The Great Illusion

[Iacchus]

Ever tell anyone the story of your life? Does that make you a fictional character too? I've never heard of you before, so does that just make you imaginary to me?

So, do you realize that for 99.999% of the people who exist on this planet that you only exist as a concept? ... Or, not even that perhaps? How do you know that you're not just an illusion? Once you pass away it will be as if you were never here. At least to this illusion you call self.

So, perhaps the only thing which is truly capable of recognizing this illusion you call life is this imaginary being you call God? In fact, why should any of us other illusions bother to give you the time of day? Hmm ...

Therefore, if life were merely an illusion, then there must be an even greater illusion from which all other illusions spring, right? But of course we're really not speaking of this at all, in as much as we're speaking of the greatest of illusionists, God Himself ...

[scribble]

The author's first two paragraphs are gripping -- inviting the reader to read on, like a whore seductively calling her john into the brothel. Unfortunately, the experience after that point goes downhill -- much as the john's experience might after finding the initially appealing prostitute looks, up close, like she's lived a life of hard drug use.

Overall, the peice has a nice beat, and the repetitive red markings (lights) clearly suggested a particular connection in the mind of this reviewer.

I give the experience of reading this peice two stars out of four - one for each reasonable paragraph seems... reasonable. It leaves the reader wondering whether the experience was worth the cost.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by scribble

The author's first two paragraphs are gripping -- inviting the reader to read on, like a whore seductively calling her john into the brothel. Unfortunately, the experience after that point goes downhill -- much as the john's experience might after finding the initially appealing prostitute looks, up close, like she's lived a life of hard drug use.

Overall, the peice has a nice beat, and the repetitive red markings (lights) clearly suggested a particular connection in the mind of this reviewer.

I give the experience of reading this peice two stars out of four - one for each reasonable paragraph seems... reasonable. It leaves the reader wondering whether the experience was worth the cost. But cleary you must understand that not even your words have any significance to them. ;)

[scribble]

Originally posted by Iacchus
But cleary you must understand that not even your words have any significance to them. ;)

As I said - the idea you start out with is one I find quite interesting. I've contemplated my own stunning insignificance more than once.

I think it's amazing that I can take a group of people - admittedly, a very, very small group - and claim to have some real significance to them.

One thing I think is cool are people who are clearly *not* insignificant. People who accomplish real things that get them remembered after death - or even noticed before death, by a large number of people.

But I wouldn't want to derail your thread by taking the conversation that direction. The rest of your post indicates you've taken an interesting thought to a wild an irrational conclusion, and it's that that we're to discuss. Aside from pointing out that it's a wild and irrational conclusion -- which I really thought I did in a particularly clever manner -- I haven't got much to add to the discussion I think you're looking to have here.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by scribble

As I said - the idea you start out with is one I find quite interesting. I've contemplated my own stunning insignificance more than once.

I think it's amazing that I can take a group of people - admittedly, a very, very small group - and claim to have some real significance to them.

One thing I think is cool are people who are clearly *not* insignificant. People who accomplish real things that get them remembered after death - or even noticed before death, by a large number of people.

But I wouldn't want to derail your thread by taking the conversation that direction. The rest of your post indicates you've taken an interesting thought to a wild an irrational conclusion, and it's that that we're to discuss. Aside from pointing out that it's a wild and irrational conclusion -- which I really thought I did in a particularly clever manner -- I haven't got much to add to the discussion I think you're looking to have here. Dust in the wind dude!

[Iacchus]

Of course by wild and irrational you make it sound like the concept of God never existed. By the way, did you know that before you ever came into being, you were merely a concept in the mind of your mother and father? ;)

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Ever tell anyone the story of your life?

Yes.

Originally posted by Iacchus
Does that make you a fictional character too?
No.

Originally posted by Iacchus
I've never heard of you before, so does that just make you imaginary to me?
No. I suppose having never met me you would not be able to distinguish from your perspective if I was imaginary or not but in this specific case (me) not knowing me does not make me imaginary.

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, do you realize that for 99.999% of the people who exist on this planet that you only exist as a concept? ... Or, not even that perhaps?
Yes.

Originally posted by Iacchus
How do you know that you're not just an illusion?Well, your logic made me laugh so hard I bit my lip but I suspect that is not the answer you seek.

Even streching the imagination it does not seem possible. An illusion would be something perceived by another consciousness but since it really doesn't exist, an illusion could not have the conscious ability to respond, which I obviously am.

Originally posted by Iacchus
Once you pass away it will be as if you were never here. At least to this illusion you call self.
Unknown. No one knows what happens when we die. I suspect you are correct but there is no way I can say with any certainty that after I die I will not be aware of my prior self.

And you have stated that I am an illusion which is only an assumption, not fact, and would appear to be in conflict with the fact that I am aware of my responses.

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, perhaps the only thing which is truly capable of recognizing this illusion you call life is this imaginary being you call God?
No. An imaginary being by definition cannot be aware of anything as it does not exist compounded by the fact there is nothing to suggest I am an illusion. And no, not only a supreme being would be capable of perceiving an illusion. A drunk who has fallen and hit his head is quite capable of seeing things that are not there.

Originally posted by Iacchus
In fact, why should any of us other illusions bother to give you the time of day? Hmm ...
In fact, most of you don't which really ticks me off.

Originally posted by Iacchus
Therefore, if life were merely an illusion, then there must be an even greater illusion from which all other illusions spring, right?
No, even if I accpeted your theory that life is an illusion, only a real consciousness could perceive it. An illusion (which does not exist) can't perceive another illusion.

Originally posted by Iacchus
But of course we're really not speaking of this at all, in as much as we're speaking of the greatest of illusionists, God Himself ...
No, you could be pulling my leg.

If you're serious I feel this far more likely a highly contrived and convoluted attempt to rationalize the existance of God that falls woefully short of the mark.

If you're pulling my leg then good one.

[Iacchus]

Yes, but let's just say for example that when you're dead you're dead, and that's the end of it. Weren't you in fact just an illusion to this self which no loner exists? What else would you call it? First we have the illusion that we're here, and then we no longer exist. So where did we go? Doesn't that sound the least bit strange to you? And neither have I brought up the notion of God. Hmm ...

[MRC_Hans]

Lets get the illusion thingy over with for a start. I originally made this for Franko but I generously make it available to any solipsist or quasi-solipsist out there:

MRC_Hans' practical test of Solipsism .(tm)

Disclaimer: This experiment might not only bruise your ego, but also your body, so you undertake it entirely at your own risk. I will not be held responsible for any consequences, including, but not limited to, loss of pride, peace of mind, teeth, etc.

1) Find a busy city street.

2) Wait for large aggressive looking male to walk by (generally, the more tattoos, the better).

3) Walk up behind said large aggressive looking male and direct a solid kick at the lower, rear portion of his body.

4) When he turns, tell him: "That was because you mother is so ugly".

5) Observe.

You will now have tangible evidence for the following:

a) You exist physically.

b) At least one other entity exists physically.

c) You and that other entity are in communication, both abstractly and physically.

d) The other entity probably has a mother.

You may conclude that all your observations are, after all, part of an illusion, but the experience should convince you that you had better treat the illusion as reality .

Good luck!

Hans :D

[Iacchus]

And when he kicks the living crap out of you and you're dead? Then what? What significance would it have to the you which no longer exists? ;)

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And when he kicks the living crap out of you and you're dead? Then what? What significance would it have to the you which no longer exists? ;) Ahh, I see that even the putative experience has enlightened you! Good! So, you now agree that such an experience might kill you? The logical consequence of this insigt is, of course, that your illusion speculations are moot, right?

I'm glad we got that cleared up.

Hans :p

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans

Ahh, I see that even the putative experience has enlightened you! Good! So, you now agree that such an experience might kill you? The logical consequence of this insigt is, of course, that your illusion speculations are moot, right?

I'm glad we got that cleared up.

Hans :p No, what I'm saying is how can life be anything but an illusion if, in fact this is all there is? Hey I'm not denying a physical reality exists, however, when we die, where does our awareness of this reality go? For if we were to just dissipate, wouldn't that be tantamount to saying we were deluding ourselves about being here? ... For there ain't nothin' there!

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Iacchus
No, what I'm saying is how can life be anything but an illusion if, in fact this is all there is? Hey I'm not denying a physical reality exists, however, when we die, where does our awareness of this reality go? For if we were to just dissipate, wouldn't that be tantamount to saying we were deluding ourselves about being here? ... For there ain't nothin' there! What you just wrote can only be interpreted in two ways (unless your definition of "illusion" is fundamentaly different from the usual):

1) You claim that things do not exist unless observed.

2) You claim that what you do not observe is of no importance.

Hans

[Iacchus]

Ah, to obsever or not to observe. That is the question. But you see, in order observe, you have to "be." And what will life have meant, to an observer which does relent? Was it just an illusion?

[DangerousBeliefs]

After reading what you wrote, I was profoundly changed. I know now my mission in life is for that 15 minutes of fame Andy Warhol has spoken of.

I'm thinking of either streaking during the Superbowl or injuring a figure skater during the Olympics.

Once 99.999% of the U.S. population knows my name, I will become self-actualized just like Tonya Harding or Ted Bundy.

Thank you for awakening me to the profound idea that God only realizes really really famous people or complete and utter losers.

I hope one day to be remembered as a really, really big loser.

Thank you and good day.

[Iacchus]

So the question is, Is this all there is to life? If not, then what else is there? For surely there's nothing to hold onto here if, it's but a mere illusion.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So the question is, Is this all there is to life?Is what all there is to life? I am having a great life so far, full of love, full of learning, with plenty of happiness, and some sadness, frustration, even anger, thrown in which add spice. I have family, I have friends, I have wonderful food....I could go on for days and not scratch the surface. Is this all there is to life? If you are as fortunate as I am, I suppose so. How wonderful!

If not, then what else is there?I'd say "good question", but it's not.
For surely there's nothing to hold onto here if, it's but a mere illusion. The sandwich I had yesterday is gone. Would you call it an illusion? I think if I only ate illusory food, I would not be nearly so happy. Nor would I weigh this much. I think perhaps the word you are searching for is not "illusory", but "temporary". Maybe "finite." Our lives are temporary, not illusory. At least not unless you are redefining "illusory" to the point where your new definition and that used by the rest of the population no longer have any features in common.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So the question is, Is this all there is to life? If not, then what else is there? For surely there's nothing to hold onto here if, it's but a mere illusion. So, considering your reply, I must conclude that your definition of illusion differs from the dictionary definition of "illusion". To get anywhere in this discusion it is now necessary that you state your definition of illusion .

To answer the question above: Yes, it is entirely possible that all there is to life is the physical existence you are experiencing now.

To invert Pascal's wager: You'd better be sure to get something out of the physical life you have now, because that might be all you ever get. Should there be something more, you can regard that as an extra bonus.


Hans

[tdn]

I get where Iaccus is going with this. And it's pretty much nowhere.

Yesterday I wrote a novel on my computer, and saved it to the hard drive. Today I threw the computer off of a tall building. Where is my novel? Was it just an illusion? No, it was real. It was a function of my hard drive. Now that my hard drive is gone, my novel no longer exists. I still remember it fondly, but it went bye-bye. The fact that it is now gone is hardly proof of a great magic sky novelist, or an ultimate illusory novel.

One could draw an analogy to a television instead, proving the existence of a broadcast station, but here we get into philosophical exercises, not proof of fact. We have no way of proving either way whether our brains are generators or receivers. Myself, I'll go down Occam's path and predict that there is no Great Broadcast.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans

So, considering your reply, I must conclude that your definition of illusion differs from the dictionary definition of "illusion". To get anywhere in this discusion it is now necessary that you state your definition of illusion .If you're asking me how an illusion can have an illusion about itself, then that doesn't make sense now does it? However, this is exactly what we seem to have -- hmm ... another illusion? -- before us.

And yet if such a thing is not possible -- or is it? -- then it must not be an illusion then, right? Of course that would be contingent upon it continuing on, even after death. Or how else could you assert it wasn't an illusion?


To answer the question above: Yes, it is entirely possible that all there is to life is the physical existence you are experiencing now. Is consciousness physical?


To invert Pascal's wager: You'd better be sure to get something out of the physical life you have now, because that might be all you ever get. But then again what difference would it make?


Should there be something more, you can regard that as an extra bonus.But this would be contingent upon how you live your life, don't you think?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by tdn

I get where Iaccus is going with this. And it's pretty much nowhere.

Yesterday I wrote a novel on my computer, and saved it to the hard drive. Today I threw the computer off of a tall building. Where is my novel? Was it just an illusion? No, it was real. It was a function of my hard drive. Now that my hard drive is gone, my novel no longer exists. I still remember it fondly, but it went bye-bye. The fact that it is now gone is hardly proof of a great magic sky novelist, or an ultimate illusory novel.

One could draw an analogy to a television instead, proving the existence of a broadcast station, but here we get into philosophical exercises, not proof of fact. We have no way of proving either way whether our brains are generators or receivers. Myself, I'll go down Occam's path and predict that there is no Great Broadcast. However, I'm not denying that anyone was ever here. ;) I would just like to know where did they go?

[tdn]

Originally posted by Iacchus
However, I'm not denying that anyone was ever here. ;) I would just like to know where did they go?

Same place my novel went. Away.

The question is largely meaningless.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio

Is what all there is to life? I am having a great life so far, full of love, full of learning, with plenty of happiness, and some sadness, frustration, even anger, thrown in which add spice. I have family, I have friends, I have wonderful food....I could go on for days and not scratch the surface. Is this all there is to life? If you are as fortunate as I am, I suppose so. How wonderful!

I'd say "good question", but it's not.I never said we should deny were ever here. However, that doesn't seem to answer the question now does it?


The sandwich I had yesterday is gone. Would you call it an illusion? I think if I only ate illusory food, I would not be nearly so happy. Nor would I weigh this much. I think perhaps the word you are searching for is not "illusory", but "temporary". Maybe "finite." Our lives are temporary, not illusory. At least not unless you are redefining "illusory" to the point where your new definition and that used by the rest of the population no longer have any features in common. Was the sandwich aware that you were eating it at the time?

[phildonnia]

Originally posted by Iacchus
But cleary you must understand that not even your words have any significance to them. ;)

Apparently, words words are only significant when they are colored red.

If y'all enjoy this crap, you might check out Richard Bach's book "Illusions". Probably the best thing he ever wrote, which isn't saying much, I know, but I enjoyed it.

[tdn]

Originally posted by Iacchus
I never said we should deny were ever here. However, that doesn't seem to answer the question now does it?

The question is meaningless. If I turn on a light, where does the dark go? If I take an aspirin, where does my headache go? Of all the silly answers to these silly questions, "Eureka, there is a god" seems an unlikely one.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by tdn

Same place my novel went. Away.

The question is largely meaningless. Of course we all know what rotting corpse is all about, but what does that have to do with consciousness?

[tdn]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Was the sandwich aware that you were eating it at the time?

I would hope that that particular porcine pet was not aware of his slaughter, boiling, slicing, stuffing into a pita pocket, and devouring. That would just be cruel. The poor piggy!:(

Or are you asserting that mustard has awareness?

[tdn]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Of course we all know what rotting corpse is all about, but what does that have to do with consciousness?

This is so basic that it hardly merits discussion, but as far as we can tell, consciousness is a function of brain activity. When the body dies, the brain dies. When the brain dies, consciousness ceases. Insisting that it goes on forever is a comforting thought, but it strikes me as little more than wishful thinking.

Would it be any less meaningful to ask where my heartbeat goes when I die? Or what will happen to my urine? Or what my eardrums will hear? Why is consciousness singled out?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by tdn

The question is meaningless. If I turn on a light, where does the dark go? If I take an aspirin, where does my headache go? Of all the silly answers to these silly questions, "Eureka, there is a god" seems an unlikely one. And when you turn off the light the energy no longer flows in the circuit. And when we die, where does our conscious energy go?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by tdn

This is so basic that it hardly merits discussion, but as far as we can tell, consciousness is a function of brain activity. When the body dies, the brain dies. When the brain dies, consciousness ceases. Insisting that it goes on forever is a comforting thought, but it strikes me as little more than wishful thinking.

Would it be any less meaningful to ask where my heartbeat goes when I die? Or what will happen to my urine? Or what my eardrums will hear? Why is consciousness singled out? However, it is possible to smash a radio to pieces and not affect the radios waves a bit.

[tdn]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And when you turn off the light the energy no longer flows in the circuit. And when we die, where does our conscious energy go?

Let's first ascertain that it is actual energy. Which, by the way, the best physicists in the world have yet to prove. If it is not, then we are still stuck with a meaningless question.

True, there are measurable electrical impulses, but electricity does not equal consciousness any more than it equals light. When we die there is a power shutdown. When we shut off power to the light -- where does the light go? When we shut off power to a stereo, where does the music go?

Meaninless questions, and even then it's easier to measure light and sound waves than consciousness.

I ask you -- what form of energy is consciousness, and how can we measure it?

[tdn]

Originally posted by Iacchus
However, it is possible to smash a radio to pieces and not affect the radios waves a bit.

True enough, but the same can't be said of a CD player. So which is a brain more like? That is the debate. Assuming that a brain is like a radio receiver is making a huge leap. It's presupposing a host of answers to arrive at what might be a very faulty conclusion. And it's making an ass of you and ming. :bgrin:

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by tdn

True enough, but the same can't be said of a CD player. So which is a brain more like? That is the debate. Assuming that a brain is like a radio receiver is making a huge leap. It's presupposing a host of answers to arrive at what might be a very faulty conclusion. And it's making an ass of you and ming. :bgrin: Actually what we're speaking about here is the difference between the mechanism and the medium. Either way, be it the CD player or the radio, the medium (the music itself) has to be converted into a signal (and there's the key) which can then be broadcast by the speakers. In which case the brain becomes the mechanism and consciousness becomes the medium.

Therefore, I would suggest it's possible for consciousness to exist outside of an earthly brain. However, how would we know, without a brain to play it back?

[tdn]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Actually what we're speaking about here is the difference between the mechanism and the medium. Either way, be it the CD player or the radio, the medium (the music itself) has to be converted into a signal (and there's the key) which can then be broadcast by the speakers. In which case the brain becomes the mechanism and consciousness becomes the medium.

Therefore, I would suggest it's possible for consciousness to exist outside of an earthly brain. However, how would we know, without a brain to play it back?

I'll buy that. Including the part about us not knowing. So then the question becomes: How do we find out?

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Iacchus
If you're asking me how an illusion can have an illusion about itself, then that doesn't make sense now does it? However, this is exactly what we seem to have -- hmm ... another illusion? -- before us.

But that is not what I ask you. I ask you: What is your definition of "illusion", since it is obviously different from the usual definition?

And yet if such a thing is not possible -- or is it? -- then it must not be an illusion then, right? Of course that would be contingent upon it continuing on, even after death. Or how else could you assert it wasn't an illusion?

Can't answer till I know your definition of the term.

Is consciousness physical?

Quite possibly, yes.

But then again what difference would it make?

If you don't feel you make a difference, you have a problem.


(on a possible afterlife as a bonus)
But this would be contingent upon how you live your life, don't you think?

How can we know? And if so, how can we know how we should live our lives??



Hans

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by tdn

I'll buy that. Including the part about us not knowing. So then the question becomes: How do we find out? Well, this was the last thing I expected to hear. Not even sure where to begin. Are you speaking in terms of what science can do or, what one can do on a personal level?

[Dancing David]

Therefore, if life were merely an illusion, then there must be an even greater illusion from which all other illusions spring, right? But of course we're really not speaking of this at all, in as much as we're speaking of the greatest of illusionists, God Himself ...

i am not in agreement with that, i think thatas individuals we can have illsuions that are radicaly different from the illusions of others and therefore it is a mass of seperate illsuions as opposed to the grand illusions.

The greatsest single illusions is that there is aself which is existant.

There is no self, so I suppose that could be the grand illusion.

[tdn]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well, this was the last thing I expected to hear. Not even sure where to begin. Are you speaking in terms of what science can do or, what one can do on a personal level?

What can be done on a personal level is not really reliable as evidence, so let's go with science. How can science measure a consciousness?

[c0rbin]

Breathe deep in the gathering gloom
Watch lights fade from every room
Bedsitter people look back and lament
Another day's useless energy's spent
Impassioned lovers wrestle as one
Lonely man cries for love and has none
New mother picks up and suckles her sun
Senior citizens wish they were young
Cold-hearted orb that rules the night
Removes the colors from our sight
Red is grey and yellow white
And we decide which is right
And which is an illusion?




Moody Blues

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by tdn

What can be done on a personal level is not really reliable as evidence, so let's go with science. How can science measure a consciousness? Well, if they could create a super computer, capable of simulating a human brain, maybe they could actually tune in to somebody who has just died? Or, maybe take the healthy of brain of somebody who just died, say in a car accident, and hook it up and see if they can't do something similar? And, since each us has a unique set of brain frequencies, perhaps they could learn how to vary these and tune in to different people? Hey, I'm just guessing!

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans

But that is not what I ask you. I ask you: What is your definition of "illusion", since it is obviously different from the usual definition?Well let's just say you happened to be on the holodeck in Star Trek? How would you know the difference between what happens in the holodeck and what happens the real world? If it was that real you couldn't, right? And yet the holodeck is just an illusion.

If you don't feel you make a difference, you have a problem.All I'm saying is if there's no life after death, then what difference would it make what you do?


How can we know? And if so, how can we know how we should live our lives??Even if we don't know, I think so long as we have self-respect and are decent towards others it really doesn't matter.

[tdn]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well, if they could create a super computer, capable of simulating a human brain, maybe they could actually tune in to somebody who has just died? Or, maybe take the healthy of brain of somebody who just died, say in a car accident, and hook it up and see if they can't do something similar? And, since each us has a unique set of brain frequencies, perhaps they could learn how to vary these and tune in to different people? Hey, I'm just guessing!

LOL!

Yeah, but there are a couple of problems. For one, computers aren't magic, they only do what you tell them to. You can't model the human brain without first understanding the human brain!

For another, doing tests on dying brains has the major drawback of getting willing subjects in the lab to die for you on queue. The IRB takes a dim view on this sort of practice.

[scribble]

All I'm saying is if there's no life after death, then what difference would it make what you do?


Now that's an interesting question that you can put a lot of thought into. I haven't come up with any answer I can defend rigorously.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus

All I'm saying is if there's no life after death, then what difference would it make what you do?
I refuse to believe that theists don't care about what happens to their children and grandchildren.

What difference does it make? I am making a better world for the people I love. Because it is the only one they get. If I thought as you seem to suggest I should, I should not care at all about their physical lives--in fact, the sooner they can join in the singularity, the better! Shuffle off the ol' mortal coil, and step on it!

Nope, not for me. I care what sort of world my kids have after I'm gone. And their kids, and theirs. I'm selfish; I want my kids to have the best world possible. And frankly, I have a tough time believing that a religious person would love his or her kids any less. So...in this matter, whether there is life after death or not, we work for our kids. You ask what difference it makes? I don't see any.

[Iacchus]

Try thinking of yourself as having never been here; then try thinking of yourself for the short time you have; then try thinking of yourself as if you no longer were. So basically what we have is a whole lot of non-existence and the slightest sliver of existence in between which, you will never know about as soon as you die.

So from non-existence we came, to non-existence we go, to non-existence which will always be, from here on out.


P.S. I don't believe in non-existence by the way. ;)

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Try thinking of yourself as having never been here; then try thinking of yourself for the short time you have; then try thinking of yourself as if you no longer were. So basically what we have is a whole lot of non-existence and the slightest sliver of existence in between which, you will never know about as soon as you die.
Yup, that's pretty much my world view. Only it is even more remarkable a picture than you paint--Even within the history of this one planet, my life is an insignificant speck. This planet, this solar system...yet another insignificant speck in a galaxy, which is yet another insignificant speck compared to the known universe. Look at the most recent Hubble photos....How anyone, anyone, can look at that infinitessimal existence that we as a species have, let alone we as individuals, and think that we must have some special purpose, some special plan, some special anything...is beyond me.

But at the same time...it is science, not religion, that can let me know how long this planet has been around, and put me, awe-struck, in my proper perspective. It is science, not religion, that opens up the galaxy to view. It is science that shows us that Hubble photo, or the moons of Jupiter, or our own DNA, and shows us that this thing we are an insignificant part of is something bigger than our understanding of it. I mean, more galaxies than there are grains of sand on all the beaches of earth! Distances so vast that they render futile any attempt to put them into human terms. (Ok, it's as if you went from New York to Los Angeles, once per second, for the next million lifetimes...aw, forget it...)

This place is so incredibly vast, so incredibly varied, that remarkable things have a chance to happen...by chance. Like us. Natural selection is an incredibly simple idea, and yet...look around. Given a time scale to work with that most people can't conceive of, natural selection has given us amoebas and elephants, venus flytraps and giant redwoods, platypi, Interesting Ian, and Cleopatra. Again, with sufficient time, running water and rock give us the Grand Canyon. Sufficient time, culture, learning....and these random, intentionless processes even give us people who think they have a philosophy which can tie it all together. Such arrogance! And yet, why not? It's an incredibly vast, incredibly old universe. It has room enough for you, too.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Iacchus


Therefore, if life were merely an illusion, then there must be an even greater illusion from which all other illusions spring, right? But of course we're really not speaking of this at all, in as much as we're speaking of the greatest of illusionists, God Himself ...

I never got this whole "life is an illusion" bit. Life is what it is. Naming it an illusion in no way changes its character. This is reality because this is what we have defined as reality. Is there some other reality - who the hell knows? It is just incredibly stupid and meaningless. The only frame of reference we have for defining reality is the reality we inhabit. To say that "this is not real" suggest that you have some other frame of reference to compare it to which is more real. You don't. It wouldn't even matter or be meaningful if life were, in some inconceivable way, an "illusion". It was still be everything that constitutes reality for we corporeal beings.

[Iacchus]

Hey I'm just working with your guys' definition, not mine. Ever see the movie, The Truman Show? (http://www.allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg&sql=1:161628)

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Hey I'm just working with your guys' definition, not mine.
Oh, I must have missed that...In your opening post, the first time you use the term "illusion" (in this thread), your link (where you cite one of "us guys' definitions") must be broken.

Please show that "illusion", as you use it in this thread, is being used as "we" use it. Current confusion from "us" as to how you are using it leads me to believe that you are mistaken.

(BTW, nice post, billydkid. If you hadn't misused a "we" where an "us" belongs, I'd have nominated that one...very nicely put)

[tdn]

Originally posted by Mercutio
This place is so incredibly vast, so incredibly varied, (etc.)

Very nice post. And a great rebuttal to the accusation that skeptics are boring and shallow people.

As to the notion of us living for just a sliver of time, I refer you to the year 1980. June the 20th. 2:59 PM. It was the longest minute in history. In that one minute, 757890 new species evolved, 52632 went extinct, and several new planets wer born. It was the longest minute in history, and I was there to witness it. Because it was, you see, the last minute of my high school career. At 3:00 I was to become a (hopeful) college student. I sat there and watched that clock for what seemed like millenia.

[tdn]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Try thinking of yourself as having never been here; then try thinking of yourself for the short time you have; then try thinking of yourself as if you no longer were. So basically what we have is a whole lot of non-existence and the slightest sliver of existence in between which, you will never know about as soon as you die.

So from non-existence we came, to non-existence we go, to non-existence which will always be, from here on out.

And this disturbs you.

It never ceases to amaze me how people sometimes deal with this. They deny science, deny evidence, claim that what is real is fake and what is fake is real, create religions, knock down buildings killing thousands all for the glory of boinking 77 virgins -- simply because they can't cope with the reality that life is short.

The universe is a vast and wonderful place. If some greater intelligence created it from a thought, then that intelligence must be great indeed. But the very people that believe in such intelligence want to limit it by claiming that Earth is central to the universe, Earth is flat, humans aren't apes, etc. The very people that want to glorify God really don't -- they want to limit God and glorify themselves.

It amazes me how many wars were started, how many nations built, how many people were enslaved, how many suicide bombers there have been -- all because people want to feel important and loved.

[tdn]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Hey I'm just working with your guys' definition, not mine. Ever see the movie, The Truman Show? (http://www.allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg&sql=1:161628)

Ever heard of fiction?

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by tdn


Very nice post. And a great rebuttal to the accusation that skeptics are boring and shallow people. Hey, just ask any of the skepchicks who met me at TAM2--I can be boring and shallow with the best of them!

[kuroyume0161]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Actually what we're speaking about here is the difference between the mechanism and the medium. Either way, be it the CD player or the radio, the medium (the music itself) has to be converted into a signal (and there's the key) which can then be broadcast by the speakers. In which case the brain becomes the mechanism and consciousness becomes the medium.

Therefore, I would suggest it's possible for consciousness to exist outside of an earthly brain. However, how would we know, without a brain to play it back?

Whoa, whoa, whoa. First you say that consciousness is energy. Then you say that is a medium (lit. in science: a conductor of energy). Eh, it can't be both the energy and the conductor thereof simultaneously.

Consciousness is a function of brain activity, which is a function of electrochemical responses between neurons. That is a physical property. When the physical property ceases, so does the emerging aspect of consciousness.

The radio and CD player are bad analogies. The brain is more like the a music box that arranges its own music through complex processes. You pull the plug on the brain and no more music can be composed.

Where was your consciousness prior to birth? What kind of consciousness would 'live on' eternally for an infant who died at birth?

Kuroyume

[Atlas]

Iacchus,

What if you are in a coma - where does your consciousness go?

What if you go senile - are you stuck in your madness for eternity?

What about the insects? They are real life forms. What happens to them when they are crushed under the boot or picked off in mid flight on a frogs tongue or trapped in a spider's web and their life drained slowly away by the spider?

When our consciousness continues will their be an incessant and irritating buzzing around us from all the insects who continued as well? Will there be a way to swat them away or kill them? - After all, they are already dead. If not - they could drive us mad.

And if only a disembodied consciousness continues without anything of the senses to validate it's experience - won't it be the entity within the illusion? I think it is easier to ponder non-existence than an unstable dream reality that gets less and less substantial as eternity robs your memory from your non existent brain cells.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well let's just say you happened to be on the holodeck in Star Trek? How would you know the difference between what happens in the holodeck and what happens the real world? If it was that real you couldn't, right? And yet the holodeck is just an illusion.

Because my holodeck acountomatic badge [tm] would be ticking off the minutes.


All I'm saying is if there's no life after death, then what difference would it make what you do?

It so happens that I feel it makes a difference how people remember me. And, I have some people who are going to remember me.

Even if we don't know, I think so long as we have self-respect and are decent towards others it really doesn't matter.

Self-respect is a good start, but it takes more..........

Hans

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by tdn

And this disturbs you.Not in the least.


It never ceases to amaze me how people sometimes deal with this. They deny science, deny evidence, claim that what is real is fake and what is fake is real, create religions, knock down buildings killing thousands all for the glory of boinking 77 virgins -- simply because they can't cope with the reality that life is short.What does this have to do with God? What does the label on a can of soup have to do with the soup inside?


The universe is a vast and wonderful place. If some greater intelligence created it from a thought, then that intelligence must be great indeed. But the very people that believe in such intelligence want to limit it by claiming that Earth is central to the universe, Earth is flat, humans aren't apes, etc. The very people that want to glorify God really don't -- they want to limit God and glorify themselves.You can't fault them for being who they were, given the time and circumstances.


It amazes me how many wars were started, how many nations built, how many people were enslaved, how many suicide bombers there have been -- all because people want to feel important and loved. And when we abolish religion? What excuse would we need for starting a war then? Communism? ... Fascism? ...

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by tdn

Ever heard of fiction? Ever here that the truth was stranger than fiction? How bizzare ... ;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio

Please show that "illusion", as you use it in this thread, is being used as "we" use it. Current confusion from "us" as to how you are using it leads me to believe that you are mistaken.What other word could you use to describe it then? ... "Delusion?" ;)

Let me just put it this way, if there is more to life than just this temporal existence, then it must be an illusion, and we, must under the delusion that this is all there is.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Atlas

Iacchus,

What if you are in a coma - where does your consciousness go?The spiritual world.


What if you go senile - are you stuck in your madness for eternity?If you're senile you're probably stuck between both worlds, that is until your body dies and allows you to pass on.


What about the insects? They are real life forms. What happens to them when they are crushed under the boot or picked off in mid flight on a frogs tongue or trapped in a spider's web and their life drained slowly away by the spider? Do they have a spiritual counterpart? It stands to reason. Otherwise there would be no spiritual diversity.


When our consciousness continues will their be an incessant and irritating buzzing around us from all the insects who continued as well? Will there be a way to swat them away or kill them? - After all, they are already dead. If not - they could drive us mad.It all depends on what kind of relationship you establish with them in this life.


And if only a disembodied consciousness continues without anything of the senses to validate it's experience - won't it be the entity within the illusion? I think it is easier to ponder non-existence than an unstable dream reality that gets less and less substantial as eternity robs your memory from your non existent brain cells. On the contrary. Spirits have form and the full faculty of senses that we have, except more highly intensified.

[Atlas]

Thanks Iacchus,

I'm not sure I understood all that.

It's good to know that spiritual diversity is a principle of the Absolute and insects will get their place at the table.

What kind of relationship building exercises do you do so that your afterlife won't be pestered by them? You see, I've done a lot of squashing in my time and now you've got me thinking.

Oh, and if Spirits have form, faculties, and heightened senses, who do we look like? Specifically, will the ugly chicks get a break in the next life? I think we all want that.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Iacchus

Let me just put it this way, if there is more to life than just this temporal existence, then it must be an illusion, and we, must under the delusion that this is all there is. So, if there is not more to life than this temporal existence, it is not an illusion? Perhaps we agree after all. As long as you keep using that word "if", and recognise that your qualifier makes all the difference in the world.

Yup, that's all there is. Nope, it's not an illusion. And the burden of proof is on you to show that your "if" is anything at all. And so far...it's still just an "if".

[Dancing David]

The illusion is that there is a you that is anything more than a bunch of chemical processes that exist in a single moment.

The body that you mistake for you changes every minute and second. Is the water moelcule that you urinate still you after it leaves 'your' body. The continuity of your body is an illusion, it is a different body in every discreet moment. Are you really the same as you were when you were two years old?

There is no you to live on when your body dies. There is the body , there are thoughts , there are perceptions , there are feelings and there are habits . That is all there is , and each of those is just a set of discrete objects that have no real continuity, .

So where is the you ? Where is the self that would live on after death. That is the illusion .

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Atlas

What kind of relationship building exercises do you do so that your afterlife won't be pestered by them? You see, I've done a lot of squashing in my time and now you've got me thinking.Don't bug them unless they bug me. ;)


Oh, and if Spirits have form, faculties, and heightened senses, who do we look like? Specifically, will the ugly chicks get a break in the next life? I think we all want that. It has more to do with what goes on on the inside which, is what the spiritual side of ourselves represent. So in that sense I understand conceit can be pretty hideous looking, albeit it depends a lot on who's looking at it. To the conceitful everything would appear as if it were normal.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Mercutio

So, if there is not more to life than this temporal existence, it is not an illusion? Perhaps we agree after all. As long as you keep using that word "if", and recognise that your qualifier makes all the difference in the world.I'm not sure about that either, because when you're dead, how would you even know your life was real? Hence the illusion.

Yup, that's all there is. Nope, it's not an illusion. And the burden of proof is on you to show that your "if" is anything at all. And so far...it's still just an "if". You mean puny little ol' me? Who has nothing but his wit and charm at his disposal? That's an awfully big "if."

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans

It so happens that I feel it makes a difference how people remember me. And, I have some people who are going to remember me.

Hans There's no need in getting sentimental about it is there? Does non-existence cling to anything?

[tdn]

Originally posted by Iacchus
What does this have to do with God? What does the label on a can of soup have to do with the soup inside?

Huh? How did we get on to the subject of soup?

Let me attempt to explain again: People, in general, fear death. They feel themselves to be so important that they cannot conceive of themselves ceasing to be. To that end, they will make up the wonkiest stories to support some sort of afterlife. And deny any evidence to the contrary. Let me give you an example (though it's not about afterlife per se):

On another message board I asked a fundie what would be so bad if it turned out that evolution is fact. Her response was "That would mean that God doesn't love me." Other posters were quick to point out that that was a logical fallacy, that evolution in no way disproves God. But they all seemed to miss the point -- she just wanted to be loved. She wanted some assurance that she was wanted and needed and important.

OK, fine. We all want that. But she was willing to deny hundreds of years of evidence, why? Because she had better evidence? No. Because of emotional insecurity. Her wishful thinking trumped all logic.

And that's just one example. Name one religion where its adherants are not the chosen people. You'll quickly see that everyone wishes that they are the ones to receive all the benefits of that religion, even if all others are damned. Take the 9/11 hijackers -- do you think they slammed into the towers so that someone else could get into heaven?

I guarantee you, if you start looking for this pattern of thinking, you'll be shocked at how all pervasive it is.

BTW, I never said that such thinking disproves the existence of God and/or an afterlife. Just that there seems to be a lot of made up stuff to satisfy peoples' emotional needs, and this usually destroys any true objectivity.

You can't fault them for being who they were, given the time and circumstances.

Who, the ancients for believing in Zeus? No, I can't. What are the excuses in this day and age?

And when we abolish religion? What excuse would we need for starting a war then? Communism? ... Fascism? ...

You lost me here. I never said abolish religion. I never said we need an excuse to start a war, although I'm sure it's inevitable. But it seems to me like we are on the verge of a really big war, and the heart of it is going to be about who gets to go to heaven. Bush himself seems to be leading the Christian charge against the infidels. (Yes, a debatable point, and I truly hope I'm wrong.)

Ever here that the truth was stranger than fiction? How bizzare ...

Are you serious? You combine a fantasy movie with a platitude and conclude... er, what exactly?

[scribble]

And that's just one example. Name one religion where its adherants are not the chosen people.


Makes me think of that black kid who attended the KKK rallly recently. It was in the news. I'm amazed he lived - apparently it went as nicely as, "What are you doing here?" "I believe in white supremacy." "Okay, well, some people are obviously not going to appreciate you being here, better get lost now, kid." Really, I was impressed by the diplomacy shown there.

Anyhow, that's totally off the point. Good post.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by tdn

Huh? How did we get on to the subject of soup?You can identify with the label as much as you want, but what does it have to do with what's inside the can? In other words it's entirely possible to do something in God's name only which, in fact is quite prevalent. Meaning, there are so many who believe and yet don't understand.


Let me attempt to explain again: People, in general, fear death. They feel themselves to be so important that they cannot conceive of themselves ceasing to be. To that end, they will make up the wonkiest stories to support some sort of afterlife. And deny any evidence to the contrary. Let me give you an example (though it's not about afterlife per se): Why should we fear that which is natural then, if in fact there wasn't something more supernatural about it?


On another message board I asked a fundie what would be so bad if it turned out that evolution is fact. Her response was "That would mean that God doesn't love me." Other posters were quick to point out that that was a logical fallacy, that evolution in no way disproves God. But they all seemed to miss the point -- she just wanted to be loved. She wanted some assurance that she was wanted and needed and important.Actually I don't have any qualms with evolution per se', at least in terms of how the natural world came about.


OK, fine. We all want that. But she was willing to deny hundreds of years of evidence, why? Because she had better evidence? No. Because of emotional insecurity. Her wishful thinking trumped all logic.Not necessarily.


And that's just one example. Name one religion where its adherants are not the chosen people. You'll quickly see that everyone wishes that they are the ones to receive all the benefits of that religion, even if all others are damned. Take the 9/11 hijackers -- do you think they slammed into the towers so that someone else could get into heaven?Why do people idolize their favorite football players and think their team is the greatest? Why did the German people swell with national pride and join the Nazi Party?


I guarantee you, if you start looking for this pattern of thinking, you'll be shocked at how all pervasive it is.

BTW, I never said that such thinking disproves the existence of God and/or an afterlife. Just that there seems to be a lot of made up stuff to satisfy peoples' emotional needs, and this usually destroys any true objectivity.Well if you mean there's a difference between truly believing in something and being swayed by other people, I would agree.


Who, the ancients for believing in Zeus? No, I can't. What are the excuses in this day and age?As far as things like the world is flat, yes. However, the verdict is still not out (scientifically) that God doesn't exist.


You lost me here. I never said abolish religion. I never said we need an excuse to start a war, although I'm sure it's inevitable. But it seems to me like we are on the verge of a really big war, and the heart of it is going to be about who gets to go to heaven. Bush himself seems to be leading the Christian charge against the infidels. (Yes, a debatable point, and I truly hope I'm wrong.)Do you realize that our 9-11 attackers were under the impression that they were attacking a secularist state? So, if we were a completely secular state would we have still counter-attacked?


Are you serious? You combine a fantasy movie with a platitude and conclude... er, what exactly? So, would you say that the meaning we ascribe to our lives is an illusion?

[Dancing David]

Sure would all human values are merely imposed on the natural realm they are totaly illusiory.

[Iacchus]

So, if non-existence is non-existence, how can something come from nothing? For this is exactly the dilemma we seem to have with consciousness. How can being come about from non-being?

[Dancing David]

Because what are you calling existance and/or being?
Molecules exist as do atoms and other energy manifestations. the universe came from [i[something[/i] it did npt come from nothing.

There is no dilema with consiousness, it is a set of biochemical reaction , generaly involving external or internal stimuli. take away the biochemical process and there is most likely nothing else.

You do not have an existance, there is a body, there are thoughts, there are sensations, there are emotions, there are habits. these are all dicrete things that are transitory in nature, the illusion is in the perception of the continuity of self. It exists discretely in each moment but does not survive any given moment.

[kuroyume0161]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, if non-existence is non-existence, how can something come from nothing? For this is exactly the dilemma we seem to have with consciousness. How can being come about from non-being?

You're misunderstanding of even basic physical processes leads you to this ill-conceived question. That's the answer.

You assume that something comes from nothing (in a non-quantum sense) especially related to the consciousness. But this is misleading. Where do babies come from? (Not being facetious either). Babies come from the sexual interaction of a human male and female in one form or other (accepting other fertilization processes). A sperm and egg, each carrying a portion of their respective donors DNA, unite and a chemical process begins. This chemical process and the gestation process that follows for about nine months require resources - food, air, and water. These are supplied by the mother via the umbilical connection to the fetus.

During that time, the raw materials are used in the 'construction' of the infant by the RNA and mytosis (and whatever other processes may have been missed). The point is that the facility for gaining conciousness, human conciousness might I add, whether you agree or not, is built into the system. I say 'human consciousness' because you (and others like you) seem to forget that other animals are conscious as well, just not in our way of being conscious. Dogs have nearly as much ability to 'think' and 'observe' as we do. They are not so far removed. Chimpanzees, our closest biological relative, are so close, the distinctions are minute (yet still a quantum leap behind).

In other words, after billions of years of evolution, our brains are primed to learn, think, and eventually attain that 'I-stance' during our growth phase of life. And the infrastructure of society is what aids in the fulfillment of this tendency. It is possible that an infant left alone somewhere that somehow survived to mature may not attain the usual level of consciousness. I could be wrong too in this respect. The brain may not only be primed, but able to pull the trigger to manifest the processes towards consciousness.

So, your conclusion that consciousness comes from nothing is incorrect. Raw materials go into constructing the being that will attain it. Evolution played a critical role in the development of our species to be the way that it is (and that was a very long process). Our physiology is designed after this evolution to arrive at this state through long gestations, long growth and learning, and at a high energy cost.

Consciousness in humans just doesn't appear. We just don't wake up one day and say "I am me" and our consciouness complete. It has been shown experimentally to go through phases during early childhood, each with different levels of understanding our relationship with the external world. That's why I asked what type of 'eternal' consciousness a still-birth infant would have. The consciousness then is not the same as it would've been a year later, two years, five years, and maybe even ten or more.

Kuroyume

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Dancing David

Molecules exist as do atoms and other energy manifestations. The universe came from something it did not come from nothing.Yes, and wouldn't it be much more plausible to say that God existed before the Big Bang if, in fact that's what occurred? In which case it might help dispel the absurd idea that something came out of nothing. Indeed, it might even give rise to this immaterial notion of what we call a soul.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by kuroyume0161

You're misunderstanding of even basic physical processes leads you to this ill-conceived question. That's the answer.So, do you believe that there's any purpose in life? How so, compared against the backdrop of non-existence?


You assume that something comes from nothing (in a non-quantum sense) especially related to the consciousness. But this is misleading. Where do babies come from? (Not being facetious either). Babies come from the sexual interaction of a human male and female in one form or other (accepting other fertilization processes). A sperm and egg, each carrying a portion of their respective donors DNA, unite and a chemical process begins. This chemical process and the gestation process that follows for about nine months require resources - food, air, and water. These are supplied by the mother via the umbilical connection to the fetus.Yes, even this suggests that someting doesn't come from nothing which, I happen to agree with. However, it doesn't suggest anything about the awareness of one's existence.


During that time, the raw materials are used in the 'construction' of the infant by the RNA and mytosis (and whatever other processes may have been missed). The point is that the facility for gaining conciousness, human conciousness might I add, whether you agree or not, is built into the system. I say 'human consciousness' because you (and others like you) seem to forget that other animals are conscious as well, just not in our way of being conscious. Dogs have nearly as much ability to 'think' and 'observe' as we do. They are not so far removed. Chimpanzees, our closest biological relative, are so close, the distinctions are minute (yet still a quantum leap behind).Actually I believe that consciousness begins at the cellular level, and occurs throughout the animal kingdom, even in plants. And yet why is it that consciousness is the first thing to go upon death? Why doesn't it lingere around like the rest of the body? Or for that matter, why do you no longer receive a signal once you shut the radio off?


In other words, after billions of years of evolution, our brains are primed to learn, think, and eventually attain that 'I-stance' during our growth phase of life. And the infrastructure of society is what aids in the fulfillment of this tendency. It is possible that an infant left alone somewhere that somehow survived to mature may not attain the usual level of consciousness. I could be wrong too in this respect. The brain may not only be primed, but able to pull the trigger to manifest the processes towards consciousness.The brain is merely a mechanism. Consciousness is like the electricity which flows in a circuit.


So, your conclusion that consciousness comes from nothing is incorrect. Raw materials go into constructing the being that will attain it. Evolution played a critical role in the development of our species to be the way that it is (and that was a very long process). Our physiology is designed after this evolution to arrive at this state through long gestations, long growth and learning, and at a high energy cost.So what is it about the awareness of one's existence which seems incompatible with non-existence which, is the total lack thereof?


Consciousness in humans just doesn't appear. We just don't wake up one day and say "I am me" and our consciouness complete. It has been shown experimentally to go through phases during early childhood, each with different levels of understanding our relationship with the external world. That's why I asked what type of 'eternal' consciousness a still-birth infant would have. The consciousness then is not the same as it would've been a year later, two years, five years, and maybe even ten or more.

Kuroyume Did you know that those who die as little children go to heaven?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, and wouldn't it be much more plausible to say that God existed before the Big Bang if, in fact that's what occurred? In which case it might help dispel the absurd idea that something came out of nothing. Indeed, it might even give rise to this immaterial notion of what we call a soul.

Sorry , I see no need to put god anywhere, but if it floats your boat, then so be it.
I don't believe that physics said that the Big band came from nothing, it might have come from a nothing similar to vacum energy.
It might have come from the Gentle Menagerie, the question is moot and unanswerable.

[kuroyume0161]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, do you believe that there's any purpose in life? How so, compared against the backdrop of non-existence?

Nope. None whatsoever. Life is the chance (not random) structure created by correct conditions under many failed 'experiments' that survives long enough to reach a state that we would label life.

Since non-existence doesn't really exist, there's no use discussing it. Consciousness is integrally tied into the fabric of the universe, but not in some metaphysical sense. In a real physical sense, the potential for life and conscious life is embedded into the structure of the universe. How could it be otherwise? If the universe did not have conditions that could support the existence of life or consciousness, then they would not exist and this discussion would never occur.

A star can be manifested into a concrete thing from an innumerable amount of matter and energy and then one day dissipate into 'nothing' (more correctly: into something different, shedding most of its mass as elementary particles, high energy radiation, gravitational waves, and other elements). The star no longer exists, but its constituents still do. In an analogous way, but non-corporeal, the consciousness dissipates when the brain dies. In this case, it is mainly energy dissipating.

Yes, even this suggests that someting doesn't come from nothing which, I happen to agree with. However, it doesn't suggest anything about the awareness of one's existence.

Awareness isn't a 'something' in a real sense. It is the culmination of processes and a manifestation of structure that causes it.

Actually I believe that consciousness begins at the cellular level, and occurs throughout the animal kingdom, even in plants. And yet why is it that consciousness is the first thing to go upon death? Why doesn't it lingere around like the rest of the body? Or for that matter, why do you no longer receive a signal once you shut the radio off?

Well, I don't. Consciousness begins with a set of sensory organs and an organ capable of analyzing them in any fundamental or nonfundamental way. Therefore, the universe is not 'conscious', nor are rocks, trees, water, or air, among other lifeforms. Consciousness requires a brain and that makes a simple statement about which embodies which. Until evidence is provided to show otherwise, this statement stands.

Consciousness is not the first to go upon death. All brain activity ceases quickly followed by any brain-controlled processes still functioning (such as fibrulation, respiration, and nerve impulses). After that, due to the lack of oxygen and nutrients, organs fail and the cells begin to die. Consciousness goes with the brain. That follows from everything said already.

The brain is merely a mechanism. Consciousness is like the electricity which flows in a circuit.

You treat the brain like it is a housing for something external rather than the actual engine of creating and sustaining that something.

Yes, consciousness is like electricity is some ways. Unplug the circuit and the electrical circuit no longer functions. The source of our conscious energy is the energy that feeds the brain and body. This is what allows the electrochemical messages and neuron linkages. And this is where consciousness arises.

You seem to regard consciousness too much like electricity in that there must be some external 'consciousness generator'. But there isn't. Consciousness is a manifestation of the brain's running on 'electricity', not the electricity itself. Would you consider a computer program to be 'electricity' and exist externally from the computer (as a running entity, that is). Computer programs require a computer and electricity (structure and energy) to 'exist' in the sense of performing their tasks.

So what is it about the awareness of one's existence which seems incompatible with non-existence which, is the total lack thereof?

I think that the awareness of one's existence as something that must be eternal is illusory. We are not born with a fully developed consciousness and it seems to reach a culmination that is hard (if not nearly impossible) to extend after a certain maturity of the body. Why is it then that consciousness seems to be tied so tightly to our physical maturity?

Did you know that those who die as little children go to heaven?

I don't think that heaven exists since there is not a shred of evidence to support its existence.

Kuroyume

[Iacchus]

Excerpt from Emanuel Swedenborg's (http://www.swedenborg.com), Heaven and Hell ...


479. Man after death is his own love or is own will.

This has been proved to me by manifold expereince. The entire heaven is divided into societies according to differences of good of love; and every spirit who is taken up into heaven and becomes an angel is taken to the society where his love is; and when he arrives there he is, as it were, at home, and in the house where he was born; this the angel perceives, and is affiliated with those there that are like himself. When he goes away to another place he feels constantly a kind of resistance, and a longing to return to his life, thus to his ruling love. Thus are affiliations brought about in heaven; and in a like manner in hell, where all are affiliated in accordance with loves that are the opposite of heavenly loves.

It has been shown above that both heaven and hell are composed of societies, and that they are all distinguished according to differences of love. That man after death is his own love might also be seen from the fact that whatever does not make one with his ruling love is then separated and as it were taken away from him. From one who is good every thing discordant or inharmonious is separated and as it were taken away, and he is thus let into his own love. It is the same with an evil spirit, with the difference that from the evil truths are taken away, and from the good falsities are taken away, and this goes on until each becomes his own love.Please be advised that there are two translations here, the original which was translated from Latin in 1812, and reflects Swedenborg's mind as a scientist; and the newly revised edition which was translated recently, which has more of an inspirational appeal. I prefer the original translation myself, which is what I've quoted above.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by tdn

I get where Iaccus is going with this. And it's pretty much nowhere.

Yesterday I wrote a novel on my computer, and saved it to the hard drive. Today I threw the computer off of a tall building. Where is my novel? Was it just an illusion? No, it was real. It was a function of my hard drive. Now that my hard drive is gone, my novel no longer exists. I still remember it fondly, but it went bye-bye. The fact that it is now gone is hardly proof of a great magic sky novelist, or an ultimate illusory novel.Except that you're speaking from the standpoint of the observer which, ulitmately doesn't exist. ;)