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

[Sy Borg]

While that self loses beingness, it still exists informationally in memories and other residual influences, and it exists to some extent in those who are like-minded, both now and in the future.

I guess you do not see a paradox here.

Pass. Next clue please.

[Tamminen]

I guess you do not see a paradox here.

Pass. Next clue please.

Just our existential paradox. The loss of all meaning with the loss of meaning for each of us personally. This is what I meant when I said that meaning is subjective. Nothingness means nothing. Hamlet would not care about collective meaning or the meaning he would leave for humanity by his achievements. They mean nothing if he decides not to be, and if he decides to be, it will only be a short extra time and the result is the same.

So not a puzzle, just something to think for philosophers.

[Sy Borg]

Tam, I'm not certain enough about what happens subjectively at death to understand the meaning of it all on an individual level. Much easier to focus on big picture things like the Earth and humanity (or at least their automated corporations).

The nature of being is surely the oddest thing I know. I like the way it seems to smear out over time. As children we are hungry for awareness, reluctant to surrender it to sleep. Why do we surrender our awareness eagerly to sleep as adults? Because we are not entirely in the present moment - where the recalcitrant child resides - but also referencing past experiences to shape behaviour for a better tomorrow (as opposed to a dysfunctional sleep deprived tomorrow).

Humans naturally blur present moments for learning and subsequent behaviour shaping. Then they condition themselves so they can be spontaneous again (but with the safety of the "programmed" controls). Then they again retreat from the present to ruminate and speculate, ready for the next round of conditioning.

However, I suspect that when we are dying our minds have a razor sharp focus on the present, which in itself will be an alien state of mind for most.

[Tamminen]

Tam, I'm not certain enough about what happens subjectively at death to understand the meaning of it all on an individual level. Much easier to focus on big picture things like the Earth and humanity (or at least their automated corporations).

The nature of being is surely the oddest thing I know. I like the way it seems to smear out over time. As children we are hungry for awareness, reluctant to surrender it to sleep. Why do we surrender our awareness eagerly to sleep as adults? Because we are not entirely in the present moment - where the recalcitrant child resides - but also referencing past experiences to shape behaviour for a better tomorrow (as opposed to a dysfunctional sleep deprived tomorrow).

Humans naturally blur present moments for learning and subsequent behaviour shaping. Then they condition themselves so they can be spontaneous again (but with the safety of the "programmed" controls). Then they again retreat from the present to ruminate and speculate, ready for the next round of conditioning.

However, I suspect that when we are dying our minds have a razor sharp focus on the present, which in itself will be an alien state of mind for most.

In Ingmar Bergman's film Persona there was a woman who stopped speaking, and in the end her nurse asked her to say 'nothing', and she really said 'nothing'. Perhaps she thought that was the only word worth saying, everything else is only persona, a mask.

[Sy Borg]

Tam, I'm not certain enough about what happens subjectively at death to understand the meaning of it all on an individual level. Much easier to focus on big picture things like the Earth and humanity (or at least their automated corporations).

The nature of being is surely the oddest thing I know. I like the way it seems to smear out over time. As children we are hungry for awareness, reluctant to surrender it to sleep. Why do we surrender our awareness eagerly to sleep as adults? Because we are not entirely in the present moment - where the recalcitrant child resides - but also referencing past experiences to shape behaviour for a better tomorrow (as opposed to a dysfunctional sleep deprived tomorrow).

Humans naturally blur present moments for learning and subsequent behaviour shaping. Then they condition themselves so they can be spontaneous again (but with the safety of the "programmed" controls). Then they again retreat from the present to ruminate and speculate, ready for the next round of conditioning.

However, I suspect that when we are dying our minds have a razor sharp focus on the present, which in itself will be an alien state of mind for most.

In Ingmar Bergman's film Persona there was a woman who stopped speaking, and in the end her nurse asked her to say 'nothing', and she really said 'nothing'. Perhaps she thought that was the only word worth saying, everything else is only persona, a mask.

Might she have said "nothing" because, like Kerry Packer, that's what she felt while dying?

[Tamminen]

In Ingmar Bergman's film Persona there was a woman who stopped speaking, and in the end her nurse asked her to say 'nothing', and she really said 'nothing'. Perhaps she thought that was the only word worth saying, everything else is only persona, a mask.

Might she have said "nothing" because, like Kerry Packer, that's what she felt while dying?

No, she was not dying. Perhaps she felt some sort of enlightment. In fact she was not sick, not bodily or mentally.

[Syamsu]

I've been listening to and reading Daniel Dennett, Patricia Churchland, David Chalmers, John Searle and Thomas Nagel the last couple of years, and have been thinking a lot about consciousness.
There was a time when I was convinced that the physical is all there is, but after looking into consciousness for a while, I've had to give up that assumption.

My reasoning goes like this: If it is assumed that the physical is all there is, then consciousness must reduce to the physical and then mental states don't actually exist (they're just chemical reactions). If physicalism, then eliminative materialism but eliminative materialism is false (because if I know anything, I know I have mental states). (I've also looked into behaviorism, identity theory and functionalism).

I also reject substance dualism ( I don't believe in souls). I can't make any sense of idealism. I do have some affinity for property dualism- the concept that consciousness itself is a basic property of the universe, but I acknowledge that it has issues as well.

What about you? What do you make of consciousness? Do you have a favorite theory? Who has influenced your thinking?

Creationism, because we already use creationist logic in common discourse.

[Wayne92587]

Syamsu :I also reject substance dualism ( I don't believe in souls).

First of all, the Soul is not a substance, the Soul has no Mass.

Duality is completely misunderstood.

Duality is not simply a pair of Opposites.

A Duality is nothing more than a singularity that has two, a dual quality.

[Consul]

Syamsu :I also reject substance dualism ( I don't believe in souls).

First of all, the Soul is not a substance, the Soul has no Mass.

Substance dualism is the view that there are both material substances (bodies) and immaterial ones (souls).

[Chili]

I note that most people who proclaim themselves to be hard-core materialists would rather say that consciousness is the product of neurological activity than to take the more scientific approach to say that other people have no first-person experiences.

[Consul]

I note that most people who proclaim themselves to be hard-core materialists would rather say that consciousness is the product of neurological activity than to take the more scientific approach to say that other people have no first-person experiences.

"More scientific"? Solipsism is absurd!

[Chili]

"More scientific"? Solipsism is absurd!

There is no scientific content here. It's called scoffing. Many scoffed at the suggestions of a round earth or a heliocentric solar system. Show your work.

[RJG]

I note that most people who proclaim themselves to be hard-core materialists would rather say that consciousness is the product of neurological activity than to take the more scientific approach to say that other people have no first-person experiences.

The not-knowing of others consciousness does not mean they don't have consciousness. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Solipsism is absurd!

It's "absurdity" (dislikableness) is not a valid reason to discount it possibility.

[Tamminen]

Solipsism is absurd!

Exactly. Saying that solipsism is possible is like saying: "It is possible that this sentence does not exist."

[Wayne92587]

Consul; Substance dualism is the view that there are both material substances (bodies) and immaterial ones (souls).

There is no such animal as substance Duality.

The Soul, consciousness, has no substance, is immaterial.

Man is a duality; having both a physical and a spiritual Reality,
Logic representing the Flesh Body.

Reason, rationalization, representing the immaterial, consciousness, the Soul, Passion, that has no cause.

Desire has a cause; Passion, the seed of all living things, doea not, is innate.

All Living Things, is defined as being all Material Reality.

When the breath, the Immortal Spirit of God, was breathed into Man's Nostrils it was the Immortal, Boundless, Spirit of God, that became a Living Soul, the passion of God, Boundlessness, Freedom of Mind, consciousness, alive in the flesh body of Man.

Man is a duality, having both material and spiritual, Mind and body, Spirit and body, Spirit and Flesh