Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,585 Year: 4,842/9,624 Month: 190/427 Week: 0/103 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Problems of mind
Gzus
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 11 (27658)
12-22-2002 4:33 PM


Would the following description of the mind help or confuse?
for every second that we live, we exist and cease to exist an infinite number of times. for every infinitely small increment in time, we are a set of stimuli and an impulse. we do not 'know' that we have existed nor that we will exist, we can only be sure of the present. We are ever changing and therefore, the person that i was one second ago is dead, ceased to exist, life exists only in the present, whatever that is. Having established that, how can we claim consciousness?, it is impossible for us to experience the past or the future, and the reasoning of our conscious minds is time dependent.
What makes us different from a frame in a movie clip, each time being replaced by a new and equally doomed picture. The movie looks interesting but the individual clips are rather bland.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by forgiven, posted 12-22-2002 7:07 PM Gzus has not replied
 Message 6 by Brad McFall, posted 12-24-2002 11:31 PM Gzus has not replied
 Message 11 by logicalunatic, posted 12-26-2002 1:33 AM Gzus has not replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 11 (27680)
12-22-2002 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Gzus
12-22-2002 4:33 PM


Originally posted by Gzus:
for every second that we live, we exist and cease to exist an infinite number of times. for every infinitely small increment in time, we are a set of stimuli and an impulse. we do not 'know' that we have existed nor that we will exist, we can only be sure of the present. We are ever changing and therefore, the person that i was one second ago is dead, ceased to exist, life exists only in the present, whatever that is. Having established that, how can we claim consciousness?, it is impossible for us to experience the past or the future, and the reasoning of our conscious minds is time dependent.
What makes us different from a frame in a movie clip, each time being replaced by a new and equally doomed picture. The movie looks interesting but the individual clips are rather bland.
i believe we live now... as you say, we can't live last second, we can't live next second... i do not see how this leads to the conclusion that "for every second that we live, we exist and cease to exist an infinite number of times" nor that "we do not 'know' that we have existed nor that we will exist, we can only be sure of the present"...
at which division of 'now' do we cease? at which do we continue? all that exists is "now," for those bound by space and time... for those not so bound, yesterday and tomorrow both exist... we can claim conciousness by claiming that there is more than the material, we can be sure of continued conciousness in the same way... or we can choose your way
nihilism is rational for a materialist... but something can be both rational and incorrect

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Gzus, posted 12-22-2002 4:33 PM Gzus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by John, posted 12-23-2002 11:45 PM forgiven has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 11 (27764)
12-23-2002 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by forgiven
12-22-2002 7:07 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
at which division of 'now' do we cease? at which do we continue? all that exists is "now," for those bound by space and time... for those not so bound, yesterday and tomorrow both exist... we can claim conciousness by claiming that there is more than the material, we can be sure of continued conciousness in the same way... or we can choose your way
I think forgiven might be hitting on something important. We divide time into increments, but are those increments actual things? Not really. We made them up. The argument gzus made seems to depend upon the use of, or conception of, time as discrete things-- like blocks that you stack one on top of the other.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by forgiven, posted 12-22-2002 7:07 PM forgiven has not replied

  
Gzus
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 11 (27779)
12-24-2002 11:40 AM


they are not blocks, simply infinitely small increment. this is however a simplification. time itself is not a block. the fact is, we are constantly changing, you are different from the person that existed 10 seconds ago and you exist only for an infinitely small period before passing out of existence. In this sense, 'you' do not experience anything since 'you' exist only at one infinitely small point in time. it may seem as if you are moving forward in time, experiencing it, but all you really are is a collection of memories and an impulse, a frozen picture.

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by forgiven, posted 12-24-2002 4:23 PM Gzus has not replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 11 (27799)
12-24-2002 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Gzus
12-24-2002 11:40 AM


Originally posted by Gzus:
they are not blocks, simply infinitely small increment. this is however a simplification. time itself is not a block. the fact is, we are constantly changing, you are different from the person that existed 10 seconds ago and you exist only for an infinitely small period before passing out of existence. In this sense, 'you' do not experience anything since 'you' exist only at one infinitely small point in time. it may seem as if you are moving forward in time, experiencing it, but all you really are is a collection of memories and an impulse, a frozen picture.
i disagree completely... it doesn't matter how "long" this existence is, there is still existence for some measureable duration... the most that can be said for your view is, we exist now until for each of us individually there is no more 'now'... i happen to believe that we exist "now" eternally, but that's a different story
what you wrote seems to contain internal inconsistencies... you say "..you are different from the person that existed 10 seconds ago.." and then, "..'you' do not experience anything since 'you' exist only at one infinitely small point in time.." how can someone whose existence you don't deny, no matter the duration, experience nothing *during* that existence? what are experiences if not "collection(s) of memories?"
outside of that, your "infinitely small period" is not actually infinite since, by your own words, it ends
added by edit: so john is in fact correct that you view time like blocks you stack on top of one another, and your words don't show disagreement with him (in spite of having said "they are not blocks..")... if infinite, "now" won't end... if not infinite, stacked increments
[This message has been edited by forgiven, 12-24-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Gzus, posted 12-24-2002 11:40 AM Gzus has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5112 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 6 of 11 (27822)
12-24-2002 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Gzus
12-22-2002 4:33 PM


In Wolfram's New KInd of Science he asked for the reader in a chapter to begin with randomess (as per your third written division) are you going to take me to task in this thread if I had responded instead of here at a location under other posters below from the heart or will you always be attempting to revert this query back to chance intital conditions???

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Gzus, posted 12-22-2002 4:33 PM Gzus has not replied

  
Gzus
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 11 (27836)
12-25-2002 1:59 PM


Well, all I can say guys is, I’m baffled, I’m not 100% sure about this question myself but what I do know is that the Gzus that existed one second ago was a different Gzus from the one that exists now, he has passed on to non-existence, hence he is ‘dead’ in a manner of speaking,
So, am I (or various versions of I) dying all the time?
Strange and puzzling if you get my point
But I do accept all your points about time, what is it? And is this statement somehow flawed because of my misinterpretation?
Gzus

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by forgiven, posted 12-25-2002 3:00 PM Gzus has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 11 (27851)
12-25-2002 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Gzus
12-25-2002 1:59 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Gzus:
Well, all I can say guys is, I’m baffled, I’m not 100% sure about this question myself but what I do know is that the Gzus that existed one second ago was a different Gzus from the one that exists now, he has passed on to non-existence, hence he is ‘dead’ in a manner of speaking,
So, am I (or various versions of I) dying all the time?
Strange and puzzling if you get my point
But I do accept all your points about time, what is it? And is this statement somehow flawed because of my misinterpretation?
Gzus

there is a continuity of being and purpose that you seem to dismiss out of hand... simply because last second can't be relived or undone doesn't mean it didn't exist, nor that you are a different entity this second...
in the final analysis, why does it matter to you? you prefer nihilism because it is "more honest," but only because you set up dogmaticism as an antithesis to nihilism when such isn't the case... you have established a false dichotomy... aren't you, after all, dogmatic about your nihilism?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Gzus, posted 12-25-2002 1:59 PM Gzus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Gzus, posted 12-25-2002 3:12 PM forgiven has replied

  
Gzus
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 11 (27854)
12-25-2002 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by forgiven
12-25-2002 3:00 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
quote:

aren't you, after all, dogmatic about your nihilism?

Well, I try not to be! What can I say, my mother indoctrinated me with Christianity when I was small, probably why I’m a rebel.
This topic is merely a passing thought of mine, to be honest, I’m really not sure about the answers, but as for my nihilistic non-belief, it relies on only one dogmatic argument, that logic is not itself flawed

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by forgiven, posted 12-25-2002 3:00 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by forgiven, posted 12-25-2002 4:55 PM Gzus has not replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 11 (27860)
12-25-2002 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Gzus
12-25-2002 3:12 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Gzus:
Well, I try not to be! What can I say, my mother indoctrinated me with Christianity when I was small, probably why I’m a rebel.
This topic is merely a passing thought of mine, to be honest, I’m really not sure about the answers, but as for my nihilistic non-belief, it relies on only one dogmatic argument, that logic is not itself flawed
if your mother brought you up as a christian, you'll be ok.. the bible assures me that you'll return to the truth...
i'm still troubled by your statement "..as for my nihilistic non-belief, it relies on only one dogmatic argument, that logic is not itself flawed."
previously you set nihilism and dogmaticism at odds with one another, and here you seem to equate the two... as if that wasn't inconsistent enough you go further by relying on logic, flawed as it is, to logically argue the flaws it contains...
i think your worldview, such as it is, has a serious propensity to shoot itself in the foot... i don't mean that harshly, i mean it as way of suggestion to you that you examine it, and those against which it competes for your allegiance, more closely

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Gzus, posted 12-25-2002 3:12 PM Gzus has not replied

  
logicalunatic
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 11 (27877)
12-26-2002 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Gzus
12-22-2002 4:33 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Gzus:
Would the following description of the mind help or confuse?
for every second that we live, we exist and cease to exist an infinite number of times. for every infinitely small increment in time, we are a set of stimuli and an impulse. we do not 'know' that we have existed nor that we will exist, we can only be sure of the present. We are ever changing and therefore, the person that i was one second ago is dead, ceased to exist, life exists only in the present, whatever that is. Having established that, how can we claim consciousness?, it is impossible for us to experience the past or the future, and the reasoning of our conscious minds is time dependent.
What makes us different from a frame in a movie clip, each time being replaced by a new and equally doomed picture. The movie looks interesting but the individual clips are rather bland.

This reminds me of my favorite religon.

Last Thursday



Life, the Universe and Everything (Thanks DNA) including all of our memories was created last Thursday. If we seem to remember something from say, two weeks ago, it is only because ThursGod created that memory. We're not exactly sure what time everything was created last Thursday but we DO have a book here that reassures us that it WAS on Thursday. The Weekly Thurble (Sales Manager James version) states:
12:26:2002 And ThursGod said, "I just ate lunch, and it was good. I had better create everything before my shift ends at 5:00."
We're pretty sure everything was created somewhere between Lunch Time and 5:00. The only problems are, when does lunch start?
How long is lunch?
Is 5:00 in the AM or PM?
We can only be absolutely sure that everything was created between Wednesday and Friday.
------------------
LogicaLunatic
http://www.objectivity.tk

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Gzus, posted 12-22-2002 4:33 PM Gzus has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024