Time for a deep discussion.

For all other chat which isn't directly related to lucid dreaming and the world of sleep and dreams.
User avatar
HAGART
Posts: 3179
Joined: 05 Jan 2012 21:09
Location: CANADA

Time for a deep discussion.

Postby HAGART » 27 Jan 2014 08:48

"I think therefore I am". -Descart.

If you stripped away your clothes, your limbs, your guts, your body and were just a brain in a jar you would still exist. Kept alive and thinking (with the proper oxygenated fluid), you would still think, "I am".
There would still be the construct of "you". There would be a perception of "yourself" fabricated by that grey blob we call a 'brain'.

If you imagine what it's like to be a consciousness in a jar, what do you think, or imagine it would be?

(When we lucid dream, or even have normal dreams, aren't we all just pure thought without a body?)
If we all lucid dreamed this world would be a better place.

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 3639
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: Time for a deep discussion.

Postby Summerlander » 27 Jan 2014 09:37

When we dream, or lucid dream, we are not really without a body because this one is required for the process of dreaming, i.e.the living brain.

Although we may refer to our bodies as something that we own, something separate from us, the reality is that we ARE our bodies. Rene Descartes was wrong in his dualism and science demonstrates how much his idea doesn't pan out.

There was a far more superior philosopher of the enlightenment. His name was David Hume and he came up with the bundle theory which evidence appears to advocate. Take away all the properties of an object and you can no longer describe it: it ceases to be.

The self is like a centre of gravity: it's not really there. It's an illusion.

[ Post made via Android ] Image
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

User avatar
HAGART
Posts: 3179
Joined: 05 Jan 2012 21:09
Location: CANADA

Re: Time for a deep discussion.

Postby HAGART » 27 Jan 2014 09:57

Brain is body, but what and where is mind? It's like the brain is a candle stick and the mind is the flame.

What Descarte did was: he imagined what it would be like to not exist and pondered that. But the very pondering of it was imagination, so it's a paradox. How can you imagine non existence? :o

I like deep talks like this, and
I hope this goes more viral than the topics about afterlife and religion..... ;)
If we all lucid dreamed this world would be a better place.

User avatar
Thinker
Posts: 36
Joined: 02 Sep 2013 14:25

Re: Time for a deep discussion.

Postby Thinker » 27 Jan 2014 18:29

HAGART wrote:"I think therefore I am". -Descart.

If you stripped away your clothes, your limbs, your guts, your body and were just a brain in a jar you would still exist. Kept alive and thinking (with the proper oxygenated fluid), you would still think, "I am".
There would still be the construct of "you". There would be a perception of "yourself" fabricated by that grey blob we call a 'brain'.

If you imagine what it's like to be a consciousness in a jar, what do you think, or imagine it would be?

(When we lucid dream, or even have normal dreams, aren't we all just pure thought without a body?)


Hey Hagard :) Good topic.

I think Descartes was right on this fundamental truth. Even the most skeptic person, like me, cannot dismiss the idea that the self must exist in some way. Describing that ''some way'' can be the problem. Even in hard skeptic scenarios (like the brain in a vat scenario) or in anti-realistic scenarios, perception can't be faked, what can be fake is his correspondence to a independent and external reality (if we admit that there is one to correspond). If you have the perception off the self, it means that in some way the self exists.

Regarding your 1º question, I think in skeptic scenarios like the brain in a vat, the possibilities are ''almost endless''. All sorts of illusions you can think about. If your question was about the external reality outside the vat, I think you can speculate at will. I think the most probable scenario is one in that humanity envolve technology and knowledge of the brain to a point where creating ''matrixs'' is possible or in a world where artificial intelligence is possible and we are like video games like the Sims ahah Or we in matrix movie style world.

Regarding your 2º question, I think you must explain what you mean by ''pure thought without a body''

Science tell us that there must be a causality between the brain (neurons, etc - physical) and the mental states.
If your talking about consciousness, in normal dreams, we are not aware of the thoughts, so is like they ''they are not there'', but later we have memories of them.

I've not deepen my study in philosophy of the mind yet, a very interesting subject. One of my greatest doubts is the existence of non-physical entities. This can be related to your question. There are lot of thesis about if toughts are physical or non physical. When you ask about pure thought, I can assume that you are asking if the are no physical link between toughts and neurons. That's what intrigues me. Where are those toughts, where is color, where is taste, where is smell? They ''live'' in a diferente dimension? Is possible to have non-physical entities like these ones in our world?

Here are some links that can help you to deepen your knowledge about this matter:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism_(philosophy_of_mind)

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epiphenomenalism/

User avatar
HAGART
Posts: 3179
Joined: 05 Jan 2012 21:09
Location: CANADA

Re: Time for a deep discussion.

Postby HAGART » 27 Jan 2014 20:03

I like questions that open a Pandora's Box and can't be answered. It creates a tree of questions. Once you answer one, it opens two other branches.... and it goes on... and on....

I like this and am listening.

I'll respond later, but it's important to listen... and I like it. 8-)
If we all lucid dreamed this world would be a better place.

RustyMinecart
Posts: 45
Joined: 03 Dec 2013 07:29
Location: Somewhere in the USA

Re: Time for a deep discussion.

Postby RustyMinecart » 28 Jan 2014 07:22

Oooh, I love deep stuff. It really makes you think about things.
You Create Your Own Reality

User avatar
Peter
Posts: 1951
Joined: 26 May 2011 08:02
Location: New Zealand

Re: Time for a deep discussion.

Postby Peter » 28 Jan 2014 09:13

All sorts of illusions you can think about.


Only put up part of the line but first thought is where does the impute come from to allow the brain to create its reality. If this impute in of a different nature to ours due to senses of a different nature then a reality is possible but how to communicate it. The life could be like cells in a tree with a form of code to be what they need to be in any situation of life they find themselves in but not our kind of awareness. So we might create a cell that is alive but can only be a small part of a bigger entity.


''pure thought without a body''


Following on it could be like the void experiences I have where there is no sense of body at all and I am tending to think this is due to inner senses and so the body and it senses and the recall of any sensory impute that is recalled for building dreams and lucid dreams is not present. It is an amazing state that I cannot explain in an additive way but only by deconstruction of daily life
Who are you I asked, the reply "dont be silly, we are your daughers" many years before they were born

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 3639
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: Time for a deep discussion.

Postby Summerlander » 28 Jan 2014 11:42

To ask the question, "What is it like to be non-existent?" is like asking, "What is it like to be unconscious?" The answer is that it's not like anything because you are simply not conscious and therefore no experience.

I'm sorry guys but I'm not feeling this deep stuff. I think a lot of it stems from a deep human solipsism and ego centricity. I'm with doctor Dennett when it comes to the hard problem of consciousness (there isn't one).

Qualia, conscious experience and the self exist as elaborate illusions as far as I can tell, i.e not what we think it is. No thoughts are to be found anywhere. We see the burnt toast but we think we see Jesus. This consciousness business is probably "music" played by quantum vibrations inside neurons which apparently support Penrose's theory. I also think you need the complexity of a brain and a working information integration system like Tonomi's one combined.

[ Post made via Android ] Image
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

User avatar
HAGART
Posts: 3179
Joined: 05 Jan 2012 21:09
Location: CANADA

Re: Time for a deep discussion.

Postby HAGART » 28 Jan 2014 17:56

I didn't start my life on the day of my birth. I was alive before that and had a consciousness while still in my mother's womb. I don't remember it, but I wonder if it was a lot like the 'void experience' Peter talks about.
If we all lucid dreamed this world would be a better place.

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 3639
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: Time for a deep discussion.

Postby Summerlander » 28 Jan 2014 18:27

What would you remember? Darkness maybe? Who knows. Your brain was underdeveloped in the womb anyway and you probably weren't aware of much. I think it should only count when you are conscious. If you can't remember certain experiences but were conscious at the time, then it is possible to recall them. If you were not conscious of events, then there is nothing to remember and it is safe to say that you weren't really there (like events prior to your conception).

Most of the time, we tend to overlook the facts around us and follow strong emotions and intuitions instead - many of which derive from non-sequiturs but we nurture them in our minds anyway because they are attractive.

I can illustrate with the following brain teaser and this is another way to get deep and remain cogent to the topic:

The Monty Hall problem: You have three doors. One of them hides a brand new car (which is what you're after), and the other two hide a goat each. You pick door number 1 knowing that there is only a 1/3 chance of winning the car. But then, the host (Hall) opens door number 2 which reveals a goat and gives you the opportunity to switch to door three if you so choose. Do you stick with door 1 or do you switch to 3? Remember that initially, with door 1, you only had a 1/3 chance. Door 3, according to the host, offers 2/3. But also bear in mind that what has changed by revealing what is behind door 2 is the degree of uncertainty. Pick! (I'm very interested to find what each of you would do and why.)
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava


Return to “Off-Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests