Does "I" Exist? Or, Just a Concept?

[ImaginalDisc]

It's a reciprocal process. Babies would not be "taking it in" if there wasn't already something inside to stimulate.

It's called a brain, not an internal universe. The outside world stimulates their developing brain. External cues are vital to the development of visual perception, for example. Early research in that area involved affixing mirrors over the eyes of kittens, to invert their visual input. The kittens adjusted perfectly well. When the glasses were removed, the kittens fell over everytime they tried to walk. Our brains try to make sense of input.

 

[Iacchus]

This is demonstrably untrue. Snowflakes form because it's cold. The snowflakes need no purposeful master to arrainge them into lattices. Darwinian thought has divorced us from your "Matter arrises from Mind" position. Your philosphy is centuries out of date.

Snowflakes form from a molecular reaction within their structure. If it was not bound within their structure to do this, they would not do so.

There would be nothing? Hmm. My bones are destroyed and replaced over the course of seven years by naturally occuring cells in my body. The specific molecules that compose my body are constantly being replaced. I don't eat food, I rent it. In ten years, the material which currently makes up my body will no longer be in my body. However, the pattern, the data in my brain which composes myself will remain. I am a transient pattern, not an Ivory Tower, and neither is your self.

And of course all of this seems to imply a sense of purpose now doesn't it? ... If, for nothing else, to break up the nothingness.

Finally, you agree about evidence.

Yes, I agree that there is a physical manifestation of that which is internal.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Snowflakes form from a molecular reaction within their structure. If it was not bound within their structure to do this, they would not do so.

That's the mechanism by which they form snowflakes, that is not a reason. There is no reason.

And of course all of this seems to imply a sense of purpose now doesn't it? ... If, for nothing else, to break up the nothingness.

There is no reason to believe that a universe without a purpose would fail to exist.

Yes, I agree that there is a physical manifestation of that which is internal.

No, my memories are a manifestation of my neurochemistry, anf the inffluences od the world around me. You have confused cause and effect.

 

[Iacchus]

That's the mechanism by which they form snowflakes, that is not a reason. There is no reason.

What is reason then? And why do you employ it in everything you're trying to say here? Just for the heck of it? And you insist on telling me that purpose doesn't exist?

There is no reason to believe that a universe without a purpose would fail to exist.

Yes, and the only means we have to explain how the Universe works is through reason. If none of it made any sense, then what?

No, my memories are a manifestation of my neurochemistry, anf the inffluences od the world around me. You have confused cause and effect.

Then by all means, don't bother trying to explain to us what "you" did last weekend.

 

[Mojo]

Seems to me he is talking about a mental image he has. Visual thinking is a real thing, and would explain is ability to "see to another galaxy". There is nothing supernatural about metaphor.

it's called imagination.

...unless you are just making [rule8] up yet again.

That would seem to be it...

We seem to have some sort of consensus emerging here.

 

[Iacchus]

There is no reason to believe that a universe without a purpose would fail to exist.

Oh, and did you know that the purpose of a leg is to give you something to stand on? If you see no purpose in that, then by all means cut them off and toss them aside.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

What is reason then? And why do you employ it in everything you're trying to say here? Just for the heck of it? And you insist on telling me that purpose doesn't exist?

Iacchus, I am expressing myself as clearly as possible, using the English language. Unfortunately, English contains two quite different definitions for 'reason'.

Main Entry: rea·son
Function: noun
1 : an underlying ground, justification, purpose, motive, or inducement <required to provide reasons for the termination in writing>
2 a : the faculty of comprehending, inferring, or distinguishing esp. in a fair and orderly way b : the proper and sane exercise of the mind


Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

You are asserting that the universe exists because of a reason, definition 1, I am asserting that your are not argueing using reason, definition 2. Are we clear?

Yes, and the only means we have to explain how the Universe works is through reason. If none of it made any sense, then what?

Then by all means, don't bother trying to explain to us what "you" did last weekend.

I recolect what transpiered last weekend. Thinking things up did not cause me to go out dancing. Dancing has caused memories to form.

 

[Iacchus]

That would seem to be it...

We seem to have some sort of consensus emerging here.

Yes, it would seem that we are speaking about none other than the space between our ears.

 

[Iacchus]

Iacchus, I am expressing myself as clearly as possible, using the English language. Unfortunately, English contains two quite different definitions for 'reason'.

You are asserting that the universe exists because of a reason, definition 1, I am asserting that your are not argueing using reason, definition 2. Are we clear?

Sorry, we only have our own reason to work with, when trying to reason about anything. I would agree, however, that reason attempts to explain the nature of cause-and-effect.

I recolect what transpiered last weekend. Thinking things up did not cause me to go out dancing. Dancing has caused memories to form.

Actually, I could care less. Simply because "I," from my own internal perspective, am not interested.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Sorry, we only have our own reason to work with, when trying to reason about anything. I would agree, however, that reason attempts to explain the nature of cause-and-effect.

Then why do you continue to ignore reason, definition 2, in favor of baseless assertions?

Actually, I could care less. Simply because "I," from my own internal perspective, am not interested.

You attemtped to poke a hole in my explaination of the formation of memories by alleging that I wouldn't be able to explain what I did last weekend. I did, and it was consistent with my explaination.

If you don't like it, tough cookies. You got exactly what you asked for.

 

[Iacchus]

It's called a brain, not an internal universe. The outside world stimulates their developing brain. External cues are vital to the development of visual perception, for example. Early research in that area involved affixing mirrors over the eyes of kittens, to invert their visual input. The kittens adjusted perfectly well. When the glasses were removed, the kittens fell over everytime they tried to walk. Our brains try to make sense of input.

And what about the living energy patterns that form within the brain? Which, in fact is all the brain is really doing, allowing for this to happen.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

And what about the living energy patterns that form within the brain? Which, in fact is all the brain is really doing, allowing for this to happen.

"Living energy patterns"? Are you refering to the chemical/electrical activity of the brain? It's neurology. Monitoring that has lead to new discoveries about the mechanisms of human cognition. They are being explored by science. You cannot invoke the god of the gaps to explain it, because the gaps which exists are questions that are being explored.

 

[Mercutio]

And what about the living energy patterns that form within the brain? Which, in fact is all the brain is really doing, allowing for this to happen.

Oh, please.

Don't start trying to explain what the brain is doing. You have actively avoided any and all attempts to get you to examine any of the voluminous literature on psychobiology, neurology...brain function. You know nothing about it. Nothing. Less than nothing, actually, because so many of the incorrect notions you hold you are unwilling to give up.

You are, once again, pontificating on an area about which you are utterly, utterly ignorant.

So just stop it.

Please.

 

[Iacchus]

Then why do you continue to ignore reason, definition 2, in favor of baseless assertions?

I find nothing about the Universe which is unreasonable, in fact so much so, that I figure there must be grand reason behind it all. It makes too much sense for it to be otherwise. If, on the other hand, the Univserse was thoroughly unexplainable, you might have a point.

You attemtped to poke a hole in my explaination of the formation of memories by alleging that I wouldn't be able to explain what I did last weekend. I did, and it was consistent with my explaination.

If you don't like it, tough cookies. You got exactly what you asked for.

No, I was merely asking what would be the point to it if "you" don't exist? ... aside from the fact that I don't really care that much in the first place.

 

[Iacchus]

"Living energy patterns"? Are you refering to the chemical/electrical activity of the brain? It's neurology. Monitoring that has lead to new discoveries about the mechanisms of human cognition. They are being explored by science. You cannot invoke the god of the gaps to explain it, because the gaps which exists are questions that are being explored.

I have never denied once, that there is a mechanism called the brain. I'm merely asking what is it that employs its use?

 

[Mercutio]

I find nothing about the Universe which is unreasonable, in fact so much so, that I figure there must be grand reason behind it all. It makes too much sense for it to be otherwise. If, on the other hand, the Univserse was thoroughly unexplainable, you might have a point.

Ok, the irony in this paragraph is just too much to ignore. Once more you conflate the two definitions of reason, but that is minor (and may even, if we are charitable, be seen as humor on your part). Much funnier is the idea of the man who demonstrates less knowlege about the intricacies of the universe at either the vast scale or the personal scale saying "it makes too much sense".

Only by oversimplifying the universe to the point of lunacy have you managed to "explain" it (in quotes for irony, Iacchus; the joke is that you don't explain it at all). The evidence of your posts suggests that, to you, the universe is thoroughly unexplainable...but you just don't know it.

 

[Iacchus]

You are, once again, pontificating on an area about which you are utterly, utterly ignorant.

So just stop it.

Please.

Yes, I agree, I know very little about my brain, except for the fact that I have one. And you know, for some reason, it doesn't stop me from doing anything?

 

[Mercutio]

I have never denied once, that there is a mechanism called the brain. I'm merely asking what is it that employs its use?

A question that implicitly assumes the answer you are after. Would you accept, though, that the body (of which the brain is an inseparable part) is that which employs the brain. It also employs the hand, the great toe, the large intestine, and the tonsils. Among other things.

Will you accept that answer?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I find nothing about the Universe which is unreasonable, in fact so much so, that I figure there must be grand reason behind it all. It makes too much sense for it to be otherwise. If, on the other hand, the Univserse was thoroughly unexplainable, you might have a point.

Oh, the Universe isn't thorughly explainable? Gosh, let's just stop doing science. I guess we had better toss away all science and technology. Alright then, will you chase the wooly mammoth while I chuck the wooden, fire-hardened tipped spear? Oh wait, fire-hardening spear tips is an application of reason, definition 2, and science. I guess we can't even have those.

You are asserting that there must be a "grand reason". Astounding. Allow me to summarize your reasoning.

1. "I" may, or may not exist.
2. ???
3. Therefore, god exists.

No, I was merely asking what would be the point to it if "you" don't exist ... aside from the fact that I don't really care that much in the first place.

Let me relate the story of Zen Master Gui, a koan, if you will. Zen Master Gui had a very vivid dream. He dreamt he was a butterfly, flitting from flower to flower without thought. When he awoke, he was so disoriented that he asked, "Am I a man who dreamt I was a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming I am a man?" If the world we live in, and my existance is all a dream, then it's a very internally consistent one, and there is no evidence that is it a dream. If it is not, than the universe is occasionaly harsh, but rational. The assertion that the world is a dream is completely unfalsifiable. So is your assertion that there is a "grand reason".

 

[Mojo]

Yes, it would seem that we are speaking about none other than the space between our ears.

You are, of course, perfectly entitled to speak for yourself here, but not for anyone else.

So, OK, we're talking about the space between your ears.