 
Support Wrong Planet Awareness!
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| After reading this essay you believe... |
| ...when I die there is absolute nothing. |
|
58% |
[ 7 ] |
| ...when I die I go to heaven. |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| ...when I die I am reborn as another animal. |
|
8% |
[ 1 ] |
| ...when I die I'll still be agnostic. |
|
8% |
[ 1 ] |
| ...when I die I'll be pure energy. |
|
16% |
[ 2 ] |
| ...when I die I'll be pure thought. |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| ...when I die I'll be pure energy/thought. |
|
8% |
[ 1 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 12 |
|
| Author |
Message |
TheAutisticDirector
Tufted Titmouse
Joined: Oct 23, 2009
Age: 22
Posts: 25
Location: Toronto, Ontario
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 1:19 pm Post subject: PERSONALITY/CONCIOUSNESS - SEPERATION (philosophy) |
 |
|
PERSONALITY/CONCIOUSNESS - SEPERATION
by James Huston
For arguments sake let’s pretend that when you die you go directly to a place called heaven. For this argument it doesn’t really matter where you go once you die, but rather what you become. Knowing what we know about DNA scientists have been able to determine that certain characteristics in each individual may be the direct influence of coding in our DNA. It’s a known fact that parents pass on their genes to their children. A father can pass on a strong musical talent. A mother can pass on a twisted sense of humor. The end result is that the biological child of two parents will have a personality comprised of various genetic codes which he inherited from his parents.
The one thing we know for a fact about death is that the body is left behind. We bury the body underground, cremate it, mummify, or freeze it. In all cases the DNA never leaves the body. The brain too never leaves the body. Both of these make up a human’s personality. It can’t be proven that either a hell or a heaven exists, but can it reasonably be proven that when we die we loose or personality vis-a-vi we no longer possess individualism?
The Theory
What I am describing is my theory that a human’s personality and consciousness are completely separate things. For the time we are alive let’s assume that a human’s personality is merely in a symbiotic relationship with the as yet completely understood consciousness. If this could be proved that would seem to indicate that like matter can not be destroyed neither could consciousness. Still that fact neither proves nor disproves life after death. Instead it makes it more complicated.
Categorizing Consciousness
When our bodies die and even as we live our molecules that comprise out bodies become part of different things. The molecules in your hand might have thousands of years ago been those that comprised an enormous boulder or the eye of an eagle. Matter has infinite uses and changes consistently.
Let us for the time being say that consciousness while separate from the material plane of existence still exists in a parallel dimension following similar rules that matter does.
Consciousness & Energy
What if consciousness was nothing at all like matter, but simply another form of energy. It has been a common theme in philosophy, science, religion, and story telling that humans often feel they have a strange connection with each other and the energy emanating from nature.
The conversation on how humans can sense each other and the eventuality of world wide telepathy is a conversation in and of it self. My only focus here is how human consciousness can be considered energy.
The sun is a mammoth source of energy. It converts large quantities of matter into energy. This supports it’s own functions as well as bring energy to earth via photosynthesis. Now our brains, from a certain point of view, do a similar process. Molecules in the brain are converted into energy. This energy helps continue the process of running the brain and the body. The body and mind together through conscious and unconscious effort create and consume energy.
In this particular scenario the only difference between us and the sun is that the sun has no proven consciousness. Let’s assume for the moment that the only reason the sun has no perceived consciousness is because it’s consciousness is not in a symbiotic relationship with a brain and there for personality.
What I’m essentially saying is that energy and thought are one in the same.
Are You Telling Me I Can Not Die?!
What I personally find frightening about this theory is that it seemingly supports the notion that death sucks. Under this theory a human can not die. It is more accurate do define the passing of a human being as the seizing of existence in their present symbiotic form.
Without consciousness a human mind discontinues it’s awareness. Awareness is considered a prerequisite for being considered an intelligent life form. There for the human body and personality of the particular individual become non-living matter. Eventually this matter is to be reused as it decomposes.
Without personality the conscious energy attached to a human mind losses the status of being considered a soul. There for it becomes little more then energy that also is to be reused. As I indicated before, energy is thought, thought is awareness. We can logically assume that when we die we will be aware… However we will not have personality nor the five senses associated with human form.
It is likely that we will never be able to comprehend the kind of consciousness associated with pure awareness. To do so one would have to completely dissociate themselves with all emotion and personality. The only way to do that is to die.
Conclusion
My theory of consciousness and personality being separate is entirely of my own imagination. Though I lack degrees in science, writing, or philosophy I do wish that one day my essays such as this one might be published in a scientific publication such as Scientific American. I have shared my theory to garner attention and/or interest for the field of philosophy in general. I am also curious to see what people think of my ideas.
If you wish to share this theory with others please site it as “James Huston’s theory of Personality/Consciousness Separation”. Thank you for reading.
Be sure to check out the trailer for my upcoming film (Hacker Mind)
_________________
I am a film director!
learn more at my website.
www.JamesBradfordHuston.com
Last edited by TheAutisticDirector on Mon Nov 02, 2009 2:21 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
Letum
Deinonychus
Joined: Jan 21, 2007
Age: 22
Posts: 320
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 1:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| There is nothing 'Scientific' there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 8449
Location: Omnipresent
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 2:05 pm Post subject: Re: PERSONALITY/CONCIOUSNESS - SEPERATION (scientific theory |
|
|
| TheAutisticDirector wrote: |
The Theory
What I am describing is my theory that a human’s personality and consciousness are completely separate things. For the time we are alive let’s assume that a human’s personality is merely in a symbiotic relationship with the as yet completely understood consciousness. If this could be proved that would seem to indicate that like matter can not be destroyed neither could consciousness. Still that fact neither proves nor disproves life after death. Instead it makes it more complicated. |
I don't see how your argument follows. Consciousness, unless you consider it a basic building block of reality, could be destroyed, just like a rock could be destroyed. Only basic building blocks of reality could be argued as indestructible.
| Quote: | Categorizing Consciousness
When our bodies die and even as we live our molecules that comprise out bodies become part of different things. The molecules in your hand might have thousands of years ago been those that comprised an enormous boulder or the eye of an eagle. Matter has infinite uses and changes consistently. |
Probably not a giant boulder, as giant boulders would both have to be broken into smaller pieces, and have enough material processable by biological processes to enter the hand. Even if I granted that matter has infinite uses, it does not follow that each unit of matter can do the same things. The letter "z" has infinite uses, as it can be used to construct all sorts of words in all sorts of writings, and even as an example in a philosophical argument(like this one) however, no matter how hard we try, "z" cannot be used to write the term "beef" and any attempt to do this will be nonsensical.
| Quote: | Consciousness & Energy
What if consciousness was nothing at all like matter, but simply another form of energy. It has been a common theme in philosophy, science, religion, and story telling that humans often feel they have a strange connection with each other and the energy emanating from nature. |
I don't see this as much in philosophy and science. As science is materialistic, and philosophy has tended to listen to science.
| Quote: | | The sun is a mammoth source of energy. It converts large quantities of matter into energy. This supports it’s own functions as well as bring energy to earth via photosynthesis. Now our brains, from a certain point of view, do a similar process. Molecules in the brain are converted into energy. This energy helps continue the process of running the brain and the body. The body and mind together through conscious and unconscious effort create and consume energy. |
The brain breaks apart molecular bonds to get energy found in those bonds, not so much matter-energy conversion as the sun does, however, yes, the brain does have processes that allow it to use energy.
| Quote: | In this particular scenario the only difference between us and the sun is that the sun has no proven consciousness. Let’s assume for the moment that the only reason the sun has no perceived consciousness is because it’s consciousness is not in a symbiotic relationship with a brain and there for personality.
What I’m essentially saying is that energy and thought are one in the same. |
The differences between ourselves and the sun ends up being enormous, heck, if you say that the sun has no proven consciousness because it has no brain, then you've just added an additional difference.
In any case, I think you are making a rather large assumption here. Why? Because the opposing theory is going to be that consciousness is what a working brain produces using energy. Saying "consciousness = energy" is both a large metaphysical leap, and one that your own theory has not found a way to show is better than the opposing theory, if on both sides it is recognized that expressed consciousness requires a working brain.
In any case, if thought and energy are one and the same, how come we identify thought in different ways than we identify energy?
| Quote: | Are You Telling Me I Can Not Die?!
What I personally find frightening about this theory is that it seemingly supports the notion that death sucks. Under this theory a human can not die. It is more accurate do define the passing of a human being as the seizing of existence in their present symbiotic form.
Without consciousness a human mind discontinues it’s awareness. Awareness is considered a prerequisite for being considered an intelligent life form. There for the human body and personality of the particular individual become non-living matter. Eventually this matter is to be reused as it decomposes.
Without personality the conscious energy attached to a human mind losses the status of being considered a soul. There for it becomes little more then energy that also is to be reused. As I indicated before, energy is thought, thought is awareness. We can logically assume that when we die we will be aware… However we will not have personality nor the five senses associated with human form.
It is likely that we will never be able to comprehend the kind of consciousness associated with pure awareness. To do so one would have to completely dissociate themselves with all emotion and personality. The only way to do that is to die. |
Awareness is a prerequisite for being considered an intelligent life form? How do we define aware then? Are microbes aware? After all, they react to their environment.
thought = awareness? No, not at all. What about the absent minded professor? He is extremely thoughtful, but completely unaware.
We can only assume your conclusion if we assume the premises to lead to your conclusion, which themselves are also unproven. Which essentially means you are assuming your own conclusion. Finally, if consciousness = energy, but consciousness != identity(note identity != personality unless one argues otherwise), in what sense is it me the person living on? It seems that it isn't, thus there is no life after death, we just have dualism where both the body decays and the mind decays after death.
| Quote: | Conclusion
My theory of consciousness and personality being separate is entirely of my own imagination. Though I lack degrees in science, writing, or philosophy I do wish that one day my essays such as this one might be published in a scientific publication such as Scientific American. I have shared my theory to garner attention and/or interest for the field of philosophy in general. I am also curious to see what people think of my ideas.
If you wish to share this theory with others please site it as “James Huston’s theory of Personality/Consciousness Separation”. Thank you for reading.
Be sure to check out the trailer for my upcoming film (Hacker Mind)
|
[/quote]
One, your title is misleading. Nothing in your idea is scientific. Scientific ideas are notable for their testability, but I can't see a single way to consider your theory testable.
Because of that, unless I have terribly misread you, there isn't much content to your theory. It is another possible way to conceive reality perhaps, but it is not compelling.
However, if you are driven to further develop your ideas about consciousness(in broadly the direction you are going), I might recommend that you read some process philosophy/theism, as they consider consciousness to be a basic unit in reality, while standard science is materialist, and standard philosophy is materialist or dualist between materials and ideals or spiritual forces for the most part, while your ideas are more of a metaphysical notion.
_________________
Destroying reality since the end of time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
TheAutisticDirector
Tufted Titmouse
Joined: Oct 23, 2009
Age: 22
Posts: 25
Location: Toronto, Ontario
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 2:29 pm Post subject: response |
|
|
I agree, it is far more accurate to describe this as "philosophical theory" rather than "scientific theory". I have thus changed the title.
I do like metaphysics as there is absolutely no way to prove anything really. I do realize that my evidence in proving my theory is lacking. First off I can't possibly prove things such as the sun being conscious. Secondly this is a theory for extremely open mindedness.
I'm not a scientist, I'm just a thinker. I'm just asking people to think about it.
_________________
I am a film director!
learn more at my website.
www.JamesBradfordHuston.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
Letum
Deinonychus
Joined: Jan 21, 2007
Age: 22
Posts: 320
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's not really philosophy either.
Philosophy typically consists of arguments that follow rational, well defined steps.
What you have written doesn't do that. It's not the case that the evidence in proving the
theory is lacking, if philosophy required evidence then it would be science. It's the deductive
arguments and clear definition of terms that are lacking.
It wouldn't even by target practice to shoot holes in it with the gun of rationality*.
The most generous description of it is mysticism.
Open mindedness doesn't mean removing the filter of rationality that separates ideas that
make sense from ones that don't; it's about exposing all ideas to that filter equally.
Having a filter that isn't robust, or letting things past the filter in the name of open mindedness,
faith or mysticism is a sure path to filling your mind with unfiltered nonsense.
*If you really want to I can, but it will be tedious. |
|
| Back to top |
|
TheAutisticDirector
Tufted Titmouse
Joined: Oct 23, 2009
Age: 22
Posts: 25
Location: Toronto, Ontario
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:31 pm Post subject: response |
|
|
I do consider this philosophy. In my opinion philosophy is the pursuit of, or understanding of things that can not be rationalized or proven. Metaphysics and Ethics are my favorite branches of philosophy. In this case my theory is more closely related to metaphysics. Even the fantasy genre is a form of philosophy at it's most surreal and unprovable form. I am open minded enough to realize that I have no way of knowing whether what I know is knowledge.
Anyway to further back my article as a piece of metaphysical philosophy I site the definitions for philosophy as given by Webster's Dictionary, Wikipidia, Dictionary.com, and even some other views of what philosophy is by various individuals at Urban Dictionary.com.
Here is also an interesting article on "existence" that was an article in the Standford Encyclopedia. It is a great basis for discussing the foundation of philosphy. (click here to view)
_________________
I am a film director!
learn more at my website.
www.JamesBradfordHuston.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 8449
Location: Omnipresent
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 7:35 pm Post subject: Re: response |
|
|
| TheAutisticDirector wrote: | | I do consider this philosophy. |
If more work were put into it, then yes, it could be called philosophy. At the stage that it is in at the moment, letum is right to call it mysticism.
| Quote: | | In my opinion philosophy is the pursuit of, or understanding of things that can not be rationalized or proven |
Most philosophers will disagree, and argue that philosophy is the rational pursuit of knowledge, and rather isn't irrational. Some of the sources you have cited also agree that rationality is important to philosophy.
"Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument."-Wikipedia
"the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct."-dictionary.com
| Quote: | | Even the fantasy genre is a form of philosophy at it's most surreal and unprovable form. |
No, not at the most unprovable form, but rather at the more profound forms. Fantasy can be philosophical, however, it only is so by illuminating problems in philosophy and providing examples of the workings of ideas, but one must not confuse philosophy with mysticism, as the two are different. What is called "metaphysics" at book stores, isn't what philosophy departments accept as metaphysics.
| Quote: | | I am open minded enough to realize that I have no way of knowing whether what I know is knowledge. |
Ok, but that doesn't excuse your methods.
_________________
Destroying reality since the end of time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
TheAutisticDirector
Tufted Titmouse
Joined: Oct 23, 2009
Age: 22
Posts: 25
Location: Toronto, Ontario
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:13 pm Post subject: to each his own |
|
|
I had a feeling that this philosophical idea would be too strange for the greater intellectual audience. It would seem that by our conversing that I am stuck in an argument. Arguments are usually only the articulation of confusion between two parties.
I submit that we return to the old axiom "to each his own"
_________________
I am a film director!
learn more at my website.
www.JamesBradfordHuston.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 8449
Location: Omnipresent
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:30 pm Post subject: Re: to each his own |
|
|
| TheAutisticDirector wrote: | | I had a feeling that this philosophical idea would be too strange for the greater intellectual audience. It would seem that by our conversing that I am stuck in an argument. Arguments are usually only the articulation of confusion between two parties. |
Arguments are also the basis of philosophy. The idea is that through comparing ideas, and working through problems with ideas, we can find ideas that better match shared realities, as after all, if we are all seekers, then what better way to seek than take philosophical constructions apart so we can build them back up again?
So, let us say that I give this starting argument:
1) Socrates is a man
2) All men are mortal
3) Socrates is therefore mortal
Well, people who question my argument for whatever reason will then argue against how I know my premises. For example, if I wanted to attack the syllogism, I might say that mortality isn't a necessary quality to what we call "human" as we cannot observe the fact that all people are mortal, only that a large number of past people have been. Or I could argue that mortality isn't a real quality at all, as identity can last forever, and a "mortal" frame can have it's lifespan expanded infinitely through proper technology thus making mortality vs immortality a product of environment rather than an essence of the object. Thus even saying that Socrates is a man, does not mean that Socrates is mortal. I could also argue that Socrates isn't mortal.
Avoiding these arguments is somewhat unreasonable as well because people will differ in how they conceptualize the world and how they consider it best to analyze the world. If people are searching for something that seems true, then the best test for truth is matching our intuitions, being internally coherent, and being coherent with the external world. Seeking to avoid that then becomes silly.
| Quote: | | I submit that we return to the old axiom "to each his own" |
No, I submit that we don't. Thinking clearly and developing coherent and sensible ideas is a skill, why shouldn't we promote this skill for the sake of others and for the knowledge of all people here? After all, interesting arguments are a boon to the community by giving ideas to pick through that can reasonably be accepted to express an intuition rather than be a leap of faith into some form of epistemic solipsism.
I mean, look, I see no problem with you developing this idea until it can become a philosophy(where at the very least it provides the conceptual advantage of a developed worldview rather than being an ad hoc metaphysical addition), but I am not going to call a pile of crap to be a pile of apples just to be polite. I have even suggested that you look into process philosophy, as it proposes that our reality is units of experience, with consciousness being one of the more developed forms of experience, as this idea could perhaps help you develop your intuitions more concretely in some sense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_philosophy
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-philosophy/
You can also check out process theology as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_theology
http://www.ctr4process.org/
http://www.processandfaith.org/
http://www.religion-online.org/listbycategory.asp?Cat=40 (writings by Christian process theologian John Cobb)
http://www.religion-online.org/listbycategory.asp?Cat=31 (writings by and about process theology founder Alfred North Whitehead)
http://www.religion-online.org/listbycategory.asp?Cat=18 (writings about process theology)
Who knows, maybe idealism, where our reality is comprised of minds is really your bag?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism
Maybe even transcendentalism instead? (which is actually related to idealism in a meaningful sense anyway)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendentalism
Possibly even learning an eastern religion and putting forward a worldview influenced by these eastern ideas?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taoism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism
I dunno, but the more you provide argument and offer ideas with some merit other than oddity. The more useful you are to me and to everyone else here, and probably the more interesting of a person you might be as well if you have some sort of disciplined insight.
If you have problem with that, then let's put it this way: let's say that you are a Christian fundamentalist(if only because we're more familiar with that group) who is asserting that the earth was created 6000 years ago, that homosexuality is evil and should be punished by law, and that all who defy the law of God are just depraved fools, and neither provides solid argument or much reason for us to accept these ideas while still putting them forward. Should we tolerate someone so obnoxious? I'd say not. The same for a hard-core socialist/republican/libertarian/fascist/Muslim/whatever else. Does this mean that it is wrong to hold to a viewpoint? No, but if you want to present a viewpoint, then sell it, argue it, provide empirical support for it, show it is consistent if not more consistent with our reality, etc, as the average person is bombarded with ideas, but what is desirable are the ideas that actually engage us and make us question ourselves and the new view.
EDIT: Because I realized that Nietzsche had something worthwhile to say, here it is:
Companions, the creator seeks, not corpses--and not herds or believers
either. Fellow-creators the creator seeks--those who write new values
on new tables.
Companions, the creator seeks, and fellow-reapers: for everything is
ripe for the harvest with him. But he lacks the hundred sickles: so he
plucks the ears of corn and is annoyed.
Companions, the creator seeks, and such as know how to whet their
sickles. Destroyers, will they be called, and despisers of good and
evil. But they are the reapers and rejoicers.
And whoever is to be a creator in good and evil--verily, he must first
to be a destroyer, and break values in pieces.
Me again:
So I say PPR needs men with sickles and destroyers in order to truly have creators, otherwise who will cast down the nonsenses of the world to write fresh thoughts upon the frame of reality? Who will apply their sickles to the ideas in order to harvest them? Obviously we need combative rebels to push their ideas forward, otherwise we just get the nihilism of the last men, who reconcile their quarrels for the sake of their digestion rather than innovative minds and thinkers who actually have things to say.
(quotes taken from Thus Spake Zarathusthra, as I was reading it recently)
_________________
Destroying reality since the end of time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 73
Posts: 4795
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 1:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
You left out some alternatives. When we die the physical components of being still exist and are "recycled". The organized mental aspect or our being is gone. What happens to the data on a tape or disk when it is melted down into slag or degaussed? The atoms still exist but the information is gone, gone, gone. Or at least gone enough so that it cannot be retrieved or reconstructed.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
xanos_25
Hummingbird
Joined: Oct 06, 2009
Age: 36
Posts: 19
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 10:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
The idea as a thought experiment is interesting but at the moment I agree that it is little more then that.
I do have to ask... If I have a soul by my identity is in my body what matters the soul? |
|
| Back to top |
|
TheAutisticDirector
Tufted Titmouse
Joined: Oct 23, 2009
Age: 22
Posts: 25
Location: Toronto, Ontario
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:13 am Post subject: to xanos_25 |
|
|
| xanos_25 wrote: | | I do have to ask... If I have a soul (but?) my identity is in my body what matters the soul? |
to xanos_25
What I'm trying to say is that what is popularly believed to be a soul might actually only a momentary thing. In other words following this line of logic a soul only exist when both matter in the form of a personality and energy in the form of consciousness are combined. I believe when we die we loose that thing we call a soul.
It’s like saying the human mind is greater then the sum of it’s parts, or that a film crew makes a film greater then the product that one of them could create alone.
_________________
I am a film director!
learn more at my website.
www.JamesBradfordHuston.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
xanos_25
Hummingbird
Joined: Oct 06, 2009
Age: 36
Posts: 19
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:55 am Post subject: Re: to xanos_25 |
|
|
| TheAutisticDirector wrote: |
What I'm trying to say is that what is popularly believed to be a soul might actually only a momentary thing. In other words following this line of logic a soul only exist when both matter in the form of a personality and energy in the form of consciousness are combined. I believe when we die we loose that thing we call a soul.
It’s like saying the human mind is greater then the sum of it’s parts, or that a film crew makes a film greater then the product that one of them could create alone. |
If everything we are is recycled, both the physical and the energy componant (weather that energy is just a biological process or as your thought experiment suggests something more) then once one or the other is damage then the personality is gone. We are not talking about a soul at all here as (at least in my understanding) the soul is more of an immortal thing.
This almost looks like a simplified version of certian egyption mysticism in which the a person had a ba (or lifeforce) and a ka (or personality) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_religion#Afterlife) both of which were concidered metaphysical in nature and as well as a body. Mumification rites where an attempt to reunite the ba and the ka and to preserve the body as a source of "energy" for the ka. This is of course an over simlifacation.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
Dancyclancy
Deinonychus
Joined: Sep 03, 2009
Posts: 319
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi THe Autistic Director!
It seems everyone is coming to your proposition from their adopted standpoints.
The tired old stances continue to reappear.
I'm glad you posed something refreshing!
I ticked ENERGY, because it is something that can be transmuted.However, I doubt there will be a "conscious I' after death, in the manner we know it. In another manner ...who knows..?!
Is it possible to intuit a "truth" ( for want of a better word)?
Remember once it would have been considered daft, pure fantasy, to conceive that a table may not in fact be solid but rather a mass of moving particles , or that the world was not flat.......
Einstein :"The Imagination is more important than knowledge..
It is after the vision ( mental construct of a new possibility) of a new idea that the realms of SCIENCE and ACADEMIC PHILOSOPHY enter to debate and attempt to establish VALIDITY or not.
Surely, after one position has found some credence it is not SCIENTIFIC to accept it eternally as GOSPEL.
Also don't we need Visionaries in order to develop.... I think this is what Einstein is alluding to in his understanding that ....IMAGINATON is more important than KNOWLEDGE.
ORIGINAL Vs REGURGITATED
I find the OPs ideas refreshing and a worthwhile endeavour initself, as well as opening up the minds of others to abandon Dogma and Doctrine and ponder existence for themselves.
Whilst TheAutisticDirector doesn't present an Academic argument his thoughts are by definition philosophical.... he has not just thrown together a random set of things... Socrates hadn't a degree in Philosophy.
Maybe, someday in the future, the OPs ideas might be debated in the Acadamies ( be the suject of Academics' interest), after all Philosophy Faculties at Universities are crammed full of people debating , using hackneyed arguements, the ideas of others.... no much Original thinking)..........
_________________
Feel that gap between
voice and thought.
That gap, when you've
bared shards or playful glints,
finding surrounding eyes
bespeak facets of TABOO |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 8449
Location: Omnipresent
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dancyclancy wrote: |
It seems everyone is coming to your proposition from their adopted standpoints.
The tired old stances continue to reappear. |
Well, of course we do. And the history of philosophy is full of the same debates over and over again. I mean, Platonism has existed since Plato and it is still being mentioned.
| Quote: |
Is it possible to intuit a "truth" ( for want of a better word)? |
Depends on what we mean by "intuit"? So much of our world is built upon intuitions, like there is no logical reason why causality should work, but we intuit that it does. However, obviously not all intuitions are equal, and often times arguments are trade-offs between intuitions.
| Quote: | | Remember once it would have been considered daft, pure fantasy, to conceive that a table may not in fact be solid but rather a mass of moving particles , or that the world was not flat....... |
Well, yes, but that is no reason not to consider people who reject these ideas proper to do so. Context matters. In any case, the "once" you are talking about would have had to be a long time ago before a philosophy truly developed, as atoms were first devised as an idea by Greeks, such as Democritus, for philosophical reasons(I believe a skepticism towards the infinite divisibility of things). The Greeks also knew the earth wasn't round, based upon the change in constellations in the sky and different positions of the sun in different geographic locations.
In any case, the ideas are important to establish through arguments, not through throwing the idea out there.
| Quote: | | Einstein :"The Imagination is more important than knowledge.. |
I would have to say that there is likely an optimal trade-off between the two, and that imagination is also not the only matter at hand, as a any idea without finely honed conceptions will be somewhat empty. If Einstein didn't have the analytical tools to present the theory of relativity, it would only be his personal oddity, or possibly not even possible to devise. The imagination that is needed is the imagination to take pre-existing ideas, and build something new on them.
| Quote: | | Also don't we need Visionaries in order to develop.... I think this is what Einstein is alluding to in his understanding that ....IMAGINATON is more important than KNOWLEDGE. |
Um... I don't get that point. Einstein *was* a visionary, who altered the very nature of physics based upon his ability to perform powerful thought experiments. Thought experiments aren't knowledge themselves, but rather powerful conceptualizations that were used to create knowledge. Thus it seems the real good is the thought-experiment.
| Quote: | | Whilst TheAutisticDirector doesn't present an Academic argument his thoughts are by definition philosophical.... he has not just thrown together a random set of things... Socrates hadn't a degree in Philosophy. |
Well, I would actually argue that throwing a random set of things together *is* what happened.
"Let us for the time being say that consciousness while separate from the material plane of existence still exists in a parallel dimension following similar rules that matter does."
"Let’s assume for the moment that the only reason the sun has no perceived consciousness is because it’s consciousness is not in a symbiotic relationship with a brain and there for personality."
By this point, we've basically assumed the entire idea without any reason to do so, or anything to commend the idea to us.
Having a degree in philosophy isn't what is being asked here. A lot of people who are good at philosophy lack degrees in it. A lot of people who contributed to science were just lucky cranks. The idea is familiarity with other philosophical ideas and an ability to create good philosophical expression is important, and frankly, the two go together to some extent because few people are completely original. Even Isaac Newton admitted that he only got as far as he did by standing on the shoulders of giants(as have other thinkers as the expression wasn't invented by Newton), and Newton was a genius with levels of ability unlike anyone on this forum.
| Quote: |
Maybe, someday in the future, the OPs ideas might be debated in the Acadamies ( be the suject of Academics' interest), after all Philosophy Faculties at Universities are crammed full of people debating , using hackneyed arguements, the ideas of others.... no much Original thinking).......... |
I'd bet almost anything it wouldn't be debated as it stands. Why? There is a lack of content. Also, I disagree, I think there is ongoing original thinking, and I think the original thinking in this era is greater than all past eras. Think about it. Aquinas basically just updated Greek philosophy to Christian theology, however, modern thinkers are going in a hundred directions at once. There might be more division of labor now, but still the greatest growth in knowledge is modern growth.
_________________
Destroying reality since the end of time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
