Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Markgrundr]

Feel free to direct me to another discussion but I couldn't find one addressing my particular view. There's something that is constantly on that lies deeper than thought and sensation. Thoughts and senses are how I interact with the world, but they are not me. They are the vessel by which I exist in the universe. They are the coat I put on to go out in the universe night.

Although my body is composed entirely of the universe, it's not certain nor even apparent that the spirit inside is. You could say it's a cloud of electricity inside the brain, but this doesn't fully explain the "I"ness or how and why my consciousness evolved to exist. If any one of my father's sperm had beat the one that made it to my mother's egg, they'd have conceived a body very similar but the I that is me would never have existed (or would it?), and from my point of view the universe would never have existed.

The I is something that voluntarily interacts in the world but whose existence is involuntary (except to end it by suicide. The constant hum began and continues involuntarily).

There is a fundamental difference between myself and all other beings, just as there is between yourself and all other beings- a fundamental uniqueness that indicates something other-worldly even from an atheist perspective. Although multiples souls exist, each one isn't just unique but uniquely unique.

You can explain its biological origins and how it interacts with the world, but its essential origin is not of the scientific or corporeal realm..

[Angelo Cannata]

I think that what you said is very close to what Chalmers called "the hard problem of conscoousness". Personally, I think that this question could be dealt wth by referring to space and time: I think that every uniqueness, including our perception of being "I" is the result of a unique conjunction of time and space. This is an attempt for an objective perspective: actually we should connect it with the subjective perspective about it.

[Sculptor1]

Feel free to direct me to another discussion but I couldn't find one addressing my particular view. There's something that is constantly on that lies deeper than thought and sensation. Thoughts and senses are how I interact with the world, but they are not me. They are the vessel by which I exist in the universe. They are the coat I put on to go out in the universe night.

Although my body is composed entirely of the universe, it's not certain nor even apparent that the spirit inside is. You could say it's a cloud of electricity inside the brain, but this doesn't fully explain the "I"ness or how and why my consciousness evolved to exist. If any one of my father's sperm had beat the one that made it to my mother's egg, they'd have conceived a body very similar but the I that is me would never have existed (or would it?), and from my point of view the universe would never have existed.

The I is something that voluntarily interacts in the world but whose existence is involuntary (except to end it by suicide. The constant hum began and continues involuntarily).

There is a fundamental difference between myself and all other beings, just as there is between yourself and all other beings- a fundamental uniqueness that indicates something other-worldly even from an atheist perspective. Although multiples souls exist, each one isn't just unique but uniquely unique.

You can explain its biological origins and how it interacts with the world, but its essential origin is not of the scientific or corporeal realm..

You are running away with one of the world's greatest myths. One that is failing to keep up with the findings of science.
That is the myth that the body is a mere vessel and that it is no more than a container for something ineffable and non-physical.
I have to tell you that all of your uniqueness is based completely on two factors; your genetics, and the unique state of your brain through learning.
If the "soul" has an independant existence from the body, then how can it access the materiality of the brain?
If you think that your soul is the real you, then how would your soul be without the emotions, and feelings supplied by hormones, and brain states; or without the memories endoded in neural matter; or the ability to see, feel, touch, smell, and other long list of senses upon which your rely wholly on your physical existence?

No your soul is just an ancient myth invented to explain what was missing from a dead body as opposed to a living one.

[Markgrundr]

Personally, I think that this question could be dealt wth by referring to space and time: I think that every uniqueness, including our perception of being "I" is the result of a unique conjunction of time and space. This is an attempt for an objective perspective: actually we should connect it with the subjective perspective about it.

You're referring merely to a point of reference. This is a property of the "I" but not its essence. It suggests the "I", although it doesn't necessarily have a physical essence, is an actual thing inside the universe that has limits and is much smaller than the universe. The ring of sensation is just the point of interaction between the thing and the proximate material of the universe.

[Markgrundr]

You are running away with one of the world's greatest myths. One that is failing to keep up with the findings of science.
That is the myth that the body is a mere vessel and that it is no more than a container for something ineffable and non-physical.
I have to tell you that all of your uniqueness is based completely on two factors; your genetics, and the unique state of your brain through learning.
If the "soul" has an independant existence from the body, then how can it access the materiality of the brain?
If you think that your soul is the real you, then how would your soul be without the emotions, and feelings supplied by hormones, and brain states; or without the memories endoded in neural matter; or the ability to see, feel, touch, smell, and other long list of senses upon which your rely wholly on your physical existence?

No your soul is just an ancient myth invented to explain what was missing from a dead body as opposed to a living one.

There's definitely something that transcends all the memories, emotions, and senses. It's something which, unlike how many philosophers have asserted, doesn't even need awareness of material objects to exist. (If it did, then people who go into sensory deprivation chambers would essentially die for the period that they were inside.) Maybe you need to spend some time in deep isolation to recognize what I'm talking about. It's a silent hum that emerges when you block out all memories, thoughts, emotions, and senses.

Part of the problem lies in seeing one's self as either an object or a subject. I see now that when you shift your consciousness to the present moment, with everything happening all at once and you just another thing happening within all the rest, it's easier to accept that I'm entirely composed of the universe. When you think of yourself in hindsight as an object, that's where the Cartesian dualist error arises, if it is an error.

[marigold_23]

Feel free to direct me to another discussion but I couldn't find one addressing my particular view. There's something that is constantly on that lies deeper than thought and sensation. Thoughts and senses are how I interact with the world, but they are not me. They are the vessel by which I exist in the universe. They are the coat I put on to go out in the universe night.

Although my body is composed entirely of the universe, it's not certain nor even apparent that the spirit inside is.

This is an interesting idea. Are you taking the position that the entirety of all pertinent physical surroundings (the universe) is, all of it, your body?
(If not, then where do you draw the line to say: this is my "body" and this is the "environment" outside my body(?)

You could say it's a cloud of electricity inside the brain, but this doesn't fully explain the "I"ness or how and why my consciousness evolved to exist.

"I-ness"... I'd have to know exactly what you mean by that... if you can define it, even loosely, then we can discuss it, but if you can't, then we can't.

For instance, you could say "I feel I exist" but that is an unsatisfactory statement without examining the meaning of each part... what do you mean (or what do you think you mean) by "I" and by "exist".
Can we refer yo the existence of anything without conception of it's nonexistence?
Can we refer to the existence of any thing without being separate from it in order to refer to it?

If you do exist as a self, isnt that the last thing you would ever be able to reference logically, as you can't experience yourself as a phenomenon (upon the supposed self)(?)

If any one of my father's sperm had beat the one that made it to my mother's egg, they'd have conceived a body very similar but the I that is me would never have existed (or would it?), and from my point of view the universe would never have existed.

If the I is non physical as you imply... (something within the physical body and physical universe)... i doubt if the orientation of matter around it could effect it at all... as odd as it may seem, the brain constructing these statements as operations is a material phenomenon... you would have to conclude this "self" is not limitted to thinking processes or to your brain, including your brain's persistent concept of the body as a self... this is just one physical phenomenon like any other... if you had not been born, this thing you call the self, if it exists, would be unchanged... it may be very different than what you think it is...

The I is something that voluntarily interacts in the world but whose existence is involuntary (except to end it by suicide. The constant hum began and continues involuntarily).

Perhaps you're right. But i would argue a non physical self would not have volition or intention at all... these are relative constraints, typically regarded as physical.

Any relevant kind of existence has an opposite non existence, so you could say the existence of the self has the potential to be destroyed... but it is nearly impossible to concieve of such an existence (or potential for deconstruction into non existence) which is not physical.

If we agree that the existent self and non existent self are exclusive states that are apart, but still that they may exist in some kind of spontaneous contact (in defiance of physical law, as the self in question has been described as non physical), then the closest you may be able to get to experiencing and (only then) describing the self is by describing whatever state of that self you are currently not... but it would be absurd for a nonexistent self to experience an existent self or vice versa, so maybe we must conclude that any statement of the existence of a self is absurd...

But if it does exist, it has the potential for non existence. It would be a random, spontaneous transformation, as it would have no physical cause, least of all "intention".

[Markgrundr]

This is an interesting idea. Are you taking the position that the entirety of all pertinent physical surroundings (the universe) is, all of it, your body?
(If not, then where do you draw the line to say: this is my "body" and this is the "environment" outside my body(?)

No. Both my body and the sphere of sensation surrounding it are the point of interaction between the thing that is me and the proximate universe, but not all of the universe.

"I-ness"... I'd have to know exactly what you mean by that... if you can define it, even loosely, then we can discuss it, but if you can't, then we can't.

For instance, you could say "I feel I exist" but that is an unsatisfactory statement without examining the meaning of each part... what do you mean (or what do you think you mean) by "I" and by "exist".
Can we refer yo the existence of anything without conception of it's nonexistence?
Can we refer to the existence of any thing without being separate from it in order to refer to it?

If you do exist as a self, isnt that the last thing you would ever be able to reference logically, as you can't experience yourself as a phenomenon (upon the supposed self)(?)

There's a silent hum that emerges when you block out all memories, thoughts, emotions, and senses. I now take the position that it's entirely composed of the universe and is a concentration of energy occuring within it. The huge disparity between the concentrations of energy where I am and my surroundings gives the illusion of separateness, but there is no fundamental separateness. You most certainly CAN experience yourself as a phenomenon, in deep meditation, or perhaps in a sensory deprivation chamber.

Perhaps you're right. But i would argue a non physical self would not have volition or intention at all... these are relative constraints, typically regarded as physical.

If you accept that the self is entirely a physical part of the universe, then this oddly resolves the free will debate. Free will exists because I exist; and I exist because I'm embedded within the universe and am not something separate.

Any relevant kind of existence has an opposite non existence, so you could say the existence of the self has the potential to be destroyed... but it is nearly impossible to concieve of such an existence (or potential for deconstruction into non existence) which is not physical.

I have no problem conceiving the eons before and after my life.

[Angelo Cannata]

You're referring merely to a point of reference. This is a property of the "I" but not its essence. It suggests the "I", although it doesn't necessarily have a physical essence, is an actual thing inside the universe that has limits and is much smaller than the universe. The ring of sensation is just the point of interaction between the thing and the proximate material of the universe.

Actually I think that not only the “I”, but even anything we usually conceive as something physical, can be thought of as a unique conjunction of space and time.
We can notice that we talk about physical things considering it an unproblematic way of thinking, but actually it seems unproblematic just because we don’t ask questions about it. We might ask, for example: what is a physical thing? What is an object? What does “material” mean? Obviously, this questioning can be applied to space and time as well, but I think there is a difference: the concepts of space and time help us to better consider concepts such as uniqueness, materiality, “I” and subjectivity.

[marigold_23]

This is an interesting idea. Are you taking the position that the entirety of all pertinent physical surroundings (the universe) is, all of it, your body?
(If not, then where do you draw the line to say: this is my "body" and this is the "environment" outside my body(?)

No. Both my body and the sphere of sensation surrounding it are the point of interaction between the thing that is me and the proximate universe, but not all of the universe.

This seems to suggest that the self may feel, which is (as far as I can tell) the same as saying that the self is able to react to stimuli... which is also a basic description of a physical thing...If this self you are proposing is non physical, why would it respond physically? If it responds physically, why should we conclude it is non physical and that it should ever be disconnected from a physical environment by a body?
What is a sensation, if not an action or a behavior...? How can we possibly describe sensation or thought as anything other than specific physical actions?
When I say: "I am thinking of a dog" there is not an abstract dog floating in my brain... there is no essential "idea"... I am simply behaving... I am referencing memory and reacting physically... the word "Dog" is a reference to it... the memory itself is a mechanical, functioning device which, we may conclude, at one or some points interacted with real dogs... that is, as far as I can tell, all that a thought is... a reference or, more simply, a physical reaction to something (or some things) which are also physical...

I don't know if there is a self... I meditate, and as my physical reactivity (or thinking and responding) decrease, my perspective changes... I feel relatively "unfeeling", but it is difficult if not impossible to describe in language... Alan Watts would strike a gong... maybe that would help to communicate the "happening" of being without reactivity. It is important and fundamental and we should try to communicate it.

But I don't call it experience, certainly not an experience of something... it is a happening, or simply a mysterious event... I speculate that it suggests the idea of a fundamental nonphysical being beneath the physical, a self like a singularity such as is suggested in the Upanishads... but I'm careful not to imply that it is somehow connected to my brain... or any object in my experience. If it's non physical (and I would say it must not be physical if it exists) then we can't correctly use physical terminology to describe it except metaphorically. Experience of, interaction with, or reaction to are all physical descriptions which would not make sense if applied to a non physical thing.

"I-ness"... I'd have to know exactly what you mean by that... if you can define it, even loosely, then we can discuss it, but if you can't, then we can't.

For instance, you could say "I feel I exist" but that is an unsatisfactory statement without examining the meaning of each part... what do you mean (or what do you think you mean) by "I" and by "exist".
Can we refer yo the existence of anything without conception of it's nonexistence?
Can we refer to the existence of any thing without being separate from it in order to refer to it?

If you do exist as a self, isnt that the last thing you would ever be able to reference logically, as you can't experience yourself as a phenomenon (upon the supposed self)(?)

There's a silent hum that emerges when you block out all memories, thoughts, emotions, and senses. I now take the position that it's entirely composed of the universe and is a concentration of energy occuring within it. The huge disparity between the concentrations of energy where I am and my surroundings gives the illusion of separateness, but there is no fundamental separateness. You most certainly CAN experience yourself as a phenomenon, in deep meditation, or perhaps in a sensory deprivation chamber.

Interaction is a basic prerequisite to experience. Interaction describes a communication between no less than two exclusive things. A thing cannot interact with itself because a thing is not exclusive to itself or apart from itself. Are you referring to some new kind of experience which is not interactive...? if so, can we really call that an experience? At most, I'd say such a thing could be called a feeling or a happening, but not a reference, such as a feeling of another thing.
For a person to claim they have, in some moment, interacted with themselves, is (by this description of experience) a contradiction.

Perhaps you're right. But i would argue a non physical self would not have volition or intention at all... these are relative constraints, typically regarded as physical.

If you accept that the self is entirely a physical part of the universe, then this oddly resolves the free will debate. Free will exists because I exist; and I exist because I'm embedded within the universe and am not something separate.

I agree with the stipulation that a thing that exists relative to another thing must also be free of that thing to some extent (even if that other thing is said to be a large physical entity like the pertinent universe)... it cannot be totally free because it must be constrained by the requirement of interacting with that thing... it cannot break totally free without us concluding that it no longer exists...

but

There is no way to say that a thing exists without referencing it. A thing cannot reference itself because it would first have to interact with itself which would require it to be separate from itself which would require it to be exclusive from itself which is a contradiction... (I think)

Any relevant kind of existence has an opposite non existence, so you could say the existence of the self has the potential to be destroyed... but it is nearly impossible to conceive of such an existence (or potential for deconstruction into non existence) which is not physical.

I have no problem conceiving the eons before and after my life.
[/quote]

I should have also specified here, I do not believe you can conceive of your existence either, for the same reason that you could never experience yourself. If you can't conceive of the self as it is, you couldn't really conceive of it's absence either. We don't know what darkness is without having some memory of light as an experience.

[Markgrundr]

I don't need to be outside myself to experience myself as a physical entity (which is the official position I'm taking now- that there is no non- physical), nor does anyone else. If this runs contrary to logic, well, we're talking about life experience and states of being not logic. We can apply logical analysis, but there are areas where it is simply inappropriate.

I'd like to summ up my argument. My approach might be unique but I know that the essence of this argument isn't at all unique to me, and I believe the reason for this is because it's also the truth:

I am a purely physical cloud of electricity (as are all of you). My body, senses, and all my thoughts and feelings aren't me. They are me interacting with the surrounding universe. They are the ripples emanating on the pond, but they are not the stone that drops. They are derivative manifestations of me.

My memories are a collection of the outer sphere of sensations- but missing the inner core self, since it can only exist in the present moment. So memories are just the outer shell of the true self; hence when we focus on our memories and as we build our illusory identities around them, this only enhances the Dualist illusion of separateness (which in turn is further enhanced when in the present moment by the huge disparity in concentrations of energy between ourselves- our clouds of electricity- and our immediate surroundings).

My physical existence inside the universe gives me free agency and power in the present moment over my surroundings using my body, but this is of course very limited by the physical laws and overall nature of the universe. But since within my cloud of electricity it's all me, I am indeed endowed with what is known as the concept of free will. At least within this little cloud of my existence, I have full tyrannical powers.

[marigold_23]

I don't need to be outside myself to experience myself as a physical entity (which is the official position I'm taking now- that there is no non- physical), nor does anyone else. If this runs contrary to logic, well, we're talking about life experience and states of being not logic. We can apply logical analysis, but there are areas where it is simply inappropriate.

First, let me say I admire your dedication to truth. And maybe you've discovered it, I don't know.

If you believe your message is outside logical constraints where it would ever be in contradiction and valid at the same time, then you would do better to rely on the vibrations of gongs and the whistling of the wind to communicate it... hums and poetry...free associations... but do not compromise logic or meaning in your use of language to produce conclusions... if you cannot communicate a thing logically, and you are still sure that the thing to which you are referring exists, that doesn't excuse a contradiction of meaning. You are not suddenly excused from the constraints of logic as long as you intend to have some particular position, as I assume you are...

I'm not saying reality is necessarily constrained at all, even by logic... I don't know...Life experience as a reality may exist well beyond logic... but I do know that communication is a sort of craft with parameters... the communication of a conclusion is always constrained by logic... conclusions are descriminatory... they mean one thing as opposed to a conceivable alternative... conclusions cannot mean both one thing and another if those two things are exclusive.

Perhaps you do experience yourself... perhaps it is allowed that a red apple may also be green... the universe could be rife with contradictions and miracles and absurdities...paradoxes and breaks in causality... but I cannot express them with words... I cannot say in a way that makes any conceivable sense that a red apple is also spontaneously green, because they are exclusive qualities... the fault is not with the methodology of logic, but with the process of communication that is limited to that method... I acknowledge the limits of what I can and cannot communicate through meaning... However, I do not know if that is merely a limit on what I can communicate rather than a limit on reality...

But, you are trying to communicate your life experience to us as a conclusion... you cannot bestow it on us as a specific metaphysics or philosophical conclusion by any other method than that of language... you must be bound by the same parameters of logic... if you are accused of a contradiction of meaning, it is important to either refute that accusation by the same method (even if only to your own satisfaction) or to withdraw your statement, either to find a new wording that is not contradictory or a new method other than wording which is not capable of or bound by the parameters of exclusive meaning.

The contradiction I am suggesting rests on the definition of an experience.

Some may mean a "happening" or a "bare phenomenon" or "act" when they use the term "experience"... But in your usage, you have said "I experience myself."
So correct me if I'm wrong, but I have interpreted your usage of the word "experience" to mean:
"an interaction between two or more things"
Or, a felt effect or felt relationship by an entity from (or of) an entity

Where the happening of an experience specifically requires two interacting entities

Would you agree to that definition of experience or did you mean something else in your use of the word? How do you define "experience" if I have misunderstood you.

[LuckyR]

There is a fundamental difference between myself and all other beings, just as there is between yourself and all other beings- a fundamental uniqueness that indicates something other-worldly even from an atheist perspective. Although multiples souls exist, each one isn't just unique but uniquely unique.

Do you think every ant in a colony is unique? How about every strept bacterium? Every cold virus?

You're not as unique as you think.

[marigold_23]

There is a fundamental difference between myself and all other beings, just as there is between yourself and all other beings- a fundamental uniqueness that indicates something other-worldly even from an atheist perspective. Although multiples souls exist, each one isn't just unique but uniquely unique.

Do you think every ant in a colony is unique? How about every strept bacterium? Every cold virus?

You're not as unique as you think.

LuckyR,

Technically all organisms (even simple viruses) are unique by definition, occupying separate positions in space, moving in different directions at different velocities, composed of a different assortment and ammount of molecular/atomic components... actually one ant is extremely unique to another although that uniqueness is not noticed by us.
And
The observable universe of one position is not the same as in another, so any thing, no matter how simple, even as simple as a particle, may be ascribed its own unique circumstances, totally separate in that moment from the circumstances of another particle....(photons may be different, im not sure, not a physics person)

I think it's reasonable to admit that differential physical things are different and unique to that extent, particularly a physical conglomerate which is as complex as an organism...

However, I don't see any indication of anything "other worldly" in that fact. And I think it is fundamentally incorrect to describe souls (or the ephemeral "observer") as contingent or physical in itself... and certainly never plural, such that there could ever be more than one relevant observer to that observer... and even then, use of the term "soul" is pushing it... If by soul you mean your mind and memories as some fundamental being which you expect to go on as your "essense" in some afterlife... yeah that's just religion and it's made up to help us avoid the fact of death... in my opinion.

There may be something interesting beyond what we can necessarily describe in the phenomenon of being ... but we have to be cautious in describing something which we claim as fundamental, simply because description itself tends to rely on contingent reality... things which are some way to some other things, rather than things which simply are...

[Atla]

Feel free to direct me to another discussion but I couldn't find one addressing my particular view. There's something that is constantly on that lies deeper than thought and sensation. Thoughts and senses are how I interact with the world, but they are not me. They are the vessel by which I exist in the universe. They are the coat I put on to go out in the universe night.

Although my body is composed entirely of the universe, it's not certain nor even apparent that the spirit inside is. You could say it's a cloud of electricity inside the brain, but this doesn't fully explain the "I"ness or how and why my consciousness evolved to exist. If any one of my father's sperm had beat the one that made it to my mother's egg, they'd have conceived a body very similar but the I that is me would never have existed (or would it?), and from my point of view the universe would never have existed.

The I is something that voluntarily interacts in the world but whose existence is involuntary (except to end it by suicide. The constant hum began and continues involuntarily).

There is a fundamental difference between myself and all other beings, just as there is between yourself and all other beings- a fundamental uniqueness that indicates something other-worldly even from an atheist perspective. Although multiples souls exist, each one isn't just unique but uniquely unique.

You can explain its biological origins and how it interacts with the world, but its essential origin is not of the scientific or corporeal realm..

The "hum" may be the sensation of our self-awareness, it's the one sensation that doesn't go away even in deep meditation (if anything, the sensation gets amplified). For some people it's stronger for others it's weaker, seems to correlate with intelligence somewhat. Humans seem to be one of a few species on the planet that have reached some self-awareness.

However, take this hum away, and there's still existence happening. Existence itself including the entire universe, is the eternal "self" beyond all local thought, sensation, and experience.

[LuckyR]

There is a fundamental difference between myself and all other beings, just as there is between yourself and all other beings- a fundamental uniqueness that indicates something other-worldly even from an atheist perspective. Although multiples souls exist, each one isn't just unique but uniquely unique.

Do you think every ant in a colony is unique? How about every strept bacterium? Every cold virus?

You're not as unique as you think.

LuckyR,

Technically all organisms (even simple viruses) are unique by definition, occupying separate positions in space, moving in different directions at different velocities, composed of a different assortment and ammount of molecular/atomic components... actually one ant is extremely unique to another although that uniqueness is not noticed by us.
And
The observable universe of one position is not the same as in another, so any thing, no matter how simple, even as simple as a particle, may be ascribed its own unique circumstances, totally separate in that moment from the circumstances of another particle....(photons may be different, im not sure, not a physics person)

I think it's reasonable to admit that differential physical things are different and unique to that extent, particularly a physical conglomerate which is as complex as an organism...

However, I don't see any indication of anything "other worldly" in that fact. And I think it is fundamentally incorrect to describe souls (or the ephemeral "observer") as contingent or physical in itself... and certainly never plural, such that there could ever be more than one relevant observer to that observer... and even then, use of the term "soul" is pushing it... If by soul you mean your mind and memories as some fundamental being which you expect to go on as your "essense" in some afterlife... yeah that's just religion and it's made up to help us avoid the fact of death... in my opinion.

There may be something interesting beyond what we can necessarily describe in the phenomenon of being ... but we have to be cautious in describing something which we claim as fundamental, simply because description itself tends to rely on contingent reality... things which are some way to some other things, rather than things which simply are...

Your comments make complete and total sense... in a Philosophy Forum, yet almost no one actually behaves in accordance with these ideas. You have a sore throat, you take penicillin and millions of bacteria die. So what? Everyone thinks, they're barely thought of as life forms, let alone unique individuals. Ants in the kitchen, get out the bug spray, no thought required.