Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Do We Remember Ourselves Before Birth?

s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 6:01:37 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
The soul or essence of a thing is that which identifies it; if done without it, it no longer exists. To say our souls are eternal is to say in some shape or form we continue to exist, our identities are not lost.

However, how do we continue to exist if our present form is lost? How may we be identified without our present state?

To answer that, I must say I believe we are intricate combinations of those things which remain with those things which have changed. There must be those things which remain or our identities would not remain constant even though, of course, they change. Memories are associations of similarities with dissimilarities; we do not remember those things which remain (it makes no sense to remember those things which are presently before us) but those things which are no longer. We are not remembering that which we are but that which we were; we are knowing that which we are. So, recognition is an association of that which we are with that which we were. Without the ability to recognize, there is no capacity to identify.

The pesky question is: if we apparently had our beginning at birth, having no past, how did we recognize or identify anything?

Of course, one may say, "We didn't. We knew things for the first time."

However, knowing something for the first time requires recognition. There must be a remembering of something once known. For how could we in the most basic way recognize or identify that which we have never known?

To which, one may quickly retort, "That's, exactly, the problem; we don't recognize that which we have never known."

Yet, this is not entirely true. We recognize its substance if nothing else. For instance, the wind is formless but has substance. Substance is that which is essential to all things. We are born with the recognition of substance; without this recognition, there is no awareness.

So, the question is: what is substance?

Substance is essentially existence. It is the capacity to distinguish that which is from that which isn't. For instance, we know the wind has substance because we know that which it is not.

We are born with memory; we are born with a recognition of substance; we are born with a recognition of that which is.

To be born with a recognition of substance, we must have known substance before our birth. For, how could one recognize that which one could not remember?
musicalone
Posts: 163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 6:10:58 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 6:01:37 PM, s-anthony wrote:
The soul or essence of a thing is that which identifies it; if done without it, it no longer exists. To say our souls are eternal is to say in some shape or form we continue to exist, our identities are not lost.

However, how do we continue to exist if our present form is lost? How may we be identified without our present state?

To answer that, I must say I believe we are intricate combinations of those things which remain with those things which have changed. There must be those things which remain or our identities would not remain constant even though, of course, they change. Memories are associations of similarities with dissimilarities; we do not remember those things which remain (it makes no sense to remember those things which are presently before us) but those things which are no longer. We are not remembering that which we are but that which we were; we are knowing that which we are. So, recognition is an association of that which we are with that which we were. Without the ability to recognize, there is no capacity to identify.

The pesky question is: if we apparently had our beginning at birth, having no past, how did we recognize or identify anything?

Of course, one may say, "We didn't. We knew things for the first time."

However, knowing something for the first time requires recognition. There must be a remembering of something once known. For how could we in the most basic way recognize or identify that which we have never known?

To which, one may quickly retort, "That's, exactly, the problem; we don't recognize that which we have never known."

Yet, this is not entirely true. We recognize its substance if nothing else. For instance, the wind is formless but has substance. Substance is that which is essential to all things. We are born with the recognition of substance; without this recognition, there is no awareness.

So, the question is: what is substance?

Substance is essentially existence. It is the capacity to distinguish that which is from that which isn't. For instance, we know the wind has substance because we know that which it is not.

We are born with memory; we are born with a recognition of substance; we are born with a recognition of that which is.

To be born with a recognition of substance, we must have known substance before our birth. For, how could one recognize that which one could not remember? : :

I have spoken to several people who have remembered some thoughts they had while their body was being formed in the womb of their earthly mother.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 8:53:56 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 6:10:58 PM, musicalone wrote:
At 4/25/2016 6:01:37 PM, s-anthony wrote:
The soul or essence of a thing is that which identifies it; if done without it, it no longer exists. To say our souls are eternal is to say in some shape or form we continue to exist, our identities are not lost.

However, how do we continue to exist if our present form is lost? How may we be identified without our present state?

To answer that, I must say I believe we are intricate combinations of those things which remain with those things which have changed. There must be those things which remain or our identities would not remain constant even though, of course, they change. Memories are associations of similarities with dissimilarities; we do not remember those things which remain (it makes no sense to remember those things which are presently before us) but those things which are no longer. We are not remembering that which we are but that which we were; we are knowing that which we are. So, recognition is an association of that which we are with that which we were. Without the ability to recognize, there is no capacity to identify.

The pesky question is: if we apparently had our beginning at birth, having no past, how did we recognize or identify anything?

Of course, one may say, "We didn't. We knew things for the first time."

However, knowing something for the first time requires recognition. There must be a remembering of something once known. For how could we in the most basic way recognize or identify that which we have never known?

To which, one may quickly retort, "That's, exactly, the problem; we don't recognize that which we have never known."

Yet, this is not entirely true. We recognize its substance if nothing else. For instance, the wind is formless but has substance. Substance is that which is essential to all things. We are born with the recognition of substance; without this recognition, there is no awareness.

So, the question is: what is substance?

Substance is essentially existence. It is the capacity to distinguish that which is from that which isn't. For instance, we know the wind has substance because we know that which it is not.

We are born with memory; we are born with a recognition of substance; we are born with a recognition of that which is.

To be born with a recognition of substance, we must have known substance before our birth. For, how could one recognize that which one could not remember? : :

I have spoken to several people who have remembered some thoughts they had while their body was being formed in the womb of their earthly mother.

In the past, I would have thought those people were either liars or delusional; but, now, I'm not so quick to judge. There is a lot of things to which I don't know the answers.
musicalone
Posts: 163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 9:47:09 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 8:53:56 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/25/2016 6:10:58 PM, musicalone wrote:
At 4/25/2016 6:01:37 PM, s-anthony wrote:
The soul or essence of a thing is that which identifies it; if done without it, it no longer exists. To say our souls are eternal is to say in some shape or form we continue to exist, our identities are not lost.

However, how do we continue to exist if our present form is lost? How may we be identified without our present state?

To answer that, I must say I believe we are intricate combinations of those things which remain with those things which have changed. There must be those things which remain or our identities would not remain constant even though, of course, they change. Memories are associations of similarities with dissimilarities; we do not remember those things which remain (it makes no sense to remember those things which are presently before us) but those things which are no longer. We are not remembering that which we are but that which we were; we are knowing that which we are. So, recognition is an association of that which we are with that which we were. Without the ability to recognize, there is no capacity to identify.

The pesky question is: if we apparently had our beginning at birth, having no past, how did we recognize or identify anything?

Of course, one may say, "We didn't. We knew things for the first time."

However, knowing something for the first time requires recognition. There must be a remembering of something once known. For how could we in the most basic way recognize or identify that which we have never known?

To which, one may quickly retort, "That's, exactly, the problem; we don't recognize that which we have never known."

Yet, this is not entirely true. We recognize its substance if nothing else. For instance, the wind is formless but has substance. Substance is that which is essential to all things. We are born with the recognition of substance; without this recognition, there is no awareness.

So, the question is: what is substance?

Substance is essentially existence. It is the capacity to distinguish that which is from that which isn't. For instance, we know the wind has substance because we know that which it is not.

We are born with memory; we are born with a recognition of substance; we are born with a recognition of that which is.

To be born with a recognition of substance, we must have known substance before our birth. For, how could one recognize that which one could not remember? : :

I have spoken to several people who have remembered some thoughts they had while their body was being formed in the womb of their earthly mother.

In the past, I would have thought those people were either liars or delusional; but, now, I'm not so quick to judge. There is a lot of things to which I don't know the answers. : :

Put it this way, anything is possible in God's creation. As long as you understand this then just sit back and enjoy what he created.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 10:22:26 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 9:47:09 PM, musicalone wrote:
At 4/25/2016 8:53:56 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/25/2016 6:10:58 PM, musicalone wrote:
At 4/25/2016 6:01:37 PM, s-anthony wrote:
The soul or essence of a thing is that which identifies it; if done without it, it no longer exists. To say our souls are eternal is to say in some shape or form we continue to exist, our identities are not lost.

However, how do we continue to exist if our present form is lost? How may we be identified without our present state?

To answer that, I must say I believe we are intricate combinations of those things which remain with those things which have changed. There must be those things which remain or our identities would not remain constant even though, of course, they change. Memories are associations of similarities with dissimilarities; we do not remember those things which remain (it makes no sense to remember those things which are presently before us) but those things which are no longer. We are not remembering that which we are but that which we were; we are knowing that which we are. So, recognition is an association of that which we are with that which we were. Without the ability to recognize, there is no capacity to identify.

The pesky question is: if we apparently had our beginning at birth, having no past, how did we recognize or identify anything?

Of course, one may say, "We didn't. We knew things for the first time."

However, knowing something for the first time requires recognition. There must be a remembering of something once known. For how could we in the most basic way recognize or identify that which we have never known?

To which, one may quickly retort, "That's, exactly, the problem; we don't recognize that which we have never known."

Yet, this is not entirely true. We recognize its substance if nothing else. For instance, the wind is formless but has substance. Substance is that which is essential to all things. We are born with the recognition of substance; without this recognition, there is no awareness.

So, the question is: what is substance?

Substance is essentially existence. It is the capacity to distinguish that which is from that which isn't. For instance, we know the wind has substance because we know that which it is not.

We are born with memory; we are born with a recognition of substance; we are born with a recognition of that which is.

To be born with a recognition of substance, we must have known substance before our birth. For, how could one recognize that which one could not remember? : :

I have spoken to several people who have remembered some thoughts they had while their body was being formed in the womb of their earthly mother.

In the past, I would have thought those people were either liars or delusional; but, now, I'm not so quick to judge. There is a lot of things to which I don't know the answers. : :

Put it this way, anything is possible in God's creation. As long as you understand this then just sit back and enjoy what he created.

It is, precisely, the fact life is unpredictable which causes excitement and not rest.

The greater our attention on that which is not common but sacred, not ordinary but miraculous, not natural but supernatural, the more diverse our world becomes. The truly spiritual person is one who values and accepts that which deviates from the norm, the one who makes a place in his, or her, heart for those who live as outliers on the periphery of society.
musicalone
Posts: 163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 10:24:19 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 10:22:26 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/25/2016 9:47:09 PM, musicalone wrote:
At 4/25/2016 8:53:56 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/25/2016 6:10:58 PM, musicalone wrote:
At 4/25/2016 6:01:37 PM, s-anthony wrote:
The soul or essence of a thing is that which identifies it; if done without it, it no longer exists. To say our souls are eternal is to say in some shape or form we continue to exist, our identities are not lost.

However, how do we continue to exist if our present form is lost? How may we be identified without our present state?

To answer that, I must say I believe we are intricate combinations of those things which remain with those things which have changed. There must be those things which remain or our identities would not remain constant even though, of course, they change. Memories are associations of similarities with dissimilarities; we do not remember those things which remain (it makes no sense to remember those things which are presently before us) but those things which are no longer. We are not remembering that which we are but that which we were; we are knowing that which we are. So, recognition is an association of that which we are with that which we were. Without the ability to recognize, there is no capacity to identify.

The pesky question is: if we apparently had our beginning at birth, having no past, how did we recognize or identify anything?

Of course, one may say, "We didn't. We knew things for the first time."

However, knowing something for the first time requires recognition. There must be a remembering of something once known. For how could we in the most basic way recognize or identify that which we have never known?

To which, one may quickly retort, "That's, exactly, the problem; we don't recognize that which we have never known."

Yet, this is not entirely true. We recognize its substance if nothing else. For instance, the wind is formless but has substance. Substance is that which is essential to all things. We are born with the recognition of substance; without this recognition, there is no awareness.

So, the question is: what is substance?

Substance is essentially existence. It is the capacity to distinguish that which is from that which isn't. For instance, we know the wind has substance because we know that which it is not.

We are born with memory; we are born with a recognition of substance; we are born with a recognition of that which is.

To be born with a recognition of substance, we must have known substance before our birth. For, how could one recognize that which one could not remember? : :

I have spoken to several people who have remembered some thoughts they had while their body was being formed in the womb of their earthly mother.

In the past, I would have thought those people were either liars or delusional; but, now, I'm not so quick to judge. There is a lot of things to which I don't know the answers. : :

Put it this way, anything is possible in God's creation. As long as you understand this then just sit back and enjoy what he created.

It is, precisely, the fact life is unpredictable which causes excitement and not rest.

The greater our attention on that which is not common but sacred, not ordinary but miraculous, not natural but supernatural, the more diverse our world becomes. The truly spiritual person is one who values and accepts that which deviates from the norm, the one who makes a place in his, or her, heart for those who live as outliers on the periphery of society. : :

A spiritual man knows the future and exactly how God created everything.
dee-em
Posts: 6,447
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 12:14:24 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 6:01:37 PM, s-anthony wrote:

However, knowing something for the first time requires recognition.

So you still don't know what an iPhone is? Lol.

It sounds like you never went to school and actually learned something.
I've seen some inane assertions in my time but yours is right up there.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 12:31:30 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 10:24:19 PM, musicalone wrote:
At 4/25/2016 10:22:26 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/25/2016 9:47:09 PM, musicalone wrote:
At 4/25/2016 8:53:56 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/25/2016 6:10:58 PM, musicalone wrote:
At 4/25/2016 6:01:37 PM, s-anthony wrote:
The soul or essence of a thing is that which identifies it; if done without it, it no longer exists. To say our souls are eternal is to say in some shape or form we continue to exist, our identities are not lost.

However, how do we continue to exist if our present form is lost? How may we be identified without our present state?

To answer that, I must say I believe we are intricate combinations of those things which remain with those things which have changed. There must be those things which remain or our identities would not remain constant even though, of course, they change. Memories are associations of similarities with dissimilarities; we do not remember those things which remain (it makes no sense to remember those things which are presently before us) but those things which are no longer. We are not remembering that which we are but that which we were; we are knowing that which we are. So, recognition is an association of that which we are with that which we were. Without the ability to recognize, there is no capacity to identify.

The pesky question is: if we apparently had our beginning at birth, having no past, how did we recognize or identify anything?

Of course, one may say, "We didn't. We knew things for the first time."

However, knowing something for the first time requires recognition. There must be a remembering of something once known. For how could we in the most basic way recognize or identify that which we have never known?

To which, one may quickly retort, "That's, exactly, the problem; we don't recognize that which we have never known."

Yet, this is not entirely true. We recognize its substance if nothing else. For instance, the wind is formless but has substance. Substance is that which is essential to all things. We are born with the recognition of substance; without this recognition, there is no awareness.

So, the question is: what is substance?

Substance is essentially existence. It is the capacity to distinguish that which is from that which isn't. For instance, we know the wind has substance because we know that which it is not.

We are born with memory; we are born with a recognition of substance; we are born with a recognition of that which is.

To be born with a recognition of substance, we must have known substance before our birth. For, how could one recognize that which one could not remember? : :

I have spoken to several people who have remembered some thoughts they had while their body was being formed in the womb of their earthly mother.

In the past, I would have thought those people were either liars or delusional; but, now, I'm not so quick to judge. There is a lot of things to which I don't know the answers. : :

Put it this way, anything is possible in God's creation. As long as you understand this then just sit back and enjoy what he created.

It is, precisely, the fact life is unpredictable which causes excitement and not rest.

The greater our attention on that which is not common but sacred, not ordinary but miraculous, not natural but supernatural, the more diverse our world becomes. The truly spiritual person is one who values and accepts that which deviates from the norm, the one who makes a place in his, or her, heart for those who live as outliers on the periphery of society. : :

A spiritual man knows the future and exactly how God created everything.

A reasonable person thinks he, or she, knows the outcome using standard calculations; but, there are always exceptions to every rule. A reasonable person believes the order which presently exists is the result of orderly steps, but order comes from chaos. In other words, at the point in which you think you have God all figured out, it is never more certain that you don't.
musicalone
Posts: 163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 1:36:40 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/26/2016 12:31:30 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/25/2016 10:24:19 PM, musicalone wrote:
At 4/25/2016 10:22:26 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/25/2016 9:47:09 PM, musicalone wrote:
At 4/25/2016 8:53:56 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/25/2016 6:10:58 PM, musicalone wrote:
At 4/25/2016 6:01:37 PM, s-anthony wrote:
The soul or essence of a thing is that which identifies it; if done without it, it no longer exists. To say our souls are eternal is to say in some shape or form we continue to exist, our identities are not lost.

However, how do we continue to exist if our present form is lost? How may we be identified without our present state?

To answer that, I must say I believe we are intricate combinations of those things which remain with those things which have changed. There must be those things which remain or our identities would not remain constant even though, of course, they change. Memories are associations of similarities with dissimilarities; we do not remember those things which remain (it makes no sense to remember those things which are presently before us) but those things which are no longer. We are not remembering that which we are but that which we were; we are knowing that which we are. So, recognition is an association of that which we are with that which we were. Without the ability to recognize, there is no capacity to identify.

The pesky question is: if we apparently had our beginning at birth, having no past, how did we recognize or identify anything?

Of course, one may say, "We didn't. We knew things for the first time."

However, knowing something for the first time requires recognition. There must be a remembering of something once known. For how could we in the most basic way recognize or identify that which we have never known?

To which, one may quickly retort, "That's, exactly, the problem; we don't recognize that which we have never known."

Yet, this is not entirely true. We recognize its substance if nothing else. For instance, the wind is formless but has substance. Substance is that which is essential to all things. We are born with the recognition of substance; without this recognition, there is no awareness.

So, the question is: what is substance?

Substance is essentially existence. It is the capacity to distinguish that which is from that which isn't. For instance, we know the wind has substance because we know that which it is not.

We are born with memory; we are born with a recognition of substance; we are born with a recognition of that which is.

To be born with a recognition of substance, we must have known substance before our birth. For, how could one recognize that which one could not remember? : :

I have spoken to several people who have remembered some thoughts they had while their body was being formed in the womb of their earthly mother.

In the past, I would have thought those people were either liars or delusional; but, now, I'm not so quick to judge. There is a lot of things to which I don't know the answers. : :

Put it this way, anything is possible in God's creation. As long as you understand this then just sit back and enjoy what he created.

It is, precisely, the fact life is unpredictable which causes excitement and not rest.

The greater our attention on that which is not common but sacred, not ordinary but miraculous, not natural but supernatural, the more diverse our world becomes. The truly spiritual person is one who values and accepts that which deviates from the norm, the one who makes a place in his, or her, heart for those who live as outliers on the periphery of society. : :

A spiritual man knows the future and exactly how God created everything.

A reasonable person thinks he, or she, knows the outcome using standard calculations; but, there are always exceptions to every rule. A reasonable person believes the order which presently exists is the result of orderly steps, but order comes from chaos. In other words, at the point in which you think you have God all figured out, it is never more certain that you don't. : :

It wasn't important to figure out God. What was important to God was to teach us what the Voice of God is. The Voice of God is the servant that he used to speak his creation into existence and use it to feed information into the minds of the characters of his creation to give them a visible world to live in. We don't live in a real universe on a real earth but the information that is processed by our minds via the Voice of God makes us believe we are real people living on a real earth.

Religion came from the people who are influenced by the Beast to build objects with their human hands. Each object ( false god ) is what people worship instead of our Creator ( our Father ) and His creation ( our Mother ). The commandment to "Honor thy Father and Mother" is about our Creator and His creation, not our earthly fathers and mothers. Religious people don't know this fact and the reason why they are confused when they read the biblical prophecies and the Ten Commandments. They apply these commandments and prophecies to the world's that they perceive in their minds, not the future when all God's people will know the Voice of God and obey all His commandments.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 11:12:35 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/26/2016 12:14:24 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/25/2016 6:01:37 PM, s-anthony wrote:

However, knowing something for the first time requires recognition.

So you still don't know what an iPhone is? Lol.

It sounds like you never went to school and actually learned something.
I've seen some inane assertions in my time but yours is right up there.

Please tell me the ways in which you can know something without recognition?
dee-em
Posts: 6,447
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 12:22:14 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 11:12:35 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/26/2016 12:14:24 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/25/2016 6:01:37 PM, s-anthony wrote:

However, knowing something for the first time requires recognition.

So you still don't know what an iPhone is? Lol.

It sounds like you never went to school and actually learned something.
I've seen some inane assertions in my time but yours is right up there.

Please tell me the ways in which you can know something without recognition?

We don't just know things, we learn about them. Obviously.
Did you know English when you were born?

Once we have learned something we commit it to memory and can then recognize it again. You talked about knowing something for the first time, not acquired knowledge.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 3:01:57 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
We don't just know things, we learn about them. Obviously.
Did you know English when you were born?

Of course, I didn't know English at the time I was born.

However, why does the mind interpret each stimulus differently than each other?

Of course, you may say, "Because, each evokes a different chemical reaction."

Yet, this avoids the question. Why does the mind interpret each chemical reaction differently? Or better yet, why does the mind interpret, at all?

Does a computer interpret or does it just respond to stimuli?

Of course, the computer merely responds to stimuli. The computer does that which it is programmed to do. It does not evaluate one action over another. We evaluate things and make decisions; we have a choice to react to something in the manner of our choosing or not to react, at all.

Why are we able to do this but a computer is not?

I believe the reason for this is because within us there exists contradiction. In other words, we are able to disagree with the information we are receiving from our environments. We are both connected and disconnected from our world; it is this dynamic between agreement and disagreement which I believe distinguishes living things from nonliving things. A computer does not act; it reacts. Living things act and also react.

The reason a child is able to learn is because a child is able to evaluate, and a child is able to evaluate because a child is able to agree and disagree. If the child were born a blank slate, like a computer, there would be no disagreeable nature.
dee-em
Posts: 6,447
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 1:05:47 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/28/2016 3:01:57 AM, s-anthony wrote:
We don't just know things, we learn about them. Obviously.
Did you know English when you were born?

Of course, I didn't know English at the time I was born.

However, why does the mind interpret each stimulus differently than each other?

Of course, you may say, "Because, each evokes a different chemical reaction."

Yet, this avoids the question. Why does the mind interpret each chemical reaction differently? Or better yet, why does the mind interpret, at all?

Does a computer interpret or does it just respond to stimuli?

Of course, the computer merely responds to stimuli. The computer does that which it is programmed to do. It does not evaluate one action over another. We evaluate things and make decisions; we have a choice to react to something in the manner of our choosing or not to react, at all.

Why are we able to do this but a computer is not?

I believe the reason for this is because within us there exists contradiction. In other words, we are able to disagree with the information we are receiving from our environments. We are both connected and disconnected from our world; it is this dynamic between agreement and disagreement which I believe distinguishes living things from nonliving things. A computer does not act; it reacts. Living things act and also react.

The reason a child is able to learn is because a child is able to evaluate, and a child is able to evaluate because a child is able to agree and disagree. If the child were born a blank slate, like a computer, there would be no disagreeable nature.

Your response is quite bizarre and does not relate in any way shape or form with my reply and what it was addressing. You seem happy to have a dialogue with yourself regardless of what anyone else is saying. Please continue. Don't mind me.
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 1:14:38 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Scientologists seem to think so.

They ask a lot of seemingly impossible questions when they audit you, and they expect an answer.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 1:52:56 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/28/2016 1:05:47 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/28/2016 3:01:57 AM, s-anthony wrote:
We don't just know things, we learn about them. Obviously.
Did you know English when you were born?

Of course, I didn't know English at the time I was born.

However, why does the mind interpret each stimulus differently than each other?

Of course, you may say, "Because, each evokes a different chemical reaction."

Yet, this avoids the question. Why does the mind interpret each chemical reaction differently? Or better yet, why does the mind interpret, at all?

Does a computer interpret or does it just respond to stimuli?

Of course, the computer merely responds to stimuli. The computer does that which it is programmed to do. It does not evaluate one action over another. We evaluate things and make decisions; we have a choice to react to something in the manner of our choosing or not to react, at all.

Why are we able to do this but a computer is not?

I believe the reason for this is because within us there exists contradiction. In other words, we are able to disagree with the information we are receiving from our environments. We are both connected and disconnected from our world; it is this dynamic between agreement and disagreement which I believe distinguishes living things from nonliving things. A computer does not act; it reacts. Living things act and also react.

The reason a child is able to learn is because a child is able to evaluate, and a child is able to evaluate because a child is able to agree and disagree. If the child were born a blank slate, like a computer, there would be no disagreeable nature.

Your response is quite bizarre and does not relate in any way shape or form with my reply and what it was addressing. You seem happy to have a dialogue with yourself regardless of what anyone else is saying. Please continue. Don't mind me.

How can I make it less bizarre for you?

Do you believe we are born blank slates?
dee-em
Posts: 6,447
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 3:03:44 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/28/2016 1:52:56 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/28/2016 1:05:47 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/28/2016 3:01:57 AM, s-anthony wrote:
We don't just know things, we learn about them. Obviously.
Did you know English when you were born?

Of course, I didn't know English at the time I was born.

However, why does the mind interpret each stimulus differently than each other?

Of course, you may say, "Because, each evokes a different chemical reaction."

Yet, this avoids the question. Why does the mind interpret each chemical reaction differently? Or better yet, why does the mind interpret, at all?

Does a computer interpret or does it just respond to stimuli?

Of course, the computer merely responds to stimuli. The computer does that which it is programmed to do. It does not evaluate one action over another. We evaluate things and make decisions; we have a choice to react to something in the manner of our choosing or not to react, at all.

Why are we able to do this but a computer is not?

I believe the reason for this is because within us there exists contradiction. In other words, we are able to disagree with the information we are receiving from our environments. We are both connected and disconnected from our world; it is this dynamic between agreement and disagreement which I believe distinguishes living things from nonliving things. A computer does not act; it reacts. Living things act and also react.

The reason a child is able to learn is because a child is able to evaluate, and a child is able to evaluate because a child is able to agree and disagree. If the child were born a blank slate, like a computer, there would be no disagreeable nature.

Your response is quite bizarre and does not relate in any way shape or form with my reply and what it was addressing. You seem happy to have a dialogue with yourself regardless of what anyone else is saying. Please continue. Don't mind me.

How can I make it less bizarre for you?

Do you believe we are born blank slates?

Of course we are, apart from a few innate reflexes such as sucking, grasping and the ability to swim (which is soon lost). Everything else is learned and it is a slow and painful process. If you have had children then you would know that they are totally blank slates. That's why we have a minimum of a 12 year education system.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 3:54:16 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Of course we are, apart from a few innate reflexes such as sucking, grasping and the ability to swim (which is soon lost). Everything else is learned and it is a slow and painful process. If you have had children then you would know that they are totally blank slates. That's why we have a minimum of a 12 year education system.

How do you teach something which has no point of reference? In other words, if being a blank slate, why do the first stimulations of the nervous system have any significance to the child?
dee-em
Posts: 6,447
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 11:21:15 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/28/2016 3:54:16 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Of course we are, apart from a few innate reflexes such as sucking, grasping and the ability to swim (which is soon lost). Everything else is learned and it is a slow and painful process. If you have had children then you would know that they are totally blank slates. That's why we have a minimum of a 12 year education system.

How do you teach something which has no point of reference? In other words, if being a blank slate, why do the first stimulations of the nervous system have any significance to the child?

It's a bootstrapping process. We are born with five senses and receive stimuli from them even when in the womb. We learn at first by copying, repetition with reinforcement and by trial and error. As cognitive development proceeds, parents will often use encouragement and negative reinforcement, ie. reward and punishment.

http://www.babycentre.co.uk...

If you imagine that we are not blank slates at birth then please explain how a single egg cell can through a process of fertilization, then repeated division and specialization can be anything else. The brain of a newborn is quite plastic. It is in the forming of neural connections that it learns and retains knowledge and that process takes many, many years. In fact it never stops. Without those neural connections, how can a baby know anything? The link I gave you explains that young babies can learn something and immediately forget it because they haven't the ability to form neural connections fast enough yet. It's all part of cognitive development.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2016 4:15:42 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
It's a bootstrapping process. We are born with five senses and receive stimuli from them even when in the womb. We learn at first by copying, repetition with reinforcement and by trial and error. As cognitive development proceeds, parents will often use encouragement and negative reinforcement, ie. reward and punishment.

Why does neurosensory input (regardless of the stage of development) hold any significance to the child? Why does the child prefer pleasure over pain? What is it in the brain which tells the child pain is bad and pleasure is good?
dee-em
Posts: 6,447
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2016 5:24:15 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/29/2016 4:15:42 AM, s-anthony wrote:
It's a bootstrapping process. We are born with five senses and receive stimuli from them even when in the womb. We learn at first by copying, repetition with reinforcement and by trial and error. As cognitive development proceeds, parents will often use encouragement and negative reinforcement, ie. reward and punishment.

Why does neurosensory input (regardless of the stage of development) hold any significance to the child? Why does the child prefer pleasure over pain? What is it in the brain which tells the child pain is bad and pleasure is good?

We are hardwired that way (as are all animals) because it is essential to survival. Pleasure and pain are not possible before about the 20-28 week mark because of insufficicient brain development (the thalamus). The pleasure and pain receptors in the brain are connected to the necessary nerve pathways about that time. The hardwiring derives from our DNA which controls growth and development.

You might as well ask how we see colours such as red, green and blue. We are (most of us anyway) hardwired that way to process certain signals from the optic nerves and experience them as colours. Some things don't have to be learned as they are not knowledge per se but simply experiential.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2016 6:00:47 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
We are hardwired that way (as are all animals) because it is essential to survival. Pleasure and pain are not possible before about the 20-28 week mark because of insufficicient brain development (the thalamus). The pleasure and pain receptors in the brain are connected to the necessary nerve pathways about that time. The hardwiring derives from our DNA which controls growth and development.

So, the evaluation we give pain and pleasure is innate? It is past from one generation to the next through our DNA?

DNA is an encoding of our evolutionary history, from the beginning as single-cell organisms to our current state. In the course of our evolutionary history, when and why did we decide pleasure was good and pain was bad? What is it which gives all life forms, from the simplest to the most complex, a desire to survive? Why do single-cell organisms mutate and develop defense mechanisms, such as cell walls, to survive?
dee-em
Posts: 6,447
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2016 1:26:58 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/29/2016 6:00:47 AM, s-anthony wrote:
We are hardwired that way (as are all animals) because it is essential to survival. Pleasure and pain are not possible before about the 20-28 week mark because of insufficicient brain development (the thalamus). The pleasure and pain receptors in the brain are connected to the necessary nerve pathways about that time. The hardwiring derives from our DNA which controls growth and development.

So, the evaluation we give pain and pleasure is innate? It is past from one generation to the next through our DNA?

I'm not sure what you mean by passed on. It is part of the human genome, yes. As I said, it will be in the genome of all animals with a nervous system since we share a common origin.

DNA is an encoding of our evolutionary history, from the beginning as single-cell organisms to our current state. In the course of our evolutionary history, when and why did we decide pleasure was good and pain was bad?

It wasn't consciously decided by the organism. It is a survival trait. Those organisms which reacted to stimuli in a certain way (heat, cold, puncture, contusion, etc.) by tending to avoid repeating the circumstances which led to that experience had a greater chance of survival and the genes responsible for that reaction were selected for. We label the feelings generated in our brains as various kinds of pain and discomfort. It's a similar story for pleasure.

Interesting aside. I just learned recently that skin itchiness does not go through the same nerves as for skin pain (cuts, grazes, burns, etc). It has its own set of nerve paths which are entirely separate. That means that treating itchiness cannot be accomplished with pain relief medication. This was a surprise as I had always thought that itchiness was a form of pain. Not so.

What is it which gives all life forms, from the simplest to the most complex, a desire to survive?

Those which didn't have that "desire" went extinct. By definition only the life with a built-in drive to survive is successful and endures in the long run. This should be obvious.

Why do single-cell organisms mutate and develop defense mechanisms, such as cell walls, to survive?

To survive better. Any beneficial mutation spreads in a population because it aids survival. That is why evolution is defined as change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. The natural selection part is where a mutation spreads or does not spread in a population.

I am happy to answer your questions but I have to ask. Where are you going with this? You have strayed a long, long way from your original assertions in the OP about knowledge and how it is attained. Do you have some purpose or are you just planning to keep asking random unrelated questions?
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2016 4:49:28 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
DNA is an encoding of our evolutionary history, from the beginning as single-cell organisms to our current state. In the course of our evolutionary history, when and why did we decide pleasure was good and pain was bad?

It wasn't consciously decided by the organism. It is a survival trait.

Whether it was consciously decided by the organism or not is immaterial.

Those organisms which reacted to stimuli in a certain way (heat, cold, puncture, contusion, etc.) by tending to avoid repeating the circumstances which led to that experience had a greater chance of survival and the genes responsible for that reaction were selected for. We label the feelings generated in our brains as various kinds of pain and discomfort. It's a similar story for pleasure.

Why did those organisms tend to avoid repeating the same circumstances?

Telling me something reacted in a certain way is not telling me the reason for its reaction. Telling me it did so to avoid pain or death is not telling me the reason for it choosing pleasure over pain or life over death.

What is it which gives all life forms, from the simplest to the most complex, a desire to survive?

Those which didn't have that "desire" went extinct. By definition only the life with a built-in drive to survive is successful and endures in the long run. This should be obvious.

This is not telling me the reason it had the desire or built in drive; it's only telling me it did.
dee-em
Posts: 6,447
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 12:29:08 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/29/2016 4:49:28 PM, s-anthony wrote:
DNA is an encoding of our evolutionary history, from the beginning as single-cell organisms to our current state. In the course of our evolutionary history, when and why did we decide pleasure was good and pain was bad?

It wasn't consciously decided by the organism. It is a survival trait.

Whether it was consciously decided by the organism or not is immaterial.

Those organisms which reacted to stimuli in a certain way (heat, cold, puncture, contusion, etc.) by tending to avoid repeating the circumstances which led to that experience had a greater chance of survival and the genes responsible for that reaction were selected for. We label the feelings generated in our brains as various kinds of pain and discomfort. It's a similar story for pleasure.

Why did those organisms tend to avoid repeating the same circumstances?

Telling me something reacted in a certain way is not telling me the reason for its reaction. Telling me it did so to avoid pain or death is not telling me the reason for it choosing pleasure over pain or life over death.

What is it which gives all life forms, from the simplest to the most complex, a desire to survive?

Those which didn't have that "desire" went extinct. By definition only the life with a built-in drive to survive is successful and endures in the long run. This should be obvious.

This is not telling me the reason it had the desire or built in drive; it's only telling me it did.

Since you are selectively trimming my posts and you failed to answer my question on where you are going with this, I think I'll end the discussion here. It's not my job to give you a basic tutorial on the evolutionary origins of pain and pleasure when you could just google it for yourself. Ditto with the drive to survival (which is obvious anyway). As I said, all this is completely off-topic to the OP which I inititially responded to. If you want to ask questions about evolution, do it in the science forum where it belongs. Here you raised the subject of remembering things before birth and then immediately abandoned it. Enough said.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 2:23:53 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Since you are selectively trimming my posts and you failed to answer my question on where you are going with this, I think I'll end the discussion here. It's not my job to give you a basic tutorial on the evolutionary origins of pain and pleasure when you could just google it for yourself. Ditto with the drive to survival (which is obvious anyway).

I've never asked you for a tutorial on the basic evolutionary origins of pain and pleasure. All I've asked you for is the reasons we make evaluations, which you have never once even attempted to answer. Telling me something does something is obvious; like you said I don't need you to tell me those things; I can do research for myself; but, giving me the reasons for it doing that which it does is entirely different.

As I said, all this is completely off-topic to the OP which I inititially responded to. If you want to ask questions about evolution, do it in the science forum where it belongs.

Again, if you think I'm asking you about science, either you are completely clueless or you're avoiding the issue.

Here you raised the subject of remembering things before birth and then immediately abandoned it. Enough said.

I haven't abandoned anything. I was going to the very heart of the matter. All you can see are things, and all you can tell me is these things do this and that; but, the one question either you have no answer for or you're refusing to answer is: why?

If you can't or will not transcend the mechanism, you cannot tell me the way in which the mechanism exists. In other words, telling me the mechanism of cognition exists is obvious; telling me the ways in which it operates is obvious, also; but, that in no way tells me the reasons for its existence. Saying this does that and that does this is not telling me the reasons they do that which they do, in the first place. You're trying to explain the ways in which the machine came into existence by explaining the workings of the machine. Unless you transcend the machine, get out of the box, you can't even begin to explain the reasons for its existence.
dee-em
Posts: 6,447
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 7:30:08 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 2:23:53 AM, s-anthony wrote:

Since you are selectively trimming my posts and you failed to answer my question on where you are going with this, I think I'll end the discussion here. It's not my job to give you a basic tutorial on the evolutionary origins of pain and pleasure when you could just google it for yourself. Ditto with the drive to survival (which is obvious anyway).

I've never asked you for a tutorial on the basic evolutionary origins of pain and pleasure. All I've asked you for is the reasons we make evaluations, which you have never once even attempted to answer. Telling me something does something is obvious; like you said I don't need you to tell me those things; I can do research for myself; but, giving me the reasons for it doing that which it does is entirely different.

Evolution has no reasons. Feeling pain is just an evolutionary pathway which resulted in a greater ability to survive and was therefore selected for genetically. There is no "evaluation" of pleasure and pain. I don't know where you get that from. I have not given you reasons for why we make evaluations because the question is meaningless.

As I said, all this is completely off-topic to the OP which I inititially responded to. If you want to ask questions about evolution, do it in the science forum where it belongs.

Again, if you think I'm asking you about science, either you are completely clueless or you're avoiding the issue.

If you think questions about the origin of pain and pleasure are not about science then it is you who is clueless.

http://www.socrethics.com...

Here you raised the subject of remembering things before birth and then immediately abandoned it. Enough said.

I haven't abandoned anything. I was going to the very heart of the matter. All you can see are things, and all you can tell me is these things do this and that; but, the one question either you have no answer for or you're refusing to answer is: why?

There is no why. Why do you assume agency for everything?

If you can't or will not transcend the mechanism, you cannot tell me the way in which the mechanism exists. In other words, telling me the mechanism of cognition exists is obvious; telling me the ways in which it operates is obvious, also; but, that in no way tells me the reasons for its existence. Saying this does that and that does this is not telling me the reasons they do that which they do, in the first place. You're trying to explain the ways in which the machine came into existence by explaining the workings of the machine. Unless you transcend the machine, get out of the box, you can't even begin to explain the reasons for its existence.

This is your problem. For you there have to be reasons for everything. You can't seem to accept that no reasons are needed. I can't help you if your mindset is such that there always has to be intent behind everything found in nature. Evolution is a natural process producing automatically life which is superbly adapted to its environment. There is no purpose behind it and no controlling hand. To think otherwise is to ignore what nature reveals to us.
bulproof
Posts: 25,197
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 7:39:57 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/28/2016 3:01:57 AM, s-anthony wrote:
We don't just know things, we learn about them. Obviously.
Did you know English when you were born?

Of course, I didn't know English at the time I was born.

However, why does the mind interpret each stimulus differently than each other?

Of course, you may say, "Because, each evokes a different chemical reaction."

Yet, this avoids the question. Why does the mind interpret each chemical reaction differently? Or better yet, why does the mind interpret, at all?
Now continue this thought bubble 300yrs ago.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 1:14:41 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Evolution has no reasons. Feeling pain is just an evolutionary pathway which resulted in a greater ability to survive and was therefore selected for genetically. There is no "evaluation" of pleasure and pain. I don't know where you get that from. I have not given you reasons for why we make evaluations because the question is meaningless.

Saying, "...therefore selected...," in one breath and, then, "There is no evaluation...," in the next makes a contradiction. Why would it or anything else for that matter be therefore selected if there is no evaluation? You might say something was accidentally or unintentionally selected and its selection was completely random being free from evaluation, but to say it was "therefore selected" shows intent.

If you think questions about the origin of pain and pleasure are not about science then it is you who is clueless.

No. I don't think questions about anything are confined to any one theory. To do so is to live in a box.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 1:22:38 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 7:39:57 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/28/2016 3:01:57 AM, s-anthony wrote:
We don't just know things, we learn about them. Obviously.
Did you know English when you were born?

Of course, I didn't know English at the time I was born.

However, why does the mind interpret each stimulus differently than each other?

Of course, you may say, "Because, each evokes a different chemical reaction."

Yet, this avoids the question. Why does the mind interpret each chemical reaction differently? Or better yet, why does the mind interpret, at all?
Now continue this thought bubble 300yrs ago.

Saying something does something or telling me the ways in which it does it is not explaining the reasons for it doing it.
dee-em
Posts: 6,447
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 2:53:13 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 1:14:41 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Evolution has no reasons. Feeling pain is just an evolutionary pathway which resulted in a greater ability to survive and was therefore selected for genetically. There is no "evaluation" of pleasure and pain. I don't know where you get that from. I have not given you reasons for why we make evaluations because the question is meaningless.

Saying, "...therefore selected...," in one breath and, then, "There is no evaluation...," in the next makes a contradiction.

I fail to see it.

Why would it or anything else for that matter be therefore selected if there is no evaluation?

Because the selection is done just by virtue of what survives (better) and what doesn't. There is no evaluation done because there is nobody there to do the evaluating. It's a natural process which plays no favourites and doesn't look for optimal solutions.

You might say something was accidentally or unintentionally selected and its selection was completely random being free from evaluation, but to say it was "therefore selected" shows intent.

Nonsense. There is no intent although selection is certainly not random. The mutations themselves are random but natural selection ensures that only those mutations which confer some advantage to the organism spread through a population. The point is that nature works with whatever random mutations are thrown up. How can there be intent and who does the intending in such a scenario? Evolution is a completely blind mechanism. It produces organisms adapted to their environment but it "cares" nothing about how it is achieved or who the winners and losers may be.

If you think questions about the origin of pain and pleasure are not about science then it is you who is clueless.

No. I don't think questions about anything are confined to any one theory. To do so is to live in a box.

Accepting reality as it is rather than how we would wish it to be is not living in a box. I would rather be rational and accept what the evidence shows us than fantasize about things that there is not a shred of evidence for. It's called growing up and leaving childish daydreams behind.