Guest Fadi Posted June 4, 2003 Report Share Posted June 4, 2003 I was wondering where to post that, it rather philosophical in nature, not really science, so I post it here. I though about a perfect world, where we have the answer for everything, everyone is equal, cold fusion, having everything we want with no effort at all, could be near immortals(living thousands of years etc...). I came then to an interesting conclusion, if that could be possible, the "ego" or the "individuality" could not exist anymore. The "I" would be innexistant. In a world like this, everyone would have the suprem knowledge, we will have everything we want, what than will make me the "Domino" if this "Fadis" knowledge will be the same as Seaphahn, Sasun, who ever else, I mean, in a perfect world, I should have a "perfect" emotion, have everything perfect, Seaphan on the other hand, will have as well a perfect emotion and everything perfect. I will have as well the perfect body, Seaphan will have the perfect body. What will make me different from Seaphan(I just use here Seaphahn as a variable ). In fact, in a such world, I will even not need to exist, my life will have absolutly no "goals" because there will be no problem in that world, every questions that one will ask, one could find the answer, so the "I" could not exist at all. what could that mean ? The reason why the "I" exist, is simply because we don't have a perfect world, the reason why we search a goal to our lives, and that we can find a goal to our life, the reason why we search a sense for our life, the reason why we can find one, is directly linked to the fact that we do not live in a perfect world, the "Individuality" Is an order in the disorder, the same way that natural selection is an order from the disorder, what makes order and bring life is this imperfection. Its ironic, but its a simple constatation, this is what creat cultures, languages, differences in our society, everything is created because of an adaptation of the "non-perfect" world... the day the world will be perfect, individuality will vanish with it... there will be one cultute one knowledge, a collective life, where the entire human specie will think the same thing, and act as one. If one of them will be killed, since the "I" won't exist, he still will exist with this collective conscience. Is that not right ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted June 4, 2003 Report Share Posted June 4, 2003 Domino, interestingly I have read similar things in eastern spiritual literature. But there is some difference. We have two types of identity, the self and the "I". The "I" is the eternal "I", the soul that never dies. The self is the temporary self, the ego. This self/ego is the result of ignorance and imperfection. It tries hard to make a distinction between itself and other egos. The "I", or otherwise called the universal self, identifies itself with the perfect One, but it does so uniquely. Each "I" has a very unique role, it has a hidden and unselfish individuality, although it is a part and parcel of the universal identity (what many call God). I know that this is not what you like to talk about. But it is really intriguing that you logically arrived at the link between imperfection, individuality and short lifespan, and on the other hand perfection, near-infinite life and lack of commonly known individuality. Man, you never stop philosophical thinking By the way, I didn't read your other post yet. Its not fun to try to decipher what the heck you are trying to say Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Fadi Posted June 5, 2003 Report Share Posted June 5, 2003 Sasun, what proves that the self and the "I" are not the same thing ? Suppose that there is one "self-reflectiviness" in the entire Universe, imagine that we exchange it all together. Imagine that you and I have the same self-reflectivness. I don't know if you underswtand what I mean. Imagine that we were to take your self-reflectiviness and put it in me, and take mine and put it in you. What would be different ? I mean, I will not see the difference at all, because I will be you, and from the memories from your brain, I will think having always being you. When you dream(not the lucid dreams), you are like another world, Imagine that you dream being in another family, in many of those dreams, you have no knowledge of the peoples existance that exist in your true life. In that dream you are self-reflective, you know you exist in that dream, the same goes if your self-reflectivness was to by exchanged with mine, you will think that you were always me, your "ego" will be Domino's Ego. I am forced here to conclude that self-reflectivness is not what makes you you, and me me, because depending of the brain it is connected to, it makes no difference at all. Now imagine that this same self-reflectivness is exchanged among everyone at the same time, imagine that you and me have this same self-reflectivness, how would I know ? Because it is simply connected to my brain, and that it is connected to my memories. It is hard to explain what I mean. I don,t know if you get the picture. I mean, what really makes the "I" if it never dies, what makes the "I" "I" when the "I" alone, could not now it has existed, because there will be no brain attached to it that will record its existance, and this same "I" without a brain could not know the possibility of a future existance, it will just exist, knowing it exist, but not knowing it existed a second before, and not knowing it will exist. So What will make this "I" as an "I" if all the "Is" of everyone were to be like that ? I mean, it takes at the very least, memory. Another thing, if we were to consider consciencenous as a property of matter, just suppose that every particule has its identity and has consciencenouis, but no memory to record it. I want to believe that the "I" never dies, but even if you were to believe it, this "I" will be of no importances, and will be like not existing at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted June 5, 2003 Report Share Posted June 5, 2003 Domino, I think I udnerstand what you mean. If your brain was placed in my head, I would think I was Domino. Right? I believe that mind is not the only form of concsiousness. The "I" has its own memory, it doesn't need a brain. You would ask how it is possible. I can't explain it, but because we are used to know that brain is what makes one think, we are inclined to think that consciousness exists in the brain only. But I don't think that is the case. However, there is no conventional proof of the "I". The only way that one could know if his "I" is to experience it by himself. If I experience my "I" very well, it will be a proof for me. But I still cannot prove it to you unless you also experience your own "I". There you go In general, the existing scientific knowledge leads one to believe that consciousness originates from the matter. That's because they think of the brain, and they limit concsiousness to the mind only. As far as I know, no other types of consciousness is acknowledged in science. Correct me if I am wrong. But according to ancient knowledge, matter is the result and a form of consciousness. And there are many-many levels of consciousness. The mind consciousness is only one level, and it is not a high level consciousness at all. Unfortunately, or fortunately, it takes a lot of practice and discipline to be able to attain those higher levels of concsiousness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Fadi Posted June 7, 2003 Report Share Posted June 7, 2003 I don't know Sasun, I would want to believe, but I need to believe something that is logical. Well, I will be reading Dr. Fred Alan Wolf works, he recieved very good critics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted June 9, 2003 Report Share Posted June 9, 2003 (edited) I don't know Sasun, I would want to believe, but I need to believe something that is logical. I understand it. But frankly I don't see what is not logical. Maybe you mean a different logic, or counter conventional logic? That I agree. I checked this and found quite interesting. Hope there is a lot of substance behind the titles. Some quotes that I agree: The soul, being a nonphysical substance, can never be destroyed God is everywhere and in all nature I also like the The Circle of Conditioned Genesis. Of course, these are only the contents. Is this something you are planning to read? If so, I would be interested to know what you think of it. Edited June 9, 2003 by Sasun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCarthyiologist Posted June 24, 2003 Report Share Posted June 24, 2003 Sasun, I am now believe in the non-soul, the Buddhist conception of the non-soul. If identity is a property of everything that exist, the "soul" is not needed anymore in order to explain a possible life after death. If I make an exact copy of you, an identical copy, I will be forced to destroy you, in order that this copy be possible, once I do that, you would not see the difference, you will still exist, and knowing you exist. So I leave to the billions of Universe forming to find an exact copy of me that would live longer than me, in order that after my death I exist. So you see, no soul needed, considering that identity is intrinsect to matter. So everything is discuntinued, conscience is the phenomenology by which this discontinuation is linked together to form a continuation. As for works, I will order Fred Alan Wolf works, it seems that he as well believe the non-soul as "soul" very interesting concept... matter, and everything in our universe have already their identity, the Universe has chosen the way to survive without needing a "soul" for some of its constituants(us). We can survive without soul, and that even after death, the problem is that we may just not know we survived. What would that be different than death ? I have no idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted June 24, 2003 Report Share Posted June 24, 2003 Domino, even though this is your reloaded version, I still have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCarthyiologist Posted June 24, 2003 Report Share Posted June 24, 2003 (edited) You don't have any idea, because it is the "reloaded" version, not a new version. I made allusion of what I said on a new thread and science and technology, you should go and read that before comming here and reading this fartation of mine. Edited June 24, 2003 by McCarthyiologist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted July 7, 2003 Report Share Posted July 7, 2003 BTW, who is this McCarthyologist, he is copying my ideas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azat Posted July 7, 2003 Report Share Posted July 7, 2003 BTW, who is this McCarthyologist, he is copying my ideas. Domino, too much time in your hands? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.