See what I mean about nit-picking details? Can't we just focus on the ideas being discussed? What good does it do anyone involved in this conversation to point out how light has varying speeds in different substances? It is completely irrelevant.
See what I mean about nit-picking details? Can't we just focus on the ideas being discussed? What good does it do anyone involved in this conversation to point out how light has varying speeds in different substances? It is completely irrelevant.
No, you ate that bagel at a different time. It was made at a different time from a different initial state. That was a different bagel. I don't really know what Mk II is, but let me go ahead and deliver my argument.
If the universe is part of an infinite process, or an infinite cycle, life will form on earth again in a future universal creation process. If we assume infinite trials, evolution will lead to the development of humans, and to another world where, physically at least, all people are the people that are today.
Now, will these people be the same as the people alive today? This comes down to the hard problem of consciousness. Consciousness probably didn't develop in humans until around the time of the ancient greeks, and if anyone would like to read up on where I got this idea, you can check out The Origin Of Counsciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes. Jaynes contends that until then, man did his decision making subconsciously, and communicated his thoughts between the two hemispheres of the brain via hallucinations. Jaynes contends that consciousness itself is an evolutionary development the brain uses to relate sensory input and memories. Consciousness could be viewed as the association of senses and memory.
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH AFTERLIFE
Please read the posts in this thread before you add your 2 cents.
Looks a bit off-topic for me :/ Cyclic universes, afterlife... altho I have some questions about this:
1. If "me" is cyclically reproducing itself (with a time difference), and the 2nd "me" is exactly the same as the 1st (events, decisions, environment). Does it mean that my consciousness will be the same? I mean, if the 1st and 2nd me is in the same environment, making the same decisions, it means that the thoughts and feelings are the same too or not?
-if yes, then it means that my life is cyclically reproducing itself. But it's still my ONLY life. Becoz when I die, everything goes back to the start. Starting from the beginning, and I won't be able to get memories from the 1st "me" in the past.
-if not, then it's purely not "me", because there's a difference (It can be one decision, one event in the environment, one CHANGE in my thoughts).
About this topic's title:
Either the case, our life will just reproduce itself from the beginning (thus the same things'll happen with "me" in every cyclically repeated universe). So it'll be the exactly SAME life happening again, and again, altho we couldn't be able to sense it in any way (maybe deja vou? bit it's a different topic).
But if you don't want to talk about afterlife (you made that clear XD). Then what do you exactly mean by "only life"?
Jaynes actually cites the Iliad as evidence for his theory. He claims that it was literature written for a relatively unconscious people. You should read the book, I can't explan it all here. It's about 10% theory and 90% evidence. You'll actually probably get bored of all the evidence he proposes about halfway through the book. The prior brain model was a bicameral mind that was semi-conscious, but the two separate halves of the brain did not work together. The right half would control the "now" actions, such as movement, speech. Speech still existed. Speech does not require cosciousness. The left half of the brain handled lateral thinking, decision making, abstract reasoning, but did it all unconsciously. When the left half of the brain made a decision, it would communicate to the right half of the brain via visual and auditory hallucinations. This accounted for all the decision making in the iliad being done by gods. People didn't sit down and make their own decisions. He compared the bicameral mind to his work with schizophrenics and people who had had the commisures between the left and right hemisphere cut. It's a good 800 pages, if memory serves, so I really can't give you all the details.
Now, I didn't say all it required was input and memory. That's all it does is what I meant. Humans are the only animals we know of with the capability to recall things that happened to them. Consciousness as explained by Jaynes is basically a better system the brain developed in order to better associate memory and input. The space in our head where we believe we are, and our sense of "I" are fabrications of cousciousness.
As far as cyclical universes, there are still cyclic models that do not involve a crunch. See Roger Penrose's cyclical model, for instance. Cyclical or not, if another universe were to be created entirely and a person in this universe were created exactly the same in that one would relate the same memories and input all the same way. Memories nor consciousness exist in any one part of the brain. Which physical atoms make up the brain specifically have no meaning. As a matter of fact, if you look back at this time 10 years from now, you will have none of the same molecules in your body that you have now. Your body cycles through different cells regularly. "You" are not the atoms that make you. "You" are either a "soul", or the manifestation of the phenomena of your consciousness. I'd lean toward the latter. Now, what comprises consciousness? It is the minds association of all the events that happen to you with the events that already happened. That has no physical presence.
This doesn't require that every universe be like this one, only that the universe be an infinite process. Regardless of the number of outcomes, infinitew trials will yeild infinite occurrences of each.
Jaynes actually cites the Iliad as evidence for his theory. He claims that it was literature written for a relatively unconscious people.
You should read the book, I can't explan it all here.
Speech still existed. Speech does not require cosciousness.
When the left half of the brain made a decision, it would communicate to the right half of the brain via visual and auditory hallucinations. This accounted for all the decision making in the iliad being done by gods.
People didn't sit down and make their own decisions.
It's a good 800 pages, if memory serves, so I really can't give you all the details.
Humans are the only animals we know of with the capability to recall things that happened to them.
Consciousness as explained by Jaynes is basically a better system the brain developed in order to better associate memory and input. The space in our head where we believe we are, and our sense of "I" are fabrications of cousciousness.
Cyclical or not, if another universe were to be created entirely and a person in this universe were created exactly the same in that one would relate the same memories and input all the same way.
Memories nor consciousness exist in any one part of the brain. Which physical atoms make up the brain specifically have no meaning. As a matter of fact, if you look back at this time 10 years from now, you will have none of the same molecules in your body that you have now. Your body cycles through different cells regularly.
"You" are not the atoms that make you. "You" are either a "soul", or the manifestation of the phenomena of your consciousness. I'd lean toward the latter. Now, what comprises consciousness? It is the minds association of all the events that happen to you with the events that already happened. That has no physical presence.
This doesn't require that every universe be like this one, only that the universe be an infinite process. Regardless of the number of outcomes, infinitew trials will yeild infinite occurrences of each.
The theory of evolution does not invoke the use of any god.
1. Not the DaVinci Code. That is an asinine comment.
3. If you have a problem with his ideas, or can't fully understand them, you're not going to solve that problem be trying to make me look like a jerk. I'm trying to sum up his ideas to fit them into this thread. I can't explain them like he did. If you want further clarification, you have to read the book, but it is a serious book that got alot of acclaim in the psychological community. Whether or not you take my idea seriously, you shouldn't try to demean his work.
4. How is continuity essential to consciousness? Can you define consciousness so specifically that it outlines such a requirement? I'd like to hear that.
5. If you define consciousness as information physically encoded in the brain, then another brain encoding the same stimulus would produce the same consciousness. This is the same stimulus and same network of neurons we're talking about here.
6. Maybe a mathematical model might help, but I'm having trouble imagining any set of outcomes of the same process not being repeated under infinite trials. How could an outcome be achieved only once with infinite trials? Whatever is preventing it from repeating under infinite trials ought to have prevented it from happening in the first place.
7. Most animals lack the ability for recall. Dogs, for instance, can't do it. This is why they are always excited to see their masters come home whether they'd been gone 2 hours or 2 weeks. Don't get confused about the difference between recognition and recall. They can recognize you without having to remember the last time they saw you. I'm sure you can recognize an apple without having to thing back to the last time you saw one.
8. If you're going to be cynical, why waste both our time? If you perceive my thread to be some kind of joke, why spend so much time and effort replying to this thread? I'm not trying to waste your time, please don't try to waste mine.
My argument is very simple, and based on no currently established forms of religion of which I am aware.
Anyone who contends that once their life is over, they'll never be anything more is attempting to limit the capabilities of the Universe.
Regardless of what happened to bring the Universe and all of us into existence, it happened, and is certainly possible. Is it rational to assume it couldn't happen again?
My argument is very simple, and based on no currently established forms of religion of which I am aware.
Anyone who contends that once their life is over, they'll never be anything more is attempting to limit the capabilities of the Universe.
Regardless of what happened to bring the Universe and all of us into existence, it happened, and is certainly possible. Is it rational to assume it couldn't happen again?
well just to jump in and answer the main question in a simple way
im aware of all types of possibilities but the thing is you HAVE to admit its just theory, no matter what your logic or teachings or philosophies include:
i think its wise to live and experience as if its your one and only shot.
