Please note: because you're not logged in, you may be viewing older cached versions of pages which are served up to reduce server load.
Who Am I?
What's the Point of Philosophy Without This First?
|
peter rabbit
Impossibilihere Usergroup: Members Joined: Apr 22, 2009 Location: London Total Topics: 12 Total Posts: 133 |
Posted Oct 27, 2009 - 3:42 PM:
hanuma wrote: 'It' being the questioning voice? No, it which is aware of the question. hanuma wrote: I do believe it is consciousness that allows me to make these observations and not some extra dimension of thought, but only in so far as it services unconscious processes. Certainly a lot to think about there though. I'd say that the more you think about consciousness, the less you experience it. Just as the more you involve yourself with a computer, the less you have of a real life from which to draw any real creative purpose for using it. odyssey to very nearby: http://www.gentleapocalypse.com/ |
|
madmaxthundercats
Aspirant Usergroup: Members Joined: Aug 02, 2009 Total Topics: 2 Total Posts: 34 |
Posted Oct 29, 2009 - 6:39 AM:
peter rabbit wrote: peter rabbit wrote: I invite you, not to agree or disagree with that, to debate it or give me your opinion (although feel free to do that too of course!), but, further, to endeavour to experience what I am talking about. We can debate what water tastes like for a long time, but you won't know what I, someone who has drunk it, really means with all my poetic descriptions until you, someone who hasn't, actually takes a sip. (Please put aside the superior-inferior someone-who-has vs someone-who-hasn't implications of that analogy for a moment). Taking a sip, in this case, means taking a deep breath, placing your attention inside your body, widening your vision to include more than just each word, but also the computer screen and the various things behind it, taking in more and more, your thoughts and all the feelings in your body, and then, loosely and without struggle placing your attention on that which is experiencing all this. It might take some practice, but is there not the strange taste of "nothing" in this endeavour - and, best of all, is it not rather pleasant? In other words, stop thinking. This cannot be done by "having a go at it" any more than learning the piano can or becoming a great footballer. Nevertheless everyone knows the pleasure of plinking around on a piano or kicking a ball around. You experience this "nothing" whenever you are completely immersed in your senses. Staying in it requires dedication and commitment. And why is it that we only know ourselves in this state of nothingness? Why is not thinking "more" me than me playing the piano or playing football? Why is being immersed in my senses somehow better than being immersed in a good game of chess or some other activity I enjoy? I mean, if my choices here are either nothingness or the "robotic emotional mind", why choose one over the other? Why not be the robotic emotional mind if its benefits outweigh its drawbacks? And even if I wanted to go into this state of nothingness, is it even really possible? I mean I still have to continue to eat and go to school and go to work, right? Do I just live my life so that I may meet the minimum requirements for being alive and then spend the rest of my time sitting on a mat and not thinking? |
|
peter rabbit
Impossibilihere Usergroup: Members Joined: Apr 22, 2009 Location: London Total Topics: 12 Total Posts: 133 |
Posted Oct 29, 2009 - 4:11 PM:
madmaxthundercats wrote: And why is it that we only know ourselves in this state of nothingness? Why is not thinking "more" me than me playing the piano or playing football? Why is being immersed in my senses somehow better than being immersed in a good game of chess or some other activity I enjoy? I mean, if my choices here are either nothingness or the "robotic emotional mind", why choose one over the other? Why not be the robotic emotional mind if its benefits outweigh its drawbacks? Please see that I am making a distinction between using the robotic emotional mind and being it. Using it is fine. It is clear that the thinking self is a computer, a very useful one and, like the actual computer I'm now using, enjoyable if I am, first of all, in the empty awareness behind the physical sensation of the body; which is the source of joy, ease, well-being and so forth. If I am not this zero and the complete spontaneous full-sense that emerges then I am mind, lost in it, unable to stop thinking and reacting as (emotion-backed) thought. This experience, known as compulsive wanting, worry, obsession and cold contextless rationalisation is, for me, hell. If it is not for you then clearly there is no reason to explore nothingness or anything else that I am saying here. Also, please see that I did not say that thinking is more me than playing the piano or playing football. I referred to playing the piano or playing football well, in which there is no unspontanous rational thought interrupting it. The same could be said for chess and philosophical conversation. madmaxthundercats wrote: And even if I wanted to go into this state of nothingness, is it even really possible? That's a question only you can answer. You'll only think about my answer. madmaxthundercats wrote: I mean I still have to continue to eat and go to school and go to work, right? Do I just live my life so that I may meet the minimum requirements for being alive and then spend the rest of my time sitting on a mat and not thinking? No. As I say, you still use the computer of your brain - you have to. Just that you can switch it off and be in the uninterrupted mysterious glory of your timeless senses, whenever you please. odyssey to very nearby: http://www.gentleapocalypse.com/ |
|
madmaxthundercats
Aspirant Usergroup: Members Joined: Aug 02, 2009 Total Topics: 2 Total Posts: 34 |
Posted Oct 29, 2009 - 6:59 PM:
peter rabbit wrote: No. As I say, you still use the computer of your brain - you have to. Just that you can switch it off and be in the uninterrupted mysterious glory of your timeless senses, whenever you please. So why ever leave the "uninterrupted mysterious glory of your timeless senses", other than to go to work and eat and maybe shower once in a while? Why not as I said just live your life so you can meet the basic requirements of survival and spending the rest of your time in this state of nothingness? |
|
Minyun
? = :) Usergroup: Members Joined: May 14, 2009 Total Topics: 31 Total Posts: 685 |
Posted Oct 30, 2009 - 12:09 AM:
madmaxthundercats wrote: So why ever leave the "uninterrupted mysterious glory of your timeless senses", other than to go to work and eat and maybe shower once in a while? Why not as I said just live your life so you can meet the basic requirements of survival and spending the rest of your time in this state of nothingness? Because you may want to exist among your fellow man. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Egypt.jpg 3 essences, nothing, something and whatever is inbetween. To only play with one makes the act unappealing. Anything, aslong as it allows you, and I, to live. |
|
freethinker58
Initiate Usergroup: Members Joined: Oct 24, 2009 Total Topics: 0 Total Posts: 6 |
Posted Oct 31, 2009 - 9:07 AM:
Subject: Us and I peter rabbit wrote: freethinker58 wrote: Who are we? Let's start with the known universe. The evidence suggests it had a beginning and will have an end. The same applies to the physical life within it if astrophysicists are correct in their conclusions. I believe they are. However, the energy from which the universe sprang is eternal. We understand very little about this energy. Is it (or part of it) intelligent or is it completely chaotic? We'll probably never know. At least we realize that something had to have always existed in order for anything to exist. Nothingness is but a figment. There's never been such a thing and never will be. Where am I going with this? How does this apply to the question of who we are? Our physical bodies are a product of the energy within the known universe. The laws of physics apply to our bodies. These laws may not apply to consciousness - the ability to experience reality. Consciousness apparently transcends the laws or physics. Does this mean we have souls with or without the ability to experience reality without the aid of a physical body? Not necessarily. We became conscious beings with or without souls. In other words, it doesn't really matter whether or not the soul exists. Consciousness obviously exists and that's primarily what we need to ponder. Let's analyze this from a different perspective. We popped into existence inside a physical body. Fortunately for us, we popped into the most advanced bodies with the most advanced brains on this planet. But let's not pity our pets. We have no clue how or why it happened. We have no memory of a single past existence. Despite claims of strong evidence, I don't believe anyone who claims otherwise. When our bodies die, all the information stored in our brain's memory banks is deleted. Has this life and death process happened before and will it happen again? We can dig deeper and wonder if living life after life is an eternal process. I see no reason to believe otherwise. God or no god, soul or no soul, we somehow managed to come to life. We are now experiencing reality. I see no reason why we can't duplicate the feat. If it can happen once in an eternity, it should be as endless a cycle as eternity itself. That is, if there's no force controlling the process. If there is a force controlling it, it becomes a more complicated issue because we don't know what this force has in mind for us in the future. Perhaps we are destined to eternally live life after life with no memory of any of them. Maybe we need countless, relatively short experiences in many dissimilar lives to keep us from realizing that our essence is eternal, if consciousness is possible without a finite body. I can't imagine having an eternal existence in a fictitious place like heaven. I'd probably be bored after a trillion years or so. The thought of existing forever would probably drive me insane. I'd probably beg my master to either end my existence or do whatever it takes to keep me from realizing there is no end. If our fate is under the control of an intelligent force, the plan of living life after life may have already been in place to provide an eternity of wonders. I'm on the fence when it comes to belief in an intelligent force of nature, but I firmly believe in life after death. If I can pop into existence once, what can prevent it from happening again. How myopic is it to believe it can happen only once in an eternity? I only question where and when it will happen again. To me, that's the mystery of it all. I don't expect to remember a thing about this life in my next one. However, I'll die firmly believing it will happen again. Incidentally, I don't expect to spring to life again on this planet. There's a vast universe out there and perhaps something more vast beyond it. If there's an average of only one living planet per galaxy, that's 100 billion living planets. I believe that estimate is ridiculously low. There may be trillions of living planets out there. Our universe may be one of countless universes that have come and gone. I see no reason why that process can't go on eternally. Our universe may be only a flash of light in a much larger, much more complex reality that has always existed in one form or another. So who are we? We're probably timeless travelers through countless, finite universes. "Evidence... probably... analyse... claims.... believe... on the fence... expect... may be.." I did not ask "who are we" but "who am I." Who is it that analysis, claims, believes and expects? Who is it that reads these words now? Who is it that is thinking about them now? Who is it that looks at the answer? By looking at the evidence of astrophysicists, psychologists, artists and company, and by thinking about your past, you can come up with an answer; but what is experiencing the answer? It's not about just you. It's about all of us. That's why I broadened the focus. We're apparently all in the same boat. You're a conscious individual and so are countless others, perhaps throughout the known universe and in possible realms beyond it. As individuals, we wonder about our essence - the part of us that experiences reality. Why are we on this particular planet inside a host body? What were we (if anything more than common, dispersed energy) before becoming witnesses of reality? We were at least random, dispersed energy and at most eternal entities somehow injected into hosts. That about covers it. We were some form of universal or other-dimensional energy before becoming self-aware beings. In other words, we didn't spring from nothingness and don't disappear from reality when our physical bodies die. The energy within us continues to exist in some form. Since we don't understand consciousness and how it relates to the energy that escapes our bodies when we die, we can't explore beyond that point. Is our essence an eternal entity (or soul) or is there no such thing? Does consciousness just randomly spring from a field of energy? Do we spend random lengths of time as random energy before popping into each existence or is the process under the control of an unknown force? Regardless, as human beings, we achieved a state of self-awareness. Even higher apes and dolphins are self-aware. Lesser animals are at least conscious. Perhaps we were lesser or greater beings once or countless times either on this planet or elsewhere in this or other universes. Perhaps we'll pop into life as both inferior and superior creatures countless times for an eternity. Nobody on this planet has an answer. Those who believe they do may or may not be right. Drawing conclusions on this matter is strictly for fools. That's the beauty of it all. We just don't know. All we can do is ponder the unknown. It may be forever impossible for any conscious being to know the answer to the basic, philosophical questions. My only hope is that this is a controlled process and that we are on the road to better existences in better worlds. |
|
peter rabbit
Impossibilihere Usergroup: Members Joined: Apr 22, 2009 Location: London Total Topics: 12 Total Posts: 133 |
Posted Oct 31, 2009 - 9:25 AM:
freethinker58 wrote: It's not about just you. It's about all of us. That's why I broadened the focus. We're apparently all in the same boat. Yes, apparently. Apparent has the same etymological root as appearance. I am not talking about appearance, what is on the screen, but who it is that is viewing it. This "we" you posit is just an idea; a very useful idea, that evidently has some truth. freethinker58 wrote: You're a conscious individual and so are countless others, The consciousness of others is a hypothesis. It cannot be known for certain. freethinker58 wrote: perhaps throughout the known universe and in possible realms beyond it... Why are we on this particular planet inside a host body? What were we (if anything more than common, dispersed energy) before becoming witnesses of reality? We were at least random, dispersed energy and at most eternal entities somehow injected into hosts. We were some form of universal or other-dimensional energy before becoming self-aware beings. In other words, we didn't spring from nothingness and don't disappear from reality when our physical bodies die. The energy within us continues to exist in some form. Since we don't understand consciousness and how it relates to the energy that escapes our bodies when we die, we can't explore beyond that point. Is our essence an eternal entity (or soul) or is there no such thing? Does consciousness just randomly spring from a field of energy? Do we spend random lengths of time as random energy before popping into each existence or is the process under the control of an unknown force? Regardless, as human beings, we achieved a state of self-awareness. Even higher apes and dolphins are self-aware. Lesser animals are at least conscious. Perhaps we were lesser or greater beings once or countless times either on this planet or elsewhere in this or other universes. Perhaps we'll pop into life as both inferior and superior creatures countless times for an eternity. Nobody on this planet has an answer. Those who believe they do may or may not be right. Drawing conclusions on this matter is strictly for fools. That's the beauty of it all. We just don't know. All we can do is ponder the unknown. It may be forever impossible for any conscious being to know the answer to the basic, philosophical questions., Quite. But none of this has anything to do with the experience of who I am. freethinker58 wrote: My only hope is that this is a controlled process and that we are on the road to better existences in better worlds. Who is hoping? Controlled by whom? And who will be experiencing? Edited by peter rabbit on Oct 31, 2009 - 9:50 AM odyssey to very nearby: http://www.gentleapocalypse.com/ |
|
Banno
the One-Line Wonder! Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Aug 15, 2004 Location: Oz Total Topics: 166 Total Posts: 9202 |
Posted Oct 31, 2009 - 2:24 PM:
peter rabbit wrote: The consciousness of others is a hypothesis. It cannot be known for certain. Try acting as if others are not conscious and see what happens. The consciousness of others is no a hypothesis, something you thought up sitting in your lounge chair one slow Sunday afternoon. It is rather a part of the groundwork upon which you live your life. It cannot be known because it is beyond justification; the notion of justification only makes sense in terms of the other. But it is something of which you are either certain, or you are mad. An apostrophe does not mean "Look out, here comes an s!" |
|
peter rabbit
Impossibilihere Usergroup: Members Joined: Apr 22, 2009 Location: London Total Topics: 12 Total Posts: 133 |
Posted Oct 31, 2009 - 3:05 PM:
Banno wrote: Try acting as if others are not conscious and see what happens. Yes, I must act as if they are conscious. But I cannot intellectually know it. Banno wrote: The consciousness of others is no a hypothesis, something you thought up sitting in your lounge chair one slow Sunday afternoon. I'm going with the dictionary definition of "hypothesis" here - "a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation". I'd say that is what the consciousness of others is. I have, after all, only limited evidence of what is going on inside you. From it, I suppose you are conscious. I cannot experience "your" consciousness though. Banno wrote: It is rather a part of the groundwork upon which you live your life. It cannot be known because it is beyond justification; the notion of justification only makes sense in terms of the other. But it is something of which you are either certain, or you are mad. Yes, I am intellectually certain of it; but intellectual certainty is not experience, it is the result of experience. We should be clear about the word "conscious". Here I do not follow the dictionary, "aware of one's surroundings," "deliberate and intentional" (etc) - which throws up the question this thread is addressing - who is aware? Who intends? etc. By conscious I mean experiencing that "who", the I that experiences "my" thoughts, feelings, perceptions and actions. This I is, for me, the only I in the universe. Also the word "know". I usually use it to mean abstract intellectual certainty, not experience; "I know there is a computer in front of me" refers to an idea in my head which checks off against the evidence, not to the more direct experience of the object that I am experiencing. In other words I am intellectually certain of it ("beyond justification") but yet, more directly than this, it is a baffling mystery (and makes no sense). odyssey to very nearby: http://www.gentleapocalypse.com/ |
|
hanuma
banned Usergroup: Members Joined: Sep 22, 2009 Total Topics: 3 Total Posts: 311
|
Posted Oct 31, 2009 - 3:13 PM:
peter rabbit wrote: Hmm, is this the sense of something never ending (or beginning) when trying to find exactly where you are looking from, where you ultimately go round in circles. For instance, "I" know "I" am writing, "I" knows "I" know that "I" am writing, "I" knows that "I" knows that "I" know that "I" am writing etc. etc. No, it which is aware of the question. If so it is part of the nature of 'observation', within the uniquely human development (or expansion) of consciousness, as it seems that one cannot observe something without creating a unique consciousness of where that observation emanates from. Rather like placing mirrors in front of everything that is seen. A neat trick of the mind, rather than any new ontological(?) basis for understanding the self. So I'm not sure I can agree that "the more you think about consciousness, the less you experience it", because that process of thinking about something so self-involved from an imagined external perspective is exactly what this 'observed' consciousness is about. |
Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.

Print
