| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"Siim =?ISO-8859-1?Q?P=F5der?=" |
| Date: |
25 Feb 2007 09:02:29 AM |
| Object: |
The substance of being. |
Yo!
For a while, I've been thinking - what's the "substance" of being alive
(this is only an introductory question)? I mean, my physical body should
be perfectly fine doing it's every day business without *me* observing
it.
You know, all the limbs only need some electric impulses to move, every
bit of information the body ever needs is in it's brain (the memory),
the thought proccess is just a neural network calculating some extremely
complex stimuli drawing in data from the memory and from the senses. Why
am *I* in the picture?
You know, all the other bodies are just fine without me (although it is
reasonable to believe that they also contain an observer just like me).
My body should also be able to just work the physics and go through it's
existance without causing a bizarre occurunce of what I don't want to
call a soul (because that word is loaded with too much religious
meaning) or consciousness (because that could be a purely physical trick
that the brain plays on itself causing it to THINK it's conscious.
However - for myself - i KNOW that I am conscious, because there is
something observing the world and even if it's tricked, it is still
observing being tricked, because I am - you know?)
So, to summarise: There is body, that should be able to live it's life
without anyone ever noticing - much like I would imagine a breeze of
wind never is observed "from the inside" by anything that would consider
itself to be that breeze. But for some reason, all the people (and
possibly animals, maybe even cultures or organizations) have a property
attached to them, that considers itself to be that person (or beast, or
YMCA) and IMO implies that there must be something other than physical
OR some different aspect or physicality in existance.
So, my question to those who understand my problem and are willing to
help me solve it:
What is that *me*? Where and in what way does it exist?
Siim P=F5der
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
| User: "Miller" |
|
| Title: Re: The substance of being. |
25 Feb 2007 03:37:55 PM |
|
|
"Siim Põder" <siim@p6drad-teel.net> wrote in message
news:1172415749.16198.18.camel@localhost.localdomain...
Yo!
For a while, I've been thinking - what's the "substance" of being alive
(this is only an introductory question)? I mean, my physical body should
be perfectly fine doing it's every day business without *me* observing
it.
You know, all the limbs only need some electric impulses to move, every
bit of information the body ever needs is in it's brain (the memory),
the thought proccess is just a neural network calculating some extremely
complex stimuli drawing in data from the memory and from the senses. Why
am *I* in the picture?
You know, all the other bodies are just fine without me (although it is
reasonable to believe that they also contain an observer just like me).
My body should also be able to just work the physics and go through it's
existance without causing a bizarre occurunce of what I don't want to
call a soul (because that word is loaded with too much religious
meaning) or consciousness (because that could be a purely physical trick
that the brain plays on itself causing it to THINK it's conscious.
However - for myself - i KNOW that I am conscious, because there is
something observing the world and even if it's tricked, it is still
observing being tricked, because I am - you know?)
So, to summarise: There is body, that should be able to live it's life
without anyone ever noticing - much like I would imagine a breeze of
wind never is observed "from the inside" by anything that would consider
itself to be that breeze. But for some reason, all the people (and
possibly animals, maybe even cultures or organizations) have a property
attached to them, that considers itself to be that person (or beast, or
YMCA) and IMO implies that there must be something other than physical
OR some different aspect or physicality in existance.
So, my question to those who understand my problem and are willing to
help me solve it:
What is that *me*? Where and in what way does it exist?
Siim Põder
"Me" is self-evident. It is the "I am" in the Cartesian cogito. The proof
of consciousness is that we are self-conscious. The fact of existence is
that we perceive that existence is a fact.
Having said that, I seems as though we may be starting out with a mistaken
premise: that my self has a separate existence besides the physical reality
of my body. That somehow my body is not me, but that I inhabit it, as is my
self is some sort of software program that inhabits (and manipulates) a
robot-body. This begs the question of what may otherwise be called the
soul. The soul being a comforting thought, of course, if we assume it
exists, then we can imagine it still existing after our "robot" breaks down
and dies.
On the other hand, the idea of such a self a priori leads to all sorts of
paradoxical and confusing questions, such as: "Why am *I* in the picture?"
Scott
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "CubanGator" |
|
| Title: Re: The substance of being. |
25 Feb 2007 12:04:19 PM |
|
|
On Feb 25, 10:02 am, Siim P=F5der <s...@p6drad-teel.net> wrote:
Yo!
For a while, I've been thinking - what's the "substance" of being alive
(this is only an introductory question)? I mean, my physical body should
be perfectly fine doing it's every day business without *me* observing
it.
You know, all the limbs only need some electric impulses to move, every
bit of information the body ever needs is in it's brain (the memory),
the thought proccess is just a neural network calculating some extremely
complex stimuli drawing in data from the memory and from the senses. Why
am *I* in the picture?
You know, all the other bodies are just fine without me (although it is
reasonable to believe that they also contain an observer just like me).
My body should also be able to just work the physics and go through it's
existance without causing a bizarre occurunce of what I don't want to
call a soul (because that word is loaded with too much religious
meaning) or consciousness (because that could be a purely physical trick
that the brain plays on itself causing it to THINK it's conscious.
However - for myself - i KNOW that I am conscious, because there is
something observing the world and even if it's tricked, it is still
observing being tricked, because I am - you know?)
So, to summarise: There is body, that should be able to live it's life
without anyone ever noticing - much like I would imagine a breeze of
wind never is observed "from the inside" by anything that would consider
itself to be that breeze. But for some reason, all the people (and
possibly animals, maybe even cultures or organizations) have a property
attached to them, that considers itself to be that person (or beast, or
YMCA) and IMO implies that there must be something other than physical
OR some different aspect or physicality in existance.
So, my question to those who understand my problem and are willing to
help me solve it:
What is that *me*? Where and in what way does it exist?
Siim P=F5der
--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
"The book of secrets" by Deepak Chopra touches on this topic somewhat.
Check it out if you have a chance.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Malrassic Park" |
|
| Title: Re: The substance of being. |
25 Feb 2007 02:13:32 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 17:02:29 +0200, Siim Põder <siim@p6drad-teel.net>
wrote:
Yo!
Interesting article on the problem of consciousness found at
http://consc.net/papers/facing.html
"The really hard problem of consciousness is the problem of
experience. When we think and perceive, there is a whir of
information-processing, but there is also a subjective aspect."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Frederick" |
|
| Title: Re: The substance of being. |
25 Feb 2007 12:20:53 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 17:02:29 +0200, Siim Põder <siim@p6drad-teel.net> wrote:
Yo!
So, my question to those who understand my problem and are willing to
help me solve it:
What is that *me*? Where and in what way does it exist?
There are many considerations about your "me", none definitive as to resolution,
all definitive as to mystery.
1. The reductionistic or eliminativist paradigm wherein your "me"
is a total confabulated fiction. Read some neurophilosophy by the
Churchlands for this. This is partially correct as the physical (brain)
structures seem to need to be there that can at least "go through
the motions" of the mystery.
2. The holistic paradigm wherein your "me" is a kind of inside job
qualia. A present idea is that qualia are the result of some kind of
undefined "organizing principle". Read some Laughlin (A Different
Universe) and some Kaufman (the Edge, on the web) for some ideas
on this.
3. My observation that "more" may be coming to us as manifests
from higher dimensions than just the manifests of space/time
and matter/energy.
4. The classical religions and philosophies. (Pragmatic practiced stories)
5. Folk philosophies. I doubt all understandings before neuroscience
(about 1990).
6. ...
Basically we don't know and are always susceptible to hubris.
You may join the pursuit.
Interesting subject.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AlanS" |
|
| Title: Re: The substance of being. |
26 Feb 2007 02:10:28 AM |
|
|
Siim Põder <siim@p6drad-teel.net> wrote:
So, to summarise: There is body, that should be
Really? "Should be" you say? Please show your work instead of
expecting us to believe it "should be" so.
able to live it's life
without anyone ever noticing - much like I would imagine a breeze of
wind never is observed "from the inside" by anything that would consider
itself to be that breeze.
I can imagine myself flying. That doesn't mean I do or can. What you
would imagine is irrelevant.
What is that *me*? Where and in what way does it exist?
Take out everything that's not you from all there is. What's left is
you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Frederick" |
|
| Title: Re: The substance of being. |
26 Feb 2007 03:19:24 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 08:10:28 GMT, AlanS <none@nowhere.com> wrote:
Siim Põder <siim@p6drad-teel.net> wrote:
So, to summarise: There is body, that should be
Really? "Should be" you say? Please show your work instead of
expecting us to believe it "should be" so.
able to live it's life
without anyone ever noticing - much like I would imagine a breeze of
wind never is observed "from the inside" by anything that would consider
itself to be that breeze.
I can imagine myself flying. That doesn't mean I do or can. What you
would imagine is irrelevant.
What is that *me*? Where and in what way does it exist?
Take out everything that's not you from all there is. What's left is
you.
The situation is not that "black and white". Many aspects of the
situation serve varied functions at the same time. This applies
to symbolic aspects as well. The stories we practice often have
multiple themes, even "you", "me", "I", and "self" stories.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
