civver_764
Deity
How do you know?
Those are your faculties, not "you".
That's your cognition, not "you".
Existence of God (split from old thread)
- Thread starter MichaelP
- Start date
Naw, you're your cognition. I cannot think of a single component of the concept of 'you' that doesn't include cognition.
civver_764
Deity
How are we defining cognition?
We're not. It's a colloquial term. You're also failing to define 'you', and then merely repeating over and over that other people's conceptions fail your conception.
You are part of an existent physical matter. Becouse you dont seem to believe that anything else besides that exist you are implying that you actualy are form of physical matter. You cant separate yourself from it so you are one with the rest of the matter. Now I am asking you if you think the existent matter is infinite. If it so you yourself are part of that infinity.
Ryika
Lazy Wannabe Artista
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2013
- Messages
- 9,393
You said you'd give an example that:
But all you showed was that, if he thinks the universe is infinite, then he is part of something that is infinite. Well... d'uh? That's pretty obvious.
He is a finite part of an infinite thing. The only thing that's "infinite" about him in such a universe is that he's infinitely small, but even that is only in relation to the universe.
civver_764
Deity
That's because you exist before anything can be defined. You are the 'space' in which experiences, thoughts, ideas, and definitions exist in.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
We have no idea what cogitation is, so why limit it. It is a religious leaning thread after all. What we call cogitation could be a non-physical entity interacting with matter. Stretch the concept of non-physical entity about half an inch and you can call it a soul.
I once saw this put, "You do not have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." Supposedly this was from the Greek, with liberties taken. Just guessing, it was from one of the Gnostic writers of the first or second century.
J
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
The problem is that a "finite" man thinks another "finite" man came up with the ideology that anything can be infinite. As logic deems humans have figured out that everything is finite, they are stuck with the finite attribute of all matter. The limit is on them. There are items like stars, sand, planets, atoms, that would seem infinite and without a possible way to measure, and most are contained with in an alleged knowable framework. Sand is not infinite, because it can only be found on planets, and is finite in the local sense, but it is not finite, in the logical conclusion that it could be elsewhere in the universe. If the universe is infinite, then sand would also be infinite. Infinity is not bound to lacking a beginning, it can just be without an end.
Not quite. You see you or he can be part of that physical infinity only if you think that you are separate from it in some way e.g. by having a soul or separate consciousness. But becouse he doesnt believe in anything else than physical matter he himself is that infinity.
And by what law and energy you break up infinity into a finite parts?
Sure, I getcha. But my initial point is that you're finite, and that you're limited by your brain. The putative non-physical entity is both limited by matter and affected by matter. Unless you're positing that we're all schizophrenic partials of our souls (i.e., 'you' are not experiencing 'you'), the thoughts you have are utterly dependent on your brain and your inputs. If there's something else out there, havings its own thoughts, it's not the same consciousness that is currently using your brain to have thoughts.
Now, I have no inherent problem with the idea of schizophrenic partials, it's partially how our brain functions. But, even then, when you use the term 'you', you're communicating with only the sum of the partials that are currently integrated into the gestalt.
civver_764
Deity
Are you saying that you are your thoughts?
I am saying that 'you' are not removable from the ability to think; they're bound into each other.
I can't have a lap without legs, either.
I can't have a lap without legs, either.
civver_764
Deity
Have you ever tried meditation? I think it's pretty easy to see that while we may not know how to stop thinking altogether, it is merely an aspect of our experience, along with other feelings/sensations.
Also I want to draw attention to this "ability" to think. In my experience it is not really an "ability", rather thoughts just happen.
Also I want to draw attention to this "ability" to think. In my experience it is not really an "ability", rather thoughts just happen.
You're distinguishing 'thinking' from 'feelings and sensations'? I'm not. Feeling and sensations are a subset of thinking
civver_764
Deity
Ok, well we can just branch them all under "experiences". Now, to have experiences, there needs to be an "experiencer" right? And that "experiencer" must be you, right? Therefore, you are separate from your thoughts.
Not necessarily, not necessarily at all. First off, the experiences are essential to the 'you'. Legs are essential to laps. But, as well, the experiencer is experiencing its own thought. It's easily contained within itself.
civver_764
Deity
I think you are saying we are "reborn" with each new experience, right? I definitely see where you are coming from. But, there is still a constant "energy" behind all of these experiences, and that energy must surely be us, right?
Why would we be reborn? Why not just be an entity that changes through time? It then becomes a four-dimensional entity
civver_764
Deity
I used reborn for lack of better term. But, you're basically making the same point. We're that "entity".
Similar threads
