StarMountainKid Posted December 11, 2016 #26 Share Posted December 11, 2016 What makes you you and me me? We can consider probabilities of matter configurations. I think an answer can be the brain is intrinsic and inclusive unto itself from its earliest development. What I mean is, my sense of "me" is a biological.phenomenon of every brain. This feeling of "me" is the brain being aware of itself. This self-awareness is just that, self-awareness of the brain, and this self-awareness of the brain creates mind and consciousness. This may sound obvious or trivial on one level, but if my self-awareness is just the inclusiveness or self-referentialness of mind, then I think this explains our feeling of "me" as opposed to "other". It is a sort of defense mechanism and survival mechanism of the mind. This would preclude ideas of Cosmic Mind, etc.The feeling of "me" is just a phenomenon of the brain, it's that simple. There's no real mystery about it. I'm me because my brain tells me I'm me. But, I do consider probabilities of matter configurations as a possibility that other "me's" may exist. It depends on how many configurations are possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted December 11, 2016 #27 Share Posted December 11, 2016 Reminds me of the issues raised by the concept of a transporter as in Star Trek. Here you are dissolved and the pattern of your molecules reproduced somewhere else. This new person has the old one's memories and thinks it is the old person, but is it really? Jehovah's Witnesses teach that when you die God keeps a memory of you and at some future time, if you are worthy, you will be resurrected into a new, healthy, young body on a paradise earth, but with your personality and memories. This is interesting since I can't see how that would work without you having a soul, something they deny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarMountainKid Posted December 11, 2016 #28 Share Posted December 11, 2016 1 minute ago, Frank Merton said: Reminds me of the issues raised by the concept of a transporter as in Star Trek. Here you are dissolved and the pattern of your molecules reproduced somewhere else. This new person has the old one's memories and thinks it is the old person, but is it really? Jehovah's Witnesses teach that when you die God keeps a memory of you and at some future time, if you are worthy, you will be resurrected into a new, healthy, young body on a paradise earth, but with your personality and memories. This is interesting since I can't see how that would work without you having a soul, something they deny. This brings up the question of soul. Is soul the part of god that is in within us, the Atman? Not biological, but some magic spiritual stuff? I wonder what the probabilities of this existing is? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted December 11, 2016 #29 Share Posted December 11, 2016 (edited) 54 minutes ago, StarMountainKid said: This brings up the question of soul. Is soul the part of god that is in within us, the Atman? Not biological, but some magic spiritual stuff? I wonder what the probabilities of this existing is? The soul is a useful way to think about self, which is why I think the idea is so useful. It also leads to a lot of mischief, such as the idea that an aborted fetus had a soul since the theory is that God gives each conception a soul. I wonder if those who believe this have any idea of the number of natural abortions that occur before implantation. Buddhism teaches that we are not a self, and certainly don't "have" a self or soul. Instead, what we identify as self is really just a self-perpetuating process -- like a wave or a flame -- that continues to give itself rebirth from moment to moment out of its internal processes. I find this convincing, as most people can who take a moment to sit quietly and "watch" the process of mind as it goes from thought to thought, bringing in memories or having idea rise up from the subconscious or noting an incoming sensation and so on -- each connected only to a certain degree to what the mind was at before. This is process, not "thing. (This always raises the question of, "Who is doing the watching?", for which there is a simple answer -- the same process -- just looking at short-term memory at its own state a moment ago). One final point here: it is not necessary to take a materialist ("physicalist") approach when one accepts this view. The process could be completely natural or it could have karmic (or whatever one calls it) aspects. Edited December 11, 2016 by Frank Merton 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarMountainKid Posted December 11, 2016 #30 Share Posted December 11, 2016 5 minutes ago, Frank Merton said: he Buddha teaches that we are not a self, and certainly don't "have" a self or soul. Instead, what we identify as self is really just a self-perpetuating process -- like a wave or a flame -- that continues to give itself rebirth from moment to moment out of its internal processes. I find this convincing, as most people can who take a moment to sit quietly and "watch" the process of mind as it goes from thought to thought, bringing in memories or having idea rise up from the subconscious or noting an incoming sensation and so on -- each connected only to a certain degree to what the mind was at before. This is process, not "thing. (This always raises the question of, "Who is doing the watching?", for which there is a simple answer -- the same process -- just looking at short-term memory at its own state a moment ago). This is what I was trying to convey in my post #26. I would interpret your statement as, the feeling of "me" is a self-perpetuating internal process of the brain. This relieves us of considering consciousness or the self as some mysterious entity. I would interpret "Who is doing the watching" as "There is no one watching". "Watching" is, as you say, the same inclusive process operating. The Buddha said something like, when you examine further and further into mind you will eventually find nothing there.. Nothing to grasp as your "self", some fundamental entity that is "you". What a relief! There is only the process of mind which includes pure selfless consciousness. This is my understanding, anyway. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8th_wall Posted December 13, 2016 Author #31 Share Posted December 13, 2016 On 11/12/2016 at 4:40 PM, StarMountainKid said: This is what I was trying to convey in my post #26. I would interpret your statement as, the feeling of "me" is a self-perpetuating internal process of the brain. This relieves us of considering consciousness or the self as some mysterious entity. I would interpret "Who is doing the watching" as "There is no one watching". "Watching" is, as you say, the same inclusive process operating. The Buddha said something like, when you examine further and further into mind you will eventually find nothing there.. Nothing to grasp as your "self", some fundamental entity that is "you". What a relief! There is only the process of mind which includes pure selfless consciousness. This is my understanding, anyway. This view raises some interesting things for me. The self has no starting and finishing points? It's just a never ending projection that ceases upon consciousness ceasing? I get confused when trying to define self. Is it memory built onto itself over time? You find nothing when you look because it is you that looks. You are the looking. I don't understand, you become what you're doing? You are your action? There is nothing to ponder at after all? But it seems so tantalising that there is something to ponder at. This self business. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarMountainKid Posted December 13, 2016 #32 Share Posted December 13, 2016 9 hours ago, PsiSeeker said: This view raises some interesting things for me. The self has no starting and finishing points? It's just a never ending projection that ceases upon consciousness ceasing? I get confused when trying to define self. Is it memory built onto itself over time? You find nothing when you look because it is you that looks. You are the looking. I don't understand, you become what you're doing? You are your action? There is nothing to ponder at after all? But it seems so tantalising that there is something to ponder at. This self business. I don't have the answer to all this! I think in one sense there is a self, because it's something we can talk about. I feel like my self, I recognize my self when I wake up in the morning, this self is mine. So there's I and me. I can think about me, I can watch myself behaving, I can make decisions about what I am going to do, I have my memories, etc. It's a duality, I suppose. This self-contemplation I think is necessary for the operation of the mind. It's not a bad thing and sometimes necessary and useful, but there are other ways to consider mind. In Zen, my understanding is to become spontaneous, not to deliberate too much, to act from the core of our being or from our true nature. This doesn't mean just acting helter-skelter, mindlessly or superficially on every whim. I think the mind has a core intelligence that knows what it's doing, which is separate from one's conditioning. Perhaps the objective of Zen is to discover this innate and healthy intelligence of mind and to allow it to express itself. Most of our behavior is spontaneous without the thinking mind being involved. Deliberating has its importance as does thought, but in my view we can just sort of let go of ourself and see what happens. It's interesting that we stop our thinking and maintain a silent mind and go through an entire day performing all the various tasks required of us perfectly well and successfully. Try it sometime, if just for a few minutes or an hour. We can trust our mind to do the correct and right thing without the burden of having to think all the time. Constant and repetitive thought is a wasting of mental energy, and it's not continuously needed. When the mind is quiet, which is its natural state. It's a relief for us, as our attention is no longer limited and concentrated on thought. Our awareness opens up to our environment and ourselves within it. It's a fresh awakening, a release of energy. We remain calm and sharp-minded. Just observe what is going on around us and interact only when necessary. I think we're afraid to do this, we feel we must be in control all the time, that if we're not using thought as our guide we are out of control. But as I say, I believe the mind has its own intelligence, and when we are in contact with this inner intelligence we behave correctly. Being in control of a situation is not interfering with the situation, being in control is allowing the situation to unfold by itself naturally and to interject appropriately. This is not submission to circumstance, When correctly understood, it is being in true control of ourselves and in control of circumstances we find ourselves in. Someone asked a Buddhist monk what is the meaning of Buddhism, he replied, "An appropriate response". In Zen maybe we should try to discover what is an appropriate response to life. I'll finish this diatribe lol with a well-known Zen story of a monk and his student standing on the edge of a crowd in a marketplace. They observed a big man wanting to get to the other side of the crowd. He bullied his way through, pushing people out of his way using brute force, knocking people over and causing a great commotion around him. He finally got through to the other side of the crowd. The monk said to his student, "This man has great strength, but no power." Then they saw a very old man wanting to get to the other side of the crowd. He entered the crowd, sidling this way and that, making his progress in harmony with the situation with astute and careful movements, not bothering anyone or causing any disorder. He also finally got through to the other side of the crowd. The monk said to his student, "Now this man has no strength, but great power." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willstone Posted December 18, 2016 #33 Share Posted December 18, 2016 On 12/10/2016 at 9:41 PM, PsiSeeker said: Would it still be God then? Any being that has will capable of cosmic changes causes any theorising to go haywire. But we are viewing it from the point of the lesser being. To an ant, any human is a god, and can change the entirety of their world in an instant, and we view the same of God, having the ability to wipe out our planet with one hit. But we has no control over the universe, even though to an ant we are the harbingers of death, and can change the world with the simplest of actions. Perspective is key in thinking in this way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarMountainKid Posted December 18, 2016 #34 Share Posted December 18, 2016 I haven't seen God in action lately. Benign neglect, evidently. Well, I'm not sure about the benign part. Somewhere I read that the natural universe has all the elements to produce life spontaneously. So, given the right circumstances, the probability of life occurring in the universe is 1 or 100%. The probability of my life occurring is 100% in this universe at this location and at this time. An event in space-time. Whether this is a random probability or a certainty I don't know. If the probability of my birth as me is 100% then it's a certainty in a way. One could say my birth was ordained at the Big Bang. That's one perspective. Another perspective would be my birth as me is just a random, unpredictable event. I don't know the probabilities of this happening. If the Big Bang could be rewound and set in motion again, I may not have been born as me. Everything may have happened differently on Earth, or maybe our solar system would not have happened. Maybe it's a roll of the dice that I and we here at UM exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8th_wall Posted January 5, 2017 Author #35 Share Posted January 5, 2017 On 19/12/2016 at 4:07 AM, Willstone said: But we are viewing it from the point of the lesser being. To an ant, any human is a god, and can change the entirety of their world in an instant, and we view the same of God, having the ability to wipe out our planet with one hit. But we has no control over the universe, even though to an ant we are the harbingers of death, and can change the world with the simplest of actions. Perspective is key in thinking in this way. I wonder if an ant can really comprehend the "god-like" ness of human relatively speaking. I wonder if we aren't perhaps living amongst the Gods/God as we speak but we simply don't have the capacity to comprehend it. Problems like this are endless when bringing God into the fray because just anything goes. You can do anything you want with any line of thought experimenting once you include a God. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8th_wall Posted January 6, 2017 Author #36 Share Posted January 6, 2017 On 19/12/2016 at 5:19 AM, StarMountainKid said: I haven't seen God in action lately. Benign neglect, evidently. Well, I'm not sure about the benign part. Somewhere I read that the natural universe has all the elements to produce life spontaneously. So, given the right circumstances, the probability of life occurring in the universe is 1 or 100%. The probability of my life occurring is 100% in this universe at this location and at this time. An event in space-time. Whether this is a random probability or a certainty I don't know. If the probability of my birth as me is 100% then it's a certainty in a way. One could say my birth was ordained at the Big Bang. That's one perspective. Another perspective would be my birth as me is just a random, unpredictable event. I don't know the probabilities of this happening. If the Big Bang could be rewound and set in motion again, I may not have been born as me. Everything may have happened differently on Earth, or maybe our solar system would not have happened. Maybe it's a roll of the dice that I and we here at UM exist. Speaking of probability and things being 100% I think that with unknowns such as the position and velocity of particles in Heisenberg's uncertainty principle things take up a chaotic like existence despite the frame of reference you're looking at it from. Even if you restarted the universe I don't think there is necessarily any 100% chances unless you take some sort of beyond infinite perspective of time into consideration. What I mean is that with death you sort of need to "transcend" to a degree even probability itself because nothing is really guaranteed. To my mind infinite time exists with death but only as a subjective experience. I don't know how these things play out in the objective world. I don't think that one universe restarting is enough to guarantee the existence of me or you again. This sort of thinking seems to be heading into the realm of reincarnation stuff. I don't know, I think that what "you" are is sort of like a spectrum that's already naturally embedded into existence itself as it is. Sometimes I think that you don't really "die" in the way you think you do. That you are, in absolute terms, just as dead now as you will be. This all seems to repeatedly boil down to what precisely "you" is. If everything is one then well, you always exist in one form or another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Susanc241 Posted January 6, 2017 #37 Share Posted January 6, 2017 As the majority of people do not have 'past life' memories, and regard the current life they are living as their only one, what is the point of speculation about continuance after death? The lack of knowing about past lives seems to indicate to me that 'you' is never the same 'you' in the pre birth/post death experience - if you believe in life after death, that is. I am inclined towards the annihilation theory. Which, on thinking about it, is what it amounts to if my theory of 'you' never being the same 'you' is correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8th_wall Posted January 7, 2017 Author #38 Share Posted January 7, 2017 15 hours ago, Susanc241 said: As the majority of people do not have 'past life' memories, and regard the current life they are living as their only one, what is the point of speculation about continuance after death? The lack of knowing about past lives seems to indicate to me that 'you' is never the same 'you' in the pre birth/post death experience - if you believe in life after death, that is. I am inclined towards the annihilation theory. Which, on thinking about it, is what it amounts to if my theory of 'you' never being the same 'you' is correct. I see what you're saying and what this actually raises is the distinction between the ideas of subjective experience and objective experience when considering the self. There might be no real point when speaking in subjective terms however objective consideration is certainly interesting. When considering this sort of thing one must be very clear by what is meant when referencing "you" and I think that's one of the important considerations that naturally arises. I don't think setting memory as the benchmark for "you" is a good idea since, to my mind at least, things related to consciousness should be considered in minimal terms. How much can one remove from what characterises self and still remain the same person? The self changes with time yet still fundamentally remains the same thing. Once again, one must be very careful with what precisely is meant by "you". What precisely is annihilated? One must consider this question both objectively and subjectively. I don't fully follow by "you" not being the same "you". There might exist two different states with completely different memories, personalities, etc. yet still be the same "you". Just look at people with memory issues or brain injuries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Susanc241 Posted January 7, 2017 #39 Share Posted January 7, 2017 Perhaps I should have used the word oblivion rather than annihilation for the state I expect on my death. I was oblivious to any existence before my birth and expect to be the same afterwards. That is, not aware of my existence in any shape or form. As to 'you being the same you' or not, as case may be. If an individual has no memory of any other existence then I don't see how it can be considered the same consciousness from the experiencers point of view. Clear as mud? Probably, just hard to put into words what I mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XenoFish Posted January 7, 2017 #40 Share Posted January 7, 2017 Considering our bodies are constantly renewing ourselves, are you really the same person you were a year ago? Strip you of your memories, who are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarMountainKid Posted January 7, 2017 #41 Share Posted January 7, 2017 I think if you lost all your memories, you would still consider yourself 'you', and be able to function as a human being. So I think whatever the brain constructs as the internal experience of 'you' is separate from memory. I would also suggest considering thought as an important element of this subject. In my view, thought is also not essential to the internal experience of 'you'. There is an internal intellect that exists pre-memory and pre-linguistic thought. This fundamental intelligence is the basis of the feeling of 'you' and of consciousness. This is original or primary mind from which all other mental aspects originate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8th_wall Posted January 26, 2017 Author #42 Share Posted January 26, 2017 On 1/7/2017 at 7:08 PM, Susanc241 said: Perhaps I should have used the word oblivion rather than annihilation for the state I expect on my death. I was oblivious to any existence before my birth and expect to be the same afterwards. That is, not aware of my existence in any shape or form. As to 'you being the same you' or not, as case may be. If an individual has no memory of any other existence then I don't see how it can be considered the same consciousness from the experiencers point of view. Clear as mud? Probably, just hard to put into words what I mean. Memory doesn't define self though. A person who suffers amnesia is still the same person despite their memory loss. From their frame of reference they are a "new" person but in reality they're not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8th_wall Posted January 26, 2017 Author #43 Share Posted January 26, 2017 On 1/7/2017 at 8:07 PM, XenoFish said: Considering our bodies are constantly renewing ourselves, are you really the same person you were a year ago? Strip you of your memories, who are you? This is where I get stuck too. As far as I can see we're substrate independent. We're like a wave that exists in water. But the weird thing is that two waves can form. Is everyone just extensions of everyone else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8th_wall Posted January 26, 2017 Author #44 Share Posted January 26, 2017 On 1/8/2017 at 4:57 AM, StarMountainKid said: I think if you lost all your memories, you would still consider yourself 'you', and be able to function as a human being. So I think whatever the brain constructs as the internal experience of 'you' is separate from memory. I would also suggest considering thought as an important element of this subject. In my view, thought is also not essential to the internal experience of 'you'. There is an internal intellect that exists pre-memory and pre-linguistic thought. This fundamental intelligence is the basis of the feeling of 'you' and of consciousness. This is original or primary mind from which all other mental aspects originate. It would seem like it gets "added" to though. What precisely then is memory and linguistic thought in terms of self of not self? That is to say, there exists the primary mind but we still consciously experience "extra". What is this "extra" if it is not self yet experienced as self? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quiXilver Posted January 26, 2017 #45 Share Posted January 26, 2017 My Mother lost her memories. Deep, intense Dementia took her memories of everything but my Sister. She was still our Mother to us. But for me, she looked at me as someone she may recognize but didn't like... (I look much like my Father and they split decades before on very bad terms). In the end, she was a shell, empty and devoid of any connection... an island of bodily experience and an utter lack of coherent mind. Some of her tendencies still presented themselves, gestures and manners of sitting but empty and gone was my Mother, in any functional, relatable way. She was an empty shell, devoid of memories linking her to anything or anyone around her, except my Sister. Dear Universe, I am so thankful she had that... She had a very tough life and a hard, hard, abusive childhood. In many ways, I find she experienced a relative bliss, having lost the memories of pain that plagued her thorugh her entire adult life. Most of our problems are in our projections of worry about the future and in regret and pain over the memories of the past. These things... none of them are real. They exist only in the mind and when the mind is gone, or rests in clarity. These things melt more readily than fog in sunshine. Peace to the sleeping ones. and Compassion for those awakening... it is no easy thing to wake up. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarMountainKid Posted January 26, 2017 #46 Share Posted January 26, 2017 10 hours ago, PsiSeeker said: It would seem like it gets "added" to though. What precisely then is memory and linguistic thought in terms of self of not self? That is to say, there exists the primary mind but we still consciously experience "extra". What is this "extra" if it is not self yet experienced as self? Perhaps we may consider memories and thoughts as self, but are actually illusions of self. Perhaps there is no self, that memories and thoughts are only what we suppose as self. If our mind is totally silent, who are we then? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8th_wall Posted January 31, 2017 Author #47 Share Posted January 31, 2017 On 1/27/2017 at 4:42 AM, StarMountainKid said: Perhaps we may consider memories and thoughts as self, but are actually illusions of self. Perhaps there is no self, that memories and thoughts are only what we suppose as self. If our mind is totally silent, who are we then? I wonder if this brings to light the idea that things have objectivity and subjectivity. With a completely silent mind there is still this objective thing that carries with it the potential of the self. I think this objective thing extends beyond the brain and the body though. The brain and the body are perhaps merely points that exist that exhibit the highest likelihood of the self coming about subjectively? It just happens to be the case that this particular part of the universe has the highest probability of representing me so it's sort of continuous? Maybe at the crux of it all it's just potential of a particular sort of awareness. And there are many many awarenesses possible. Maybe infinite. Maybe beyond infinite? How many possible unique life forms that carry consciousness is possible? I don't see why it is not possible to become aware again after dying. Sure there might be some different things attached to that awareness but it's still the same awareness. It's the only thing you can have. Maybe instead of wondering about the self we should wonder about what precisely awareness is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarMountainKid Posted January 31, 2017 #48 Share Posted January 31, 2017 9 hours ago, PsiSeeker said: I wonder if this brings to light the idea that things have objectivity and subjectivity. With a completely silent mind there is still this objective thing that carries with it the potential of the self. I think this objective thing extends beyond the brain and the body though. The brain and the body are perhaps merely points that exist that exhibit the highest likelihood of the self coming about subjectively? It just happens to be the case that this particular part of the universe has the highest probability of representing me so it's sort of continuous? Maybe at the crux of it all it's just potential of a particular sort of awareness. And there are many many awarenesses possible. Maybe infinite. Maybe beyond infinite? How many possible unique life forms that carry consciousness is possible? I don't see why it is not possible to become aware again after dying. Sure there might be some different things attached to that awareness but it's still the same awareness. It's the only thing you can have. Maybe instead of wondering about the self we should wonder about what precisely awareness is. The highest potential for me being. A point of the greatest probability for me to exist. That's interesting. Awareness without self. That's interesting, too. I think that is what enlightenment is, or whatever you want to call it. When the objective and subjective are one. I've read psychologists call this the oceanic feeling or oceanic state of new-born babies before they become aware of themselves as separate entities from the outside world. In this sense, the self is an illusion created by the brain. A necessary illusion, perhaps, an evolved defense mechanism. I consider conscious awareness without self the fundamental state of the mind. When we look at a tree it's about relationship. In a true relationship there is no separation, you and the tree become one. You are the tree and the tree is you. Shunryu Suzuki says, when you are sitting under a tree reading a book and there is a bird chirping in the branches overhead, the bird is reading the book and you are the bird chirping in the tree. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willstone Posted March 10, 2017 #49 Share Posted March 10, 2017 On 1/5/2017 at 6:53 PM, PsiSeeker said: I wonder if an ant can really comprehend the "god-like" ness of human relatively speaking. I wonder if we aren't perhaps living amongst the Gods/God as we speak but we simply don't have the capacity to comprehend it. Problems like this are endless when bringing God into the fray because just anything goes. You can do anything you want with any line of thought experimenting once you include a God. True Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quiXilver Posted March 10, 2017 #50 Share Posted March 10, 2017 (edited) Every drama. Every kindly King and every rotten Despot. Every war and all of the love stories that have ever transpired. Each accomplishment and failure. have all played out on a tiny speck of moist dust... circling an insignificant point of light in a sea of inky space. we are less than ants in a Sea of Stars. and yet, we can see the stars and contemplate them and my imagination alone, can stretch out and encompass them all and with them all manner of things beyond their ken. there is for me in this, simultaneously a harsh stinging placement of insignificance coupled with the most potent revitalizing and bouyant joy Edited March 10, 2017 by quiXilver to remove a double word Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now