Kevin's Watch

What I really want to discuss is a little piece of philosophy I've been discussing with a friend recently, now I promise everyone its not too hard to understand so there really is no excuse to close your eyes and go to a happy place at the mention of a serious philosophical discourse. Let us imagine that there exists a teleportation portal, which has two openings which are separated spatially. Any object which goes into one gate instantly comes out the other gate, with every measureable property exactly the same as when it went in. For the sake of simplicity here, we may disregard Quantum Uncertainity (although i'm pretty sure we can get away with leaving it) and our little rule we all have against faster than light information transmission.

For the sake of having fun and giving me an easier way of making an argument (non-fallacious properly formed logical arguments are hard!) let us imagine that the following converation was two occur between two laymen of this philosophical genre, lets call these people 'Aaron' and 'Doug'. Let us also assume that neither of these people are rtards and are both trying to be honest and rationally attempting to attain soem enlightenment during thier debate, perhaps to discover some kind of truth. Here we go...


Doug: "Is the object which enters the portal the same object which comes out the other side?".
Aaron: "Every measureable property of the object which entered the first portal has been instantaneously recreated in the object which leaves the second portal"
Doug "Aaron you didn't answer the question, you only restated an assumption"
Aaron "Ok. Well then my answer is yes, it is the same object."
Doug "Can you elaborate on the reasoning behind that assertion?"
Aaron "I can if I have to"
Doug "You have to, merely asserting something is true is pretty meaningless"
Aaron "It is the same object, provided you do not postulate the existance of any abstract unmeasurable properties of the object, for example a 'soul', or 'value' or whatever other intrinsic property i'm sure you'd love to come up with."
Doug "But how can you be sure its the same object?, what if you were talking about the object being a person, if a person went through the portal would the same person come out of the other side"
Aaron "A person the same in every measureable way would come out the other side, i believe that this assertion alone is enough to conclude that it would be the same person that entered"
Doug "So you do not believe that a person has any unmeasureable properties such as a soul"
Aaron (thinks to self "my argument will be untenable if I say no") "That is correct"

Here the two 'fictional' people go apart and do other stuff for a while before later resuming the conversation again at another place, let us suppose it an enclosed space wher e they can't get away from each other, such as in a car on the way to go wakeboarding.

Aaron "You're still thinking about teleportation arn't you?"
Doug "No I wasn't, but you're going to bring it up anyway arn't you?"
Aaron "Yup"
Doug "OK I have further things for your consideration."
Aaron "Go on..."
Doug "Let us change slightly the prepositions"
Aaron "I'm listening.."
Doug "Lets suppose that there is a time lag between when the person enters the first portal and exits the second one"
Aaron "This is not the same argument anymore bro, if I go along with this and lose I don't want you to consider it a win agaist the original argument"
Doug "It's an extension of the first argument"
Aaron (Dubious now) "OK go on then"
Doug "So in between the time the person enters the first portal and the time they leave the second, that person does not exist"
Aaron "The information must exist somewhere in order to physically reasseble the person again"
Doug "So you accept that a person may exixt merely as information"
Aaron "I think I can see where you're going with this, and it doesn't look like a happy place"
Doug "So what if there were two exit portals, and the information which describes how to reasseble the person was sent to both of them and two people came out. Are you saying that the two people would be the same as the one person that went in, and which would be the real person"
Aaron "Fuck, let's see..."
Aaron "OK, they are both the same person, at the same time"
Doug "So if it was you, and if was someone was going to kill of of the two, which one to kill?"
Aaron "How did you arrive at this question? I don't how it follows?"
Aaron "Regardless of how you got to it, I would assert that both of people are real and the same person and have an equal 'right' to live"
Doug "Ok let me put it another way"
Aaron "OK"
Doug "So if someone measured you without your knowledge, in such a way that they could create an exact replica of you, a flawless clone of you in every way measurable"
Aaron (interjects) "Have you seen the movie the 6th day, with Arnie in it"
Doug "No?"
Aaron "I'm pretty sure it deals with where you're about to take this"
Doug "Right, so as I was saying...You are sitting there and this other person this clone of you walks up to you, exactly the same as you in every measureable way, and you would be happy to say that it is also the real you?"
Aaron (thinking this isn't fair i've been trapped into a very dubious place) "I have to say yes, because from its POV it is the real me, and from my POV I am the real me there is a contradiction if we try ant take any information that we therefore we cant do it, we have to take the information from the POV of a third party observer,who would see no difference between the two people, and would therefore have to declare them both the same and both the real person." (I am VERY skeptical that argument is sound)
Doug "You have to have a very skewed concept of self to believe that"
Aaron "To be fair you did set me up to have to respond that way"
Aaron "My turn to ask you a different yet related question..."
Doug "OK"
Aaron "From one instant of time to another, there is a change which physically occurs to your body"
Doug "Correct"
Aaron "So from one instant of time to the next, your body and mind has changed, the person who you are changes, and you are not the same person anymore. If you are always changing at every instant of time, how can you introduce a concept of there being a 'real' person, which point of time should it be defined at"
Doug "Ahh but that change defines who I am"
Aaron "OK so if you accept that change is a part of who the real you is, you obviously cant make any restrictions on the rate of change because that rate is always changing also"
Doug (sounding dubious) "Hmmm"
Aaron "So if there was a huge amount of change to your person, like it being measured or dissasembled and then reassembled instantly or later at another location, these changes would not affect the 'real' you, since the change is inherently defined as who you are and the rate is irrelevant"
Doug "I still disagree"

At this point the converstion might end, with the people arriving at thier destinations.

It might start up again tomorrow, so any feedback about how the fictional character 'Aaron' might go about making teleportation a more appealing idea would be really appreciated.

It's possible that such a device will never work, no matter how much time is spent on it, no matter how many adjustments are made. It may transport inanimate stuff just fine. It may transport the bodies of living things just fine, but they always come out the other side dead. There might be some component of living things that we cannot detect with any of our senses or devices. And, obviously, if we cannot detect it, we can't build a machine to transport it.

Many people have an absolute, unshakable belief that this is, indeed, the case, and may not be able to have a serious (that is, a non-fantasy/sci-fi) discussion on this whole topic. If they believe there is absolutely no possibility that such a thing can work, why discuss the philosophical ramifications of it?

But I'm not one of those folks, so I'll discuss it. I just wanted to address that.

Anyway... Some of what you're suggesting is a bit silly. I'm sure we can make two identical objects. Every measurable property of the objects (anything from ceramic cups to the most precision-made watches) exactly the same when they come off the conveyor belt at the factory. I do not consider them to be the same object. If I break one of them, I have one that is broken, and one that is whole. I cannot imagine why the objects would be less unique if they are people instead of cups.

Actually, it holds true even more for people. One of the things that makes us who we are is our experiences. Different experiences lead to different thoughts, feelings, and actions. Two people coming out of this machine are immediately having a different experience in their physical locations; one is on the left, and one is on the right. Even if they are only a foot apart, they see everything from a slightly different angle. And they see opposite profiles of the other. One might notice a mole on the other's visible shoulder. Noticing it means the thoughts are already different. Even that is unnecessary. One thinking, "There is a copy of me on my left," and one thinking, "There is a copy of me on my right," is a difference.

Some of your scenarios make this even more clear. "You are sitting there and this other person this clone of you walks up to you..." The clone walked up from where? What did the clone experience in all the time away from the original? What does the clone have in mind now? There is no end to the differences between the two.

There's at least a couple here who know a lot more about genetics than I do, so maybe they'll correct this. But I once heard that identical twins come from one fertilized egg. It splits in two, and, instead of staying together, the two halves separate, each going on to form one of the twins. Genetically, they are identical. (What's more, if identical twin males pair up with identical twin females, and each pair has children, the resulting cousins are siblings. At least genetically speaking.) I would never consider identical twins to be the same person.

But this idea of two exit portals makes one thing a bit more clear. If neither has any claim of being more the original than the other, then the thing made two new, identical people; both copies of the original. The original ceased to be.

Which is also the case in the one-exit portal scenarios, whether there is a time lag or not. One person ceased to exist, and another, with all the memories of that person, is built.

And that can be seen more clearly if we ask why the first must be disassembled. If a machine can disassemble a person, store every possible bit of information, and reassemble, then we can make the machine not disassemble the person, only store the information, and assemble. The original goes on existing, maybe never even knowing about any of this. There's no difference in the relationship between the copy and the original, whether the original is disassembled or not.

I would say that it depends on the process by which it is accomplished.

If the person is merely reassembled on the other side, with no physical movement having taken place, then I would argue that they are not the same person, merely, as Fist suggests, a copy indistinguishable by the fact that the original no longer exists.

If however, there is a physical transportation of the same constituent particles, in other words, if your particles are physically moved from one area of space to another, and those same particles re-assembled in an identical fashion, then it is the same person.

Naturally, if this was the case, the scenario of two exits would be impossible.

If however the first scenario of mine, namely the reassembly of the person out of non-specific particles is true, then two similar but non-original people are possible.

--A

There was a really interesting novel about people having copies made. Wall Around a Star, by Frederick Pohl. They sort of explored this problem in the story; they would beam copies of people to a far off place as their talents were needed exploring a certain relic.

One poor guy freaked out quite a bit. There's a scene where he enters the copy booth, then it goes "blap!". He thinks, there, done, I can go back to work now, I'm not going to worry about what happens to my copy. Then he steps out of the booth ... in the far away place. The copy is, of course, just as much him as him.

Kind of interesting to think about. It bears on this discussion if you explore the ramifications. It's more about identity than souls, but it makes you question what your identity really means.

Later on, the same guy gets freaked out because they keep needing copies of him over and over again. He's the running joke of the operation. Apparently, his copy keeps getting into danger and biting the farm. How would you feel about making a copy of yourself that would likely die a horrible death? How many copies of you would you be comfortable with? Do they all have souls that meet up in heaven?

That's all I got.

Except sometimes I wonder, if I was never born, would my me-ness be born into some other baby? That's a whole other angle on the meaning of identity, but I'm not sure that's the same discussion.

Wayfriend wrote:One poor guy freaked out quite a bit. There's a scene where he enters the copy booth, then it goes "blap!". He thinks, there, done, I can go back to work now, I'm not going to worry about what happens to my copy. Then he steps out of the booth ... in the far away place. The copy is, of course, just as much him as him.

THAT'S THE COOLEST THING!!!

Wayfriend wrote:Later on, the same guy gets freaked out because they keep needing copies of him over and over again. He's the running joke of the operation. Apparently, his copy keeps getting into danger and biting the farm. How would you feel about making a copy of yourself that would likely die a horrible death?

I'm too arrogant for that. I'm sure I'd assume it wasn't the fault of my copies, and wouldn't think another would be in any particular danger.

Wayfriend wrote:How many copies of you would you be comfortable with?

That's another question. I'm sure I'd be upset if another copy achieved more than I did. Jealous of myself... Just one more thing to add to the list...

Wayfriend wrote:Do they all have souls that meet up in heaven?

Yeah, well, that's another another question, eh?

Wayfriend wrote:Except sometimes I wonder, if I was never born, would my me-ness be born into some other baby?

Yeah, I've thought about this a whole lot in my life. Of course, if there isn't any sort of soul, the answer is No. If there is a soul, I'm sure the brain and body it inhabits would have some degree of influence on my me-ness, but the core would have to be the same.

The physiology might have something (very little) to do with the "me-ness" but I don't think that the soul does. Whether or not there is such a thing, the "you" that makes you you is almost entirely the product of experience.

Therefore, "you" could never be born as somebody else. You are either "you" or not. If you weren't "you," you would be somebody else.

(Hahaha, language is not designed for this is it? )

The "core" that Fist mentions isn't something that's there from the start I think. I think it's something you build up as you go along. Your soul is something that develops, not some independant little bit of something that floats along until it falls into a baby or whatever. It's the product of your thoughts and experiences and yes, even to some extent your physiology.

--A

The soul I was referring to is the kind that I think most Christians believe in. The kind CS Lewis has in mind when he said this:

You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body.

Obviously, my beliefs are much closer to yours than Lewis', but I wanted to include that possibility in my response to Wayfriend.

Fair enough, although the answer to the question must then depend on our personal opinion of what constitutes a soul.

--A

Well, not if Lewis is right, eh? A soul along the lines of what he believed may be my True Self, inhabiting my physical body, regardless of my personal opinion. No, I don't have reason to believe it's the case, I'm just making the point.

Avatar wrote:Therefore, "you" could never be born as somebody else. You are either "you" or not. If you weren't "you," you would be somebody else.

Yes. Logically. But my instincts disagree. My "gut feeling" says that I would have ended up in some body, somewhere. I can almost, but not quite, explain why. It has something to do with the fact that everyone feels just as much that they are "me" as I do.

Well, you would obviously still feel yourself as "me." It just wouldn't be the same "me." And you would never know that there could have been a different "me."

See, this is why I tend toward solipsism. It's a more open take on that gut feeling. Because at heart, we all believe that we are amazing and unique and that nobody has the understandings or whatever that we have.

We think that our "me" is so strong that it is something independant of our experiences and knowledge. (And believe me, I'm a prime culprit. )

But the thing is, it's probably not. Erase those experiences and you become a different person. Not "you," but some other[/] "me."

--A

Yup. What he said.

Wayfriend, I'd argue your use of the word "instincts" if I could think of how to explain what I mean. I do understand what you mean. I've always felt exactly the same thing. But I have to fit it in with the kinds of things Av just said, so I don't believe this feeling.

Wayfriend wrote:It's more about identity than souls, but it makes you question what your identity really means.

That's what I've always thought this particular thought-experiment was all about. I'm inclined to say that an identical copy IS the same person as the original . . . but I've got pretty mystical reasons for saying this. Read on.

Avatar wrote: If the person is merely reassembled on the other side. . .then I would argue that they are not the same person. . .
If however, there is a physical transportation of the same constituent particles, . . . then it is the same person.

But what is it about those particular atoms? An atom of hydrogen is indistinguishable in every way from every other atom of hydrogen (of equal atomic weight, not isotopes). In fact, our own atoms and cells are continuously recycling themselves. Clearly, the actual atoms making up our body don't make a difference. If you want to think of consciousness as software and the body as hardware, Windows is still Windows no matter which computer it runs on. It's still the same program. When you've got two identical computers, the issue is even less problematic. [Disclaimer: this is just an analogy. I strongly disagree with the idea of consciousness being something that can "run" on a computer, a.k.a. "universal Turing maching."]

Wayfriend wrote: How many copies of you would you be comfortable with?

What would be wrong with a universe populated entirely with copies of yourself? (Well, aside from the fact that this means no women . . . ) Ignore the usual issues of boredom, lack of variety, etc. I think we'd see much more diversity than we expect. So much of human culture depends not upon the individuals, but rather upon the context in which they are raised. It would be interesting to see whole societies of myself being Muslim, whole societies of myself being Pagan, whole societies of myself being Democrat etc. I wonder just how far I'd go along with my culture, my time period, my upbringing. How much is ME, and not my experiences? Is there anything I could hold onto as unique? Would general trends exhibit themselves? Would my Muslim selves hate my Christian selves?

Here's another crazy twist: what if this is exactly what we have already? What if every human is the same Mind in different bodies, different cultures, different times? What if consciousness is like a general force which keeps finding different specific manifestations? Remember what I said about the copy being the same as the original? Remember what I said about mysticism? We're getting close to what I was talking about.

Wayfriend wrote:Except sometimes I wonder, if I was never born, would my me-ness be born into some other baby?

I've always wondered something similar: out of all the billions of "me's" which are born, why is it that this particular one is the one I'm aware of? What limits my pereption of "me" to this "me?" Let's pretend, for a moment, that there is a universal consciousness, and it keeps "dipping into matter" each time a baby is born. Why was it that this particular baby is the one I came to know as me? Or, forget that universal consciousness stuff. Let's say there's just matter. These particular bits of matter arranged themselves into something that could become conscious of itself. If my particular bits of matter are constantly recycling themselves, then why is it that my "me-ness" remains tied to this bundle of atoms?

Ah, crap, I'm still not getting across the sense of bewilderment I'm talking about. I think I'm experiencing the same nebulous feeling Wayfriend is talking about when he said:

Wayfriend wrote:My "gut feeling" says that I would have ended up in some body, somewhere. I can almost, but not quite, explain why. It has something to do with the fact that everyone feels just as much that they are "me" as I do.

Yes, everyone does feel they are just as much "me" as I do. So why is my "me" this "me"?

Avatar wrote: Well, you would obviously still feel yourself as "me." It just wouldn't be the same "me." And you would never know that there could have been a different "me." Laughing

You're laughing, but I think this says a lot of truth. Why wouldn't Wayfriend be the same "me" if he were born into a different body? Different experiences, different body--those are merely contingent, accidental differences. That's precisely why this copy thought-experiment is relevant. In cases where the experiences and the body are identical, there are STILL two separate "me's," two beings who feel themselves to be "me" and no other. Clearly, there is something more going on than merely differences in bodies and experiences, because otherwise, the copy is the same "me," as the original--if a "me" is just its experiences and its physiology.

My belief is that their separation is illusory to begin with. It is merely a by-product of standing in two different spots, looking at reality from two different vantage points. The copy and the original could even switch spots--stand where the other is standing--and yet still feel separated . . . even when this final distinction has been eliminated. Hell, pretend that there were some way to get them to stand in the same spot--in that case they'd literally be the same person. They'd have identical bodies, identical memories, and would be viewing the universe from identical vantage points. What would separate them ontologically? What would distinguish them as two different individuals? Nothing. Their feeling of separation is illusory. (Would they still feel only their own "me?" I think so, but that's only because they don't share nervous systems--yet another technical detail that is irrelevant when considering hypothetical technology.)

So let's extend this thinking to everyone. Everything that makes us feel separate, that makes me feel only my me and not your me, are merely contingent, accidental differences. Temporal, spatial, and genetic separation. It is not the case that there are billions of distinct souls on this planet--rather, there are billions of distinct experiences and bodies. But they'd all be the same Me if not for the mere technical detail that they don't have the same experiences and bodies.

Even if you don't think there's a universal consciousness that exists prior to individual conscious beings, once individual conscious beings come into existence, that's precisely what we are: different pieces of the same universe being conscious of itself. Literally. We are all in the same universe. This same universe "enables" us all to become conscious of it. Looked at from the "outside," we're all like billions of individual eyes on the same gigantic body. We literally are bits of the same universe being conscious of the same universe (from different spots). Our individual consciousness is no more separate than the individual gravity of individual planets. Sure, they pull in different directions, but that's only because they are in different spots. They gravitational force would be comingled if they collided. In the end, they are still part of the same universal force.

Avatar wrote:The "core" that Fist mentions isn't something that's there from the start I think. I think it's something you build up as you go along. Your soul is something that develops, not some independant little bit of something that floats along until it falls into a baby or whatever. It's the product of your thoughts and experiences and yes, even to some extent your physiology.

I agree completely, except I'd substitute "self" for "soul." Your self is something you build up as you go along. However, I do think that genetics provides the possible paths it can take. You choose which of those potentials to make actual.

And just like there is no self prior to building one up, I believe there is no prior universal consciousness . . . but that, too, is something we are building up. Conscious beings evolving from matter into complex societies is the universe building up a Self. Right now, that Self is like a person with multiple personality disorder. But I think it is coalescing.

Avatar wrote: See, this is why I tend toward solipsism. It's a more open take on that gut feeling. Because at heart, we all believe that we are amazing and unique and that nobody has the understandings or whatever that we have.

Our individuality is illusory. Sure, there's a context in which it is useful to think of ourselves this way (identity theft, property rights, responsibility, etc.). However, in the metaphysical context, individuality is an accidental--not fundamental--attribute. On this view, solipsism is indistinguishable from realism. Sure, only your self exists. But if yourself is everything, then everything exists. We are like holograms, in which the whole is contained in every small part.

Malik23 wrote:Here's another crazy twist: what if this is exactly what we have already? What if every human is the same Mind in different bodies, different cultures, different times? What if consciousness is like a general force which keeps finding different specific manifestations? Remember what I said about the copy being the same as the original? Remember what I said about mysticism? We're getting close to what I was talking about.

Are you talking about the atman/Brahman relationship? If not, in what ways is your idea different?

Even if different, it's interesting thought. And no less likely than the idea that we each have a unique, indestructible soul that survives after death, possibly inhabiting a series of bodies over many lifetimes, but never mingles with any other souls.

Malik23 wrote:I've always wondered something similar: out of all the billions of "me's" which are born, why is it that this particular one is the one I'm aware of? What limits my pereption of "me" to this "me?" Let's pretend, for a moment, that there is a universal consciousness, and it keeps "dipping into matter" each time a baby is born.

My own "feeling," which is of questionable value even to me, is that it is not a universal consciousness - but life. An aspect of life is consciousness. A plant has at least some degree of awareness, as does an aomeba, and every other living thing. I think life dips into certain arrangements, and certain arrangements can access a greater percentage of the lifeforce than other arrangements can. (Although it's entirely possible that plants have types of awareness that we are not, ahem, aware of, and we are not so far above them in all ways.)

Malik23 wrote:Why was it that this particular baby is the one I came to know as me? Or, forget that universal consciousness stuff. Let's say there's just matter. These particular bits of matter arranged themselves into something that could become conscious of itself. If my particular bits of matter are constantly recycling themselves, then why is it that my "me-ness" remains tied to this bundle of atoms?

I think a good answer is in the very last quote at the bottom of this post.

An alternative to your question is for us all to be aware of all things everywhere. We would all be one. There would be no separateness, in reality or perception.

Malik23 wrote:You're laughing, but I think this says a lot of truth. Why wouldn't Wayfriend be the same "me" if he were born into a different body? Different experiences, different body--those are merely contingent, accidental differences. That's precisely why this copy thought-experiment is relevant. In cases where the experiences and the body are identical, there are STILL two separate "me's," two beings who feel themselves to be "me" and no other. Clearly, there is something more going on than merely differences in bodies and experiences, because otherwise, the copy is the same "me," as the original--if a "me" is just its experiences and its physiology.

My belief is that their separation is illusory to begin with. It is merely a by-product of standing in two different spots, looking at reality from two different vantage points. The copy and the original could even switch spots--stand where the other is standing--and yet still feel separated . . . even when this final distinction has been eliminated. Hell, pretend that there were some way to get them to stand in the same spot--in that case they'd literally be the same person. They'd have identical bodies, identical memories, and would be viewing the universe from identical vantage points. What would separate them ontologically? What would distinguish them as two different individuals? Nothing. Their feeling of separation is illusory. (Would they still feel only their own "me?" I think so, but that's only because they don't share nervous systems--yet another technical detail that is irrelevant when considering hypothetical technology.)

I'm not sure I'm following your ideas. It seems to me that you're using these copy thought-experiments as evidence of... something. But we can't know how these things would work out if they were actually attempted. Maybe there would be no way to make a living copy - only "dead bodies." Or maybe two copies that were in arm's reach would be incapable of doing anything different from each other, because they would always make the exact same decisions. Or maybe two would feel themselves to be one being, with one mind. We can't draw many conclusions of our nature from what we feel the results of these experiments would be.

But, again, I'm not sure you're doing that.

Malik23 wrote:So let's extend this thinking to everyone. Everything that makes us feel separate, that makes me feel only my me and not your me, are merely contingent, accidental differences. Temporal, spatial, and genetic separation. It is not the case that there are billions of distinct souls on this planet--rather, there are billions of distinct experiences and bodies. But they'd all be the same Me if not for the mere technical detail that they don't have the same experiences and bodies.

Or not. Maybe there are billions of distinct souls on this planet.

Malik23 wrote:Even if you don't think there's a universal consciousness that exists prior to individual conscious beings, once individual conscious beings come into existence, that's precisely what we are: different pieces of the same universe being conscious of itself. Literally. We are all in the same universe. This same universe "enables" us all to become conscious of it. Looked at from the "outside," we're all like billions of individual eyes on the same gigantic body. We literally are bits of the same universe being conscious of the same universe (from different spots). Our individual consciousness is no more separate than the individual gravity of individual planets. Sure, they pull in different directions, but that's only because they are in different spots. They gravitational force would be comingled if they collided. In the end, they are still part of the same universal force.

Fantastic paragraph. (And I think Esmer has said things along these lines?) This kind of thinking that appeals to me very much. I have always felt very spiritual, but I have absolutely no religious beliefs. Not even in the existence of any creator or any sort. I've always defined spirituality in my own way. (Which can be found here: kevinswatch.ihugny.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=210185#210185) What you're saying fits in perfectly with my feelings.

Malik23 wrote:And just like there is no self prior to building one up, I believe there is no prior universal consciousness . . . but that, too, is something we are building up. Conscious beings evolving from matter into complex societies is the universe building up a Self. Right now, that Self is like a person with multiple personality disorder. But I think it is coalescing.

When contemplating God's existence, I've wondered what reason God would have for creating us. Why bother? One idea I had is that he's lonely. My short-story idea is that he wants someone to talk to. As our (and other conscious beings') consciousness builds and expands, and becomes very telepathic. It eventually gets to the point where the universe is filled with uncountable bajillions of beings that share one huge consciousness. Which is then capable of speaking with God. So now he has a friend.

Malik23 wrote:Our individuality is illusory. Sure, there's a context in which it is useful to think of ourselves this way (identity theft, property rights, responsibility, etc.). However, in the metaphysical context, individuality is an accidental--not fundamental--attribute. On this view, solipsism is indistinguishable from realism. Sure, only your self exists. But if yourself is everything, then everything exists. We are like holograms, in which the whole is contained in every small part.

Again, I like your view. There are ways that you could be wrong, but those ways are not necessarily fact.


Here's a bunch of quotes I've quoted before that seem similar to your thoughts:

We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us.
-Einstein

The fundamental delusion of humanity is to suppose that I am here and you are out there"
-Yasutani Roshi

The spear in the other's heart is the spear in your own: you are he.
-Surak/Diane Duane

Love thy neighbor as thyself because you are your neighbor. It is an illusion that makes you think that your neighbor is someone other than yourself.
-Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan

I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together.
-The Beatles

All of the craziness and the tension between you and I, it’s based on an illusion. You have to understand it. It’s an illusion of, of separateness, and an illusion that there’s a you and a me, ‘cause it just, it ain’t so. You know? I mean, we’re, we’re like these mushrooms. These seemingly individual outcroppings are all part of the whole. You know, there’s no separateness here. There’s no other. It’s the same with human beings, it’s the same with us. You know what I mean? See, the thing is, we’re really, we’re just one. Part of the same big mushroom, the same big self. You see, what I’m tryin’ to tell you is, I never left ya. Okay? I’m always there.
-Joel from Northern Exposure

...vividly conscious of the fact that forming as we do the tiny individual cells of a mighty organism, we share alike the sorrows and misery existing in the world; but debarred from realizing it by the wall of ego segregating each cell from the rest, we feel happy and proud at acquisitions often purchased at our own cost, which we mistakenly believe has been paid by others.
-Gopi Krishna in Kundalini: The Evolutionary Energy in Man

You me when I think really think about it are the same.
-Ikkyu

What does it mean to say that nothing is separate and God alone is real? Certainly not that the everyday world is an illusion. The illusion is simply that we appear separate; the underlying reality is that all of life is one.
-Eknath Easwaran, in the introduction to his translation of the Bhagavad Gita.

Later philosophers explained maya in surprisingly contemporary terms. The mind, they said, observes the so-called outside world and sees its own structure. It reports that the world consists of a multiplicity of separate objects in a framework of time, space, and causality because these are the conditions of perception. In a word, the mind looks at unity and sees diversity; it looks at what is timeless and reports transience. And in fact the percepts of its experience are diverse and transient; on this level of experience, separateness is real. Our mistake is in taking this for ultimate reality, like the dreamer thinking that nothing is real except his dream.

Nowhere has this "mysterious Eastern notion" been formulated more succinctly than in the epigram of Ruysbroeck: "We behold what we are, and we are what we behold." When we look at unity through the instruments of the mind, we see diversity; when the mind is transcended, we enter a higher mode of knowing - turiya, the fourth state of consciousness - in which duality disappears. This does not mean, however, that the phenomenal world is an illusion or unreal. The illusion is the sense of separateness.
-Eknath Easwaran, in the introduction to his translation of the Upanishads.

Those are awesome quotes, F&F.

I've been reading some David Bohm recently (theoretical physicist who helped developed quantum mechanics and the atom bomb). He also helped developed a particular interpretation of quantum mechanics that led John Bell to develop his famous theorem which states that the universe is nonlocal and fundamentally interconnected. This has been experimentally proven, in terms of quantum entanglement. Two particles sharing an initial state will instantaneously reflect changes in the state of each other even though they can be separated by great distances.

In his book: Wholeness and Implicate Order, he writes:

Bohm wrote: In the enfolded [or implicate] order, space and time are no longer the dominant factors determining the relationships of dependence or independence of different elements. Rather, an entirely different sort of basic connection of elements is possible, from which our ordinary notions of space and time, along with those of separately existent material particles, are abstracted as forms derived from the deeper order. These ordinary notions in fact appear in what is called the "explicate" or "unfolded" order, which is a special and distinguished form contained within the general totality of all the implicate orders (Bohm, 1980, p. xv).

link

This will be replaced during the course of the day with a properly thought out post. After I've read Malik's post several times.

--A

Damn, sorry, didn't have time in the end.

More tomorrow instead.

--A

To quote myself,

Our individuality is illusory. . . . in the metaphysical context, individuality is an accidental--not fundamental--attribute. . . .We are like holograms, in which the whole is contained in every small part.

Do I really mean this? I read it myself with a raised eyebrow, even though I wrote it. There's a part of me that wants it to be true just because it sounds so cool. It's like having God without religion. A scientific substitute for that mystical yearning most of us seem to feel.

However, I think there actually is some justification for this idea, simply by looking at the evolution of consciousness, in general. The simplest organisms are "aware" of their environment in the sense that they respond to stimuli, changes, etc. And then there are higher forms which are perceptually aware of the world, similar to us. And on up the chain you have animals which have an increasingly conceptual awareness of the world, too (possessing the ability to problem solve, use sign language, etc.).

There IS a scale of intelligent consciousness. Aside from the obvious increase of personal mental agility, we have also gained an exponential increase over our consciousness of each other. We have a vast communications network that extends out into the solar system. We broadcast to each other on thousands of wavelengths of every kind of electromagnetic radiation at our disposal. We are even linking our minds in a virtual world (right this very minute, in fact).

Clearly, two of the major general trends, as consciousness becomes more complex, is group consciousness and world consciousness. One only has to project such trends a little bit into the future in order to imagine a universal consciousness like the one I'm talking about. Open it to the possibility of aliens, and I believe there are might be a hierarchy of "higher" consciousness unions already existing within our universe. We're at the very bottom rung, and possibly on the verge of joining the next level. A few individuals have--through either psychotropic or ritualistic means--glimpsed what they claim are these "higher levels" of group consciousness.

And that, perhaps, is the strongest personal reason I have for wanting this to be true. I've been looking for an explanation of exeriences I've had in deep meditative states (No comment on which of the above two techniques I used ).

Heraclitus said:

A man cannot step into the same river twice; afterwards, it will be a different man, it will be a different river.

We are the sum of our experiences perceived by our brain.

My feeling is, if we had an exact duplicate made through a portal, or whatever , we would still not be the same because of the differing points of view. Infinetesimally small differences at first, but growing at a geometric rate.

Ah, I just don't know where to start.

Individuality. I'm an individualist. I like the thought that I am unique, because I am. My experiences, the little protein sequences that tell my nuerons which way to fire (or whatever tells them ) are, so far, unduplicated.

Even if I shared an experience with somebody else, they are two different experiences by virture of perception, and perception, I have long believed, is everything.

In fact, leaving aside I suppose the copy experiment, I would hazard that there is no such thing as two identical experiences.

And returning to it, even if the split occurred after the experience, creating a shared memory and perception of an experience, I'd wager that, before long, each copy would remember the experience differently, by virtue of the new filters that unshared experiences develop.

So to start off, I guess we can say that I'm not keen on the whole group mind / universal consciousness type of thing.

Ptrimarily, I think, because it pretty much negates individuality, and I guess you could call me ego-driven in a sense. I don't hold with the thoght of subsuming your ego in something else. Co-operation? Fine. But that's as far as it goes.

As a result, I think that individuality is the key to "me-ness." "I" only exist as long as my ego does. As long as I have some sort of Me that is seperate from the rest of the world. (Mentally or whaever I mean.)

If I cannot percieve myself as "I" then there is no more me.

--A