Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Qualia & Consciousness

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2012 4:21:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What does it mean to see something? Common wisdom says that there must be something within us that does the seeing, usually being our ethereal identity...and usually culminating in a "Cartesian theater" (to borrow Dennett's own phrase). However the question persists. What does it mean to see, and how is this "inner me" doing it? Since you can't define seeing without referring a seer, it becomes insufficient to say that this "inner me" did the seeing. So what within the inner me did the seeing for the inner me which did the seeing for me? And the whole question plunges into a vicious infinite regress. The same problem occurs for hearing, tasting, feeling, and smelling, though they are less easy to explain.

The reason why the question is so difficult is because describing the process of seeing is like describing the color red. It has no apparent properties except existence and the logical requisites of existence,...in this case, the necessity of a seer. But because the seer is so necessary to seeing, and because that necessity demands a seer for the seer, and a seer for the seer for the seer, the concept of seeing collapses in continuum. Infinity is not a friendly concept, nor one that can be logically worked with. So we must abandon the concept of the seer, along with it the idea that anything was seen. Cross-apply that to the remaining 4 senses,....and there's no such thing as qualia, nor is there such a thing as the mind.

It is beyond dispute that what we have apparently before us is an astoundingly confusing and complex phenomenon....but if we are to assume the inerrancy of classical intuitive logic, there is no way that qualia are possible.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
StreetLogician
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2012 5:32:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There is a problem with your argument. You present a false dilemma. You in effect claim eIther folk dualism is true or Eliminative materialism is. Folk dualism is a strawman easily knocked down. You need to consider the other metaphysical alternatives to make a compelling argument.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2012 5:41:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/19/2012 5:32:28 PM, StreetLogician wrote:
There is a problem with your argument. You present a false dilemma. You in effect claim eIther folk dualism is true or Eliminative materialism is. Folk dualism is a strawman easily knocked down. You need to consider the other metaphysical alternatives to make a compelling argument.

I'm not assuming or attacking any philosophy wholesale; I'm appealing more to individual beliefs that may predicate any kind of dualism. So could you be more specific with what part of the argument is false? Are you saying that seeing does not require a seer? Are you saying that the necessity for a seer does not lead to infinite regress?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
StreetLogician
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2012 5:53:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/19/2012 5:41:14 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/19/2012 5:32:28 PM, StreetLogician wrote:
There is a problem with your argument. You present a false dilemma. You in effect claim eIther folk dualism is true or Eliminative materialism is. Folk dualism is a strawman easily knocked down. You need to consider the other metaphysical alternatives to make a compelling argument.

I'm not assuming or attacking any philosophy wholesale; I'm appealing more to individual beliefs that may predicate any kind of dualism. So could you be more specific with what part of the argument is false? Are you saying that seeing does not require a seer? Are you saying that the necessity for a seer does not lead to infinite regress?

The homunculus problem you present does not have to lead to an infinite regress. There can be a terminal condition that brings it to a halt. A case in point would be a theory that claims the brain or at least a significant part of it is bound by a single wave function as many quantum theories of consciousness posit. An occasion of experience would be a single event or collapse of the wave function.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2012 6:15:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/19/2012 5:53:53 PM, StreetLogician wrote:
At 11/19/2012 5:41:14 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/19/2012 5:32:28 PM, StreetLogician wrote:
There is a problem with your argument. You present a false dilemma. You in effect claim eIther folk dualism is true or Eliminative materialism is. Folk dualism is a strawman easily knocked down. You need to consider the other metaphysical alternatives to make a compelling argument.

I'm not assuming or attacking any philosophy wholesale; I'm appealing more to individual beliefs that may predicate any kind of dualism. So could you be more specific with what part of the argument is false? Are you saying that seeing does not require a seer? Are you saying that the necessity for a seer does not lead to infinite regress?

The homunculus problem you present does not have to lead to an infinite regress. There can be a terminal condition that brings it to a halt. A case in point would be a theory that claims the brain or at least a significant part of it is bound by a single wave function as many quantum theories of consciousness posit. An occasion of experience would be a single event or collapse of the wave function.

I don't know anything about quantum mechanics or its application to the problem of consciousness, so I'll just answer from the basic macroscopic facts required for my argument to be wrong (or just inconsequential). You would have to prove that the terminal condition does not involve a seer, because that is the only possible way for the regress to end. And if there is no seer involved, nothing can be seen. And so if nothing can be seen, how can there be qualia? Correct me if those quantum theories do involve qualia somehow.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2012 6:24:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I like Searle's response which is basically just putting phenomenal experience into it's own necessarily subjective set. There's no use trying to fully explain it in objective terms which is what eliminative mateialism and most physicalist theories do since in doing so we lose account of what we're actually describing. That doesn't mean dualism is true though since we can still mechanically explain things according to a physicalist conception of identity. We just can't explain subjective experience which I think is a vulnerability common to any account of experience and self.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Seremonia
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2012 6:49:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You can use my description as comparison to understand another version of qualia from different sources, please do so.

Links:

- Mary the color scientist http://en.wikipedia.org...
- Qualia from internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://www.iep.utm.edu...

In response to "Mary the color scientist", i am asserting that, Mary didn't know where was the object with red color, unless Mary tried to detect through scientifically. But if we put Mary far away from detecting (whether an) object has red color (or not) through scientifically, then Mary didn't know that an object has the red color.

And if we (that already knew what the red color was) was perceiving the object with red color and also Mary was perceiving the same object (known by us that has the redness) and tried to make a comparison to another different color (guided by us), then Mary knew that there was something different in between "something (with the red color)" and something else (with no red color whatsoever), by considering that Mary physically has ability to see something (that others will say "it's red color").

Eventually, if we told her, the object that she was perceiving it was the object with red color, then she will be able to identify the red color someday if she finds it.

-----

This is my understanding about qualia. Please use your imagination to follow the description slowly and to live within description, and see if we can live within it, to use this to match one of our understanding about perceiving something.

WHAT EXACTLY IS QUALIA?

Don't take it literally, it's just an analogy.

I just have to assert this, to avoid useless discussion which is just trying to "play with discussion". But indeed, this subject (Qualia) is rather difficult to grasp as real object, but we can try to understand the consequences related one to another things.

-----

There is no better way to make clearer understanding other than the analogy. Think of the most subtle (awareness) as calm water. So, any shape that affects the state of water will give a certain visual perception and feeling to consciousness.

For example, a massage can be likened as calm water given a shape similar to a pressure in such a way and it"s similar as feels a massaged. When we feel pain it"s because of the influence of vibration that shapes a consciousness and similar to giving a pressure so sharp piercing the calm water surface, thus forming the pattern of sharpness in the water that similar as give a pain to our consciousness.

The beauty in listening to music can be assumed as the calm water that get a gentle shape that similar to giving a pressure of breeze blowing softly in a certain pattern.

Or the mental state of being depressed is like giving a shape that similar as squeezing water. Or we feel the relief is like giving a shape that similar as water that being widened.Giving a shape to the calm water can be conducted in a certain way to cause feelings through simple manner. The difference of shape that similar as hardening our consciousness, softening our consciousness, these all will be perceived by our consciousness as a possible various senses, such as a shape that similar to a vibration with a certain sharpness that causes pain, also a certain shape that similar to a vibration which gently give a feeling of comfortable.

From just a particular shape that similar to a vibration pattern that gives a more dense shape with different dense levels, as a shape that similar to a : smooth, hard, and so forth vibrations, then it creates specific feeling.

Explanations at the level of our everyday life can be explained as follows: vibration is passed through the sensors on the body transmitted to the brain and the brain are connected to our consciousness, then our consciousness feel the various types of pressures that produce various types of feelings. Our eyes are one of most sensitive tool to receive the most soft stimulus, so that the eye is a tool that delivers the most soft stimulus to consciousness, so we are able to feel the beauty.

For example, feeling of sexual pleasure due to the stimulus from a shape that similar to give a vortex in calm water that creates a stretch, and this gives the sensation as enjoyment of sex. Sex organs have the form of tunnel that reflects a shape that similar to a certain stretch including running through a tunnel, known as the enjoyment of sex. Any shape that provide an influence that "similar to forming a stretching through a vortex motion (with calm pressure) in water" in different parts of the body, will tend to pull a corresponding (closer) feeling.

Another example, when our consciousness get a shape that similar to our very tiny body and somehow get a changing shape continuously that similar as getting a very small touches continuously, then it"s like being stabbed by something so small, and similar to dropping a small objects and sharp to the calm water, and cause a small ripple, and felt by us similar to itchy or tingly.

It asserts that certain circumstances can cause feelings do not always have to go through a touch on the body, but can be done on consciousness itself. This can be done through hypnosis. Through hypnosis, a stimulus can be used only as a symbol which is associated to a certain feeling, so that touch on certain body parts can cause different shape on consciousness that perceived as feel something.

Through hypnosis one's consciousness can be given a certain form of abstract, and this will give a certain feeling that in accordance with a form that is suggested to one"s consciousness. For example, you can give suggestion (giving a certain shape) about the beauty that similar to a drinking that made from a mixed of softness in the morning with music from mozart which its surface has been smoothed. This will give a certain shape on consciousness and creates a certain feeling.
I am free not because I have choices, but I am free because I rely on God with quality assured!
Seremonia
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2012 6:50:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If there is a different point of view on consciousness, generally known as a different angle (way) in terms of observing, this can provide different shape on consciousness that can provide a different perception of reality and also give a different feeling.

An appearance (shape) in consciousness is a form of treatment in the consciousness and is associated with a particular feeling. To note is the level of a thickness of consciousness in each person may vary, so some shape on consciousness may be similar to a vibration that is so strong on the consciousness with less thickness (high sensitivity), and giving a certain feeling with a strong flavor. While for another shape on consciousness may be similar to a vibration with the same strong level on the consciousness with high thickness (low sensitivity), and giving a certain feeling with a less strong flavor.

We see something because of the particular shape that similar to a strong vibration in such a way as to form a certain impression (mold) in our consciousness that is perceived as an object.

Something that is detected by a system but we can not see, it happened because our consciousness (water) is too thick to be printed (to be shaped) by the vibration of something that can not be seen, so there is no trace, and therefore we can not perceive it.

A certain mold (a specific vibration) have a difference with the printout (on printed materials). You have a flower-shaped mold, and printed to a particular material, then the material has a trail that has linked to a specific pattern of the mold, but with a different experience. From the printout can be traced to a tool with a specific mold pattern (a certain wavelength of light), but the experience of exploring the shape of printout (on consciousness, known generally as perception of reality) is different to a system (tool, a certain wavelength of light) that create a printout (a shape on consciousness) itself.

So, a pattern of the mold as a certain wavelength of light creates a printout on our consciousness with a certain causality that can be tracked back to a certain wavelength of light, but we are exploring (perceiving) a printout from a specific wavelength of light is different to a wavelength of light itself.

So put a certain wavelength of light on consciousness (calm water), it"s similar to giving a shape (printout) on consciousness (calm water), and it"s similar to give a certain pressure to a calm water (consciousness), and these give us an experience of perceiving and feeling something.

What exactly is qualia?

- So qualia is (like) very transparent surface with many possible contours, and with its different level of sensitiveness that react relevantly to something, that leads to perception about certain realities and to a certain feeling that in accordance with depth of sensitivity that inherent to a certain contour of the shapes of surface as feelings of consciousness.

-----

Additional Understanding (to reinforce understanding about qualia)

BENDING CONSCIOUSNESS

I Have Feeling

Surface is the feeling. Surface is constructed with many different shapes of surface. These contours represent different feelings.

The shapes from surface are the source of our basic needs, like hungry, thirsty and any possible desires that came from our body. It's because our surface (feeling) is strongly attached (related) to our body, therefore changing on our body (imbalance on our body) will eventually change the contour of our surface (feeling) and because of this, we felt something.

When our bodies react that generally known as "I am hungry", then this will change the contour of specific surface (feeling).

Hypnotism

It's the way that we can do to bend our original shape (contour) of specific feeling without the needs of changing our behavior (our actions with our body). By doing hypnotism, someone can feel something independently without the needs of the body to be induced.

What is " I am alive"?

It's when our shape of surface is changing (bending) dynamically to different contour. Changing from one contour to another different contour. This changing continuously is vibration. Vibration of our feeling.

What is enlightened?

It's when our shape of surface, somehow, are waving closer to the contours (with typical) of Super Surface. The more our shape of surface is changing closer to another level of contour from higher level of Super Surface, the more calm we are. We tend to feel wider horizon, peacefully and there will be no dualism.

Calm Behavior

The more changing of the surface closer to the shape that typical to Super ISurface, the more calm for someone's heart (emotions).

Consistency

A specific shape of surface may be changed by stretching and shrinking to create a specific sensation "i am feeling something" within allowed boundary (without far away from its specific shape).

How we do stretching and shrinking a specific shape of surface can be provided through different causes, but may be still connected to one feeling.

For example: seeing something may be considered as triggering specific feeling, but seeing something else may be considered as triggering same feeling. Different causes may provide the same feeling. Different causes may provide the same changing on specific shape of surfaces that creates the same feeling.

Under hypnotized, someone's specific shape of surface may be stretched and shrunk to create specific feeling without the need of perceiving something that usually needed to provide the same feeling.

Color

When we saw red color, this color might change the shape of our surface to the specific extent that would make us sense "there was red color of something" or "there was specific shape that consistently made us perceive red color of something".

Different events (for example, through hypnotized) might force us to perceive red color without perceive any object that usually known as an object with red color. But that doesn't mean there is no red color. There is red color in the sense that there is specific shape of our surfaces that represent external object called red color.

There is inconsistency that for a specific shape may be stretched or shrunk with different causes to create an experience about red color. But there is consistency that if for any cause has ability to stretch and shrink our surface to the specific shape that previously known as shape related to red color, then we will experience consistently there is red color (whether we saw an object with red color or blue color). There is potential on ourselves to experience red color without depending on specific cause.

That's my understanding through analogy. Perhaps others may have different model to try to understand what qualia is.
I am free not because I have choices, but I am free because I rely on God with quality assured!
Seremonia
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2012 8:16:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/19/2012 6:50:04 PM, Seremonia wrote:
We see something because of the particular shape that similar to a strong vibration in such a way as to form a certain impression (mold) in our consciousness that is perceived as an object.

It's like when we were a water and we could say i didn't feel anything, i didn't see anything in myself, since there was no changing on me.

Something that is detected by a system but we can not see, it happened because our consciousness (water) is too thick to be printed (to be shaped) by the vibration of something that can not be seen, so there is no trace, and therefore we can not perceive it.

It's like when we were sleeping, and there was a sound, but it's not enough to wake you up (not enough to create a continuing trace). This thickness could be changed dynamically.

A certain mold (a specific vibration) have a difference with the printout (on printed materials). You have a flower-shaped mold, and printed to a particular material, then the material has a trail that has linked to a specific pattern of the mold, but with a different experience. From the printout can be traced to a tool with a specific mold pattern (a certain wavelength of light), but the experience of exploring the shape of printout (on consciousness, known generally as perception of reality) is different to a system (tool, a certain wavelength of light) that create a printout (a shape on consciousness) itself.

For example: a sound has different type with vision which both have different way to create a certain mold on our consciousness, and from different kind of mold, we can trace back to different senses, which from understanding certain mold on consciousness we can assert that this type of mold is coming from hearing or seeing.

So, a pattern of the mold as a certain wavelength of light creates a printout on our consciousness with a certain causality that can be tracked back to a certain wavelength of light, but we are exploring (perceiving) a printout from a specific wavelength of light is different to a wavelength of light itself.

Certain wavelength of light will be perceived by us on a different shape. It's like saying that "a flower" is not a mold with the shape of the flower. But we can only perceive a mold, and we can't perceive "a flower" (we can only understand "a flower", in the sense that "perceive a mold of a flower" is not the same as "perceive a flower").
I am free not because I have choices, but I am free because I rely on God with quality assured!
StreetLogician
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 6:16:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/19/2012 6:24:01 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I like Searle's response which is basically just putting phenomenal experience into it's own necessarily subjective set. There's no use trying to fully explain it in objective terms which is what eliminative mateialism and most physicalist theories do since in doing so we lose account of what we're actually describing. That doesn't mean dualism is true though since we can still mechanically explain things according to a physicalist conception of identity. We just can't explain subjective experience which I think is a vulnerability common to any account of experience and self.

I think it is important to stop conflating Qualia and the fiction that the subject of experience is intrinsically human, a soul intrinsically possessing a personality and cognitive functions such as thought and memory. We must acknowledge that the brain does work, but structure and dynamics only yield more structure and dynamics. Cognitive function is not always accompanied by experience. The processes leading to a flash of insight for example. I think a theory of Qualia needs to explain why some processes are experienced and some are not.
StreetLogician
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 6:36:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Seremonia,

I commend your attempt to make sense of experience. I suspect that for a fundamental constituent of the universe to exist in relationship to others is for it to experience and act on those relationships. Those relationships define the shape of its experience. In different vessels the experience takes on different shapes. In a human brain, or at least some parts of it, the shape is what it is like to be a human being. When the vessel is broken, when a person dies, that shape changes so radically that it bares no resemblance to the afterlife imagined by Christians. No personality, cognition, or memories persist. That is not to say that a fundamental constituent could never find itself within another similar vessel. I believe reincarnation is possible for this reason though I do not believe that justice of any kind plays any part in it. That being said, it is in our interests to leave the world a better place.
Seremonia
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 5:27:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/20/2012 6:36:31 AM, StreetLogician wrote:
Seremonia,

I commend your attempt to make sense of experience. I suspect that for a fundamental constituent of the universe to exist in relationship to others is for it to experience and act on those relationships. Those relationships define the shape of its experience. In different vessels the experience takes on different shapes. In a human brain, or at least some parts of it, the shape is what it is like to be a human being. When the vessel is broken, when a person dies, that shape changes so radically that it bares no resemblance to the afterlife imagined by Christians. No personality, cognition, or memories persist. That is not to say that a fundamental constituent could never find itself within another similar vessel. I believe reincarnation is possible for this reason though I do not believe that justice of any kind plays any part in it. That being said, it is in our interests to leave the world a better place.

Thanks. Yes, on specific level of understanding, we can understand it, like electricity running through different objects, then each object will reveal different functions as, washing machine, fan, etc, including just like what it's like to be human being.

But about reincarnation, i don't have argument to support it or to deny it, or to make additional understanding about it, including in relation with past life regression on hypnosis. :)
I am free not because I have choices, but I am free because I rely on God with quality assured!
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2012 8:08:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/19/2012 4:21:45 PM, 000ike wrote:
What does it mean to see something? Common wisdom says that there must be something within us that does the seeing, usually being our ethereal identity...and usually culminating in a "Cartesian theater" (to borrow Dennett's own phrase).

Belief in a homunculus within us that does the seeing is not "common wisdom" at all. There is nothing "common" about your predisposition seeing every fact, process, or problem as some kind of conflict between science and faith, and it certainly isn"t "wisdom". Common wisdom is that when we see something it is us doing the seeing, not that something other than us that lives inside of us is doing the seeing. You"d call that "peculiar wisdom", or maybe just "peculiar".

However the question persists. What does it mean to see, and how is this "inner me" doing it?

You are setting up a false dichotomy based on the logical fallacy of your homunculus idea.

Since you can't define seeing without referring a seer, it becomes insufficient to say that this "inner me" did the seeing. So what within the inner me did the seeing for the inner me which did the seeing for me? And the whole question plunges into a vicious infinite regress. The same problem occurs for hearing, tasting, feeling, and smelling, though they are less easy to explain.

Nope, it only plunges into a "vicious infinite regress" because your reasoning is circular. You are presuming that any explanation for the phenomenon of seeing must be explicated in terms of the phenomenon being explained, which is no explanation at all because it would be circular reasoning.

The reason why the question is so difficult is because describing the process of seeing is like describing the color red.

Nope, that is a different problem.

It has no apparent properties except existence and the logical requisites of existence,...in this case, the necessity of a seer. But because the seer is so necessary to seeing, and because that necessity demands a seer for the seer, and a seer for the seer for the seer, the concept of seeing collapses in continuum. Infinity is not a friendly concept, nor one that can be logically worked with.

Nope, that is just mental chewing gum based on the false dichotomy set up by your circular reasoning, you can certainly chew on it for a long time, it might philosophically taste good at first, but the taste fades and there isn"t anything of substance to swallow, in the end, you only need to realize it was just mental chewing gum in the first place and when the imagined flavor is gone, spit it out.

So we must abandon the concept of the seer, along with it the idea that anything was seen. Cross-apply that to the remaining 4 senses,....and there's no such thing as qualia, nor is there such a thing as the mind.

Nope, you only need to abandon circular reasoning, along with the idea that the artificial false dichotomy was anything but philosophical chewing gum for the mind.

It is beyond dispute that what we have apparently before us is an astoundingly confusing and complex phenomenon

Nope, what is beyond dispute is that it is apparent that what we have before us is an astoundingly confusing and complex reasoning process that resulted in an illogical "argument" that amounts to nothing but circular reasoning and a contrived false dichotomy.

....but if we are to assume the inerrancy of classical intuitive logic, there is no way that qualia are possible.

Nope, only if we assume your highly parochial and personalized reasoning process does this illogical argument hold together. As always, you started with your conclusion and then backed into a insincerely manufactured argument using the tools of false dichotomy and infinite regress; sorry Ike, but that just isn"t how proper reasoning and logical arguments work, they proceed from facts to conclusions, not the other way around.

Let"s get real, behind the curtain of your contrived "argument" is the hard problem of consciousness, so let"s talk about that.

Granted, the hard problem of consciousness is indeed hard, that is why it"s called the "hard problem", and a simple solution of just saying mind, consciousness, and the contents of consciousness do not exist isn"t simple, and it isn"t a solution.

Rushing into facile judgments about what is real and what is not is not how science and philosophy respond to hard problems. Hard problems are properly addressed with an open-minded scientific approach based on the idea that that there must be a coherency and a natural order to things from which it follows that by observing the world it ought to be possible to elucidate this underlying order. Any coherent theory that elucidates the natural order of things can only exist and be given meaning in the mind. There is no observation without mind, no science or philosophy without mind, no logic or reason without mind, and no such thing as an argument without mind. It logically follows that any argument that concludes mind doesn"t exist is self refuting.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
StreetLogician
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2012 9:53:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/20/2012 5:27:40 PM, Seremonia wrote:
At 11/20/2012 6:36:31 AM, StreetLogician wrote:
Seremonia,

I commend your attempt to make sense of experience. I suspect that for a fundamental constituent of the universe to exist in relationship to others is for it to experience and act on those relationships. Those relationships define the shape of its experience. In different vessels the experience takes on different shapes. In a human brain, or at least some parts of it, the shape is what it is like to be a human being. When the vessel is broken, when a person dies, that shape changes so radically that it bares no resemblance to the afterlife imagined by Christians. No personality, cognition, or memories persist. That is not to say that a fundamental constituent could never find itself within another similar vessel. I believe reincarnation is possible for this reason though I do not believe that justice of any kind plays any part in it. That being said, it is in our interests to leave the world a better place.

Thanks. Yes, on specific level of understanding, we can understand it, like electricity running through different objects, then each object will reveal different functions as, washing machine, fan, etc, including just like what it's like to be human being.

But about reincarnation, i don't have argument to support it or to deny it, or to make additional understanding about it, including in relation with past life regression on hypnosis. :)

To clarify: I do not believe that a subject of experience would remember a previous life. It could not because its old brain would have decomposed and cognitive functions are functions of the brain . I believe a subject of experience could over time occupy more than one brain in principle, though I think it would be a rare occurrence at best. Too many fundamental constituents and too few sentient creatures. I do not believe in a soul that retains a personality after death. The brain does work and that work is cognitive functions.