You are JUST a material being. You have no eternal soul
The chemicals in your body are replaced regularly and even Neurons (in spite of what was believed to the contrary) are replaced over time.
Even your memories aren’t entirely real because memory is unreliable. e.g. The Titanic: some witnesses claimed the ship broke up before it sank others said it didn’t.
You consciousness is an artifact of neurons firing but it is just an illusion and does not constitute a continuous state of actual being.
Therefore you are not the same you that you were 7 or 10 years ago and even your beliefs and memories change.
You are really only a collection of chemicals. Not an identity not an actual being but a collection of parts that create the illusion of you.
SO
Is it misleading to apply personal pronouns to yourself and act as if you actually are an individual with a real identity?
Why care about tomorrow since the collection of chemicals that thinks it is you will not exist as the same collection of chemicals within a few years. (Actually the change is continuous since you eat, drink and pass waste products every day).
Why act as if all points 1 through 5 are completely wrong and you actually do have an identity?
Personally, I think it is because you think you are real and that deep down you think you exist as a real entity and that awareness is so strong that you can’t act consistently with materialist beliefs.
You think you are a real being. Now it is obvious that the “material you” cannot be consistent yet there you are, a consistent stream of being (ok you can sleep etc. but when you wake up you are still you).
That is why you apply personal pronouns and identity to yourself.
You falsify the materialist world view by acting the way that you do.
For example if you know that the feelings of anger or annoyance that are produced by you reading my email is just a product of some naturalist process and in effect illusionary then why read or respond to my emails?
Why not do something that makes your collection of chemicals do something that creates the illusion of happiness instead?
6. You are really only a collection of chemicals. Not an identity not an actual being but a collection of parts that create the illusion of you.
Yeah and some argue that "time" does not exist and nothing in this physical changing world will convince them otherwise.
Personally, I think it is because you think you are real and that deep down you think you exist as a real entity and that awareness is so strong that you can't act consistently with materialist beliefs. …
Is it misleading to apply personal pronouns to yourself and act as if you actually are an individual with a real identity?
Why care about tomorrow since the collection of chemicals that thinks it is you will not exist as the same collection of chemicals within a few years. (Actually the change is continuous since you eat, drink and pass waste products every day).
It sounds like what is being said is that if one is a finite and changing entity - one is not "real" ?
What is your definition of "real" ?
6. You are really only a collection of chemicals. Not an identity not an actual being but a collection of parts that create the illusion of you.
Yeah and some argue that "time" does not exist and nothing in this physical changing world will convince them otherwise.
Personally, I think it is because you think you are real and that deep down you think you exist as a real entity and that awareness is so strong that you can't act consistently with materialist beliefs. …
Is it misleading to apply personal pronouns to yourself and act as if you actually are an individual with a real identity?
Why care about tomorrow since the collection of chemicals that thinks it is you will not exist as the same collection of chemicals within a few years. (Actually the change is continuous since you eat, drink and pass waste products every day).
It sounds like what is being said is that if one is a finite and changing entity - one is not "real" ?
What is your definition of "real" ?
I think it comes down to are we three dimensional or four dimensional?
If we are four dimensional then we do live with an illusion.
6. You are really only a collection of chemicals. Not an identity not an actual being but a collection of parts that create the illusion of you.
Yeah and some argue that "time" does not exist and nothing in this physical changing world will convince them otherwise.
Personally, I think it is because you think you are real and that deep down you think you exist as a real entity and that awareness is so strong that you can't act consistently with materialist beliefs. …
Is it misleading to apply personal pronouns to yourself and act as if you actually are an individual with a real identity?
Why care about tomorrow since the collection of chemicals that thinks it is you will not exist as the same collection of chemicals within a few years. (Actually the change is continuous since you eat, drink and pass waste products every day).
It sounds like what is being said is that if one is a finite and changing entity - one is not "real" ?
What is your definition of "real" ?
I think it comes down to are we three dimensional or four dimensional?
If we are four dimensional then we do live with an illusion.
We live with illusions no matter how many dimensions we have. But there is no use in dwelling on it. It's counterproductive.
Lois
6. You are really only a collection of chemicals. Not an identity not an actual being but a collection of parts that create the illusion of you.
Yeah and some argue that "time" does not exist and nothing in this physical changing world will convince them otherwise.
Personally, I think it is because you think you are real and that deep down you think you exist as a real entity and that awareness is so strong that you can't act consistently with materialist beliefs. …
Is it misleading to apply personal pronouns to yourself and act as if you actually are an individual with a real identity?
Why care about tomorrow since the collection of chemicals that thinks it is you will not exist as the same collection of chemicals within a few years. (Actually the change is continuous since you eat, drink and pass waste products every day).
It sounds like what is being said is that if one is a finite and changing entity - one is not "real" ?
What is your definition of "real" ?
I think it comes down to are we three dimensional or four dimensional?
If we are four dimensional then we do live with an illusion.
We live with illusions no matter how many dimensions we have. But there is no use in dwelling on it. It's counterproductive.
Lois
Your point about caring about tomorrow directly relates to whether we are three dimensional or four dimensional. If we are three dimensional we sort of time travel to tomorrow so we will be there and our reason to care is it will happen to us. Not so if we're four dimensional.
By four dimensional I’m assuming you’re referring to Time.
In which case, I’m confused by what a three dimensional being would be?
Although, I guess the proclivity of some to put all their faith in the writings of some ancient texts
to the exclusion of today’s realities might be an example of it.
By four dimensional I'm assuming you're referring to Time.
In which case, I'm confused by what a three dimensional being would be?
Although, I guess the proclivity of some to put all their faith in the writings of some ancient texts
to the exclusion of today's realities might be an example of it.
Three dimensional is how we see the world. So we see a teapot as three dimensional and the whole of the 3 dimensional teapot travels through time.
A four dimensional teapot doesn't travel through time in the same way. It is spread over time, a part of it being in this time and other parts of it existing in other times.
So I think if we take that we’re four dimensional seriously that changes our reasons to care about tomorrow, since the part of me worrying about it now won’t leave this bit of spacetime.
We live with illusions no matter how many dimensions we have. But there is no use in dwelling on it. It's counterproductive.
Lois
You said elsewhere that this would be helpful to Mozart Link, someone who is depressed and claims that he can only think about happiness, not experience it. This seems to be the opposite of helping him. You've confirmed that no one really experiences anything, that moods are just an illusion.
When you say "it's counterproductive" here, I wonder what else you think is counterproductive. Is thinking about anything counterproductive? Is caring about others? Is planning for tomorrow? Is trying to improve our environment?
2. The chemicals in your body are replaced regularly and even Neurons (in spite of what was believed to the contrary) are replaced over time.
You are really only a collection of chemicals. Not an identity not an actual being but a collection of parts that create the illusion of you.
And? Would you feel better if I squash you in a food processor and put you into an airtight jar? Then your molecules stay there guaranteed, which makes life much more valuable. Eternal existence for the molecules that are nothing but you.
Something to think about before you go to bed, instead of pasting from a posting from Atheism Versus Christianity].
Something to think about before you go to bed, instead of pasting from a posting from Atheism Versus Christianity].
:ahhh: and no attribution offered? :-/
_______________________________________________________________
Back to this division of three dimensional entity and four dimensional entity.
I've always been fascinated by the flow of time - and I can hardly think of buildings or people or events without considering their evolution and changes that time has brought and of future changes yet to come. Perhaps that's why I tend to try to soak up as much of the moment as I can. Perhaps it's why the reality of global warming and future radical climate change has always had such a visceral hold on my imagination and concerns.
In any event this division still seems off to me and I'm curious what it's utility is.
If anyone had anything more to add about this odd classification of 'three dimensional entity" vs "four dimensional entity" I'd love to hear about it.
Thanks Gdb. It seemed like a copy but I was too lazy to bother. I used to respond to stuff like this, mainly to exercise my own philosophical muscles, but when I get the sense that person posting them doesn’t really believe the whole thing themselves, I don’t put much effort into it.
I really liked this response on the link you provided, in regards to the “why bother” parts.
Because caring is not a switch I can turn on or off. Even if my perception of identity and self is made up (in part) of illusory perceptions (created by my brain as part of a worldview that I can comprehend, navigate, and survive), I am still made up of chemical and biological components that are real, even if they are in a constant state of flux. My "caring" is derived from them, and is automatic. As compelling as any philosophical argument could be, it is unlikely to alter my underlying biology enough to get my to stop "caring."
We live with illusions no matter how many dimensions we have. But there is no use in dwelling on it. It's counterproductive.
Lois
You said elsewhere that this would be helpful to Mozart Link, someone who is depressed and claims that he can only think about happiness, not experience it. This seems to be the opposite of helping him. You've confirmed that no one really experiences anything, that moods are just an illusion.
When you say "it's counterproductive" here, I wonder what else you think is counterproductive. Is thinking about anything counterproductive? Is caring about others? Is planning for tomorrow? Is trying to improve our environment?
It was not my writing or my philosophy. i sent it to see what others thought about it.
What is counterproductive are endless circular discussions that can have no resolution.
Lois
So I think if we take that we're four dimensional seriously that changes our reasons to care about tomorrow, since the part of me worrying about it now won't leave this bit of spacetime.
I am not quite sure, but this may be tangently related. Our mind (thoughs) IS our present. but the information we receive is always from the past, no matter how short the elapsed time for that data to reach us.
Actually a curious condition, we experience things close to us earlier than events further away. However mentally we process this data in our present.
We are able to simultaneously see a street lamp almost instantly, but when we see the sun, it's light radiated at the same time as the street lamp will resch us eight seconds later. It seems that we can only receive information from the past, even as we process that information as our present.
IF
1. You are JUST a material being. You have no eternal soul
2. The chemicals in your body are replaced regularly and even Neurons (in spite of what was believed to the contrary) are replaced over time.
3. Even your memories aren't entirely real because memory is unreliable. e.g. The Titanic: some witnesses claimed the ship broke up before it sank others said it didn't.
4. You consciousness is an artifact of neurons firing but it is just an illusion and does not constitute a continuous state of actual being.
5. Therefore you are not the same you that you were 7 or 10 years ago and even your beliefs and memories change.
6. You are really only a collection of chemicals. Not an identity not an actual being but a collection of parts that create the illusion of you.
You were doing good up until premise 6. How does it follow that because you are a collection of chemicals, you are not also an actual being? It's like saying that an automobile shouldn't run because each of its individual parts, by itself, wouldn't run.
You were doing good up until premise 6. How does it follow that because you are a collection of chemicals, you are not also an actual being? It's like saying that an automobile shouldn't run because each of its individual parts, by itself, wouldn't run.
I think there is a better fallacy for this, but this is the one that use.] It's a common internet argument to take facts about a whole and try to apply them to the parts, or vice versa, which is the fallacy of composition. For lack of a better name, I call it the "it's just" fallacy. As in, "it's just metal and rubber with some liquids in it, how can it fly?"
You were doing good up until premise 6. How does it follow that because you are a collection of chemicals, you are not also an actual being? It's like saying that an automobile shouldn't run because each of its individual parts, by itself, wouldn't run.
I think there is a better fallacy for this, but this is the one that use.] It's a common internet argument to take facts about a whole and try to apply them to the parts, or vice versa, which is the fallacy of composition. For lack of a better name, I call it the "it's just" fallacy. As in, "it's just metal and rubber with some liquids in it, how can it fly?"
Agree.
Lois
I think there is a better fallacy for this, but this is the one that use.] It's a common internet argument to take facts about a whole and try to apply them to the parts, or vice versa, which is the fallacy of composition. For lack of a better name, I call it the "it's just" fallacy. As in, "it's just metal and rubber with some liquids in it, how can it fly?"
Agree.
Really? So you do realise that if you look at the whole, you can assign attributes to it that you cannot assign to its parts?
I think there is a better fallacy for this, but this is the one that use.] It's a common internet argument to take facts about a whole and try to apply them to the parts, or vice versa, which is the fallacy of composition. For lack of a better name, I call it the "it's just" fallacy. As in, "it's just metal and rubber with some liquids in it, how can it fly?"
Agree.
Really? So you do realise that if you look at the whole, you can assign attributes to it that you cannot assign to its parts?
True, but one can also assign attributes to the parts other than was originally intended.
A wheel can be used for a vehicle, but can also be used to build a pyramid (as the Egyptians did).
Before I go to sleep I recount what I have learned that day and how it relates to scientific functions. Some of my best work is done on my back....:)
Carl Sagan did a lot of his thinking in the shower and used soap to write equations on the shower walls.
I think there is a better fallacy for this, but this is the one that use.] It's a common internet argument to take facts about a whole and try to apply them to the parts, or vice versa, which is the fallacy of composition. For lack of a better name, I call it the "it's just" fallacy. As in, "it's just metal and rubber with some liquids in it, how can it fly?"
Agree.
Really? So you do realise that if you look at the whole, you can assign attributes to it that you cannot assign to its parts?
I said that. In the example, the airplane has attributes that the wheels and wires and hoses do not.