Since "I" am my memories, feelings, thoughts, experiences, dreams, etc. and the chemicals in my brains, then why am I experiencing myself and this body now?
Why am I not experiencing myself in a body in another place and time?
And when I die, when another body's mind becomes "aware" of itself, could I possibly experience that body (of course i'm not talking about this "me" now moving into another body).
After all, this "me" now is just the random offspring of my parents, so anyone could have experienced this body's life.
> Since "I" am my memories, feelings, thoughts, experiences, dreams, > etc. and the chemicals in my brains, then why am I experiencing myself > and this body now?
> Why am I not experiencing myself in a body in another place and time?
> And when I die, when another body's mind becomes "aware" of itself, > could I possibly experience that body (of course i'm not talking about > this "me" now moving into another body).
> After all, this "me" now is just the random offspring of my parents, > so anyone could have experienced this body's life.
> So why "me" now?
"You" may be a one limited range of possible activities of a brain/ body?
If the possible sequences within a limited range of activities in your brain is sufficient to be you existing and for you to exist and seem like you persoanlly existing, then any activities within that range of possible activities may be "this.you" existing, wherever this happens.
If two clones of you were going through one of the different possible sequences within a limited range of activities in the two sufficiently identical brain's, at least as identical as two different times in your life-both of which were identifiable as you, then they would seem like you at different times.
If two "identical clones" of you were going through the same "identical sequence" within a limited range of activities in the two sufficiently identical brain's, then it would be you in two places at once thinking and experience the same thing.
This would imply that we are not one self but many possible selves that think or are deluded into believing we are one self. The self a moment agao could be as different as the identical clone going through one of the possible sequence of activities of you-ing.
Typed this off the top of my brain without looking at my notes and it sounds funny.
On Thu, 22 May 2008 08:43:42 -0700 (PDT), meatnub <meat...@gmail.com> wrote: >I'm no scholar so here goes...
>Since "I" am my memories, feelings, thoughts, experiences, dreams, >etc. and the chemicals in my brains, then why am I experiencing myself >and this body now?
>Why am I not experiencing myself in a body in another place and time?
>And when I die, when another body's mind becomes "aware" of itself, >could I possibly experience that body (of course i'm not talking about >this "me" now moving into another body).
>After all, this "me" now is just the random offspring of my parents, >so anyone could have experienced this body's life.
>So why "me" now?
Why is there a situation (such as "you" now), rather than nothing?
On Thu, 22 May 2008 08:43:42 -0700, meatnub wrote: > Since "I" am my memories, feelings, thoughts, experiences, dreams, etc. > and the chemicals in my brains, then why am I experiencing myself and > this body now?
There is more to you than meets your own I. "I" is one way of looking at yourself. Others look at you as another person and some people see things that are true about you that you can not see about yourself. so your "I" is not a grand singularity.
Also..
There is a logical connection between you and everything you see so 'why me' is no different than "why stars". You are connected to the most beautiful thing and the ugliest. Where do you want to go?
> After all, this "me" now is just the random offspring of my parents,
.. as they were, as their parents were, on and on. Not so random really unless you, by choice, want to look at yourself in this way.
> Since "I" am my memories, feelings, thoughts, experiences, dreams, > etc. and the chemicals in my brains, then why am I experiencing myself > and this body now?
> Why am I not experiencing myself in a body in another place and time?
> And when I die, when another body's mind becomes "aware" of itself, > could I possibly experience that body (of course i'm not talking about > this "me" now moving into another body).
> After all, this "me" now is just the random offspring of my parents, > so anyone could have experienced this body's life.
> So why "me" now?
Either *you* (and the experience of being you) are : (1) nothing more than the result of a functioning brain and nervous system. You have memories, feelings, thoughts, experiences, dreams etc... as a result of having a functioning brain and nervous system, and nothing more.
OR (2) *you* are the result of a combination of a non-physical spirit together with a physical body.
But all the evidence we have suggests no such non-physical spirits actually exist as an entities distinct from the physical bodies and therefore, by Ockham's razor, the more reasonable hypothesis is (1).
> Since "I" am my memories, feelings, thoughts, experiences, dreams, > etc. and the chemicals in my brains, then why am I experiencing myself > and this body now?
> Why am I not experiencing myself in a body in another place and time?
> And when I die, when another body's mind becomes "aware" of itself, > could I possibly experience that body (of course i'm not talking about > this "me" now moving into another body).
> After all, this "me" now is just the random offspring of my parents, > so anyone could have experienced this body's life.
> So why "me" now?
Because you 'are' you 'now'.
Known as 'human being', as opposed to a 'human anticipating' or 'remembering.
"To be or not to be" is not a question, but a state of self awareness...hence the reference to 'now'.
Being or not being. Even when you think you are not being, you actually are.
Thoughts have time as part of their construction. "You" dont.
This is why some meditation techniques suggest a state of 'no thinking'..or nothinking.
A source of much confusion as i see it.
Seperating you from your thoughts is not so difficult, particulary if you recognise that most of your thought are just combinations of yours and others projections.
On May 22, 11:43 am, meatnub <meat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm no scholar so here goes...
> Since "I" am my memories, feelings, thoughts, experiences, dreams, > etc. and the chemicals in my brains,
If this is the sum of who you are, then who/what is that entity that is saying "I am my memories, feelings . . .etc."?
> then why am I experiencing myself > and this body now?
> Why am I not experiencing myself in a body in another place and time?
> And when I die, when another body's mind becomes "aware" of itself, > could I possibly experience that body (of course i'm not talking about > this "me" now moving into another body).
> After all, this "me" now is just the random offspring of my parents, > so anyone could have experienced this body's life.
> So why "me" now?
I read one interesting theory, which states that "we" all have "sacred contracts" that we agree to before incarnating in our physical bodies.
> On May 22, 8:43 am, meatnub <meat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm no scholar so here goes...
> > Since "I" am my memories, feelings, thoughts, experiences, dreams, > > etc. and the chemicals in my brains, then why am I experiencing myself > > and this body now?
> > Why am I not experiencing myself in a body in another place and time?
> > And when I die, when another body's mind becomes "aware" of itself, > > could I possibly experience that body (of course i'm not talking about > > this "me" now moving into another body).
> > After all, this "me" now is just the random offspring of my parents, > > so anyone could have experienced this body's life.
> > So why "me" now?
> "You" may be a one limited range of possible activities of a brain/ > body?
> If the possible sequences within a limited range of activities in your > brain is sufficient to be you existing and for you to exist and seem > like you persoanlly existing, then any activities within that range of > possible activities may be "this.you" existing, wherever this happens.
> If two clones of you were going through one of the different possible > sequences within a limited range of activities in the two sufficiently > identical brain's, at least as identical as two different times in > your life-both of which were identifiable as you, then they would seem > like you at different times.
> If two "identical clones" of you were going through the same > "identical sequence" within a limited range of activities in the two > sufficiently identical brain's, then it would be you in two places at > once thinking and experience the same thing.
> This would imply that we are not one self but many possible selves > that think or are deluded into believing we are one self. The self a > moment agao could be as different as the identical clone going through > one of the possible sequence of activities of you-ing.
> Typed this off the top of my brain without looking at my notes and it > sounds funny.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
You should do this more often. A great way to discover the 'source of wisdom' self ;-)
> On Thu, 22 May 2008 08:43:42 -0700 (PDT), meatnub <meat...@gmail.com> wrote: > >I'm no scholar so here goes...
> >Since "I" am my memories, feelings, thoughts, experiences, dreams, > >etc. and the chemicals in my brains, then why am I experiencing myself > >and this body now?
> >Why am I not experiencing myself in a body in another place and time?
> >And when I die, when another body's mind becomes "aware" of itself, > >could I possibly experience that body (of course i'm not talking about > >this "me" now moving into another body).
> >After all, this "me" now is just the random offspring of my parents, > >so anyone could have experienced this body's life.
> >So why "me" now?
> Why is there a situation (such as "you" now), rather than nothing?- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Why do you ask?
Im not trying to be a smartass, but you will more likely get an answer if you really contemplate the question.
> > Since "I" am my memories, feelings, thoughts, experiences, dreams, > > etc. and the chemicals in my brains, then why am I experiencing myself > > and this body now?
> > Why am I not experiencing myself in a body in another place and time?
> > And when I die, when another body's mind becomes "aware" of itself, > > could I possibly experience that body (of course i'm not talking about > > this "me" now moving into another body).
> > After all, this "me" now is just the random offspring of my parents, > > so anyone could have experienced this body's life.
> > So why "me" now?
> Either *you* (and the experience of being you) are : > (1) nothing more than the result of a functioning brain and nervous system. > You have memories, feelings, thoughts, experiences, dreams etc... as a > result of having a functioning brain and nervous system, and nothing more.
> OR > (2) *you* are the result of a combination of a non-physical spirit together > with a physical body.
> But all the evidence we have suggests no such non-physical spirits actually > exist as an entities distinct from the physical bodies and therefore, by > Ockham's razor, the more reasonable hypothesis is (1).- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
If you are going to use the Occam position, you should use the term "it" as in "it has memories".
> On May 22, 11:43 am, meatnub <meat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm no scholar so here goes...
> > Since "I" am my memories, feelings, thoughts, experiences, dreams, > > etc. and the chemicals in my brains,
> If this is the sum of who you are, then who/what is that entity that > is saying "I am my memories, feelings . . .etc."?
> > then why am I experiencing myself > > and this body now?
> > Why am I not experiencing myself in a body in another place and time?
> > And when I die, when another body's mind becomes "aware" of itself, > > could I possibly experience that body (of course i'm not talking about > > this "me" now moving into another body).
> > After all, this "me" now is just the random offspring of my parents, > > so anyone could have experienced this body's life.
> > So why "me" now?
> I read one interesting theory, which states that "we" all have "sacred > contracts" that we agree to before incarnating in our physical bodies.
