Where do babies come from?

[Scot C. Trypal]

No, I never had sex-ed, but no, that’s not really what I’m wondering .

I’m wondering how new individuals come into the world from the immaterialist standpoint. The materialist position seems simpler to me at first glance, but I’ve never come across the immaterialist’s idea of how a new human comes to be. So, where do they come from? How do the personalities develop from not existing to infanthood to adulthood, if it’s not the apparent physical changes in a material neurological system?

In Ian’s transmission hypothesis (was that the name?), for example, where the brain is like a radio tuner (tell me if I misrepresent this), do our perceptions of there being these material radio components somehow allow a new personality to be “tuned in” from wherever the broadcast is originating?

Also, when I look at my kids, I’m constantly amazed at how different they are, being the same age, raised in the same way, and so on. Their personalities are night and day, which leads me to think a lot of what makes them them comes preprogrammed. From where does this preprogramming come for the immaterialist, at least those that do not believe in a blank slate? Is it from our idea of there being material genes?

I’d appreciate any help understanding this.

 

[Aoidoi]

Sorry, I thought this was about: http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_957945.html?menu=news.quirkies.sexlife

Nevermind

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Good question..

In other words..


If we are imagining all this.. From whence comes the ' imagined self '..

Sort of like ' 21 grams ' ... At what point are the ' 21 grams ' implanted, and what is their source..

 

[Upchurch]

Babies are the brain-child of an immaterialist god, perhaps?

 

[c4ts]

Those kids of yours aren't real. Neither is anybody else. You are the only conscious entity in the universe and everybody else is just P zombies. In fact, your entire life is just one big dream you're having because you got drunk and passed out in a bar somewhere in the Netherlands. Say hi to pillory for me when you wake up.

 

[hammegk]

II's thoughts in this area confuse me too. His 'subjective idealism' seems more reminiscent of interactive dualism to me.

For me as an (objective) idealist, the question is the same as "what is difference between the simplest form of life -- as you define it in human terms -- and the thing missing 'something' of lessor complexness, and doesn't quite qualify as life". Answer; all that exists is "life"; as complexity of form increases, so do the responses and actions of that lifeform.

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

Aoidoi,
Not to hijack myself but I saw that story earlier and wasn’t that odd?

From the article:

We are not talking retarded people here, but a couple who were brought up in a religious environment who were simply unaware, after eight years of marriage, of the physical requirements necessary to procreate.

They are in their 30’s.

Upchurch,

Babies are the brain-child of an immaterialist god, perhaps?

Aren’t many immaterialists without a god?

For a theistic immaterialist, or just plane theist I suppose, adding a god seems to cause a problem if you want to keep a hold of freewill. If God makes souls with a plan in mind or pre-creates them in some sort of pre-life (as is the case with the LDS), God has to count on things like rape and prostitution, and knowingly place children in abusive homes, to have his brainchildren. It seems there are many choices, some pretty rotten, some people must make to create bodies for all the souls in the shoot.

c4ts,

Those kids of yours aren't real. Neither is anybody else. You are the only conscious entity in the universe and everybody else is just P zombies. In fact, your entire life is just one big dream you're having because you got drunk and passed out in a bar somewhere in the Netherlands. Say hi to pillory for me when you wake up.

Then it’s as I’ve always feared…. I’m in the Netherlands, and the soul creator of athlete’s foot, FOX reality TV, and Scientology.

Bet hey, I, the solipsist, had an infancy, and childhood too. I’ve got proof in the form of photos (hmmm… but I suppose I imagined those too). In the end, I faded in from somewhere, as far as I can trust the memory of what I consider to be me.

Hammegk,

For me as an (objective) idealist, the question is the same as "what is difference between the simplest form of life -- as you define it in human terms -- and the thing missing 'something' of lessor complexness, and doesn't quite qualify as life". Answer; all that exists is "life"; as complexity of form increases, so do the responses and actions of that lifeform.

So nothing that exists is missing this something. When humans, a very complicated life, procreate, the process is seen as… Two simple lives in the form of two gametes combine and metabolize much less complex forms of life in sugars, proteins and so on, to increase in complexity until it reaches the complexity of a sentient human life. All lives have experiences, and therefore the notice of a life with complexity as large as that held by human life is not needed for this sort of idealism. Humans do come preprogrammed in many ways as they are based on the more simple life found in those gametes. Did I understand? It sounds a lot like the materialist scheme for creating a new human life.

I guess I was more interested in subjective idealism then. Oh well…

 

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Scot C. Trypal

Hammegk,

So nothing that exists is missing this something. When humans, a very complicated life, procreate, the process is seen as… Two simple lives in the form of two gametes combine and metabolize much less complex forms of life in sugars, proteins and so on, to increase in complexity until it reaches the complexity of a sentient human life. All lives have experiences, and therefore the notice of a life with complexity as large as that held by human life is not needed for this sort of idealism. Humans do come preprogrammed in many ways as they are based on the more simple life found in those gametes. Did I understand? It sounds a lot like the materialist scheme for creating a new human life.

I would not call rna/dna schemes "simple". A single boson requesting a handshake prior to departing 'here' for 'there' (or as Feynman would have said traveling every possible path) actually doesn't seem very simple either.

There are differences. Materialists at the 100% certainty level must be hard atheists. Materialists must define and defend a line: non-life vs life.

I guess I was more interested in subjective idealism then. Oh well…

Propose a logical solution to allow ~matter to effect or affect matter and I'll switch back to interactive dualism.

 

[Dancing David]

They are all the same, the mind and the boson. The~material is the same as the material, just a different unobservable ontology.

There isn't going to be a clear line where life begins and ends, it is just a convential for labeling the interaction of dead matter or dead mind.

 

[Iacchus]

No, I never had sex-ed, but no, that’s not really what I’m wondering .

I’m wondering how new individuals come into the world from the immaterialist standpoint. The materialist position seems simpler to me at first glance, but I’ve never come across the immaterialist’s idea of how a new human comes to be. So, where do they come from? How do the personalities develop from not existing to infanthood to adulthood, if it’s not the apparent physical changes in a material neurological system?

In Ian’s transmission hypothesis (was that the name?), for example, where the brain is like a radio tuner (tell me if I misrepresent this), do our perceptions of there being these material radio components somehow allow a new personality to be “tuned in” from wherever the broadcast is originating?

Also, when I look at my kids, I’m constantly amazed at how different they are, being the same age, raised in the same way, and so on. Their personalities are night and day, which leads me to think a lot of what makes them them comes preprogrammed. From where does this preprogramming come for the immaterialist, at least those that do not believe in a blank slate? Is it from our idea of there being material genes?

I’d appreciate any help understanding this.

Yes, and if spirit permeates everything? In which case we have to ask ourselves which came first, energy or DNA?