Does a seperate "self" exist independent of it's space & time?

[innonimatu]

The question is, however, if the brain is really identical to the self. (Also, does personality alteration result in "soul alteration"?) I would suggest a different preposition: self is not identical to personality. (A person may have multi-personality disorder; does this mean that the self is sick? Or does self/soul encompass something larger than meets the eye - i.e. mind?)

You can suggest all you like, but it won't change reality!

 

[Imperialmajesty]

Isn't it intuitive? Something that is aware of itself and its separateness from the rest of the world. I feel that *I* *am* this single entity, although I am in reality a complex web of different interacting processes - sensory input and its interpretations basically. The processes are so finely grained that most of the time *I* pay no attention to them. Self is an emergent property. Here more than anywhere, the whole is more than the sum of its parts.

In meditation one usually tries to become aware of the processes that comprise and give rise to the self, so as to eventually eradicate it through Enlightenment (total awareness; oneness with the Universe, what have you). I have some problems with this concept since, well, I don't want to lose my self. But if I am illusory, what is there to lose in the first place?

As long as one admits that knowing what the self is is simply a pleasant illusion that perhaps allows us to answer questions based on a pleasant potential fiction, then I am fine with it.

What I have a problem with is people coming around and stating what the self is as if it is a stone cold fact (not saying people here are doing that, then again they might I have not read the whole thread, lol).

 

[Agent327]

Fine, a "self" or "soul" as an undefined word with no known properties, could exist seperate from the brain.
It can, because it nolonger means anything that way.

If you propose that the self doesn't include personality, you should also propose what it does mean, or we won't get any further than talking about nothing.

That almost entirely misses the point: I didn't say the self doesn't include personality at all - I merely suggested it might be greater than that (i.e. isn't identical, but includes personality - exactly the opposite of what you're suggesting I said).

You can suggest all you like, but it won't change reality!

My suggestion was aimed at reaching a more universal definition of self (or soul, whichever one prefers); if one accepts that the soul includes - at least a part or the whole of - the self, than the conclusion that "a separate self does exist outside space and time" seems justified.

Also, one might discern between reality and perceived reality. (Usually "reality" is greater than "perceived reality", simply because of the limits of an individual's perception.)

Isn't it intuitive? Something that is aware of itself and its separateness from the rest of the world. I feel that *I* *am* this single entity, although I am in reality a complex web of different interacting processes - sensory input and its interpretations basically. The processes are so finely grained that most of the time *I* pay no attention to them. Self is an emergent property. Here more than anywhere, the whole is more than the sum of its parts.

In meditation one usually tries to become aware of the processes that comprise and give rise to the self, so as to eventually eradicate it through Enlightenment (total awareness; oneness with the Universe, what have you). I have some problems with this concept since, well, I don't want to lose my self. But if I am illusory, what is there to lose in the first place?

I would suggest that intuitive knowledge is limited - again - to the individual's intuition. (I like this definition though: I feel that *I* *am* this single entity, although I am in reality a complex web of different interacting processes, as it poses intuition vs cognition.)

 

[Angst]

Nothing exist independent from space and time, but our dimension of "reality" is from the greater abstract aether that is true while nonexistant, which is the nonmass that we are a part of. Reality is just the independent self from the aether, not bits of the aether being the other way around.

 

[aelf]

Nothing exist independent from space and time

Yes, some things do, like ideas.

 

[Narz]

Yes, some things do, like ideas.

How do ideas exist outside space & time?

 

[aelf]

How do ideas exist outside space & time?

Do you really need an answer to this?

 

[Narz]

Do you really need an answer to this?

Yes, of course, even more so considering your attitude that it's truth speaks for itself.

 

[Angst]

Yes, some things do, like ideas.

Not really. I understand what you are talking about, but what should be remembered about ideas is that they are, at least, bound to be earthly - and they always will be. Ideas are independent in the way that they represent the essence of entities, and that representation is - at least in our reality - eternal. But the problem is that even though ideas exist unbound of the reality itself, independent in some way since they aren't present in matter, do understand that ideas are describing the reality, space and time. No matter how "freely" you think, they derive from our world and their truth is not blurred, but a manifested vision - like a simple rectangle in a world without shapes. What you must understand is that the world outside space & time is indefinitive, nonexistant, eternal and omnipresent. The self is only bound there through the exhale of death where we become one with nothing; and by then, the self isn't independent, for obvious reasons. Nothing can be independent in a world where that nothing doesn't even exist.

 

[Narz]

I agree with that paragraph except that ideas don't exist unbound of reality itself. Ideas spring from reality are processed thru the brain (part of reality) and stored therein & without context ideas are substanceless & empty. What good is the idea of "kindness" in an empty void? The "timeless idea" wouldn't even make sense there. Kindness can only make sense in a finite, tangible world. An idea defined becomes part of reality, a product of & intricately linked to the space & time when it was conceived, an idea undefined is not an idea.

The romanticization of ideas is supernatural thinking, IMO.

 

[Angst]

I agree with that paragraph except that ideas don't exist unbound of reality itself. Ideas spring from reality are processed thru the brain (part of reality) and stored therein & without context ideas are substanceless & empty. What good is the idea of "kindness" in an empty void? The "timeless idea" wouldn't even make sense there. Kindness can only make sense in a finite, tangible world. An idea defined becomes part of reality, a product of & intricately linked to the space & time when it was conceived, an idea undefined is not an idea.

The romanticization of ideas is supernatural thinking, IMO.

Which is why ideas are bound to this world, not the aether.

 

[Narz]

It's funny how intelligent folks who'd be embarrassed to believe in Greek myths can believe in stuff like that.

 

[Perfection]

I appreciate your conclusion, but humans - unlike computers - can physically move through space and time.

Well a computer can too (robots).

 

[Agent327]

Touché. Also, computers can virtually move through space and time - just like humans. But can computers develop ideas? (It reminds me of the 'Artificial Intelligence' doctrine: I never understood why computers should be called 'intelligent'. Adaptive, yes; but think of something new? For instance, the most advanced chess computer can mimic a chess master's thought process, but lacks his intuition. A chess master does not check every option, only the ones he deems viable. It's precisely because of this that the computer at some point is superior: because of its calculating power, it can work out every possible option - which for a human isn't very wise as a course of action during a game, let alone a tournament. So does intelligence come down to memory capacity?)

As for ideas existing outside time and space: Atlantis - the icon idea: doesn't exist in time and space (as it is imaginary); however, developing the idea would have taken up Plato's time.

 

[aelf]

Not really. I understand what you are talking about, but what should be remembered about ideas is that they are, at least, bound to be earthly - and they always will be. Ideas are independent in the way that they represent the essence of entities, and that representation is - at least in our reality - eternal. But the problem is that even though ideas exist unbound of the reality itself, independent in some way since they aren't present in matter, do understand that ideas are describing the reality, space and time. No matter how "freely" you think, they derive from our world and their truth is not blurred, but a manifested vision - like a simple rectangle in a world without shapes. What you must understand is that the world outside space & time is indefinitive, nonexistant, eternal and omnipresent. The self is only bound there through the exhale of death where we become one with nothing; and by then, the self isn't independent, for obvious reasons. Nothing can be independent in a world where that nothing doesn't even exist.

Just because ideas are derived from the spatial-temporal world doesn't mean they exist within space and time. There's no reason to believe so. And, IMO, all your arguments fail for one simple reason - do ideas obey the laws of physics?

Ideas are not tangible, sorry.

 

[Narz]

Just because ideas are derived from the spatial-temporal world doesn't mean they exist within space and time. There's no reason to believe so. And, IMO, all your arguments fail for one simple reason - do ideas obey the laws of physics?

Ideas are not tangible, sorry.

Of course ideas are tangible. They are contained within physical mediums (brains, computer chips, etc.) that are tangible & subject to decay just like anything else. You may as well say a piece of music is not tangible. Nothing is outside of the law of physics. That's just romanticism & superstition.

Name one idea that is not quantifiable.

Spoiler :

it's a trick question

 

[aelf]

Of course ideas are tangible. They are contained within physical mediums (brains, computer chips, etc.) that are tangible & subject to decay just like anything else. You may as well say a piece of music is not tangible. Nothing is outside of the law of physics. That's just romanticism & superstition.

I don't understand how it's superstition. I don't even consider this an important question. Ideas have properties that are different from material things, that much is obvious. I must say this is the first time I hear people unequivocally describe ideas as material things. That's pure delusion.

 

[warpus]

Touché. Also, computers can virtually move through space and time - just like humans. But can computers develop ideas? (It reminds me of the 'Artificial Intelligence' doctrine: I never understood why computers should be called 'intelligent'. Adaptive, yes; but think of something new?

They can't do that yet, but that doesn't mean that they won't be able to do so in the future.

After all, our brains are just biological machines. There's no reason we won't be able to build machines, at some point in the future, to duplicate our ability to "come up with new ideas". (which we never truly do, any new idea is just a repackaging of something else that already exists)

 

[Narz]

I don't understand how it's superstition. I don't even consider this an important question. Ideas have properties that are different from material things, that much is obvious. I must say this is the first time I hear people unequivocally describe ideas as material things. That's pure delusion.

The idea that ideas exist on another plain as reality is pure delusion, IMO. An idea must necessarily be transmitted thru a physical means or it is lost. Ideas are dependent on physical structure (whether it be a human brain, a stone tablet or a CD) to survive. They have no independence from physical form, they spring from it and must be maintained within it. IMO, the whole concept of ideas having a magical life outside of reality is just another excuse humans use to feel superior to the natural world & to worship their own abstract constructs above the living physical world. It's as supernatural as belief in a bearded deity as just as dangerous (perhaps more so because it's so unquestioned).

 

[aelf]

The idea that ideas exist on another plain as reality is pure delusion, IMO. An idea must necessarily be transmitted thru a physical means or it is lost. Ideas are dependent on physical structure (whether it be a human brain, a stone tablet or a CD) to survive. They have no independence from physical form, they spring from it and must be maintained within it.

Yet I apprehend ideas without the need for physical forms.

And are you ready to bite the bullet and say that you can touch, see, smell, hear or taste ideas?

IMO, the whole concept of ideas having a magical life outside of reality is just another excuse humans use to feel superior to the natural world & to worship their own abstract constructs above the living physical world. It's as supernatural as belief in a bearded deity as just as dangerous (perhaps more so because it's so unquestioned).

I have trouble connecting the belief that ideas exist outside space and time with religion. It just seems a total stretch. I don't even think this crosses into a discussion on substances.

I also don't think that the abstract is comparable to the physical, so I don't think one is better than the other.