Let's Talk About the Self.

[Metanoia]

Or Gordy327, "Logic and reason will save the world."

Sounds like a task for AI……

 

[ataraxia]

I'm not speaking to unchanging universal forms (essences) and their imperfect particulars. Rather, relative subjectivity. The example of essences was brought by you.

Conceptually, the idea of a human soul conceptually is a subjective essence/form that supposedly lies in a plane independent of and transcendent to the physical one. It is the ideal Platonic form of who you are. It is the "real you", who is experiencing the real subjectivity of being in this fallen physical body, in this lower physical plane of existence. Do you disagree with this?

Asserting - that your unique, relative subjective consciousness could have been experienced at a alternate time and place - is a logically valid observation. You agree?

Not sure that has ever been documented to happen. It sounds like just idle daydreaming scenarios, like "what if I could travel back in time?", or "what if there were parallel universes?".

 

[Gordy327]

Sounds like a task for AI……

Or something we should aspire to.

 

[Frank Apisa]

That's beside the point.
There's nothing logically precluding the notion that you could have lived (and subsequently died) years ago or perhaps could have instead be experiencing subjective consciousness at some time in the future.

oookay.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

I've been pondering about my "self". Specifically, why do I exist, experiencing life through these senses of mine, at this particular time and place.
Why not some time in the future or past, why particularly here and now?

I've posed this on other forums in the past and was met with "There's no such thing as a soul." "It's just chance". Okay so, how does chance work existentially speaking?
For example: I asked you to give me a number at random say, from 1 to 1000 (we'll call that set 'X') and you tell me 452 (we'll call that 'Y')

My randomized 'self' being 'Y'....wherefore lies the corresponding 'X' to this 'Y'?

Isn't asserting the self as a product of randomness infer the existence of something prior to my existence?
Perhaps a soul/spirit?

Thoughts.

It’s chance, which is random.

A decision was made, for whatever reason (hopefully consensually), and two people had sex. The right set of circumstances existed and a sperm met an ovum… 9 months later you popped out into the world. You have a preset set of mental, physical and emotional metrics (natyre) affected by the additional input (nurture). The amalgam of which is you, as you exist today.

 

[verrip1]

Good answer……love will save the world perhaps ?

No, I just figure that if all reality is based solely on me, I might as well enjoy it to the max! Plus, there could be no downside. A win/win.

 

[ataraxia]

No, I just figure that if all reality is based solely on me, I might as well enjoy it to the max! Plus, there could be no downside. A win/win.

Nah, if you act too jerky people will still hurt you. Behavior still has consequences, even if you keep telling yourself it's all virtual. It won't help the pain.

 

[watsup]

I pointer out that you did not refute it and wandered off to tooth fairy land instead.

I don't know if you are not able to or not.

Tooth fairy, god, what’s the dif?

 

[watsup]

And you started demanding proof first.

Do you have any proof of a God?

 

[watsup]

• Determinism
• Random chance or
• Divine agency

We can rule out “divine agency” on the front end and then proceed from there.

 

[watsup]

There's nothing logically precluding the notion that you could have lived (and subsequently died) years ago or perhaps could have instead be experiencing subjective consciousness at some time in the future.

There’s nothing ruling out that the tip of your fingernail contains ten tiny universes. What does any of this have to do with anything?

 

[eman623]

Do you have any proof of a God?

Sorry, no.

I do not have, nor do I need any proof of God.

You already knew that. Why do you ask questions you already know the answers to?

 

[Helix]

I guess that I was the sperm that won. Only ****ing race that I've ever come in first. I guess if you have to win only one race, make it count, right?

 

[watsup]

Sorry, no.

I do not have, nor do I need any proof of God.

You already knew that. Why do you ask questions you already know the answers to?

There is nothing inherently random in you being you here and now. Why not here and now? God created other people for those other times an places. He created you for here and now. God is nothing if not thorough. He wants all times and places to be covered.

Which of these is correct?

 

[eman623]

Which of these is correct?

Correct is your shtick.

 

[watsup]

Correct is your shtick.

Confusion is your shtick. If you buy into a god, why not just say so instead of playing games.

 

[eman623]

Confusion is your shtick. If you buy into a god, why not just say so instead of playing games.

How about i call my original post just a figure of speech.

 

[watsup]

How about i call my original post just a figure of speech.

Makes no sense.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Do you have any proof of a God?

Not sure if the individual to whom you addressed this question actually asserted there is a god or not, but you have asked me several times for proof of "It is possible that there are no gods." And at times you have asserted that it is impossible for any gods to exist. (Seems weird to me, but you have the right to do so.)

I just wonder why you continue to do so.

By now you should realize that since the question is, "Do no gods exist or does at least one god exist"...and since we do not know the answer to that...BOTH are still possible.

So if the individual actually asserted that it was possible, your question makes no sense.

Why do you continue to do so?

 

[Frank Apisa]

We can rule out “divine agency” on the front end and then proceed from there.

Do you have any proof that divine agency can logically be ruled out?

 

[Frank Apisa]

Makes no sense.

Your insistence that there are no gods makes no sense.

Your insistence that I am wrong when I say, "It is possible there are no gods" makes no sense...especially in the face of the earlier insistence I mentioned.

 

[quip]

Conceptually, the idea of a human soul conceptually is a subjective essence/form that supposedly lies in a plane independent of and transcendent to the physical one. It is the ideal Platonic form of who you are. It is the "real you", who is experiencing the real subjectivity of being in this fallen physical body, in this lower physical plane of existence. Do you disagree with this?

Not sure that has ever been documented to happen. It sounds like just idle daydreaming scenarios, like "what if I could travel back in time?", or "what if there were parallel universes?".

Sure
My argument generally falls in line with Plato's depiction. Though, it describes the self more specifically than my theory suggests.
Which is simply challenging the conventional assumption of strict physicalism.

 

[ataraxia]

Sure
My argument generally falls in line with Plato's depiction. Though, it describes the self more specifically than my theory suggests.
Which is simply challenging the conventional assumption of strict physicalism.

Sure. Except that almost all philosophy since about the mid19th century has been about showing why Platonism is a poor model for understanding how things work in the world, and the damage, pain, stagnation, and wrong roads that kind of thinking and model has led to.

Platonism has what is called an "arboreal (tree-like)" model: meaning that there are lots of roots in the ground, but it is assumed they all lead to a single large central trunk- its center, its central purpose, its central essence, its central origin. For individuals, it's the soul. For the universe, it's God.

But the more we have learned about all sorts of phenomena, from evolutionary biology to theories of language, the more we are realizing reality seems to follow more of a "rhizome" model- decentralized, immanent, nomadic, deterritorializing, evolving, and always growing and branching out in all sorts of unexpected directions, to new phenomena, new meanings, and new models. There is no center, no ultimate transcendent essence- and trying to look for one only leads to suppression of growth and new ideas, to narrow mindedness, and stagnation. It leaves out many of the possibilities of life, and can be even anti-life. In reaching for the transcendent, we may be strangling and killing the immanent life we have here.

 

[quip]

Sure. Except that almost all philosophy since about the mid19th century has been about showing why Platonism is a poor model for understanding how things work in the world, and the damage, pain, stagnation, and wrong roads that kind of thinking and model has led to.

Platonism has what is called an "arboreal (tree-like)" model: meaning that there are lots of roots in the ground, but it is assumed they all lead to a single large central trunk- its center, its central purpose, its central essence, its central origin. For individuals, it's the soul. For the universe, it's God.

But the more we have learned about all sorts of phenomena, from evolutionary biology to theories of language, the more we are realizing reality seems to follow more of a "rhizome" model- decentralized, immanent, nomadic, deterritorializing, evolving, and always growing and branching out in all sorts of unexpected directions, to new phenomena, new meanings, and new models. There is no center, no ultimate transcendent essence- and trying to look for one only leads to suppression of growth and new ideas, to narrow mindedness, and stagnation. It leaves out many of the possibilities of life, and can be even anti-life. In reaching for the transcendent, we may be strangling and killing the immanent life we have here.

This seems to mesh well with the Buddhist's interpretation of anattā (no self).
In relation to relative subjectivity, are you suggesting that this infers strict physicalism?

 

[ataraxia]

This seems to mesh well with the Buddhist's interpretation of anattā (no self).

There are many points of resonance, yes. But I think one big point of departure between a Buddhist and a Deleuzian metaphysics is on the nature of desire. In Buddhism, as you may know, desire is the root cause of suffering and must be extinguished (to reach Nirvana). In Deleuzian metaphysics, it is the engine of life itself and must be cultivated for its own sake.

In relation to relative subjectivity, are you suggesting that this infers strict physicalism?

Yes, pretty close- but I might use the word immanence (rather than transcendence) to describe this.