this answer, but I want to ask you. What happens when a person discovers the final desire and the end of self identification, realizing who they are and what the "meaning of life" is for them .... and then eats the last supper, entering into that "forever now" moment. But the moment is stripped from them and refuses to return, and no amount of effort or thought or belief or following of the self will allow re-entry into that moment. The now-moment chooses of it's own to disappear and shield itself from your vision and being. The now is gone, and all that seems to remain are the past and the future, which cannot be seen or experienced because they are concept and idea that was and isn't yet.

Have you experienced this?


Yes I know what you are saying.

How I do it
The solution for me is to direct my attention into the body every moment. This works because the body is more real than the movement of mind. The 'golden' sensation in the body is now in terms of time, it has no past in it. That stops me thinking. So in a subjective sense I am up with it, I am up with now. I am present in my senses at the same time as feeling the feeling in my body. That takes care of the two worlds. Rather simple but not easy to do continuously because self get's tired with it and drifts off thinking. The body now is the doorway to reality.

Why I do it
Why do I do this? It is because I love something I can not name, I love this state of being as nothing. I have no problems. And I can enjoy a trouble free life which means a trouble free interior where there is sensation that feels good and I would call it the sensation of life in me. I am also up with now in my senses, I am totally present and conscious of my subjectivity and of the crickets chirping in the wet night. A wonderful state of simplicity. I do it to be trouble free and it works. I am not avoiding the world or any difficulties I face. I live with my woman and child and have no problems and this is all due to realising that I love something greater than myself. I love my being. I can be true to it every moment by surrendering into my body and senses and giving up thought as a need to think.

So you know this state, from your description you have realised it. Now you have to find a way to live it every moment because it represents the greatest experience possible. All there is is now, can you show me the past or future now. No you won't be able to. Anything you point to will be the current state of that object, it will be it's latest condition.

The past is all in the self. It appears to be made of energetic past a kind of grainy sticky sensation.

The loss of the now moment that you describe is the gravitational pull of this sticky stuff slowing down my consciousness. It's force is broken by coming to my senses and feeling what I am feeling within.

So the edge of now is approached. Now is infinitely swift. It might help to see that it is not continuous. It is the self that appears to be continuous.

So finally by the grace of life I am shown that I am not my self. I have been emptied to some degree, and I feel lighter and more free.

And that's the whole idea of being here - to enjoy my life.

[Trent Wray]

So you know this state, from your description you have realised it. Now you have to find a way to live it every moment because it represents the greatest experience possible. All there is is now, can you show me the past or future now. No you won't be able to. Anything you point to will be the current state of that object, it will be it's latest condition.extreme woo warning:) :

I understand what you've said, and I've experienced what you describe. Here is where I'm at now:

I lived as you describe, and there was another with me. Together, we shared that sacred part of ourselves ... that part that is the unnamable priceless part of me that even I don't look at. I understand what you say when you say the body is the doorway to reality, but the sacred part doesn't come out to be in that reality. Everything else does come to that threshold to interact and experience as much as possible, in a way allowing the sacred to grow and expand behind it's protection but still remain unseen. This is how I experience the whole .... by being in the sacred but no looking at, and allowing as much room as possible for it to "be", and yet be protected.

Together, we were a safe place for each other (this other person). And I shared that sacred part of mine ... and they shared theirs. It came to the surface, pushed the guardians out of the way like pulling back a curtain, and joined with them and they with me. Together, we became as one unit essentially.

But tragedy struck and now we are estranged. Doing what I thought was loving ... I gave back their sacredness, so that they could still live. But I saw they couldn't live without me, even though it was necessary according to their situation. So I let them keep that sacred part of me as well ... and now they have both themselves and that sacred part of me. It helped that person to stay strong and endure, but I am now without. And I cannot ask for it back, and I won't force it back. Gaining it back by any kind of force on any level devalues that part of me and it devalues them as well. But I am still without it, and they are now quite possibly wasting it.

My guardian is now guarding an empty place. That inner child is barely alive, if at all. I am still aware of my portal to reality, and I am still aware of the other parts of "me" and "I" and "self". But the sacred center is something I can now look upon ... because it's empty. For awhile it was like a wound that bleed out. But now I think it's been debrieded, and the whole is like a void that is being cleaned out more. Peering at the whole makes it tiny and large at the same time. But it's still empty.

I do not want to say that life has lost it's purpose or meaning. Life still is what it is. And I have experienced pain and heartache before on many, many levels. This is not any of that. Life is still a thing that is valuable and wonderfully interesting to me. But I am blank in my core now. My "self members" only have the past and future as residue pumping through their being. The now is as blank as the void in my core.

I hate to use the analogy ... but I more or less feel like I died for this person. That is the reality of the now. The reality of the future is that maybe that sacred part of me is still alive within them, and to access it I must have "faith" LOL. But that doesn't help me in the "now". And the reality of the past is a seriess of choices I may or may not should have made, but I made them regardless. Those do not help me in the "now" either. But again, the heart of what I valued most in my now, is missing.

What now? This is where I'm at. What happens next? This is new for me ... a new "life" I'm not used to experiencing. I have lost that sacred part of me before and found it was inside of me the whole time, that I was delusioned. I have held a gun to it, so to speak, to test it for it's realness. But now I've given it away, for the rest of my life if necessary. I've never done that before.

end of woo :) To others, yes I know this is all woo. It's a way to describe what I have experienced in a way that makes sense to me. I try to learn to speak "different languages", and there are several used on this forum :) It's partly why I appreciate this forum so much :)