Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm wit'choo. It is great to try to stretch our minds with questiona about "what it means," but in the end, what is important is "what it means to me." You pretty much got that covered.
Love,
Scrat
And that is what I really need to think about. I'm thinking this would really alter my perspective in some important ways -- it has already, actually. I don't know yet if they are good ways or not.
... and yes, I'll know you, and you will know me, but I'll be more than pleroo, and you'll be more than sparrow, because sparrow and pleroo are just the physically focused parts of who we really are.
This reminds me of my attempt to explain, in various threads, my notion of "self-as-an-Aristotelian-universal" (let's just say capital 'S' "Self" for short) - which could be loosely called a "One Self" or "One Mind" view. My theory is different than yours, but if my theory is correct, then your expectations could come true even if physical embodiment is necessary for conscious experience (which is essentially the physicalist claim). You could find that you are "more than pleroo" and you could meet sparrow (who will, at that point, know himself as "more than sparrow").
In my case, as a physicalist, it really just depends on whether or not there are ever any physical systems for which there is "something it is like to be" an alternate version of pleroo who remembers posting to this forum, etc., but who also realizes that you are, actually, more than what it was like to be the particular physical system who was posting to these forums. According to my "One Self" view, however, pleroo could conceivably discover something even more radical than this. Reality/Self could develop into a physical system who remembers being pleroo while writing these posts, and being sparrow, while writing these posts. And, if I'm right, these memories would not be delusions because, really, the One-and-only "Universal Self" was "really there" being the one posting when pleroo was posting in this forum, and was also "really there" being the one posting when sparrow was posting to this forum.
In their current physical form, pleroo and sparrow can't experience "being" a the Universal Self - they can't access each other's memories, etc. - because their memories and sense of self are currently limited to their individual neural nets. The One Self currently has, so to speak, a form of "multiple personality disorder" where each personality feels isolated due to "barriers of amnesia" that prevent the individual neural-net-based selves from recognizing their underlying identity.
In my theory, there is no "God" (aka All-Powerful Universal Consciousness/Creator with a plan, etc.) to guarantee that that these "higher" or "composite" perspectives will ever exist - i.e., no guarantee that the Self's "MPD" will ever be "cured" - but, if I am right, a combination of two brute facts are worth considering: (1) the Self-as-Universal and (2) The For-All-Practical-Purposes infinity of Reality.
These two facts imply (I think), that there is a very good chance that somehow, somewhere/when in the infinity of Reality the "barriers of amnesia" will drop (via physically instantiated "composite systems") and Reality/Self will, indeed, remember being pleroo and being sparrow. And the "I" of Self will feel that "I" was really always already there the whole time, despite the epistemological contingencies that prevented recognition of this Universal "I" being in both places at once back there at that particular point in history (when pleroo and sparrow felt themselves to be ontologically distinct/isolated individuals).
In any case, even if Reality/Self is never "cured" of its MPD, it could still happen to be a brute fact that we are all the same "I" whether we ever actually realize it, or not.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 09-26-2017 at 09:58 AM..
This reminds me of my attempt to explain, in various threads, my notion of "self-as-an-Aristotelian-universal" (let's just say capital 'S' "Self" for short) - which could be loosely called a "One Self" or "One Mind" view. My theory is different than yours, but if my theory is correct, then your expectations could come true even if physical embodiment is necessary for conscious experience (which is essentially the physicalist claim). You could find that you are "more than pleroo" and you could meet sparrow (who will, at that point, know himself as "more than sparrow").
In my case, as a physicalist, it really just depends on whether or not there are ever any physical systems for which there is "something it is like to be" an alternate version of pleroo who remembers posting to this forum, etc., but who also realizes that you are, actually, more than what it was like to be the particular physical system who was posting to these forums. According to my "One Self" view, however, pleroo could conceivably discover something even more radical than this. Reality/Self could develop into a physical system who remembers being pleroo while writing these posts, and being sparrow, while writing these posts. And, if I'm right, these memories would not be delusions because, really, the One-and-only "Universal Self" was "really there" being the one posting when pleroo was posting in this forum, and was also "really there" being the one posting when sparrow was posting to this forum.
In their current physical form, pleroo and sparrow can't experience "being" a the Universal Self - they can't access each other's memories, etc. - because their memories and sense of self are currently limited to their individual neural nets. The One Self currently has, so to speak, a form of "multiple personality disorder" where each personality feels isolated due to "barriers of amnesia" that prevent the individual neural-net-based selves from recognizing their underlying identity.
In my theory, there is no "God" (aka All-Powerful Universal Consciousness/Creator with a plan, etc.) to guarantee that that these "higher" or "composite" perspectives will ever exist - i.e., no guarantee that the Self's "MPD" will ever be "cured" - but, if I am right, a combination of two brute facts are worth considering: (1) the Self-as-Universal and (2) The For-All-Practical-Purposes infinity of Reality.
These two facts imply (I think), that there is a very good chance that somehow, somewhere/when in the infinity of Reality the "barriers of amnesia" will drop (via physically instantiated "composite systems") and Reality/Self will, indeed, remember being pleroo and being sparrow. And the "I" of Self will feel that "I" was really always already there the whole time, despite the epistemological contingencies that prevented recognition of this Universal "I" being in both places at once back there at that particular point in history (when pleroo and sparrow felt themselves to be ontologically distinct/isolated individuals).
In any case, even if Reality/Self is never "cured" of its MPD, it could still happen to be a brute fact that we are all the same "I" whether we ever actually realize it, or not.
I actually considered this view some time ago, and for no good reason other than that I didn't like it, I decided to keep looking. (When I say "this view", I don't mean the way you explained it exactly, but more of an allegory: the idea that God is dreaming and experiencing being each of us in that dream, and will some day wake up from the dream.) The reason I don't like it is because one of the things that bugs me the most about this physical reality is the feeling of being separated from others because we are these "individual neural nets"... sort of like I imagine prisoners behind a glass wall who can't touch their loved ones must feel, only moreso, if that makes sense.
People think I'm weird when I say this, but when I think about it too much, it feels a little like being all alone in a void and I hate that. So, the thought that at some point God would "wake up" and find out that God is still, essentially, alone makes me sad; I just can't handle the idea of some entity being all alone for eternity in a void of no connection with anything but itself. (How pathetic am I?)
Why? I hope not because it can be so d--- painful.
Trout started a thread over in the pagan forum a few days ago and empathy was something we were talking about there, which is why I responded the way I did . But, to answer your question...
I naturally have feelings when I hear about someone else's pain, and I have to process through that. But I'm having a hard time seeing the benefit of purposely trying to imagine myself into a deep experience of my perceived notion of someone else's emotional state. Me feeling emotional pain can't take someone else's pain away -- they have to process through that themselves -- and I believe it has the potential to make me less able to respond in a helpful way. It may be natural to most people not to go overboard with empathy, but I have to guard myself from becoming immersed in it in an unhealthy way.
This reminds me of my attempt to explain, in various threads, my notion of "self-as-an-Aristotelian-universal" (let's just say capital 'S' "Self" for short) - which could be loosely called a "One Self" or "One Mind" view. My theory is different than yours, but if my theory is correct, then your expectations could come true even if physical embodiment is necessary for conscious experience (which is essentially the physicalist claim). You could find that you are "more than pleroo" and you could meet sparrow (who will, at that point, know himself as "more than sparrow").
In my case, as a physicalist, it really just depends on whether or not there are ever any physical systems for which there is "something it is like to be" an alternate version of pleroo who remembers posting to this forum, etc., but who also realizes that you are, actually, more than what it was like to be the particular physical system who was posting to these forums. According to my "One Self" view, however, pleroo could conceivably discover something even more radical than this. Reality/Self could develop into a physical system who remembers being pleroo while writing these posts, and being sparrow, while writing these posts. And, if I'm right, these memories would not be delusions because, really, the One-and-only "Universal Self" was "really there" being the one posting when pleroo was posting in this forum, and was also "really there" being the one posting when sparrow was posting to this forum.
In their current physical form, pleroo and sparrow can't experience "being" a the Universal Self - they can't access each other's memories, etc. - because their memories and sense of self are currently limited to their individual neural nets. The One Self currently has, so to speak, a form of "multiple personality disorder" where each personality feels isolated due to "barriers of amnesia" that prevent the individual neural-net-based selves from recognizing their underlying identity.
In my theory, there is no "God" (aka All-Powerful Universal Consciousness/Creator with a plan, etc.) to guarantee that that these "higher" or "composite" perspectives will ever exist - i.e., no guarantee that the Self's "MPD" will ever be "cured" - but, if I am right, a combination of two brute facts are worth considering: (1) the Self-as-Universal and (2) The For-All-Practical-Purposes infinity of Reality.
These two facts imply (I think), that there is a very good chance that somehow, somewhere/when in the infinity of Reality the "barriers of amnesia" will drop (via physically instantiated "composite systems") and Reality/Self will, indeed, remember being pleroo and being sparrow. And the "I" of Self will feel that "I" was really always already there the whole time, despite the epistemological contingencies that prevented recognition of this Universal "I" being in both places at once back there at that particular point in history (when pleroo and sparrow felt themselves to be ontologically distinct/isolated individuals).
In any case, even if Reality/Self is never "cured" of its MPD, it could still happen to be a brute fact that we are all the same "I" whether we ever actually realize it, or not.
kind of like one area of the brain not having the memories of another area of a brain.
People think I'm weird when I say this, but when I think about it too much, it feels a little like being all alone in a void and I hate that. So, the thought that at some point God would "wake up" and find out that God is still, essentially, alone makes me sad; I just can't handle the idea of some entity being all alone for eternity in a void of no connection with anything but itself.
You are right that my theory could be imagined to imply that, ultimately, Reality is "alone in a void," so to speak. And, I wouldn't be too shocked if a deep intuitive understanding of this leads to some form of existential angst for a lot of people. Me, not so much.
But there are a few very important considerations: Unless all minds become (perhaps at some "Omega Point" of Existence?) united into some immense all-encompassing physical brain (a scenario that I doubt could ever really occur - especially given what I believe to be the mulitversal nature of Reality), the "illusion" of separate selves is not really an "illusion" in any significant sense. So long are there is more than one conscious physical brain in existence, there really are multiple selves. (By "self" I mean an epistemic center of experience that includes a qualitative sense of "being me" along with a "horizon" of experience that distinguishes "me" from "not-me".)
The epistemic "walls of amnesia" (part of the "horizon" that distinguishes "me" from "not-me") are not illusions - they are objectively real. Subjective experience is objectively real, and some ultimate limits to experience are objectively real. These objectively real facts about the nature and limits of embodied experience are the facts that ultimately matter to conscious beings. If it turns out that we can never, for example, experience the inside of a Black Hole, then it is an objective fact of Reality that there is no qualitative "what it is like to experience" the inside of a Black Hole. Even for the best conceivable imagination, it is simply incoherent to "imagine experiencing that which cannot be experienced." It falls in the same category of absurd logical confusion as "God creating a rock so heavy that He can't lift it."
Another way to think of it: Any logically possible experience that is not, in fact, a naturally possible experience is indistinguishable from "simply not possible, period." To paraphrase a famous quote: A "difference" that cannot actually make any difference, is indistinguishable from no difference at all.
Bottom line: Your existential fear of aloneness is fear of a circumstance that can never actually occur, even if it is conceivable (or "logically possible"), given my "One Self" theory. So long as there is more than one physically embodied mind in existence, there are objectively real distinguishable selves in existence because the epistemic limits are objectively real, and it's the epistemic limits that ground the individuality of selves. My theory would imply that no one - probably not even God, if there is such a Being - can ever ultimately be "alone" in the sense of there being "no other minds in existence." The type of aloneness that you fear is more probable with theories of "non-physical" mind than with any physicalistic theory of mind.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 09-28-2017 at 08:41 AM..
kind of like one area of the brain not having the memories of another area of a brain.
Yes, that's it. If Reality is what I'm calling "One Self" then one part of Reality (say, a brain over here) can't have memories of a spatially separated different part of Reality (say, a brain over there) unless, somehow, the separated processes can be merged into a unified process (i.e., become, different areas of a single brain) - and even then, as you point out, this unification is still, in itself, no guarantee of sharing memories. The two processes have to not only merge, but they have to merge in the right way.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(When I say "this view", I don't mean the way you explained it exactly, but more of an allegory: the idea that God is dreaming and experiencing being each of us in that dream, and will some day wake up from the dream.) The reason I don't like it is because one of the things that bugs me the most about this physical reality is the feeling of being separated from others because we are these "individual neural nets"... sort of like I imagine prisoners behind a glass wall who can't touch their loved ones must feel, only moreso, if that makes sense. 
I'm working at getting over that a little bit.