Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Spirituality and identity

Outplayz
Posts: 1,273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 7:37:04 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
I was having this debate with a neurologist that is on the fence if he believes we have an identity at all. He used the Ab Lincoln axe analogy. I agree with that. I am a much different person in comparison to who i was even a year ago; a lot different if i go back to my teens.

However, he thinks my next point was valid but pretty confident that i would change; still thinks i'm young minded. I don't think it will change. I used an analogy that means something to me. I have a good long term memory and can remember things up to the age of 4. I remember 2ish events before that age, but i remember the feeling more than details. Anyways, as far back as i can remember my favorite color has been black. Now, i have added reasons throughout my years, like finding out my second favorite color is hot pink bc i like the contrast it makes with black, but the reasons/feelings why i picked the color in the first place haven't changed. For example, it gives a gothic feeling, it is rebellious, mysterious... etc.

That was my attempt at an "identity" meaning which came up from talking about an immortal soul.

Is it fair to say "everyone" has something like this that they can correlate to an identity? Maybe not my exact story... but something that hasn't changed throughout the years?
Cobalt
Posts: 991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 8:04:27 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
I'm not seeing what this has to do with spirituality.

But I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that there are certain characteristics we possess that are immutable. Many of us have genetic traits that contribute to our identity. Those clearly cannot be changed. Many psychologists believe that certain events can form opinions, associations and biases in ourselves that are difficult, if not impossible to change. (Neurologically, these could be seen as neurons creating unique and permanent connections.)

I'm not sure of your age, but I know that "favorite colors" went away with age for me, though I am still very much drawn to the color blue (my childhood favorite color.) I cannot explain why this is, but I feel very much that it won't change. This is likely due to factors I previously mentioned.

So yea, I agree. There are certain aspects of us that cannot be changed or cannot be easily changed that define our identity -- that they are either inborn or created through experience.
janesix
Posts: 3,465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 7:24:16 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 7:37:04 AM, Outplayz wrote:
I was having this debate with a neurologist that is on the fence if he believes we have an identity at all. He used the Ab Lincoln axe analogy. I agree with that. I am a much different person in comparison to who i was even a year ago; a lot different if i go back to my teens.

However, he thinks my next point was valid but pretty confident that i would change; still thinks i'm young minded. I don't think it will change. I used an analogy that means something to me. I have a good long term memory and can remember things up to the age of 4. I remember 2ish events before that age, but i remember the feeling more than details. Anyways, as far back as i can remember my favorite color has been black. Now, i have added reasons throughout my years, like finding out my second favorite color is hot pink bc i like the contrast it makes with black, but the reasons/feelings why i picked the color in the first place haven't changed. For example, it gives a gothic feeling, it is rebellious, mysterious... etc.

That was my attempt at an "identity" meaning which came up from talking about an immortal soul.

Is it fair to say "everyone" has something like this that they can correlate to an identity? Maybe not my exact story... but something that hasn't changed throughout the years?

What hasn't changed for me throughout the years is simply the feeling of "me-ness". I suppose that isn't very helpful though. I also feel my sense of conscience hasn't changed.
Outplayz
Posts: 1,273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 9:46:29 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 7:24:16 PM, janesix wrote:
At 1/9/2016 7:37:04 AM, Outplayz wrote:
I was having this debate with a neurologist that is on the fence if he believes we have an identity at all. He used the Ab Lincoln axe analogy. I agree with that. I am a much different person in comparison to who i was even a year ago; a lot different if i go back to my teens.

However, he thinks my next point was valid but pretty confident that i would change; still thinks i'm young minded. I don't think it will change. I used an analogy that means something to me. I have a good long term memory and can remember things up to the age of 4. I remember 2ish events before that age, but i remember the feeling more than details. Anyways, as far back as i can remember my favorite color has been black. Now, i have added reasons throughout my years, like finding out my second favorite color is hot pink bc i like the contrast it makes with black, but the reasons/feelings why i picked the color in the first place haven't changed. For example, it gives a gothic feeling, it is rebellious, mysterious... etc.

That was my attempt at an "identity" meaning which came up from talking about an immortal soul.

Is it fair to say "everyone" has something like this that they can correlate to an identity? Maybe not my exact story... but something that hasn't changed throughout the years?

What hasn't changed for me throughout the years is simply the feeling of "me-ness". I suppose that isn't very helpful though. I also feel my sense of conscience hasn't changed.

That's what i argued too, it's just i put a definition to what "me-ness" could mean. For instance how i personally define something as simple as my favorite color. Same can be said about conscience; although, my values and morals have changed, even if slightly. But, my creativity and/or imagination hasn't changed much or has changed according to what it previously was (got added on). The real argument came about when we were talking about a teen you dying v. a mature you. This was my answer to it... that although i would agree i am a different person, that "me-ness" has stayed the same.
Outplayz
Posts: 1,273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 10:01:00 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 8:04:27 AM, Cobalt wrote:
I'm not seeing what this has to do with spirituality.

The argument started from my speculation of an immortal soul... and, my personal belief can be trumped if there is no such thing as an "identity." Since, that is what i propose would live on in my view. So, without a foundation here... i shouldn't be thinking of my spirituality as a possibility. If you think you don't need an identity for spirituality, then i'd be willing to debate that. I set it up to first see where people stand before i brought in the spiritual part bc i am more curious of the "scientific" part of the question first.

But I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that there are certain characteristics we possess that are immutable. Many of us have genetic traits that contribute to our identity. Those clearly cannot be changed. Many psychologists believe that certain events can form opinions, associations and biases in ourselves that are difficult, if not impossible to change. (Neurologically, these could be seen as neurons creating unique and permanent connections.)

I'm not sure of your age, but I know that "favorite colors" went away with age for me, though I am still very much drawn to the color blue (my childhood favorite color.) I cannot explain why this is, but I feel very much that it won't change. This is likely due to factors I previously mentioned.

So yea, I agree. There are certain aspects of us that cannot be changed or cannot be easily changed that define our identity -- that they are either inborn or created through experience

I brought up personal experience, but if you are going to evaluate an "identity" off personal experience then it can change from new experiences. However, if personal experience adds to something that has been unchangeable, like a color, then i can see it working. My definition of why i would be so proud to pick black has sorta changed, the show off part of it i felt. That was when i was young, yet says a lot about me... and, has stuck around manifesting in different ways. So, i may not care about my favorite color when i'm older, but the reasons i have liked the color i don't think will ever change; some reasons even being immature (like the gothic/vampire vibe) i don't think will change either. But... i guess i have to wait and see.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 10:41:03 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 7:37:04 AM, Outplayz wrote:
I was having this debate with a neurologist that is on the fence if he believes we have an identity at all. He used the Ab Lincoln axe analogy. I agree with that. I am a much different person in comparison to who i was even a year ago; a lot different if i go back to my teens.

Did you both define the word identity the same way? What do you personally think identity is?
Take a tree for example. Does it have an identity? We humans identify it as a tree. If a tree is young and small, does its identity change into something else when it grows to full maturity or is it still identifed as a tree ? The process of change in any living thing does not change its identity if you define identity as simply being what it is.
A process of change through growth is part of our identity. It is a natural part of who we are.

However, he thinks my next point was valid but pretty confident that i would change; still thinks i'm young minded. I don't think it will change. I used an analogy that means something to me. I have a good long term memory and can remember things up to the age of 4. I remember 2ish events before that age, but i remember the feeling more than details. Anyways, as far back as i can remember my favorite color has been black. Now, i have added reasons throughout my years, like finding out my second favorite color is hot pink bc i like the contrast it makes with black, but the reasons/feelings why i picked the color in the first place haven't changed. For example, it gives a gothic feeling, it is rebellious, mysterious... etc.

I think all people are "young minded" to a certain extent. There is an "inner child" in all of us. However there is also an inner adult in all of us. Our mind is capable of immature thinking as well as mature thinking. The type of thinking you use the most becomes the strongest. I am sure you have read the story of the two wolves inside? The one you feed the most becomes the superior one.
All of us grow old but when it comes to mental maturity, I think that is a choice even if might be a subconscious choice. Many love their childish fantasies so much that they refuse to grow out of them. They are like a child holding on to their childish toys and refuse to let go of them because they love playing and enjoy childhood more than the idea of working and taking responsibility like an adult.

That was my attempt at an "identity" meaning which came up from talking about an immortal soul.

So you are saying you identity yourself as rebellious, gothic, mysterious or is that how you want to portray yourself?
If so what are you rebelling against and what makes you believe you are mysterious?
Have other people told you they perceive you as Gothic, rebellious and mysterious?
What kind of comments have others made about the way they perceive you ?
Are other peoples opinions and perceptions part of your identity?

Is it fair to say "everyone" has something like this that they can correlate to an identity? Maybe not my exact story... but something that hasn't changed throughout the years?

I am what I am and have always been what I am. I have changed and matured over the years but I am always me, myself and I.
Changes in body and mind are simply part of who we are and I doubt those changes have an end. Even after we die our bodies continue to change till they become dust.
The brain dies and some believe when it dies, our self awareness and self identity die with it simply because that appears to be the case on all outward appearances. Have you ever observed any self aware dead people?

The concept that our mind and thoughts go on after we die is speculation but it is possible in the sense that if those thoughts are recorded in some way, they could go on without us like the thoughts of Einstein or the thoughts of Darwin or the thoughts of any man in history whose thoughts have been recorded for future generations to study.
Thoughts also seem transferable from one person to another through our communications. We tend to accept the thoughts of others if we agree with them and reject them if we don't.

This interaction and swapping of thoughts is what helps our minds to grow and sometimes even changes the way we see things.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 10:47:55 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 9:46:29 PM, Outplayz wrote:
At 1/9/2016 7:24:16 PM, janesix wrote:

What hasn't changed for me throughout the years is simply the feeling of "me-ness". I suppose that isn't very helpful though. I also feel my sense of conscience hasn't changed.

That's what i argued too, it's just i put a definition to what "me-ness" could mean. For instance how i personally define something as simple as my favorite color. Same can be said about conscience; although, my values and morals have changed, even if slightly. But, my creativity and/or imagination hasn't changed much or has changed according to what it previously was (got added on). The real argument came about when we were talking about a teen you dying v. a mature you. This was my answer to it... that although i would agree i am a different person, that "me-ness" has stayed the same.

Tell me about your argument about a teen dying vs a mature you dying? I am curious as to what you think the difference would be since you are dead either way regardless of what age you are when you die.
If you are simply saying that you are always you regardless of when you die, I agree with that.
The words "I AM that I AM " apply to all existing things at any age or state of life.

I think the words "I AM that I AM" are excellent when it comes to defining identity because they disregard what anyone including yourself thinks about what you are. You just ARE.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2016 11:19:12 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 7:37:04 AM, Outplayz wrote:
Is it fair to say "everyone" has something like this that they can correlate to an identity? Maybe not my exact story... but something that hasn't changed throughout the years?

I'm inclined to agree with your neurologist friend, Outplayz. There's plenty of objective evidence to suggest that identity may be constructed socially rather than derive from some innate, long-term cognitive characteristics; and I've seen no evidence for a set of signature characteristics that are: a) unique to an individual; b) applicable across everyone; and c) last a lifetime. So I think it's fair to say that it's undecided, but I'm inclined to think personally that identity is probably an illusion.

Regarding colour preferences, you'd likely be aware that colour perception arises from a combination of chemical, neurological and psychological processes. However, you may not be aware that these can change over time. For example, blue-yellow colour perception tends to deteriorate in many people over 70. [http://journals.lww.com...]

However, even if identity is socially constructed, that doesn't mean you cannot shape your own psychological and intellectual development. If kindness matters, there are things you can do to teach and appreciate kindness more. Likewise, courage, generosity... technical and aesthetic aptitudes, problem-solving, whatever you think is important.
Outplayz
Posts: 1,273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 12:23:28 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 10:47:55 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 1/9/2016 9:46:29 PM, Outplayz wrote:
At 1/9/2016 7:24:16 PM, janesix wrote:

I'll answer you under these two.

So you are saying you identity yourself as rebellious, gothic, mysterious or is that how you want to portray yourself?

It is not that i am saying or how i want this to be... it just always has been. I am saying these qualities, that have always been "me," have defined the reason i like the color black throughout the my years. For instance, the rebellious side, that came up when i first heard a teacher tell me "i can't pick the color, bc it is not a color." I remember a host of feelings. One, i didn't believe her, then i started arguing the point that it is a color, and final... didn't change my stance, respectfully (kinda got in trouble for being a smartA Lol). So... not that i want to say i am these traits, these traits are me.

If so what are you rebelling against and what makes you believe you are mysterious?

Mysterious, one bc i was told... but, two bc i was the quite introvert type... which in my recent years i respect much more than i did young.

Have other people told you they perceive you as Gothic, rebellious and mysterious?

Yep.

What kind of comments have others made about the way they perceive you ?

On the lines of what i am, but not fully bc a part of me is a sneaky devil that likes to play mind games through kindness. So, a lot of people may think i am a really nice person, but that is bc i want them to think i am an awkward nice person. Depends on the scenario.

Are other peoples opinions and perceptions part of your identity?

Some yes, some no. For instance, in my law classes i had a student i became friends with and he said, "you were the gothic/punk type before right" It amazed me bc, although i dress in darker clothing, i dress professional now. So, him picking up on that was kinda cool.

What hasn't changed for me throughout the years is simply the feeling of "me-ness". I suppose that isn't very helpful though. I also feel my sense of conscience hasn't changed.

That's what i argued too, it's just i put a definition to what "me-ness" could mean. For instance how i personally define something as simple as my favorite color. Same can be said about conscience; although, my values and morals have changed, even if slightly. But, my creativity and/or imagination hasn't changed much or has changed according to what it previously was (got added on). The real argument came about when we were talking about a teen you dying v. a mature you. This was my answer to it... that although i would agree i am a different person, that "me-ness" has stayed the same.

Tell me about your argument about a teen dying vs a mature you dying? I am curious as to what you think the difference would be since you are dead either way regardless of what age you are when you die.
If you are simply saying that you are always you regardless of when you die, I agree with that.
The words "I AM that I AM " apply to all existing things at any age or state of life.

I think the words "I AM that I AM" are excellent when it comes to defining identity because they disregard what anyone including yourself thinks about what you are. You just ARE.

I think answering this will answer the previous questions as well. "Saying i am always you, i agree with that." That is what i am saying too. It is trying to answer the "me-ness" feeling the other person said on this thread i am trying to give a definition to. I can always tell i am me, but what makes me feel that way? Is it just an illusion? I don't think so myself. I am bringing up the color black as a sorta analogy. I am not saying it has always been my favorite or always will be, but the reasons "why" i pick the color is a part of my identity. I was just trying to put a definition to it, bc my answer to my friend (uncle) was... well, i have always felt like me, or the way i look into life has always been me. No matter how mature i get, or immature i was... there is an element in the way i looked into life that has always been an identity of who i am. That's what i mean with the die young or old... it doesn't matter when it comes down to the experience, for the experience bw the two ages is of course different... but, the element of that "me-ness" has been there no matter the age. I am just trying to see if identity can be defined by a certain aspect of oneself that they would say hasn't changed... for me, it's the way i define color, or why i like a certain style of music... it isn't the music itself, bc that has changed... but why i like it that hasn't.
Outplayz
Posts: 1,273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 1:21:28 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 11:19:12 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/9/2016 7:37:04 AM, Outplayz wrote:
Is it fair to say "everyone" has something like this that they can correlate to an identity? Maybe not my exact story... but something that hasn't changed throughout the years?

I'm inclined to agree with your neurologist friend, Outplayz. There's plenty of objective evidence to suggest that identity may be constructed socially rather than derive from some innate, long-term cognitive characteristics; and I've seen no evidence for a set of signature characteristics that are: a) unique to an individual; b) applicable across everyone; and c) last a lifetime. So I think it's fair to say that it's undecided, but I'm inclined to think personally that identity is probably an illusion.

Hey Ruv! I was hoping you would answer. You really remind my of my uncle (the neurologist) in your viewpoints...so, it doesn't surprise me you are taking his side ;-) He also says it is an illusion. That we associate experience with an identity. I personally think it is, or some parts are, the other way around. Like i said, i can remember a good while back vividly. There are certain traits about me that have not changed. For instance, the gothic part of me... i call it my dark side, manifested at a very young age; preschool to be exact. I remember a teacher telling us to draw specific shapes. When we got to the heart... i remember i didn't want to draw it bc of the way the teacher defined, "what a heart is." Love, kindness, light, bright colors came to mind... i just felt awkward drawing it after that... just wanted to paint it black (yes a music reference). Also, the reason i liked fantasy shows or movies was bc i remember always thinking i am a supernatural being... i use to "play fight" when i was 5ish, that i was on a star ship battling other commanders in space. I did this before seeing any kind of "Space" genre show or movie. After seeing my first, i think it was star wars, i just remember every hair standing and remembering this is what i use to play in my mind when i was younger. Of course i used these examples and in a way, it's fair to say, they can be illusions... or, i am just referencing them in my brain bc i want it to be my identity...but i can swear they were the other way around... i was debating the brain guy on that very point :-)

Regarding colour preferences, you'd likely be aware that colour perception arises from a combination of chemical, neurological and psychological processes. However, you may not be aware that these can change over time. For example, blue-yellow colour perception tends to deteriorate in many people over 70. [http://journals.lww.com...]

I'm not talking about the specific color. I agree that changes. Actually, there has been back and forth to what my favorite color is. I am talking about the reasons behind the "why" i picked that color. For instance, my favorite pair of colors is hot pink and black. Again, bc it felt rare (unique), kinda rebellious bc i didn't want my friends to know, but most of all, it had that gothic punk vibe to it (it's actually funny how it's turned into a popular pair of colors in that genre of people). This gothic punk vibe i have even manifested in my music. I taught myself how to play the piano, and all my songs have that Fur Elise vibe to it... mysterious and dark. I'm not a punker with a mohawk and torn clothes btw... i dress "normal," but i do put that vibe into my style. It can be an illusion, i will give it that... but, this is something that has been consistent so far into my years.

However, even if identity is socially constructed, that doesn't mean you cannot shape your own psychological and intellectual development. If kindness matters, there are things you can do to teach and appreciate kindness more. Likewise, courage, generosity... technical and aesthetic aptitudes, problem-solving, whatever you think is important.

"Whatever i think is important." I have actually valued kindness over everything and i continue to. I remember the first time i was asked what i want to be when i grow up i answered, "a comedian bc i like making people laugh/smile." That has not changed either. Yet... yes, life has added to it. For instance, i have learned i can use this quality of mine to manipulate. Which is, not what i originally wanted it for. But, that's the thing... i feel we use our identity, who we are, to manipulate this world as we grow in it. One memory i remember before 4 was riding in front of my dad on his motorcycle... The feeling was i am free and smiling, and it feels good. So, you are right... how can i prove this, or what proof is there that this was innate and all my feelings haven't come from this "first" thought? I can swear everything has been innate...Another example, the music i like; especially, although it has changed (or expanded), the reason i like a certain style (sound) of music. Why? It's the reason i don't like the opposite of the style of music; unless... it has a touch of the "sound" i like, and If not, i will hate the song. That has also been consistent... of course i can't remember as a baby, but i do remember all my favorite songs have been "minor key" heavy.

This all started from the question of, "if you have a soul then what identity will it take?" I answered the part that has always felt like me... and, i really think that part finds the experiences to match it, rather than the experiences creating it. That's why certain people like certain movies (or parts)... there is something that matches the innate part of them, rather than the other way around... so, of course i am getting into a "soul" analogy, but i see the latter, to the illusion part of it, being true. I don't deny it can be an illusion, but from the examples i have provided, i feel it is not "all" an illusion. Like i told him about the Abe Lincoln axe analogy... yes, it is a new axe and fair to say nothing of the original... but, isn't it fair to say the person holding the axe could have melted what was left of the metal to make a new top? Of course everything will continue to be new, but there would always be that little piece of the original in the axe. At which point, it would still be fair to say it is Abe's axe right?
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 1:48:07 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/10/2016 12:23:28 AM, Outplayz wrote:
At 1/9/2016 10:47:55 PM, Skyangel wrote:

So you are saying you identity yourself as rebellious, gothic, mysterious or is that how you want to portray yourself?

It is not that i am saying or how i want this to be... it just always has been. I am saying these qualities, that have always been "me," have defined the reason i like the color black throughout the my years. For instance, the rebellious side, that came up when i first heard a teacher tell me "i can't pick the color, bc it is not a color." I remember a host of feelings. One, i didn't believe her, then i started arguing the point that it is a color, and final... didn't change my stance, respectfully (kinda got in trouble for being a smartA Lol). So... not that i want to say i am these traits, these traits are me.

That made me laugh. I can just imagine a little boy arguing about black being a color. Did you teacher explain what black is since it's not a color or did that go in one ear and out the other? Everyone knows black is a color to a child.
As for rebellion, I think that is simply a part of human nature. All rebel against things we don't agree with.

If so what are you rebelling against and what makes you believe you are mysterious?

Mysterious, one bc i was told... but, two bc i was the quite introvert type... which in my recent years i respect much more than i did young.

We are all a mystery to those who don't understand us. There are mysteries about all people. Many hide "skeletons in their closets"

Have other people told you they perceive you as Gothic, rebellious and mysterious?

Yep.

You don't come across as rebellious Gothic or mysterious to me. From reading the words you write, I get the impression you are imaginative, creative, a bit immature but basically a polite and kind person who is very accepting of most other people.

What kind of comments have others made about the way they perceive you ?

On the lines of what i am, but not fully bc a part of me is a sneaky devil that likes to play mind games through kindness. So, a lot of people may think i am a really nice person, but that is bc i want them to think i am an awkward nice person. Depends on the scenario.

So your kindness is just a facade behind which you hide your devilish side?
I find that totally amusing since I believe all people hide their devilish side behind a facade of politeness and kindness.
However not all will admit it as honestly as you do.
Many like to pretend they do not have "an evil bone" in their body yet they still hide their "skeletons" in their "whited sepulchres".

Are other peoples opinions and perceptions part of your identity?

Some yes, some no. For instance, in my law classes i had a student i became friends with and he said, "you were the gothic/punk type before right" It amazed me bc, although i dress in darker clothing, i dress professional now. So, him picking up on that was kinda cool.

People pick up those things from what you tell them about yourself.

What hasn't changed for me throughout the years is simply the feeling of "me-ness". I suppose that isn't very helpful though. I also feel my sense of conscience hasn't changed.

That's what i argued too, it's just i put a definition to what "me-ness" could mean. For instance how i personally define something as simple as my favorite color. Same can be said about conscience; although, my values and morals have changed, even if slightly. But, my creativity and/or imagination hasn't changed much or has changed according to what it previously was (got added on). The real argument came about when we were talking about a teen you dying v. a mature you. This was my answer to it... that although i would agree i am a different person, that "me-ness" has stayed the same.

Tell me about your argument about a teen dying vs a mature you dying? I am curious as to what you think the difference would be since you are dead either way regardless of what age you are when you die.
If you are simply saying that you are always you regardless of when you die, I agree with that.
The words "I AM that I AM " apply to all existing things at any age or state of life.

I think the words "I AM that I AM" are excellent when it comes to defining identity because they disregard what anyone including yourself thinks about what you are. You just ARE.

I think answering this will answer the previous questions as well. "Saying i am always you, i agree with that." That is what i am saying too. It is trying to answer the "me-ness" feeling the other person said on this thread i am trying to give a definition to. I can always tell i am me, but what makes me feel that way? Is it just an illusion? I don't think so myself. I am bringing up the color black as a sorta analogy. I am not saying it has always been my favorite or always will be, but the reasons "why" i pick the color is a part of my identity. I was just trying to put a definition to it, bc my answer to my friend (uncle) was... well, i have always felt like me, or the way i look into life has always been me. No matter how mature i get, or immature i was... there is an element in the way i looked into life that has always been an identity of who i am. That's what i mean with the die young or old... it doesn't matter when it comes down to the experience, for the experience bw the two ages is of course different... but, the element of that "me-ness" has been there no matter the age. I am just trying to see if identity can be defined by a certain aspect of oneself that they would say hasn't changed... for me, it's the way i define color, or why i like a certain style of music... it isn't the music itself, bc that has changed... but why i like it that hasn't.

I think we are born with a certain type of personality and various talents that we cannot change.
We tend to categorise people into introvert, extrovert, or a mixture of the two.
This is a list of personality types I found..... http://www.16personalities.com...
Some people are born entertainers for example and you can observe them clowning around and entertaining others from their youth.
I think we are all born with a talent of some kind which is natural and we can certainly gain more talents by learning them but some things simply cannot be learned, like a person who has a terrible singing voice can learn to sing but will never be a great singer.
We all have positive and negative aspects to our character and some tend to feel the need to hide their negative traits for some reason. Maybe fear of rejection or maybe they are ashamed of them or some other reason?
Outplayz
Posts: 1,273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 2:57:55 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/10/2016 1:48:07 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 1/10/2016 12:23:28 AM, Outplayz wrote:
At 1/9/2016 10:47:55 PM, Skyangel wrote:



That made me laugh. I can just imagine a little boy arguing about black being a color. Did you teacher explain what black is since it's not a color or did that go in one ear and out the other? Everyone knows black is a color to a child.

She tried to explain it to me, but that also backfired... "black is a mixture of, blah blah," (me) "Well... if it's a mix of colors, it's a color! it's just every color... how do you not understand" Lol

As for rebellion, I think that is simply a part of human nature. All rebel against things we don't agree with.

Agreed, it's, i guess, the amount of rebellion you have in you... or, how you manifest it.

You don't come across as rebellious Gothic or mysterious to me. From reading the words you write, I get the impression you are imaginative, creative, a bit immature but basically a polite and kind person who is very accepting of most other people.

Thanks. It's funny bc your definition of me is pretty on point... i, however, tend to look at this part of me with both light and dark. I think that is the goth part of me... you would have to meet me to see it i guess. It is hidden, and it isn't "evil," it's a "fun" dark side... kinda like the haunted mansion ride in Disneyland :-)

So your kindness is just a facade behind which you hide your devilish side?
I find that totally amusing since I believe all people hide their devilish side behind a facade of politeness and kindness.
However not all will admit it as honestly as you do.
Many like to pretend they do not have "an evil bone" in their body yet they still hide their "skeletons" in their "whited sepulchres".

They are the easiest to manipulate if they think that we can't see it. That is why i have come to learn that my kindness is also a pretty powerful tool for its antonym. In general, i have always been kind and want to be; it's who i am, but i can be the opposite if i need to. I worked for a particular sales company and i quickly became the top seller in the state... everyone would ask me how i did it... basically with this... I would be kind and observe how that kindness affected the client... from that i would know what personality type they were... reading people is a talent i have amassed over time.

I think we are born with a certain type of personality and various talents that we cannot change.
We tend to categorise people into introvert, extrovert, or a mixture of the two.

It's cool you bring this up bc i also find that this can explain identity. I had a thing for pirates, before they became popular in the movies, i was young and it was the legos i liked. The reason had to do with the colors again... the skeleton on the flag, the darker colors, thought of having dimmed lights cruising on the ocean... Yet, the reasons were all introverted. I asked my uncle where that comes from and he didn't have an answer... said, that is one part of the brain we aren't sure how it develops. I can see an extrovert also liking pirates, yet i can see them probably liking the parts i overlooked, like partying, drinking, dancing in bars... Anyways, I just remembered this from your question... pretty cool

This is a list of personality types I found..... http://www.16personalities.com...
Some people are born entertainers for example and you can observe them clowning around and entertaining others from their youth.
I think we are all born with a talent of some kind which is natural and we can certainly gain more talents by learning them but some things simply cannot be learned, like a person who has a terrible singing voice can learn to sing but will never be a great singer.
We all have positive and negative aspects to our character and some tend to feel the need to hide their negative traits for some reason. Maybe fear of rejection or maybe they are ashamed of them or some other reason?

That is a cool test. I actually studied it for awhile. I am the INFJ personality type (rarest of course lol). Yet, My (I) 80% (N) 80% (F) & (J) come up less than 20% or under 10% sometimes... which means, i can have the qualities of the other signs as well. I have found (INFJ) best describes me; (INTJ) Is second to (INFP) which i have a hint of both. Yet, of course this test is not exact in any way... very subjective opinions on some types. But, for mine in particular, they are more honed in bc of its rarity (less than 1%). Another interesting thing is... on that site... look at the comments. It is curious that the rarest types have the most comments v. the less rare. The rare types are suppose to be, i don't want to say smarter, but more in search of truths and knowledge... i think that's the reason for higher comments.

I wish they would have an amended version of this test including the dark side of people and what they hide (skeletons)... i think that would be interesting. I find power in understanding that i am flawed in ways... that, sometimes, i want to hurt others (although that is .5% compared to the worst). I think self awareness is the first step to spirituality. But, to be fully self aware... you should realize what you preach, you are what you are, and others are what they are... and, that's okay. Wanting to change others is only doubting what you are searching for approval bc deep down the person knows they are wrong... By people hiding the dark parts of themselves constantly, they get lost in its lies... and become the very darkness they preach against.

This is why i think it is important to define "identity" in spirituality. What identity is saved? (in regards to a debate against a theist)... now, if you understand how hard it is to pinpoint your own identity; how do you propose that others will ever want the same thing? I have always seen a flaw there in most theistic beliefs, and some spiritual... How does one define "paradise" and how do all get their paradise in the same "heaven"? The way it is preached, your identity is taken ... that, you just become happy and good with it... this is one major reason i have seen a flaw in most religious beliefs. They don't account for the billions of different people (identities) it takes to create a world... Without them, you aren't the same person... just a mindless zombie. Having subjective experience is the mystery of being human.

I know i am scattered brained so thanks for going with it; this is my thread anyways so i can ;-) Also, i understand how the my notion of dualism is different than yours... just humor me, i have to pin point what an identity is for my belief to make a little more sense to me. Is it created by experience, or does it contribute to experience through an innate identity we all have? I think it's a little of both... my unc says it is most likely an illusion that we think it is innate; i told him that's a cop out. It is similar to the "god did it" response. I think it can be an illusion to him bc he is trying to ignore the latter.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 5:00:58 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/10/2016 1:21:28 AM, Outplayz wrote:
At 1/9/2016 11:19:12 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/9/2016 7:37:04 AM, Outplayz wrote:
Is it fair to say "everyone" has something like this that they can correlate to an identity? Maybe not my exact story... but something that hasn't changed throughout the years?
I'm inclined to agree with your neurologist friend, Outplayz. There's plenty of objective evidence to suggest that identity may be constructed socially rather than derive from some innate, long-term cognitive characteristics; and I've seen no evidence for a set of signature characteristics that are: a) unique to an individual; b) applicable across everyone; and c) last a lifetime. So I think it's fair to say that it's undecided, but I'm inclined to think personally that identity is probably an illusion.

Hey Ruv! I was hoping you would answer. You really remind my of my uncle (the neurologist) in your viewpoints...so, it doesn't surprise me you are taking his side ;-)
Well, Outie, I might have arrived at similar ideas through similar methods, but I arrived at the methods independently, so perhaps those methods are floating about for anyone to pick up. :)

I'm not sure if you're looking for challenge to a spiritual notion of self, or just to explore the consequences. The consequences are certainly significant. For example, if self is illusory and potentially malleable:
* what do ethics mean?
* why should we imagine anyone has worth?
* aren't people programmable, and doesn't that make them resources?
* what is 'good'?
* how do we know when we are good, and does it matter?
* when is our good pure, and when is it compromised by self-interest, and does that matter?
* what can we trust of our own stories about ourselves?
* if we can't trust our own stories, how do we maintain resilience, dignity, purpose, meaning through adversity?
* what should we aspire to, and why?
* how could we know if we're succeeding, and does it matter?

You'll probably recognise these questions as common for theists to ask atheists, but they also appear when we question the legitimacy of persistent stories about our identities.

Let me ask you a hard question then, Outie... if self were illusory and potentially malleable, how would you answer those questions? They're easier to answer if self really were persistent through your life, but how would you try to answer them if it weren't?
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 5:59:08 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/9/2016 7:37:04 AM, Outplayz wrote:

That was my attempt at an "identity" meaning which came up from talking about an immortal soul.

If I may, I'd like to share some teachings of the Buddha. Some have mistakenly believed that the Buddha taught that there was absolutely no self and did not believe in the concept of a soul. While there is some truth to this view, it is not entirely correct, as it does not follow the Middle Path. Consider this encounter between the Buddha and an officer of general Siha, where the officer asks if it is true that the Buddha rejects the existence of the soul:

"There is a way in which those who say so are speaking truly about me; on the other hand, there is a way in which those who say so do not speak truly of me.

The Tathagata (the Buddha) teaches that there is no self. He who says that the soul is his self and that the self is the thinker of our thoughts and the actor of our deeds teaches a wrong doctrine which leads to confusion and darkness.

On the other hand, the Tathagata teaches that there is mind. He who understands by soul mind, and says that mind exists, teaches the truth which leads to clearness and enlightenment.
"

"Verily, I say unto thee, thy mind is spiritual, but neither is the sense-perceived void of spirituality. The Bodhi (enlightenment and understanding of the Buddha) is eternal and it dominates all existence as the good law guiding all beings in their search for truth. It changes brute nature into mind, and there is no being that cannot be transformed into a vessel of truth."

The Buddha often used the terms soul and mind interchangeably, and rejected the quasi-physical concept of the soul, which he instead taught to be something not definable or knowable.

"This body will be dissolved and no amount of sacrifice will save it. Therefore, seek thou the life that is of the mind. Where self is, truth cannot be: yet when truth comes, self will disappear. Therefore, let thy mind rest in the truth; propagate the truth, put thy whole will in it, and let it spread. In the truth thou shalt live forever."

The Buddha thus sought to get rid of the non-self. I believe things like your favorite color, your five senses, and your physical attachments would fall under this. As regards physical matters in an answer to your question, I don't think you can properly form such an identity. It would be temporary at best and would eventually disappear, and there would be others who probably share similar traits as you do, making your identity not so unique.

To find the true self, one would have to look at the soul mind. The spiritual aspect, so to speak. You would have to extinguish all attachments to this world of Samsara, including your favorite color. Perhaps this means you no longer have a unique identity, but perhaps it doesn't. The Buddha's teachings about such metaphysical matters were often ambiguous and confusing, for they are truly beyond our full comprehension.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2016 10:41:58 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/10/2016 2:57:55 AM, Outplayz wrote:
At 1/10/2016 1:48:07 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 1/10/2016 12:23:28 AM, Outplayz wrote:
At 1/9/2016 10:47:55 PM, Skyangel wrote:



That made me laugh. I can just imagine a little boy arguing about black being a color. Did you teacher explain what black is since it's not a color or did that go in one ear and out the other? Everyone knows black is a color to a child.

She tried to explain it to me, but that also backfired... "black is a mixture of, blah blah," (me) "Well... if it's a mix of colors, it's a color! it's just every color... how do you not understand" Lol

That's perfectly logical reasoning for any child. You teacher must have been stupid. *That's sarcasm*
She should have told you black is an absence of colour in the same way darkness is an absence of light.

As for rebellion, I think that is simply a part of human nature. All rebel against things we don't agree with.

Agreed, it's, i guess, the amount of rebellion you have in you... or, how you manifest it.

Yes.

You don't come across as rebellious Gothic or mysterious to me. From reading the words you write, I get the impression you are imaginative, creative, a bit immature but basically a polite and kind person who is very accepting of most other people.

Thanks. It's funny bc your definition of me is pretty on point... i, however, tend to look at this part of me with both light and dark. I think that is the goth part of me... you would have to meet me to see it i guess. It is hidden, and it isn't "evil," it's a "fun" dark side... kinda like the haunted mansion ride in Disneyland :-)

I think you would be a most interesting person to meet face to face.

So your kindness is just a facade behind which you hide your devilish side?
I find that totally amusing since I believe all people hide their devilish side behind a facade of politeness and kindness.
However not all will admit it as honestly as you do.
Many like to pretend they do not have "an evil bone" in their body yet they still hide their "skeletons" in their "whited sepulchres".

They are the easiest to manipulate if they think that we can't see it. That is why i have come to learn that my kindness is also a pretty powerful tool for its antonym. In general, i have always been kind and want to be; it's who i am, but i can be the opposite if i need to. I worked for a particular sales company and i quickly became the top seller in the state... everyone would ask me how i did it... basically with this... I would be kind and observe how that kindness affected the client... from that i would know what personality type they were... reading people is a talent i have amassed over time.

I think most people gain that talent over time, especially if they have a lot of contact with other people.
Just out of curiosity, do you think you can read peoples personalities from what they write on forums like this one?
If so, what kind of personality do you "read" in my words?

I think we are born with a certain type of personality and various talents that we cannot change.
We tend to categorise people into introvert, extrovert, or a mixture of the two.

It's cool you bring this up bc i also find that this can explain identity. I had a thing for pirates, before they became popular in the movies, i was young and it was the legos i liked. The reason had to do with the colors again... the skeleton on the flag, the darker colors, thought of having dimmed lights cruising on the ocean... Yet, the reasons were all introverted. I asked my uncle where that comes from and he didn't have an answer... said, that is one part of the brain we aren't sure how it develops. I can see an extrovert also liking pirates, yet i can see them probably liking the parts i overlooked, like partying, drinking, dancing in bars... Anyways, I just remembered this from your question... pretty cool

Don't all little boys have a thing for pirates? I gather it is a common interest amongst them from my observations of boys.

As for brain development, it seems science knows very little about the emotional and psychological aspects of our brains when it comes to what causes things like conscience, personalities, attitudes, imaginations, and all those abstract things our minds create. I very much doubt a mixture of chemicals can create the "pictures" which we imagine in our minds which are not even really "pictures" . However, I think we lack a word to really describe them. Imagination is a fascinating thing when we can form "images" in our minds which are invisible but we can make them visible by painting them on canvas for others to see.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2016 12:34:28 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/10/2016 2:57:55 AM, Outplayz wrote:

That is a cool test. I actually studied it for awhile. I am the INFJ personality type (rarest of course lol). Yet, My (I) 80% (N) 80% (F) & (J) come up less than 20% or under 10% sometimes... which means, i can have the qualities of the other signs as well. I have found (INFJ) best describes me; (INTJ) Is second to (INFP) which i have a hint of both. Yet, of course this test is not exact in any way... very subjective opinions on some types. But, for mine in particular, they are more honed in bc of its rarity (less than 1%). Another interesting thing is... on that site... look at the comments. It is curious that the rarest types have the most comments v. the less rare. The rare types are suppose to be, i don't want to say smarter, but more in search of truths and knowledge... i think that's the reason for higher comments.

It is amusing that the MOST comments are from the supposedly rarest types. Maybe the reason for the higher comments is that the rare types are not as rare as they want to believe they are.
When MOST people claim to be like you, how rare are you really?
Every person is as unique as a snowflake but we all have many things in common.

I wish they would have an amended version of this test including the dark side of people and what they hide (skeletons)... i think that would be interesting. I find power in understanding that i am flawed in ways... that, sometimes, i want to hurt others (although that is .5% compared to the worst). I think self awareness is the first step to spirituality. But, to be fully self aware... you should realize what you preach, you are what you are, and others are what they are... and, that's okay. Wanting to change others is only doubting what you are searching for approval bc deep down the person knows they are wrong... By people hiding the dark parts of themselves constantly, they get lost in its lies... and become the very darkness they preach against.

What is flawed, what is normal and what is perfect? Who sets these standards?
Being what you are is as perfect as you can be. When you understand you cannot change what you are, that is self acceptance and perfection in my opinion. None of us can change anyone else. We all have the power to change what is changeable about ourselves. If we want to change it we will, if we don't want to change it, we won't. There are obviously some things about ourselves we cannot change so it is as futile to consider those things as something imperfect as it is to consider nature as being imperfect when it creates things like diseases and natural disasters which humans see as "bad".
The secret things people try to hide are never hidden forever. They generally are found out eventually. Life has a way of bringing out what is hidden under the surface and humans are curious creatures who will find what they are searching for if they persevere in their search.

This is why i think it is important to define "identity" in spirituality. What identity is saved? (in regards to a debate against a theist)... now, if you understand how hard it is to pinpoint your own identity; how do you propose that others will ever want the same thing? I have always seen a flaw there in most theistic beliefs, and some spiritual... How does one define "paradise" and how do all get their paradise in the same "heaven"? The way it is preached, your identity is taken ... that, you just become happy and good with it... this is one major reason i have seen a flaw in most religious beliefs. They don't account for the billions of different people (identities) it takes to create a world... Without them, you aren't the same person... just a mindless zombie. Having subjective experience is the mystery of being human.

What identity is saved? According to the principles portrayed in the bible anyone at all can be "saved". There is no identity requirement to be "saved" any more than you would ask someone who was drowning for their identity before you saved them from drowning. You save people/ strangers first and then you find out who they are, where they are from, etc.
In practical reality people save other people from danger first and ask questions later.
The question when it comes to being "saved" in a spiritual sense, is what exactly are people "saved" from?
Can you be saved from something you don't even believe in?
What if people are convinced a lie is actually true and something true is a lie? Can they be saved from self deceptions like that? If so, how? For example, How do you convince a person who has convinced themselves that a mythical character is real that the character is not real? Is it simply a matter of repetitively explaining it to them till "the penny drops" or "the light goes on"? None of us can convince anyone else of something they wish to keep denying is true.
Paradise or heaven is an imaginary place for some and is a state of being for others. How people interpret it, is always subjective but ultimately is an imaginary place since no such place exists in reality on this planet unless you wish to call some location on Earth paradise like "Surfers paradise" in Australia. That is the "heaven" where the surfies hang out doing what they love to do.
If paradise is "the place of your dreams" where you do exactly what you want to do then humans are capable of creating their own "paradises" on Earth depending on their passions.

I know i am scattered brained so thanks for going with it; this is my thread anyways so i can ;-) Also, i understand how the my notion of dualism is different than yours... just humor me, i have to pin point what an identity is for my belief to make a little more sense to me. Is it created by experience, or does it contribute to experience through an innate identity we all have? I think it's a little of both... my unc says it is most likely an illusion that we think it is innate; i told him that's a cop out. It is similar to the "god did it" response. I think it can be an illusion to him bc he is trying to ignore the latter.

How do you think your notion of dualism is different to mine?
I understand that it is important to some people to know themselves and know why they believe what they do.
It seems less important to others who simply believe something and have no answer as to why they believe it when asked. They simply claim because something or someone else said it was true. Obviously some people simply believe what they are told and never even think of questioning whether someone might be fooling them or taking advantage of their gullibility.
Experience helps us to form our own self awareness of our identity and possibly plays a part in it to an extent. All things in life interact with each other and in that sense all things affect each other in some way even if only minutely. Every drop of water in the ocean is affected by the movement of the planet and so are we since there is a LOT of water in our bodies.

What do you think of water being part of every persons identity? Do you think the moon phases which cause the tides in the ocean can also affect our minds? Consider the myth of people going "crazy" at full moon. What relation is there between the lunar cycle and lunacy? It is just Myth? Coincidence? Random reactions? Just because science can find no tangible evidence of something affecting something else, does not mean the vibes or energy in the atmosphere has no affect on all things it infiltrates and it infiltrates everything. The movement of one thing will always affect the movement of another, even if it's just the movement of the air around it.
Consider dehydrated people are more prone to illusions and delusions than those who are not dehydrated.
http://www.therapists.com...
Outplayz
Posts: 1,273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 5:12:33 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/10/2016 10:41:58 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 1/10/2016 2:57:55 AM, Outplayz wrote:
At 1/10/2016 1:48:07 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 1/10/2016 12:23:28 AM, Outplayz wrote:
At 1/9/2016 10:47:55 PM, Skyangel wrote:



I think you would be a most interesting person to meet face to face.

Thank you, i think the same. Sorry ive been gone a little while. But, i'm back to bring my madness ;p

I think most people gain that talent over time, especially if they have a lot of contact with other people.
Just out of curiosity, do you think you can read peoples personalities from what they write on forums like this one?
If so, what kind of personality do you "read" in my words?

I haven't looked into the 16 personalities thing in awhile, but i will try. If i had to guess... i would think you are, in this order, INTJ or ISTJ. The INTJ would be my best guess form the way you debate. I can tell sometimes you may sound like you are not empathizing with another but that is how the INTJ is... people may see them as cold, but that isn't the truth. They just tell it how it is without letting emotion get in the way... but, they are one of the most empathetic when it comes down to it. It is really hard for me to know a personality over the internet bc in person you see how people react to words. You can control a person through a conversation just from subtle clues... like eye movement, involuntary facial movements, posture, etc. So, to an extent... i can read a person online, but without being able to fully control the conversation, it is hard to get everything. For instance, on another site i go to, for fun, you don't know if you are talking to a female or male... usually from words i can tell, but then... if someone is trying to hide it... i can't get past that, but can in person. Those would be the differences.

As for brain development, it seems science knows very little about the emotional and psychological aspects of our brains when it comes to what causes things like conscience, personalities, attitudes, imaginations, and all those abstract things our minds create. I very much doubt a mixture of chemicals can create the "pictures" which we imagine in our minds which are not even really "pictures" . However, I think we lack a word to really describe them. Imagination is a fascinating thing when we can form "images" in our minds which are invisible but we can make them visible by painting them on canvas for others to see.

When it comes to this, i asked my uncle since he studies the mind, what is in dispute. Daniel Dennet writes a book trying to explain consciousness and he thinks the hard questions of consciousness we have can be answered through the easy questions. My uncle is sort of on his side, but both are stuck at one point... they don't know why neurons shot the way they do, and from that, creating things like subjective experience. As me, i think our higher power is ourselves. Using the Gamer behind the character analogy i have... i think that might have something to do with it... yet, of course i am speaking conjecture here. So, who knows.

It is amusing that the MOST comments are from the supposedly rarest types. Maybe the reason for the higher comments is that the rare types are not as rare as they want to believe they are. When MOST people claim to be like you, how rare are you really?
Every person is as unique as a snowflake but we all have many things in common.

Right. I really think it is bc the rare types are more "curious" and seek knowledge. I mean, a lot of the other types are the "worker bee" types. You look at the most common... those are usually the people that are working (and happy) at jobs that they would rather get told what to do. I admit. Everyone has a mixture of the types.. but, sometimes these descriptions are pretty accurate. Mine (INFJ) is insanely accurate... which makes sense since it would be easier studying the rarest type, yet there are still things wrong and personalities traits that i share with other types.

What if people are convinced a lie is actually true and something true is a lie? Can they be saved from self deceptions like that? If so, how? For example, How do you convince a person who has convinced themselves that a mythical character is real that the character is not real? Is it simply a matter of repetitively explaining it to them till "the penny drops" or "the light goes on"? None of us can convince anyone else of something they wish to keep denying is true. Paradise or heaven is an imaginary place for some and is a state of being for others. How people interpret it, is always subjective but ultimately is an imaginary place since no such place exists in reality on this planet unless you wish to call some location on Earth paradise like "Surfers paradise" in Australia. That is the "heaven" where the surfies hang out doing what they love to do. If paradise is "the place of your dreams" where you do exactly what you want to do then humans are capable of creating their own "paradises" on Earth depending on their passions.

There is one thing i have stopped doing, sorta... i don't care what others believe... One: it really has nothing to do with me. And two: even if they are right... it still has nothing to do with me. At this point, these people annoy us, bc if i say that... they will say it does matter to you... why? No one matters to me. If i close my eyes... one of the best self euphoric feelings i can have is clearing out everyone and everything except for the things i want... a beach at night with stars in the sky... a guy/girl smoking a cigarette in the distance playing all the music i like... Who else can get a euphoric feeling of my momentary heaven? Can anyone imagine exactly what i am imagining... there is a lot of people... maybe, but i doubt it... bc this place isnt a picture... it is a place i go when i meditate... it moves and interacts with me. At its peek point, nothing around me matters... Death is the same. I hear no ones words other than my own. I truly believe free will is in our source state. i am sure of it but not exactly positive of it. That is enough for me to understand my spiritual self. So now, anyone can tell me what they believe and i will accept it... i prefer listening to what others find euphoric to them. If it becomes a ultimatum to me, i smile, hidden behind a indifferent grin, bc i know what i am. I know one day... religion will turn to this. Only interest in others hopes, and a release from any magical ultimatums or imaginary sky gods.

How do you think your notion of dualism is different to mine?
What do you think of water being part of every persons identity? Do you think the moon phases which cause the tides in the ocean can also affect our minds?

I don't think our definitions are all that different. You are confident and accepting of your truth and i am of mine. I accept that you have a viable outcome and it fits our observations and what we know. I also accept, humbly speaking, that i have a viable outcome or platform. I only try to observe things as most likely... and try to separate anything that is too out there. I have changed my view a lot throughout the years and i will continue to i am sure. I learn as i grow, but it has stayed the same since i was young... i know i am what i am, and if i am more... i will be what i am; powerful. The moon phases is pretty interesting. I believe that there is still something we have not discovered in regards to energy flow... it is hard to test, but i believe science is going to have to come up with new tests, and will. Again, however, we can be like dogs or cats... there just may be a level we can reach and not be able to go beyond.
Outplayz
Posts: 1,273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 5:12:37 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/10/2016 5:59:08 AM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 1/9/2016 7:37:04 AM, Outplayz wrote:

If I may, I'd like to share some teachings of the Buddha.

You definitely may. I am happy you did, and that this is not the common spiritual talk of the Abrahamic religions. The way i learn about other spiritual platforms is through others. I am purposely doing this because it amazes me. I say this not to boast or anything... it humbles me and gives awe. I have written my whole belief, and it is crazy how i can relate to any faith. Of course, my belief is just conjecture and true to me, but man, it really relates sometimes... especially to what you just wrote. I will let you differentiate what i believe, and if i am reading it wrong, but similarities are there to his teachings. Especially what i think will happen, and what we are.

"Verily, I say unto thee, thy mind is spiritual, but neither is the sense-perceived void of spirituality. The Bodhi (enlightenment and understanding of the Buddha) is eternal and it dominates all existence as the good law guiding all beings in their search for truth. It changes brute nature into mind, and there is no being that cannot be transformed into a vessel of truth."

I believe this is how our true self/mind (source) works. It is beyond our vessel, yet it is our vessel. The source self is everything, every experience, the most mature form of our self/mind. The vessel is to live experience for the mind. I do not think the mind would ever want to be trapped as one thing... i think it would rather be many; therefore, using the vessel to live experience. Whatever identity we have here is us, but not the final form. The mind is the final form when it is released from the vessel.

"This body will be dissolved and no amount of sacrifice will save it. Therefore, seek thou the life that is of the mind. Where self is, truth cannot be: yet when truth comes, self will disappear. Therefore, let thy mind rest in the truth; propagate the truth, put thy whole will in it, and let it spread. In the truth thou shalt live forever."

This is amazing, it is almost exactly what i believe... yet, as you've noticed i am twisting it into my own belief... but, hey it works. Of course our vessel dissolves and to seek the mind knowing that the vessel is just one form is bliss. People ask me why i am confident in my spirituality knowing i am not sure. Well, that is right, i am not sure... but, seeking the mind, our source self is freedom. Understanding that, if there is something, that something is me... in complete form. "Where self is, truth cannot be" the self is the vessel: "When truth comes, self will disappear." Wonderful saying, yes, when you are in your source self, that is the truth... forgetting your vessel, or accepting your vessel as one truth to experience. And, the final line... that is it. Know that you are a powerful self, mind, source... and that free will is in the mind... at least i understand, anything is possible. Yet, you are only as powerful as your capacity, as what you are.

The Buddha thus sought to get rid of the non-self. I believe things like your favorite color, your five senses, and your physical attachments would fall under this. As regards physical matters in an answer to your question, I don't think you can properly form such an identity. It would be temporary at best and would eventually disappear, and there would be others who probably share similar traits as you do, making your identity not so unique.

I agree. I was trying to use a color creatively, however. It was hard in the moment to answer the question of how can i describe my identity. I thought of the color, but not the color itself... the reasons why i like the color, and the extra reasons that attached to it throughout the years. It is hard to articulate. But... there are many reasons unique to me in how i view my favorite color. For instance it brings up old memories, it is attached to the first time i went on the haunted mansion ride in Disneyland, and other random things. Certain reasons and memories that ultimately have been put together by who i am... so that "me-ness" factor.

To find the true self, one would have to look at the soul mind. The spiritual aspect, so to speak. You would have to extinguish all attachments to this world of Samsara, including your favorite color. Perhaps this means you no longer have a unique identity, but perhaps it doesn't. The Buddha's teachings about such metaphysical matters were often ambiguous and confusing, for they are truly beyond our full comprehension.

Well, i agree there to. We can't truly comprehend our source self if by definition it is a "higher" form of who we are. But, you can still know... For instance, if right now i remembered 10 extra past lives... would that change me? I am sure in whatever life i am in i will be me... maybe i got tortured in one, was evil in one, was a king in one... but, ultimately would that change me... how i define the color black?
Outplayz
Posts: 1,273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2016 5:12:42 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/10/2016 5:00:58 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/10/2016 1:21:28 AM, Outplayz wrote:
At 1/9/2016 11:19:12 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/9/2016 7:37:04 AM, Outplayz wrote:

I'm not sure if you're looking for challenge to a spiritual notion of self, or just to explore the consequences. The consequences are certainly significant. For example, if self is illusory and potentially malleable:

I am looking for a spiritual notion of the self, but i also enjoy looking at the consequences. I have always believed in spirituality... yet, to the same degree i respect what we know scientifically.

* what do ethics mean?

I believe this is illusory but not malleable. For instance, i like eating with my hands. I also enjoy eating food cold. To some, eating with my hands is inappropriate so i will be kind, if they deserve my kindness, and eat with a spoon. That won't change the fact i like eating with my hands.

* why should we imagine anyone has worth?

This is also illusory but not malleable. I personally don't think any one has worth, and the ones i do, i can easily change my mind. I also choose who i give worth to, some like my parents, i do bc they are good parents. So, is that malleable... i think it is on a even scale.

* aren't people programmable, and doesn't that make them resources?

Yes.

* what is 'good'?

A subjective term. It shouldn't be illusory and is not very malleable. To me, good is anything that makes one feel good. Then, the argument can come up... evil feels good to evil... yes, and it is good to them and i accept it as good. However, the majority understand anything that harms another is not good... so, to the ones that find that good, there is consequence. The majority will win, but it doesn't mean they can't play. I believe that to be a con of this world that we were aware of. Then we come to:

* how do we know when we are good, and does it matter?

Is my listening of Satanic music loud evil to my Christian neighbor? Well, maybe not evil bc she knows me but i assume she doesn't find it to be good. I don't believe in that kind of good and evil. That is illusory. Just bc i don't agree with something or like it doesn't make it not good to the one that feels good about it. In a sense, the neighbor is being bad by not accepting who i am. In this way i believe the term is highly illusory. Yet, can be defined in certain situations... which would be absolutes... killing, rape, imprisonment... they can have the definition of evil... but, do i really think it is... im not sure. The illusions in this one are strong.

* when is our good pure, and when is it compromised by self-interest, and does that matter?
* what can we trust of our own stories about ourselves?
* if we can't trust our own stories, how do we maintain resilience, dignity, purpose, meaning through adversity?
* what should we aspire to, and why?
* how could we know if we're succeeding, and does it matter?

In certain cases, i find all these to be both, as in, they can be or not be... it depends on the observer. For instance, is it illusory to me that i can tell something is illusory? We can go round and round bc i think everyone will answer these questions differently.

You'll probably recognise these questions as common for theists to ask atheists, but they also appear when we question the legitimacy of persistent stories about our identities.

Let me ask you a hard question then, Outie... if self were illusory and potentially malleable, how would you answer those questions? They're easier to answer if self really were persistent through your life, but how would you try to answer them if it weren't?

Well, i can answer them in both ways... i can answer the latter just to play devils advocate, or even believe the latter is true to someone else. In the end, am i not saying that my self (identity) has been persistent through my life? That feeling of "me-ness" is there. I can answer these questions through my observation, but it is the same as why i like the color black and the stories behind it. It is subjective to me. I feel that saying my past experiences, or what i think of them, were illusion or my mind playing tricks is a cop out... it is similar to the "god did it" conclusion theists come up with. Although, i have a very doubtful and respect of truth type thinking... so, i do doubt... i do call illusion even on something i can swear was not... but, there is the thing, i have experiences that i can swear were true and i feel ignoring that would be intellectually dishonest to myself. Who knows? What if i came into this life wanting to remember certain things to be what i am at this point... actually, the thing i trust the most is me. Thankfully i am a good person, but whatever i put into this world is good if i say it is good. I can't be anything other than who i am. Even when it comes to this question, spiritually, i believe i have a different identity. That it is the complete me (all experiences i've had). However, that doesn't change anything. If i was a pirate, if i was evil, if i was a king, if i was poor; and i remembered all this, would that change the reasoning i give to why black is my favorite color?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 2:56:31 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/9/2016 8:04:27 AM, Cobalt wrote:
I'm not seeing what this has to do with spirituality.

But I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that there are certain characteristics we possess that are immutable. Many of us have genetic traits that contribute to our identity. Those clearly cannot be changed. Many psychologists believe that certain events can form opinions, associations and biases in ourselves that are difficult, if not impossible to change. (Neurologically, these could be seen as neurons creating unique and permanent connections.)

I'm not sure of your age, but I know that "favorite colors" went away with age for me, though I am still very much drawn to the color blue (my childhood favorite color.) I cannot explain why this is, but I feel very much that it won't change. This is likely due to factors I previously mentioned.

And yet you have chosen a blue color to be the face for your identity here. I find that ironic.


So yea, I agree. There are certain aspects of us that cannot be changed or cannot be easily changed that define our identity -- that they are either inborn or created through experience.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 3:02:56 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/9/2016 7:37:04 AM, Outplayz wrote:
I was having this debate with a neurologist that is on the fence if he believes we have an identity at all. He used the Ab Lincoln axe analogy. I agree with that. I am a much different person in comparison to who i was even a year ago; a lot different if i go back to my teens.

However, he thinks my next point was valid but pretty confident that i would change; still thinks i'm young minded. I don't think it will change. I used an analogy that means something to me. I have a good long term memory and can remember things up to the age of 4. I remember 2ish events before that age, but i remember the feeling more than details. Anyways, as far back as i can remember my favorite color has been black. Now, i have added reasons throughout my years, like finding out my second favorite color is hot pink bc i like the contrast it makes with black, but the reasons/feelings why i picked the color in the first place haven't changed. For example, it gives a gothic feeling, it is rebellious, mysterious... etc.

That was my attempt at an "identity" meaning which came up from talking about an immortal soul.

Is it fair to say "everyone" has something like this that they can correlate to an identity? Maybe not my exact story... but something that hasn't changed throughout the years?

I make a distinction between say "soul" or "spirit" and "identity". I see identity as a construct for social interactions. And that this construct is different for different people, places, and times.

It is by it's very nature mutable and adaptable.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 6:38:07 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/18/2016 5:12:42 AM, Outplayz wrote:
At 1/10/2016 5:00:58 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/10/2016 1:21:28 AM, Outplayz wrote:
At 1/9/2016 11:19:12 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/9/2016 7:37:04 AM, Outplayz wrote:

I'm not sure if you're looking for challenge to a spiritual notion of self, or just to explore the consequences. The consequences are certainly significant. For example, if self is illusory and potentially malleable:

I am looking for a spiritual notion of the self, but i also enjoy looking at the consequences. I have always believed in spirituality... yet, to the same degree i respect what we know scientifically.

Okay, and I see that you've listed your conjectures. But what are you looking for? Evidence that you're right? An explanation that unifies everything as you'd like it? Evidence that you're pointed in the wrong direction?

I don't myself know how to comment on conjectures, unless the conjecture is morally actionable -- i.e, it'll affect a decision with consequences relating to human welfare. So unless I know what actions attach to such beliefs, I don't know how to contribute -- I usually just listen and ask questions. :)
Casten
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2016 7:06:00 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Honestly, I find the idea that there's no such thing as identity to be pretty scary. But that's very human of me. Human beings are intensely invested in questions of identity.

Personally, I need to believe I have an identity way, way more than I need to believe I have an immortal soul. I can make peace with there being no such thing as the soul. I can't make peace with there being no such thing as "me." I'm just not that evolved.
Outplayz
Posts: 1,273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 2:32:44 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 3:02:56 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/9/2016 7:37:04 AM, Outplayz wrote:
I was having this debate with a neurologist that is on the fence if he believes we have an identity at all. He used the Ab Lincoln axe analogy. I agree with that. I am a much different person in comparison to who i was even a year ago; a lot different if i go back to my teens.

However, he thinks my next point was valid but pretty confident that i would change; still thinks i'm young minded. I don't think it will change. I used an analogy that means something to me. I have a good long term memory and can remember things up to the age of 4. I remember 2ish events before that age, but i remember the feeling more than details. Anyways, as far back as i can remember my favorite color has been black. Now, i have added reasons throughout my years, like finding out my second favorite color is hot pink bc i like the contrast it makes with black, but the reasons/feelings why i picked the color in the first place haven't changed. For example, it gives a gothic feeling, it is rebellious, mysterious... etc.

That was my attempt at an "identity" meaning which came up from talking about an immortal soul.

Is it fair to say "everyone" has something like this that they can correlate to an identity? Maybe not my exact story... but something that hasn't changed throughout the years?

I make a distinction between say "soul" or "spirit" and "identity". I see identity as a construct for social interactions. And that this construct is different for different people, places, and times.

It is by it's very nature mutable and adaptable.

I agree. I believe our self, are identity, is a piece off the complete mind. This mind i find to be mass-less, a source state. I have come to realize that, intelligence/consciousness/thought/mind (source), would make sense if it has first been evolving as another force. Invisible until it takes form in a vessel; and, an experience rides right with the manifestation. I debate myself if this was the first force; the creator of energy, space, matter, etc... in the universe. Would make sense since this force is a thinking entity. Along the way of its evolution, i believe i am one thought, one character, one identity, created through the previous "identity." To be this one thought is powerful, however, only to its specific capacity; hence, the different people of the world. You can call the first thought god, but it doesn't have its qualities other than first becoming self-aware; allowing the chain of us to begin.
Outplayz
Posts: 1,273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 2:32:47 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/19/2016 6:38:07 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/18/2016 5:12:42 AM, Outplayz wrote:
At 1/10/2016 5:00:58 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/10/2016 1:21:28 AM, Outplayz wrote:
At 1/9/2016 11:19:12 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/9/2016 7:37:04 AM, Outplayz wrote:

I'm not sure if you're looking for challenge to a spiritual notion of self, or just to explore the consequences. The consequences are certainly significant. For example, if self is illusory and potentially malleable:

I am looking for a spiritual notion of the self, but i also enjoy looking at the consequences. I have always believed in spirituality... yet, to the same degree i respect what we know scientifically.

Okay, and I see that you've listed your conjectures. But what are you looking for? Evidence that you're right? An explanation that unifies everything as you'd like it? Evidence that you're pointed in the wrong direction?

I'm not looking for evidence if i am right from anyone other than myself. It is a personal social experiment i consistently do to my own beliefs. But i am fair in dealing with my beliefs, i know there aren't unifying explanations to pull all the piece together quite yet. However, i believe there is an explanation that would be "scientifically and socially" closest to the truth. If there is only one answer, than that's just how it is. When it comes to atheism, or a none belief in spirituality bc of science, i don't fully buy it. I feel we have figured out pixels and some coding if you look at it like a video game or movie. If you were the character in such entertainments, you still wouldn't know a bunch. I don't think we have figured out a bunch... if it was a bunch that would mean we are close to a truth, which i think the latter is true in our understanding. This doesn't discount science and what we know however. I respect the field and try to stick within the borders as much as i can. I am trained/self-taught/naturally talented in the social aspect of the social sciences, not so much in the more technical fields, so i do listen to advice from someone qualified in a pertinent field to make sure i am not veering too out of the park.

I don't myself know how to comment on conjectures, unless the conjecture is morally actionable -- i.e, it'll affect a decision with consequences relating to human welfare. So unless I know what actions attach to such beliefs, I don't know how to contribute -- I usually just listen and ask questions. :)

My belief, in its essence, has been formulated with the idea of "human welfare" as a top priority. In another way, it is personal and anecdotal to my own experiences. I've always had a rational mind, or try to, in dealing with spirituality. There were times as a teen i would advocate a specific religion, but that was only to back up my confidence in spirituality. When i found the inclusiveness of religion, i saw the holes... not too keen on protecting conjectures from the past, that are clearly flawed socially and scientifically, however i do think there are some correlations between spirituality and religion. Sorta what i think Ominsm talks about, but i haven't look too far into that idea other than everything spiritual can be tied together.

The spiritual hypothesis i've thought of meets an explanation to the "supernatural" events i have experienced. I just don't know, other than being aware i am taking a leap that consciousness can be "mass-less," what other parts can be off. It is a simple concept: "Consciousness" has been evolving, first, as a mass-less (source) entity. Think of the implications. For instance, thoughts would be consistently creating if in source state... or, i've asked myself can it control if it creates? I am believing in the latter. An observation would be mortal vessels for the source are evolving. For us to manifest in any reality, we must make a platform for all "characters" to play their role. You can also say, all humans, have been a vessel to the first parts of a source's evolution to present. We are slightly evolving in thoughts ourselves. Mortality would be living the thought; source. Immortality would be creating your experience(s); preparing the next experience. This is the core of how i can see it working, and i have attached a bunch more ideas to it. I have also dismissed thoughts through an appropriate rebuttal, but it always gets back to this Dualistic thought; that we are each a piece off the evolution of thought/consciousness/intelligence. This piece; identity, is a creator and created from the thought before it. This would also account for the close personalities, and the latter, polar opposite personalities.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 3:12:10 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 2:32:47 AM, Outplayz wrote:
My belief, in its essence, has been formulated with the idea of "human welfare" as a top priority.
Human welfare is a high priority for me too, Outplayz. May I ask, how do you define and recognise it?

We are slightly evolving in thoughts ourselves. Mortality would be living the thought; source. Immortality would be creating your experience(s); preparing the next experience.
May I ask how you believe immortality serves human welfare?

This may seem an odd question, but it might speak to what you understand human welfare to be.

In my mind, I'm not sure that there's a connection between immortality and what I understand to be human welfare at all.
Outplayz
Posts: 1,273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 4:50:34 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 3:12:10 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/20/2016 2:32:47 AM, Outplayz wrote:
My belief, in its essence, has been formulated with the idea of "human welfare" as a top priority.
Human welfare is a high priority for me too, Outplayz. May I ask, how do you define and recognise it?

A 'sorta' happiness. The reason we go forward. Being able to get to a level of comfort. Being able to be noticed. Finding comfort in your reality. I believe every human wants a combination of those statements. Maybe not, however. They are subjective to me, that is what i want. I can find peace with it. Bottom line, enjoyment/entertainment are huge priorities, either conscious or unconscious. We want to live our reality as we understand it, peacefully. I am sure, you are aware at this point, i am being as vague as i can. Factoring in human "everything," the combinations of definitions can be endless here. I believe we can get to an absolute "sorta" peace in this world, "evil" would be much easier noticed (not erased), allowing people to focus more on their peace.

We are slightly evolving in thoughts ourselves. Mortality would be living the thought; source. Immortality would be creating your experience(s); preparing the next experience.
May I ask how you believe immortality serves human welfare?

Not the specific definition or word. It's hard for me to define how i see it bc it can mean more than one thing. For instance, the way an atheist defines immortality could be different than a theist... but, they both have an opinion on it. My stance is, you are right. Not in the argument of words; in the argument of how your mind defines it. The classic "paradise is through the eyes of the observer," that correlates well to, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." In a world where all we care about is talking about our "paradise" rather than finding ways to argue it... spirituality will be peaceful - hopeful. The thought of immortality can be defined by their group. Just like their is a genre in everything creative, there is a genre of human desire or reality (Ie. Earth w/its caveats). We just don't respect other peoples genres bc we are too stuck hating on it to validate our own. Similar to a child arguing everyone play their imaginations story... forgetting they came up with the game... that is the awesome part; not if people want to play it.

This may seem an odd question, but it might speak to what you understand human welfare to be.

In my mind, I'm not sure that there's a connection between immortality and what I understand to be human welfare at all.

It doesn't in the present. There are too many differences that people think are iron clad. Heaven and hell being external in the "Biggest" religions, which is sad, it's a destructive us v. them mentality. However, i am seeing a shift within my generation and lower. It is happening slowly, i believe it will take over in some time; even if that's year 3030. This shift is away from religion/fundamentalism, and realizing we are awesome (the Observer is in charge). That is all that it takes, accepting yourself and reality. It may be chaotic in ways, so your right, there can never be an absolute correlation bw spirituality and welfare. But if there was one understanding, a logical understanding, of spirituality ... i can prophesize confidentiality the world would be (i wont say better, but i want to) different in a good way. I can see how everything spiritual ties into the premise of a "source" that evolved/is a part of its evolution (immortal). "Paradise" is a subjective idea, i don't see why that is a bad thing. Spirituality will be a positive term to welfare literally when people just act like they do with everything else... cool story bro, that's interesting, i like that, but hey listen, isn't my version cool? Yes/no... no, you'd rather have your version; cool. The Vikings are chilling in Valhalla.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,866
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 6:16:23 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/9/2016 7:37:04 AM, Outplayz wrote:
I was having this debate with a neurologist that is on the fence if he believes we have an identity at all. He used the Ab Lincoln axe analogy. I agree with that. I am a much different person in comparison to who i was even a year ago; a lot different if i go back to my teens.

However, he thinks my next point was valid but pretty confident that i would change; still thinks i'm young minded. I don't think it will change. I used an analogy that means something to me. I have a good long term memory and can remember things up to the age of 4. I remember 2ish events before that age, but i remember the feeling more than details. Anyways, as far back as i can remember my favorite color has been black. Now, i have added reasons throughout my years, like finding out my second favorite color is hot pink bc i like the contrast it makes with black, but the reasons/feelings why i picked the color in the first place haven't changed. For example, it gives a gothic feeling, it is rebellious, mysterious... etc.

That was my attempt at an "identity" meaning which came up from talking about an immortal soul.

Is it fair to say "everyone" has something like this that they can correlate to an identity? Maybe not my exact story... but something that hasn't changed throughout the years?
I've got about 6.9999 billion people to go so I will get back to you when I have a consensus of "everyone" and what they have.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2016 7:45:25 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 4:50:34 AM, Outplayz wrote:
At 1/20/2016 3:12:10 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/20/2016 2:32:47 AM, Outplayz wrote:
My belief, in its essence, has been formulated with the idea of "human welfare" as a top priority.
Human welfare is a high priority for me too, Outplayz. May I ask, how do you define and recognise it?

A 'sorta' happiness. The reason we go forward. Being able to get to a level of comfort. Being able to be noticed. Finding comfort in your reality. I believe every human wants a combination of those statements. Maybe not, however. They are subjective to me, that is what i want. I can find peace with it. Bottom line, enjoyment/entertainment are huge priorities, either conscious or unconscious. We want to live our reality as we understand it, peacefully. I am sure, you are aware at this point, i am being as vague as i can. Factoring in human "everything," the combinations of definitions can be endless here. I believe we can get to an absolute "sorta" peace in this world, "evil" would be much easier noticed (not erased), allowing people to focus more on their peace.

We are slightly evolving in thoughts ourselves. Mortality would be living the thought; source. Immortality would be creating your experience(s); preparing the next experience.
May I ask how you believe immortality serves human welfare?
Not the specific definition or word. It's hard for me to define how i see it bc it can mean more than one thing. For instance, the way an atheist defines immortality could be different than a theist... but, they both have an opinion on it. My stance is, you are right. Not in the argument of words; in the argument of how your mind defines it. The classic "paradise is through the eyes of the observer," that correlates well to, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." In a world where all we care about is talking about our "paradise" rather than finding ways to argue it... spirituality will be peaceful - hopeful. The thought of immortality can be defined by their group. Just like their is a genre in everything creative, there is a genre of human desire or reality (Ie. Earth w/its caveats). We just don't respect other peoples genres bc we are too stuck hating on it to validate our own. Similar to a child arguing everyone play their imaginations story... forgetting they came up with the game... that is the awesome part; not if people want to play it.
Does that mean you conceive your immortal life full of people of your own imagining? That is, people precisely as you want them, even if that's nothing like what they'd want when you knew them in life?

And what does that mean for them? Does that mean they must live in a state they don't want? Or do you so control them that they must want what you want them to want?

And finally, what of the people you share your world with now? The people who don't always like you, or approve of you, who don't want what you want? Will you get to make copies of them precisely as you want them? Will they get to make copies of you in their immortal lives, precisely as they'd want you?

In my mind, I'm not sure that there's a connection between immortality and what I understand to be human welfare at all.
It doesn't in the present.
I cannot conceive it at all, Outie.

The best and most valuable experiences of my life have been ones I could never construct for myself. That's what makes them so precious.

I cannot conceive of valuing anything -- my environment, others or myself -- in an experience that is always precisely as I'd want it.

So in your conception of immortality, have I the right to not exist -- not in my own world, or in yours? Or are you and everyone else allowed to make copies of me, precisely as you want me?
Outplayz
Posts: 1,273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 4:19:06 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/20/2016 7:45:25 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/20/2016 4:50:34 AM, Outplayz wrote:

Does that mean you conceive your immortal life full of people of your own imagining? That is, people precisely as you want them, even if that's nothing like what they'd want when you knew them in life?

Okay, lets just go there. This is the hard part to think of. It is difficult in the sense of its subjectivity. However, i do believe, even though it's my view, parts can be applied generally. If i died and became this source, what then? Right, in source state i can imagine anything going off my proposed conjectures. So that would mean i could imagine you if i wanted, but... wouldn't that be just like a dream? I have had lucid dreams where i was in full control. It's fun, for sure... however, the generalized idea is that i am sure it is a short lived fun... you know you are imagining everyone, so even if it is longer lived, eventually one would want out of it. That difference would be living an experience other than being stuck as a source thought.

The trick comes in the "living the experience" part, bc a Solipsistic view is vaguely there. Wouldn't i just be able to make up any reality i want, be any character i want, and give myself a perfect destiny in source state? I think the answer to that is yeah... it would be just like a self induced lucid dream. But it always comes down to infinity... how many times would i want to play what i can manifest? Every time i come out the reality, it's the same... a loop of only me. That is why i think the other is so important; i think the other is maturity of a source, for it is at a childish stage before. I feel in our source state we've already done everything i just mentioned and have come to an understanding; living with people not in your control, with no destiny, no magic other than your imagination sounds, at the very least, like a place that's habitable. (Among other realities only restricted by imagination).

And what does that mean for them? Does that mean they must live in a state they don't want? Or do you so control them that they must want what you want them to want?

I'm still thinking about the source scenario, or surrounding. Can it communicate with other sources? To communicate, a source combines with the others. So that means this reality is a platform in which we communicate. Can we communicate without being "mortal," i would think there is some kind of communication (finding of others and their reality)... this part hasn't fully come to me yet. But to your question, no, free will is in our source state. The only person in control would be "said" person (or thought). We choose which realities we want to manifest in.

And finally, what of the people you share your world with now? The people who don't always like you, or approve of you, who don't want what you want? Will you get to make copies of them precisely as you want them? Will they get to make copies of you in their immortal lives, precisely as they'd want you?

That is the dream idea i previously mentioned. They can imagine me, and i can imagine them; but that isn't a state we would want to live in according to the "loop of me" statement above; we've matured past that (well some have). The actual source itself, can do whatever it wants. It can manifest in another reality, or stay within itself... any option chosen will change however in time. Plus, not many people are like me. Some people will loop their character where ever it goes... possibly the first place they think of immediately after death. Some characters are just needed for a creative reality; so they are what they are... literally pawns. I think their are different capacities within the spiritual realm as well.

In my mind, I'm not sure that there's a connection between immortality and what I understand to be human welfare at all.
It doesn't in the present.
I cannot conceive it at all, Outie.

The best and most valuable experiences of my life have been ones I could never construct for myself. That's what makes them so precious.

I cannot conceive of valuing anything -- my environment, others or myself -- in an experience that is always precisely as I'd want it.

Lol, just reading at this part was pretty coincidental from the stuff i said before... that is why i think we'd rather live outside of full control, both spiritually and physically.

So in your conception of immortality, have I the right to not exist -- not in my own world, or in yours? Or are you and everyone else allowed to make copies of me, precisely as you want me?

I think i can make a copy the same as i can in a dream... however, like i stress, it is a boring option. Even to someone that says, "No, i would have fun being the 'King' of everything," i don't believe it... doing that for eternity would be a trap; hell. Can you not exist? I don't think you'd ultimately not want to exist, but if you did, you can sleep... but, i bet somewhere in your manifestation of not existing... there is a thought to exist again. I believe the source state is a wonderful place to be... when you know you are "god" per say. The next place we manifest however, will have all the obstacles (ups/downs) bc that's life... at least, a fair observation of the human race. We are creatures of imagination... a powerful source in "reality."