Well, not to so much reveal anything or perhaps I will but I actually did have my origins altered in a sense, in a great sense.
I was inadvertently told by my grandparents (and not biological ones) that the man who I had actually believed to be my father, who I had loved and worshiped as my father (since I was too young at the time to know otherwise) since that is what my mother told me ~~ was not actually my father. I was absolutely devastated by that. I lost that father not only once but twice. That was revealed to me right after high school graduation. They thought that I knew the truth of my so-called origins. How my origins changed.
But that also explained something which happened between myself and my so-called father when I was around six or seven which also devastated me and which probably affected my life in many ways growing up.
It was one of the most utmost experiences of abandonment that I have ever had in my life.
.
HmmmâŠso you think that changing oneâs essence is as simple as re-defining oneâs self? Giving oneâs self a new self-identity in a sense?
I donât know about that.
Ah, so this is closer to the âsubjectiveâ account I gave earlier. Though I can see what you mean: it doesnât involve replacing memories, but being told a different story about your past.
You must live a life thatâs anything but ordinary.
Me neither. Itâs anything but simple⊠which is why I must meditate on it⊠might need a few months atop a snowy mountain in Tibet.
Pretty damn close. I would make up my own, mainly for aesthetics as follows:
O <â«> B <â«> C
I wonder if you can guess what it means . . .
Strange that . . . I wonder why we do that.
I would suggest the brain does it from pattern matching and differentiation - I would further conclude that this is also how new thoughts evolve - epiphanies.
I have witnessed a pattern matching algorithm based on the neocortex make a leap to identify an animal based on a similar animal - and that is not using all six layers - it kind of freaks me out what all six layers are capable of.
I really like what you have written here.
Yeah - I am not a huge fan of QM. I have also read some data that points to correlation implying causation - that tells me that there is something up with QM.
I am pretty certain the neocortex is involved in processing poetry and metaphor.
I find that if I have put an extreme amount of thought into the post when I write it - then I have to spend some time decoding my own writing.
I did actually make it up when thinking of what I would use based on the original logic . . . fuzzy at that.
O <â«> B <â«> C
<â«> = A stem
The stem is made up of three symbols, the âless thanâ sign, the âIntegralâ sign, the âgreater thanâ sign. It just means that what ever is to the left is smaller than that which is to the right but they are integrated.
A plant works the opposite way - the stem is larger than the branches - just an analogy.
I have put so much thought into this post nah, I am just messing with you
How do we keep ourselves in check? How do we regulate our own behavior?
Actually I was trying to think up a witty response to this post - I am not sure whether I have achieved that necessarily but I have now made an attempt prior to hitting the submit button. What if I have already hit the submit button and I am just not aware of it? If I have already hit the submit button then how is it possible that the words that I am now typing are making it into this post? And why is it that we only remember the past and not the future? So many questions and apparently I can still ask them after hitting the submit button and I can also laugh . . .
Is this a part of my essence - if so - what is this - and what part of my essence would this be - can we have parts to our respective essences?
Iâm gonna cheat. Iâm gonna look ahead to your response to Arc. You call it a âstemâ. You say that O is not only less than B but integrated into B. So maybe something like: if itâs a dog, then itâs an animal. And if itâs an animal, then itâs a life form.
What? Think of human brains as computers or design computers to not make mistakes or have opinions?
I remember listening to a lecture by John Searle once in which he quoted an ancient greek writer (I forget who): the brain is like a catepolt, he said. Searleâs point is that throughout history, weâve always compared the brain to the latest, most advanced, technology of the time. Why? Partly because we didnât understand how the brain works (thus comparing it to something âsophisticatedâ or âcomplexâ) and partly because in seeking out an explanation (of anything) we look for mechanical cause/effect accounts. We stay away from magic or spontaneous/causeless accounts because thatâs more akin to saying âthere is no explanation.â
But I think with computers, weâre not just repeating the same pattern. I think there is something to computers that makes them good for comparison to brainsânamely, internal information processing. When we design a computer to carry out complex mathematical algorithms, we are modeling the design after what we see going on inside our minds (introspection). Furthermore, like all other tools, we design computers to perform the tasks that we would otherwise have to do ourselves (laborously). Weâve built a machine that can solve really complex mathematical and logical problems so that we donât have to go through all the trouble of doing it in our heads (and possibly making mistakes). Therefore, of course the brain is like a computer⊠because we designed computers to be like brains.
Of course, weâve designed computers to model the brain in specific ways onlyâdoing math, solving logical problems, and even doing things like rendering art and running video gamesâall things that the human brain can do but much better. This more or less addresses the second part aboveâwhy we donât design computers to make mistakes or have opinionsâbecause at the end of the day, theyâre still tools. We design and used them as replacements to our own manual effortsâand not just because weâre lazy, but because we make mistakes. We also leave out the ability of computers to form their own opinions because, as tools, we want to have full control over them. We want them to do exactly what we tell them, like mechanical slaves. Programming them to have their own opinions which might conflict with ours (e.g. Me: I want you to allocate $500,000 to defense spending. Computer: in my opinion, I think that money would be better spent on education) is avoided because that too would make them less tool-like and more of an âequalâ (who could use us as tools just as much we can them).
You mean like: please go get [food item X]. â This matches past patterns of requests to get food items in which the person went to the grocery store to fulfill the request. And thoughts that evolveâepiphaniesâis this the brain doing the occasion break from following patterns? Finding whole new patterns? Like: I could go to the grocery store, but if I gut the neighborâs cow, the meat will be a lot more fresh and no unhealthy additives! â Or is that more insanity than novel thinking?
Wow, thatâs interesting. How do they scan the brain in order to identify pattern matching?
Thank you!
Hmmm⊠well, if you can remember the source, I sure would like to know about this. I took a course in statistics for my psyc undergrad, and I remember one of our projects was to look for studies and find at least 5 in which the authors made really blatant mistakes like that. Youâd be surprised how many articles out there draw causal conclusions based on a correlation only. It wasnât hard to find all 5. Other mistakes included âfudgingâ statistical significanceâas in: their study could not prove that their conclusions had a 99% chance of being right so they lowered the standard to a 95% chance of being right. Or increasing the sample size: did you know that you can prove a correlation exists between any two arbitrary variables you want so long as your sample size is large enough? (whether that correlation is positive or negative is another matter).
Anyway, back to QM, if theyâre really scrupulous about being scientific, then the way you establish a cause (and not just a correlation) is by setting up the experiment so that you clearly have a dependent variable (the effect) and an independent variable (the cause). The assumption is that the independent variable has its own cause which determines it (you!) leaving no other option than to identify the independent variable as the cause of the dependent variable. Philosophically speaking, you could question this assumption, but it seems reasonable enough to me to justify the identification of a cause. So long as QM experiments are adhering to this design, Iâd say they are in the right to identify the independent variable as the cause.
I would not doubt that. Though I would expect many parts of the brain to be involved in processing poetry and metaphor. Iâd also point out that the neocortex constitutes a huge portion of the brain, so itâs probably involved in a whole bunch of mental processing (in fact, itâs been proven). How it processes poetry and metaphor is a more interesting question (at least for me) and Iâm sure youâre on the right track in your investigations into pattern matching.
Well, that certainly makes sense. Makes me wonder: do you think this is typical of people who form their thoughts and opinions âon the flyâ so to speak? As opposed to people who draw from long held beliefs and opinions that have remained more or less âsolidâ over the years. In the latter case, I would expect those people to know exactly what they were talking about even when revisiting old posts after a long period of absence. But if you form your thoughts and opinions more or less âon the flyâ then theyâre more likely to be ephemeral, and you most likely wonât remember what you were thinking if you came back to the post after a long period of absence.
Well, Iâve come down from my mountain and hereâs my initial thoughts:
What does it take to change oneâs essence? I think oneâs essence is just what one isâat the coreâand since I personally believe nothing is permanent, that things are always changing, it only makes sense to talk about oneâs essence in the moment. However, it would also be fair to say that the change we undergo may be so gradual that we can get away with talking about our essence over an extended period of time. There is also the fact of recurrence, which I spoke about before, which is the idea that our essenceâthe core of our beingâis not something constant but something that keeps recurringâpersonal tastes, memories, my image in the mirror, hearing my nameâall these go towards my self-concept and my essence because they keep repeating for me, and maybe we can talk about our essence as the general âflavorâ that all these recurring experiences or states mix together to becomeâlike the âessenceâ of a pixel flashing on a screen between red and yellow might be âorangeâ.
But I always like to argue from a subjectivist point of viewâI like to trace the things in our world back to first person experience. If we indeed have an âessenceâ, I trace that back to conceptsâself-concepts, self-identitiesâhow we define ourselves, as I pointed out earlier. I can understand Arcâs point that if weâre talking about self-definitions, weâre talking about something that seems to be on the surfaceâhow we think of ourselves on a conscious levelâand oneâs true essence must be something deep within the core of our being. But I disagree that thought and the definitions we give to things (including ourselves) is at the surface; I think our minds are the core of our beingâincluding all our thoughts, all our emotions, all our memories, all our desires, all our pains and pleasures. It is the source from which thoughts and the definitions we give to things spring. We imbue things, including ourselves, with whatever definitions we give them, and this for us constitutes their essence. Iâm opposed to the idea that the core of a thing, its fundamental identity, is always necessarily hidden. We are our own core, and the proof of this is precisely that we are exposed to ourselves.
But my subjectivist views are not the only views out there. If youâre a strict Platonist, for example, you would say that oneâs essence isnât just reduced to oneâs self-definition. An âessenceâ to a Platonist is just as real, just as objective, and just as independent of human thought as are rocks, shoes, and tin cansâonly they donât subsist as physical bodies, but rather the âmetaphysicalâ or âspiritualâ identity of things, the abstract identity of things that we see with our minds, not with our senses. An essence is whatever it is that resides within a thing to give that thing its identityâwhat makes a chair a chair, what makes a house a house, what makes my phone my phone. This supposedly doesnât change just by my re-thinking it. My phone doesnât cease to be my phone just by my redefining it. And so too with the self.
^ Iâve never really been a strong adherent to Platonism, but I canât really account for where Iâm coming from unless I also explain things from opposing points of view. Sometimes a bit of contrast makes the things being contrasted more clear.
Based on the original logic . . . fuzzy at that, we have new symbols to work with:
O <â«> B <â«> C
<â«> = A stem
The stem is made up of three symbols, the âless thanâ sign, the âIntegralâ sign, the âgreater thanâ sign. It just means that what ever is to the left is smaller than that which is to the right but they are integrated. A plant works the opposite way - the stem is larger than the branches - just an analogy.
So O <â«> B <â«> C just means:
C stems from B stems from O
or
O stems to B stems to C. Everybody is making sense in one way or another . . . and I am starting to wrap my head around this finally.
There are many times when I agree with views that differ from each other. Sometimes the views are similar with slight differences and sometimes views are entirely different and all still make sense. The problem I have with what I just said comes down to contrast.
Now back to my main point . . .
So lets say we have the following definitions of slots:
O = Our Origin - Never Changing
B = Our Biological - Ever Changing
C = Our Conscious - Ever Changing
I still propose that we each have an origin(O) - a lot like the origin on a graph - except that we donât need any dimensions for the definition of our origin - it is purely a starting point of sorts. I further posit that each of us has a biological(B) which is easy for us to agree on. And lastly we should be able to agree on each of us having a conscious(C).
Our O is never changing and everything after this point changes so we can say that:
O <â«> B <â«> C
In other words; O stems to B stems to C.
Keep in mind that I am only using the â~â symbol as a separator to make it easier to read.
Where does the essence fit into this logic?
âș Is it ~ O or B or C?
âș Else ~ Does it fit somewhere between one of these three slots?
âș Or else ~ Is it a combination of all three?
I still can not get this essence out of my mind. I was thinking that O(Our Origin) was our essence and is ethereal and eternal - allowing for life after death.
Another way to look at it is that Our Origin is like a Seed to be planted into the Garden Of Life - and therefore our essence - in my mind anyway . . .
Then WendyDarling jumps in and adds more factors to the equation:
Agreeing with all this except for one change that your consciousness has an unchanging aspect of O as well that occurs before itâs placed/born in a physical body/shell so an OC, original consciousness, then the biological consciousness would be the BC, the changing aspect which comes after the O and the OC.
Making the enumeration look like the following:
OO = Our Origin - Never Changing
OC = Original Consciousness - Never Changing?
TB = The Brain - Ever Changing
TM = The Mind - Ever Changing
Obviously I have made a few changes to make things clearer. O is now OO, B is now TB and C is now TM
I like WendyDarlingâs thoughts but I am still not sure where the essence fits in.
My only thought is something I arrived at while reading your most recent post: you point that O is never changing while B and C are ever changing. While I agree, I asked myself whyâwhat differentiates O from B and C? And the only answer I could come up with is that O is an event in time. All events in time are âfixedâ insofar as they are written in the tablet of the past. But B and C are regarded more as objects or entities (C being a more abstract entity), not events. And then I thought: thatâs ironic! Itâs the objects/entities, normally regarded as fixed or unchanging, which in the end turn out to be ever changing, while the event, normally regarded as necessarily going through change by definition, which in the end turns out to be fixed.
Well then, we can say that we PERHAPS have two different essences.
One which belongs to the human side of us, universally speaking. Our human essence (as I said in another thread) belong to our origins would include the capacity toward evolution/evolving, the instinct toward survival, struggling, learning, imagining, wondering, et cetera.
All of these are really wonderful when it comes to our human essence. Why are we so eager to discount them to get to what is ethereal and eternal and cannot ever be proven.
I think that in a sense everything which comes about as a result of our human essence, for example, like the belief or intuition that we are eternal and that our consciousness survives after death, comes about as a result of the characteristics of that same human essence which we evolved into - for instance, the instinct for survival, which may possibly give us the will and longing for immortality and to be eternal.
A trick of the mind perhaps. What we believe, we tend to see whether or not itâs real.
Or perhaps that it is human evolution itself which plants the seedsâŠ
But i can also see it your way too â we are the seeds to be planted and human evolution is their gardeners, their caretakers. we must be nourished and nurturedâŠ
I think it also has to do with the fact that we canât imagine death. If you try to imagine yourself on your death bed, and you pass on, how do you imagine the nothingness that ensues? It gives the illusion (or maybe not an illusion) that our experience can never really end.
Eureka. I think that this is true though I didnât think about it along those terms. Human essence would necessarily have to include our DNA among other things which make us physically human.
Or is it all about DNA and genes and how we have so evolved? That is a question for you.
I wonder why it is that we are so quick and so determined to see ourselves MORE about souls/spirits and less about the miracle which human beings have become through evolution.
We look for miracles without seeing the one which we are.
Hmmm You may be partly right about that, gib. I think that it still comes down to the fact that we are so attached to this life, out of fear of losing self, the âIâ which we are, fear of the unknown - after all, isnât the greatest unknown what happens after death? And we do not have the courage to live without knowing. We do not have the wisdom to see how Death can teach us to live the greatest life which we have, to live in the here and now.
Isnât it such a waste of life and moments to live in a way where we gamble all on the possibility of their being a hereafter?
There is just something about it that drew me in. Whatâs wrong with being sad sometimes and whatâs wrong with lying on the wet ground while the rain is coming down? Try it sometimes, itâs relaxing and freeing.
I have had my moments where I cried while walking in the rain. What is wrong with that, gib? Clouds cry so why canât I?
Whatâs wrong with sometimes being a cloud? Just as the cloud needs its catharsis, so do we. Just call me nimbusâŠstratus.
Besides, maybe itâs the poetess in me that likes the drama and passion of it all.
No, I donât think itâs all about that. In fact, I question whether itâs about DNA at all. As you know, Iâm a subjectivist, which means I define and understand things from the point of view of my own subjective experiences. When I ask myself: what is my essence? I mean: who do I feel like I am in this moment? DNA, for me, is not the first thing that comes to mind. I donât subjectively feel my DNA. All I can come to in regards to the self I feel like I am is that it is a concept I am projecting onto myself.
^ You might help me out with this. What does it feel like to be you? What do you feel in yourself subjectively that you would say constitutes the core of âyouâ?
I blame Descartes. Heâs the one who convinced everyone that we are our souls and not our bodies. But I definitly think there is a spiritual aspect to our beingâweâre not just physicalâbut I agree that thereâs no reason to think weâre MORE our spiritual side than our physical side. I guess itâs because our spiritual side is thought to be âwithinâ and therefore closer to our âcoreâ.
Well, it all depends on if the believers are right or not, of course. But I donât think anyoneâs ever come close to proving the existence of an afterlife. Gambling on an unknown can be an incredible waste. Though I donât think itâs necessarily a waste to believe in an afterlife, just to put all oneâs eggs in that basket. The afterlife I envision is a huge unknown. It might be bliss, it might be hell, it might be an inconceivable experience, it might be nothing. I think that without anything to look forward to in the afterlife, oneâs focus remains here in this life.
Now, now, Arc, donât get defensive. Thereâs abolutely nothing wrong with crying in the rain.
Well, it is raining outside right now. Maybe Iâll go out to the parking lot. Hope no one runs over me.
Ok, Nimbus (or would you prefer Mrs. Stratus?). Youâre a cloud and you like to cry sometimes. Thereâs absolutely nothing wrong with that. But one still wonders why someone cries. One wonders: is everything all right?
The trick to imagining events pinned to time and space is to imagine a map of time and space thatâs âstaticâ. I mean, if youâre imagining things moving about on that spacetime map or things changing, you havenât imagined it right. It should be like a stock market graphâwhere the vertical axis is the value of the stocks and the horizontal is time. The value of the stocks naturally fluctuate (change) but we donât see any movement on the graph, just mountains.
So imagining a butterfly effect emanating from an event on a spacetime graph would probably look like more events (perhaps smaller ones) that stretch out from the point in time of the original event into the future, leading to other larger events on the way. Is that how you would imagine it?
You know, I had a discussion once with someone here on ILP (I think it was Artimus) in which I explained to him a sense of âchangeâ that can happen without time:
We can talk about the landscape changing. From the northern tip of North American to the southern tip, the landscape changes. It goes from snow and ice, to forest, to planes, to desert (sometimes mountains). But this is a change that happens âsimultaneouslyâ.
On a static graph, the only difference between a changing landscape and a changing event would be the direction (horizontal or vertical) in which we see the change occurring.
Somehow (I forget how) this lead me to think: to talk about oneâs origins, one is talking about an event that is âdoneââor âcompleteâ for all intents and purposesâso on a static landscape of time and space, it can be represented as an object, something that spans a bit of time, but is complete, and so we can think of it as an unchanging object. Oneâs biology and consciousness, on the other hand, are not yet complete. They continue to change as life goes on. So we are not in a position to think of them as âcompleteâ objects. We are compelled to think of them as things which exist in the moment but are going through change. They continue to be with us at every moment, but become different at every moment because of the change they go through. The âobjectâ remains here, in the moment, not stuck to a specific point in space and time. Perhaps in 100 years from now, my great grandchildren may speak of my life as a fixed event in the past, that though I went through change in my life, my life is now a complete story, written in the past, there to remain the same forever.