Atheists - how did you come to be?

[amorphous_constellation]

A. Demonstrate that there is some kind of energy that can exist outside of the individual.

Rather, point out that it is extraordinarily clear that matter itself has been dammed up against free energy, that energy has attained a coating, that the body is merely a petina, a metabolic lens to capture the bolic light. The salient point is that it is mutable, somewhere in the local biota one can see farther, feel subtler changes, maybe change colors, fly, climb, or dig all using tools massed around differing degrees of will, (in the animal or plant world, I guess arguably they are less "aware" however) and in the human world, this might be replaced by things like computers, nanotechnology, cyberspace, android alteration. Heck, think of it, if you could "will" something up on a search engine instead of type to gain it, haven't you just technically expanded the memory of your brain? Likewise if they invent a synthetic arm one thousand times more powerful than your own, is not the Cartesian energy channeled elsewhere from the natural arm?

B. Demonstrate that this energy is in some way full of information from the original host

The host of consciousness, the host of a "will" doesn't necessarily bring that to the table in the first place. It may give you a shelf for books, but not a very sturdy or big one. What that shelf is actually blocking is the book, the information. It is my brain that keeps me from remembering every detail of when I was 6, the gray matter didn't last. It is a squirrel's brain that holds back consciousness, it is too small. So rather, I demonstrate that the host is not really a husk of information, but rather stands in the way of the total hub of information which is all possible information unbound by the body.

C. Demonstrate a mechanism by which this energy can be absorbed, integrated and translated by its new host.

If the energy is like a fast-running stream, the mechanism is merely like a container for this water, stilled now and sedentary within whatever apparatus it has been made to lend. Merely empty the jug back in the stream, and the humanness goes back to the faceless all-face, the bird back to that which becomes birds, the fish back to a fish yet to be netted into being.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

A somewhat significant limitation: Neurons are, by and large, not replaced. Tellingly, neuron turnover is much higher in birds, fish, reptiles and amphibians than it is in adult mammals.

If I actually boil down to a certain amount of neurons, that if these are extracted from my body intact and put into a synthetic brain and the "me" follows it but leaves the body behind, that already seems neatly dualist in a way doesn't it? Still however I don't find that satisfying to my understanding of what is the overarching dualism here. And that is that the neuron is still something that captures, it is insulated and made to be conduit. It has a nucleus. It is merely a machine with limitations, dying off, reaching about with weak dendrites, a conduit for something else of a completely abstruse and non-complacent nature in requiring such desperate measures for capture as a tiny inefficient conduit.

But there's no reason given here that "beyond" should be eliminative.

Edit: I look through binoculars and I see the river and trees, and the mountains beyond. There's no sense in the eliminative 'beyond.'

Well, in seeing through binoculars you are not then experiencing anything metaocular, but experiencing perhaps something metaanthroocular or meta-anthropoidal. You see it is all just Greek for words otherwise not complicated, it's all just semantics, however I see what you mean. That's why some people might argue about what a word like metaphysical would mean, is it eliminative or not.

 

[Treks]

Ideogenous_mover, when most people think about 'reincarnation', they think about an individual who dies, and then they take life in another body until they die again, and so on. Are you actually saying that, rather than an individual living and dying and moving to another life, that something greater than an individual inhabits a body, and when that body dies, it moves on to inhabit another one?

Like, for example, a 'hand' exists and puts on a glove (an individual life - an incarnation), and then that glove wears out, the hand removes itself from that glove, and puts on another one (another individual life), thereby being 'reincarnated'?

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Rather, point out that it is extraordinarily clear that matter itself has been dammed up against free energy, that energy has attained a coating, that the body is merely a petina, a metabolic lens to capture the bolic light. The salient point is that it is mutable, somewhere in the local biota one can see farther, feel subtler changes, maybe change colors, fly, climb, or dig all using tools massed around differing degrees of will, (in the animal or plant world, I guess arguably they are less "aware" however) and in the human world, this might be replaced by things like computers, nanotechnology, cyberspace, android alteration. Heck, think of it, if you could "will" something up on a search engine instead of type to gain it, haven't you just technically expanded the memory of your brain? Likewise if they invent a synthetic arm one thousand times more powerful than your own, is not the Cartesian energy channeled elsewhere from the natural arm?



The host of consciousness, the host of a "will" doesn't necessarily bring that to the table in the first place. It may give you a shelf for books, but not a very sturdy or big one. What that shelf is actually blocking is the book, the information. It is my brain that keeps me from remembering every detail of when I was 6, the gray matter didn't last. It is a squirrel's brain that holds back consciousness, it is too small. So rather, I demonstrate that the host is not really a husk of information, but rather stands in the way of the total hub of information which is all possible information unbound by the body.



If the energy is like a fast-running stream, the mechanism is merely like a container for this water, stilled now and sedentary within whatever apparatus it has been made to lend. Merely empty the jug back in the stream, and the humanness goes back to the faceless all-face, the bird back to that which becomes birds, the fish back to a fish yet to be netted into being.

You have made a whole bunch of assertions there.

None of them qualify as evidence.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Ideogenous_mover, when most people think about 'reincarnation', they think about an individual who dies, and then they take life in another body until they die again, and so on. Are you actually saying that, rather than an individual living and dying and moving to another life, that something greater than an individual inhabits a body, and when that body dies, it moves on to inhabit another one?

Like, for example, a 'hand' exists and puts on a glove (an individual life - an incarnation), and then that glove wears out, the hand removes itself from that glove, and puts on another one (another individual life), thereby being 'reincarnated'?

Yes that is more what I'm trying to say! It's just I don't have the language to really explain it clearly without a few cognitive turnpikes, it's something you got to think about a bit and maybe they don't have a proper term for it, the closest is reincarnation. So... the way you put it, a change of gloves for a hand, from a glove that wore out, to my mind is more like a transfer of 'energy,' the thing is just changing clothes. Or maybe the energy itself is more stationary, it just lets the new clothes come to it, and it is the body that gives the illusion of great change and movement in constantly being born and dying.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

You have made a whole bunch of assertions there.

None of them qualify as evidence

Then maybe it's a matter of assertions vs. assertions, I try to work with what is evident, as I did in that post. Perhaps whatever theory you're flying with we could analyze to show that there are also assertions therein.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Then maybe it's a matter of assertions vs. assertions, I try to work with what is evident, as I did in that post. Perhaps whatever theory you're flying with we could analyze to show that there are also assertions therein.

Not it is not.

You are asserting something without evidence. I am asserting that in the absence of evidence the default position is skepticism.

They are not even close to being equal.

 

[Treks]

Yes that is more what I'm trying to say! It's just I don't have the language to really explain it clearly without a few cognitive turnpikes, it's something you got to think about a bit and maybe they don't have a proper term for it, the closest is reincarnation. So... the way you put it, a change of gloves for a hand, from a glove that wore out, to my mind is more like a transfer of 'energy,' the thing is just changing clothes. Or maybe the energy itself is more stationary, it just lets the new clothes come to it, and it is the body that gives the illusion of great change and movement in constantly being born and dying.

Okay, great, I think I have a bit more understanding of what you're trying to describe now.

However, I would be more inclined to say it is 'God' who is re/incarnating, and not an individual. The term "individual" is what skews the image, I think, and when people think about reincarnation they think about the individual, rather than something greater.

However, I do feel it is still conjecture. I also feel that concepts of reincarnation are dangerous, because it can lull people into a false sense of 'it doesn't matter what I do in this life, I can try again in the next one'. I have encountered people with this attitude. Sadly. Ultimately, ideas of reincarnation are a useless distraction to this current life, in my humble opinion.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

You are asserting something without evidence. I am asserting that in the absence of evidence the default position is skepticism.

A problem with that, is that skepticism becomes an assertion the moment it dismisses whatever is evident. There's a fine line there that it can often haphazardly cross, per the development of bias in its operator. One can do away with a structure, but one cannot demolish the building blocks. The building blocks themselves remain, and can still be stacked using the logic we see in them.

They are not even close to being equal.

They are not even close to being categorically comparable, when you think of it. Skepticism is a tool you use, not a structure to be compared to a structure. It is structurally neutral, having no charge in it one way or another, an empty valence, just a magnifying glass in a sense, and in the sense that it is analytical it should tell you that there is something even you not what it is. And even if you bust everything down with it using the sun as a laser you are still left with the lingering of a priori and a posteriori phenomenons that be combined and constructed with together to form theories and even truth.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

However, I would be more inclined to say it is 'God' who is re/incarnating, and not an individual.

The mold changes, but the material does not, to the best of my knowledge. Whatever that material is, I think it is probably synonymic - the word made flesh is the same word for all flesh.

I also feel that concepts of reincarnation are dangerous, because it can lull people into a false sense of 'it doesn't matter what I do in this life, I can try again in the next one'.

Ah, but don't you agree that the stakes are in fact made higher with concepts of reincarnation? We know that there will be people 100 years from now, dealing with the messes we made, feeling the effects of our garbage, but did we know it would be us? I thoroughly disagree.

You may be leaving personal troubles behind with this body, but there is no exit from the troubles one adds to the world in a sense, and this is the incentive to clean up one's act for the sake of the world, which is the more important item of existential consideration.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

For me belief in God looks like a primitive clutching at metaphysical straws, seeking comfort in an uncertain existence.

For me belief in God has nothing to do with truth, and everything to do with wishful thinking.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

A problem with that, is that skepticism becomes an assertion the moment it dismisses whatever is evident. There's a fine line there that it can often haphazardly cross, per the development of bias in its operator. One can do away with a structure, but one cannot demolish the building blocks. The building blocks themselves remain, and can still be stacked using the logic we see in them.

Agreed. But your assertion is by no means evident.

 

[Treks]

Ah, but don't you agree that the stakes are in fact made higher with concepts of reincarnation? We know that there will be people 100 years from now, dealing with the messes we made, feeling the effects of our garbage, but did we know it would be us? I thoroughly disagree.

You may be leaving personal troubles behind with this body, but there is no exit from the troubles one adds to the world in a sense, and this is the incentive to clean up one's act for the sake of the world, which is the more important item of existential consideration.

I've seen people motivated by the state of the world they will leave for future generations / their children / their children's children, and people demotivated by thinking they'll have another chance in the next life. I haven't met anyone yet who wants to preserve the future for their future self.

Personally I find that to be a very self-centered motivation, indeed. And if the word (as you put it) is what is made flesh, then the individual 'you' won't reincarnate into the future anyway, right?

I'm sorry but while I can comprehend the model you're describing, I don't see any evidence to support it, or any benefit from perpetuating it's belief, in the way you've stated it so far. You've gotta work on your sales pitch

 

[amorphous_constellation]

For me belief in God looks like a primitive clutching at metaphysical straws, seeking comfort in an uncertain existence.

I like to compare the archetype of a modern businessman to the archetype of a caveman. But what really separates the modern man from a caveman? Does he look into the stars and understand any better what is really going on out there, or is the information about them which modernity is copiously vomiting upon us make them yet ever more mysterious, making us realize that this epistemological treadmill is going faster than we can hike. We are that primitive clutching at straws, soon to be obliterated by the next glacier or space rock, choking on plastic while cascading down through vengeful jaws mother nature opens, sending us back to the pits of the earth.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Agreed. But your assertion is by no means evident.

Assertions ought to draw from sources that are grounded in being evident, you may be skeptical of it, but I discount being very phased by it since it shows no critical rebuttal or reexamination of my kinds of propositions.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I've seen people motivated by the state of the world they will leave for future generations / their children / their children's children, and people demotivated by thinking they'll have another chance in the next life. I haven't met anyone yet who wants to preserve the future for their future self.

Really? I find that hard to fathom. We all know that we leave are future to our kids, but what about when our kids are us. Not that it should matter so much to a truly ethical person, for you should do good whether you are going to be there or not. But if someone's still going to be in the picture, and let's say they are kind of a selfish person, it might make them a take good hard look at what they are doing knowing full well that they'll still be here.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Ah but you see therein lies the Cartesian rub. Every single cell in your body changing is the same as switching bodies, you remain the 'me,' not in any way an accumulation, but clearly a nexus of sense experience, a singularity, a phenomenon merely sent in the way of these objects of heart and brain, respiratory rhythm, the myopia of an eyeball. There is no limit to how far you could see. You see, you could see extremely far. There is no limit to how finely you could hear, you could hear a breadcrumb drop a house over. The only thing that's stopping all of this, is the dim bulb of body that all this Cartesian electricity is settled upon.

You misunderstand. What "I" am is a continuous motion of energy taking this form that seems to have gained some form of sentience that can self recognize. And even this self recognition is an illusion.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

You misunderstand. What "I" am is a continuous motion of energy taking this form that seems to have gained some form of sentience that can self recognize. And even this self recognition is an illusion.

A point I was making early was that we cannot seem to occupy more than one 'perspective' at once, that it is to say, it seems impossible that one can simultaneously experience the state of being two people. You cannot see through the eyes of someone in Anchorage, Alaska and Indonesia at the same time, or play chess in both Brazil and France while ascending the Himalayas. The self instead seems to be a single thing, an imitation of like a nucleus, having layers upon which lies a center.

This is a clue toward recognizing a certain non-plurality in the formed self or ego, at least validating the indication that each of us are at present, one unit.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Assertions ought to draw from sources that are grounded in being evident, you may be skeptical of it, but I discount being very phased by it since it shows no critical rebuttal or reexamination of my kinds of propositions.

I have asked you to provide some kind of evidence for your assertions.

You have yet to do so.

You have yet to show how your assertions are evident.

Come on step up. I cannot rebut your position until you do.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

A point I was making early was that we cannot seem to occupy more than one 'perspective' at once, that it is to say, it seems impossible that one can simultaneously experience the state of being two people. You cannot see through the eyes of someone in Anchorage, Alaska and Indonesia at the same time, or play chess in both Brazil and France while ascending the Himalayas. The self instead seems to be a single thing, an imitation of like a nucleus, having layers upon which lies a center.

This is a clue toward recognizing a certain non-plurality in the formed self or ego, at least validating the indication that each of us are at present, one unit.

Actually all our "consciousness" is would be the processing of information in our brain. If for example we had that process cut off between two parts of our brain we would have two distinctly different "self's" if they were at all functional. So if you want to say there is some kind of central nucleus then it would be our brain. Though even then I think we run into problems with identifying it as "us".