Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: The self and time passing

Expand Messages
  • freethinker58
    All of this memory activity seems to be occurring in the hippocampus and the regions immediately surrounding it. It also appears that researchers are
    Message 1 of 21 , Oct 4, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      All of this memory activity seems to be occurring in the hippocampus and the regions immediately surrounding it. It also appears that researchers are increasing their ability to read these memory structures as well as how they are formed and retained.


      http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2810%2900142-9#Summary

      --- In naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com, "zmeower" <george.dawson@...> wrote:
      >
      > The memory of time passing is not the same, neurologically, as sensation, which is also dependent on time. One involves long term memory, and the other involves short term memory. People who are beginning to loose their short term memory may forget what they were saying or doing. Long term memories are also temporal, you may recognize when you do not remember something directly, but remember having remembered it. Essentially refreshing the memory by re running it and recording the rerun is how we retain memory real long term, childhood memories of people and places, and the like. Emotional long term memory is again different from the memory of places and faces, though an emotional memory may be associated with a place or a face.
      >
      > --- In naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com, "zmeower" <george.dawson@> wrote:
      > >
      > > There is no real sense of self. There are only sensations about the self, and sensations from our internal and external environments. Further, what we sense is dependent of the passage of time. Certainly you could not sense music without time. Any other hearing sense is also nullified without the passage of time. To put it another way, our ability to detect a musical experience happens because we can detect passage of instances as a cohesive whole.
      > >
      > > What about vision? Could you see without time. If you stare long enough at a single non moving object, your vision will become blurry, and then blank. Have you ever watched a cat watching an space where he had seen or smelled a mouse go and hide? The cat will attempt to stay still, and keep his eyes focused on that area. But just like a human, he must occasionally divert his gaze, or he will not see the area where he is focusing.
      > >
      > > Same true for the sense of touch, nausea, love, anger, etc etc..
      > >
      > > There is no sense of self, just the senses about, within and outside our selves within time.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com, "freethinker58" <freethinker58@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Stephen,
      > > >
      > > > I think you've connected two things that should be separate: experiencing a sense of self and experiencing the sense of time passing. I'll leave the sense of self for another post. :)
      > > >
      > > > Experiencing a sense of time passing seems inextricably tied to memory: the present stimulus is contrasted with a sequence of memories of the same and the amount of difference appears in consciousness as the experience of time "passing" as the stimulus continues. There also seems to be an emotional element to the experience of the sense of time passing which will vary, again, on the strength of the felt sensation.
      > > >
      > > > What would be really interesting is to examine fMRI scans of individuals having the experience of time passing and to see what areas of the brain light up and in what order. Crafting our conjectures to be in accord with the most current experimental evidence will be the quickest route to a theory.
      > > >
      > > > More money into brain research!! That's the short answer. :)
      > > >
      > > > Rich
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > --- In naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Lawrence" <stephnlawrnce@> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > Hi Folks,
      > > > >
      > > > > We generally agree that we experience time passing.
      > > > >
      > > > > The question is what is this self we are talking about that experiences time passing?
      > > > >
      > > > > The problem is it seems to conflict with the idea that we are the process, as we couldn't experience time passing if we were, we somehow have to wholly move along each moment of the process.
      > > > >
      > > > > I've no idea how to answer the question but having thought about it I've come to believe it is an important question in understanding the self and conscious experience.
      > > > >
      > > > > Stephen
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >
    • Alice
      Hi, Has anyone heard about the membrain theory - where there are two membrains next to each other - one of which is our known universe - and that they are ever
      Message 2 of 21 , Oct 5, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi,
         
        Has anyone heard about the membrain theory - where there are two membrains next to each other - one of which is our known universe - and that they are ever so slightly attracted to each other and when the universe cools down and slows down sufficently that the two membrains are atracted to each other and create a big bang?
         
        It sounds good - in that it explains why quantum particles can apparetnly dissapear - and also explains how the big bang can happen apparently out of nothing.
         
        What are your thoughts?
         
        Alice :)
      • freethinker58
        Alice, I have read about it in articles on some science news websites. I believe there is a book written by the two scientist who came up with this concept.
        Message 3 of 21 , Oct 5, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          Alice,

          I have read about it in articles on some science news websites. I believe there is a book written by the two scientist who came up with this concept. According to a review I read the book describes the ideas and concepts of branes and how interactions between them created the universe that we find ourselves in.

          Rich

          --- In naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com, "Alice" <alice1976@...> wrote:
          >
          > Hi,
          >
          > Has anyone heard about the membrain theory - where there are two membrains next to each other - one of which is our known universe - and that they are ever so slightly attracted to each other and when the universe cools down and slows down sufficently that the two membrains are atracted to each other and create a big bang?
          >
          > It sounds good - in that it explains why quantum particles can apparetnly dissapear - and also explains how the big bang can happen apparently out of nothing.
          >
          > What are your thoughts?
          >
          > Alice :)
          >
        • Alice
          Hi Rich, Thanks for the reply. What do you think of the concept? It doesn t sound totally believable to me. But then again perhaps if I read the book it
          Message 4 of 21 , Oct 5, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Rich,
             
            Thanks for the reply.  What do you think of the concept?  It doesn't sound totally believable to me.  But then again perhaps if I read the book it would make more sense.  I only saw it on a documentary 'through the worm hole' with Morgan Freeman: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoSWV6YAvSE - not this episode - I can't find the one on brains...  but it was a laypersons explanation and didn't have a lot of depth in it - although did explain the general concepts very clearly.
             
            Alice :)
             
            ----- Original Message -----
            Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 1:31 AM
            Subject: [naturalismphilosophyforum] Re: Quantum world

             

            Alice,

            I have read about it in articles on some science news websites. I believe there is a book written by the two scientist who came up with this concept. According to a review I read the book describes the ideas and concepts of branes and how interactions between them created the universe that we find ourselves in.

            Rich

            --- In naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com, "Alice" <alice1976@...> wrote:
            >
            > Hi,
            >
            > Has anyone heard about the membrain theory - where there are two membrains next to each other - one of which is our known universe - and that they are ever so slightly attracted to each other and when the universe cools down and slows down sufficently that the two membrains are atracted to each other and create a big bang?
            >
            > It sounds good - in that it explains why quantum particles can apparetnly dissapear - and also explains how the big bang can happen apparently out of nothing.
            >
            > What are your thoughts?
            >
            > Alice :)
            >

          • freethinker58
            Alice, Here is a link that tracks down a number of books and articles on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model To what degree this is an
            Message 5 of 21 , Oct 6, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              Alice,

              Here is a link that tracks down a number of books and articles on the subject:

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model

              To what degree this is an accurate model remains to be seen. What I do like about the idea is that it coincides with continual collapse of horizons that we experience the further and deeper we go into nature. It was thought up until only recently that ours was the only galaxy in the universe. As it turns out nature went way past that horizon we had set up for ourselves. Now the idea is being put forth that our "universe", a slippery term at best, could be as insignificant to the "grander scheme of things" as we are to the universe. This is absolutely mind boggling but it seems to blow past the horizon that this is the one and only universe or, more interestingly, there is some sort of goal the universe is striving toward. It very well may be our universe was simply an accidental byproduct of a much larger deterministic process, sort of like an interesting pattern in the smoke coming off a campfire. If the brane model is correct then that is an accurate picture of the state of things.

              It definitely puts a new perspective on looking up at the night sky. :)

              Rich



              --- In naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com, "Alice" <alice1976@...> wrote:
              >
              > Hi Rich,
              >
              > Thanks for the reply. What do you think of the concept? It doesn't sound totally believable to me. But then again perhaps if I read the book it would make more sense. I only saw it on a documentary 'through the worm hole' with Morgan Freeman: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoSWV6YAvSE - not this episode - I can't find the one on brains... but it was a laypersons explanation and didn't have a lot of depth in it - although did explain the general concepts very clearly.
              >
              > Alice :)
              >
              > ----- Original Message -----
              > From: freethinker58
              > To: naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com
              > Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 1:31 AM
              > Subject: [naturalismphilosophyforum] Re: Quantum world
              >
              >
              >
              > Alice,
              >
              > I have read about it in articles on some science news websites. I believe there is a book written by the two scientist who came up with this concept. According to a review I read the book describes the ideas and concepts of branes and how interactions between them created the universe that we find ourselves in.
              >
              > Rich
              >
              > --- In naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com, "Alice" <alice1976@> wrote:
              > >
              > > Hi,
              > >
              > > Has anyone heard about the membrain theory - where there are two membrains next to each other - one of which is our known universe - and that they are ever so slightly attracted to each other and when the universe cools down and slows down sufficently that the two membrains are atracted to each other and create a big bang?
              > >
              > > It sounds good - in that it explains why quantum particles can apparetnly dissapear - and also explains how the big bang can happen apparently out of nothing.
              > >
              > > What are your thoughts?
              > >
              > > Alice :)
              > >
              >
            • Alice
              Rich, Thanks for the link. It is rather mind blowing - I saw the Imax movie about space - and it was pretty incomprehensible the scale of everything - I just
              Message 6 of 21 , Oct 6, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                Rich,
                 
                Thanks for the link.
                 
                It is rather mind blowing - I saw the Imax movie about space - and it was pretty incomprehensible the scale of everything - I just couldn't keep up with how big it all is... and that is just our universe...
                 
                Alice :)
                 
                 
                ----- Original Message -----
                Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 12:49 PM
                Subject: [naturalismphilosophyforum] Re: Quantum world

                 

                Alice,

                Here is a link that tracks down a number of books and articles on the subject:

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model

                To what degree this is an accurate model remains to be seen. What I do like about the idea is that it coincides with continual collapse of horizons that we experience the further and deeper we go into nature. It was thought up until only recently that ours was the only galaxy in the universe. As it turns out nature went way past that horizon we had set up for ourselves. Now the idea is being put forth that our "universe", a slippery term at best, could be as insignificant to the "grander scheme of things" as we are to the universe. This is absolutely mind boggling but it seems to blow past the horizon that this is the one and only universe or, more interestingly, there is some sort of goal the universe is striving toward. It very well may be our universe was simply an accidental byproduct of a much larger deterministic process, sort of like an interesting pattern in the smoke coming off a campfire. If the brane model is correct then that is an accurate picture of the state of things.

                It definitely puts a new perspective on looking up at the night sky. :)

                Rich

                --- In naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com, "Alice" <alice1976@...> wrote:
                >
                > Hi Rich,
                >
                > Thanks for the reply. What do you think of the concept? It doesn't sound totally believable to me. But then again perhaps if I read the book it would make more sense. I only saw it on a documentary 'through the worm hole' with Morgan Freeman: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoSWV6YAvSE - not this episode - I can't find the one on brains... but it was a laypersons explanation and didn't have a lot of depth in it - although did explain the general concepts very clearly.
                >
                > Alice :)
                >
                > ----- Original Message -----
                > From: freethinker58
                > To: naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com
                > Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 1:31 AM
                > Subject: [naturalismphilosophyforum] Re: Quantum world
                >
                >
                >
                > Alice,
                >
                > I have read about it in articles on some science news websites. I believe there is a book written by the two scientist who came up with this concept. According to a review I read the book describes the ideas and concepts of branes and how interactions between them created the universe that we find ourselves in.
                >
                > Rich
                >
                > --- In naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com, "Alice" <alice1976@> wrote:
                > >
                > > Hi,
                > >
                > > Has anyone heard about the membrain theory - where there are two membrains next to each other - one of which is our known universe - and that they are ever so slightly attracted to each other and when the universe cools down and slows down sufficently that the two membrains are atracted to each other and create a big bang?
                > >
                > > It sounds good - in that it explains why quantum particles can apparetnly dissapear - and also explains how the big bang can happen apparently out of nothing.
                > >
                > > What are your thoughts?
                > >
                > > Alice :)
                > >
                >

              • freethinker58
                I know; the size of it all can overwhelm one at times. Then again, considering something that large, think of all the possibilities contained in it. :) Rich
                Message 7 of 21 , Oct 11, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  I know; the size of it all can overwhelm one at times. Then again, considering something that large, think of all the possibilities contained in it. :)

                  Rich

                  --- In naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com, "Alice" <alice1976@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Rich,
                  >
                  > Thanks for the link.
                  >
                  > It is rather mind blowing - I saw the Imax movie about space - and it was pretty incomprehensible the scale of everything - I just couldn't keep up with how big it all is... and that is just our universe...
                  >
                  > Alice :)
                  >
                  >
                  > ----- Original Message -----
                  > From: freethinker58
                  > To: naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com
                  > Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 12:49 PM
                  > Subject: [naturalismphilosophyforum] Re: Quantum world
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Alice,
                  >
                  > Here is a link that tracks down a number of books and articles on the subject:
                  >
                  > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model
                  >
                  > To what degree this is an accurate model remains to be seen. What I do like about the idea is that it coincides with continual collapse of horizons that we experience the further and deeper we go into nature. It was thought up until only recently that ours was the only galaxy in the universe. As it turns out nature went way past that horizon we had set up for ourselves. Now the idea is being put forth that our "universe", a slippery term at best, could be as insignificant to the "grander scheme of things" as we are to the universe. This is absolutely mind boggling but it seems to blow past the horizon that this is the one and only universe or, more interestingly, there is some sort of goal the universe is striving toward. It very well may be our universe was simply an accidental byproduct of a much larger deterministic process, sort of like an interesting pattern in the smoke coming off a campfire. If the brane model is correct then that is an accurate picture of the state of things.
                  >
                  > It definitely puts a new perspective on looking up at the night sky. :)
                  >
                  > Rich
                  >
                  > --- In naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com, "Alice" <alice1976@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > Hi Rich,
                  > >
                  > > Thanks for the reply. What do you think of the concept? It doesn't sound totally believable to me. But then again perhaps if I read the book it would make more sense. I only saw it on a documentary 'through the worm hole' with Morgan Freeman: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoSWV6YAvSE - not this episode - I can't find the one on brains... but it was a laypersons explanation and didn't have a lot of depth in it - although did explain the general concepts very clearly.
                  > >
                  > > Alice :)
                  > >
                  > > ----- Original Message -----
                  > > From: freethinker58
                  > > To: naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com
                  > > Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 1:31 AM
                  > > Subject: [naturalismphilosophyforum] Re: Quantum world
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Alice,
                  > >
                  > > I have read about it in articles on some science news websites. I believe there is a book written by the two scientist who came up with this concept. According to a review I read the book describes the ideas and concepts of branes and how interactions between them created the universe that we find ourselves in.
                  > >
                  > > Rich
                  > >
                  > > --- In naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com, "Alice" <alice1976@> wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > > Hi,
                  > > >
                  > > > Has anyone heard about the membrain theory - where there are two membrains next to each other - one of which is our known universe - and that they are ever so slightly attracted to each other and when the universe cools down and slows down sufficently that the two membrains are atracted to each other and create a big bang?
                  > > >
                  > > > It sounds good - in that it explains why quantum particles can apparetnly dissapear - and also explains how the big bang can happen apparently out of nothing.
                  > > >
                  > > > What are your thoughts?
                  > > >
                  > > > Alice :)
                  > > >
                  > >
                  >
                • stephnlawrnce@aol.com
                  Hi David, Your question combines two of the hardest problems in cognitive science and physics, the nature of subjective experience (aka, the hard problem )
                  Message 8 of 21 , Oct 12, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi David,
                    Your question combines two of the hardest problems in cognitive science
                    and physics, the nature of subjective experience (aka, "the hard
                    problem") and the nature of time.
                    Yes, I combine them because I think this is intrinsic to what the self is.
                     
                    One might say take care of your future self, meaning you now shouldn't do things that will make things difficult for you in the future, care about your future self, empathise with your future self, feel compassion for your future self. 
                     
                    But we know there is more to the way we feel about this, what we think and feel is me now will be around tomorrow!
                     
                    That's what I find puzzling. What is it that's wholly present now that will be wholly present tomorrow?
                     
                    Sorry if people have already attempted to answer that and it's gone over my head.
                     
                    And is the short answer, it's an illusion?
                     
                    Stephen


                    .

                  • S C
                    Hi Stephen, why you are disappointed or why you come to the conclusion?   Did you have tried to know the answer?   ( It s not good to come to conclusion or
                    Message 9 of 21 , Oct 12, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hi Stephen, why you are disappointed or why you come to the conclusion?
                       
                      Did you have tried to know the answer?
                       
                      ( It's not good to come to conclusion or become discourage without trying to know answer.)
                       
                       
                      Your short answer 'illusion' this also seems to be correct. But we would have to know which is the illusion. 'Me' is the illusion. 'Time' is the illusion, which misunderstanding  is illusion? we have to know it
                       
                      on 27 september about your question I had asked you some question but you had not answered it. If you were answered, then I was given the answer for the, question what is me? 
                       
                         Without trying to know answer why you are disappointing. I am pasting the 27/09/ my response here. Please see it and answer my question and I will answer your question.
                       
                      Re: The self and time passing

                       
                      Stephen quote  The question is what is this self we are talking about that experiences time
                      passing?

                      I've no idea how to answer the question but having thought about it I've come to
                      believe it is an important question in understanding the self and conscious
                      experience.

                      David quote  You could do a PhD thesis on this and
                      not come out much further ahead!

                      My guess is that your question is one that we humans are incapable of
                      answering, perhaps ever, but at least for a long time. Still, it's fun
                      to talk about these things, no?


                       Hi friends, (my (urain) response)

                      It's not seems to me so hard question.  But my question is after understanding self, what you will do? Do you will remember it always, at every time ? Is it possible to you?

                      Ok, I come to your question. Do you tell me what is the time? and at the moment, what you think about yourself? (what you are?)

                      --- In naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Lawrence" <stephnlawrnce@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Hi Folks,
                      >
                      > We generally agree that we experience time passing.
                      >
                      > The question is what is this self we are talking about that experiences time passing?
                      >
                      > The problem is it seems to conflict with the idea that we are the process, as we couldn't experience time passing if we were, we somehow have to wholly move along each moment of the process.
                      >
                      > I've no idea how to answer the question but having thought about it I've come to believe it is an important question in understanding the self and conscious experience.
                      >
                      > Stephen
                      >


                      U R A I N

                      "Our thoughts, our actions, anything will not go waste, we always get results to our thoughts and actions.

                      Therefore we have to carefull in thinking and working".

                      --- On Wed, 10/12/11, stephnlawrnce@... <stephnlawrnce@...> wrote:

                      From: stephnlawrnce@... <stephnlawrnce@...>
                      Subject: Re: [naturalismphilosophyforum] The self and time passing
                      To: naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com
                      Date: Wednesday, October 12, 2011, 11:08 AM

                       
                      Hi David,
                      Your question combines two of the hardest problems in cognitive science
                      and physics, the nature of subjective experience (aka, "the hard
                      problem") and the nature of time.
                      Yes, I combine them because I think this is intrinsic to what the self is.
                       
                      One might say take care of your future self, meaning you now shouldn't do things that will make things difficult for you in the future, care about your future self, empathise with your future self, feel compassion for your future self. 
                       
                      But we know there is more to the way we feel about this, what we think and feel is me now will be around tomorrow!
                       
                      That's what I find puzzling. What is it that's wholly present now that will be wholly present tomorrow?
                       
                      Sorry if people have already attempted to answer that and it's gone over my head.
                       
                      And is the short answer, it's an illusion?
                       
                      Stephen


                      .

                    • David Nye
                      Self, like consciousness, seems to be a complicated, fuzzy, poorly defined concept. Do you include the body, for example? Depends on how you are using the
                      Message 10 of 21 , Oct 12, 2011
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Self, like consciousness, seems to be a complicated, fuzzy, poorly defined concept.  Do you include the body, for example?  Depends on how you are using the word.  Perhaps the usage you are trying to get at is a sense of identity that is continuous through time which depends mainly on memory.  If my memory could be wiped clean and rewritten with the contents of yours, once I regained consciousness I would think I was you -- my self would have become yours.  Seeing a continuous record of our perceptions and thoughts over time (with some interruptions, for example during deep sleep) leads us to believe in a continuous perceiver and thinker, the self.

                        These acts of perceiving and thinking aren't illusory -- we are clearly perceiving and thinking, although maybe not exactly in the way we think we are -- but I think the idea that the self and the mind are *things* is an illusion and the source of much confusion.  They are not entities but actions, specifically brain activity.  The mind is no more an entity than running is.  Because the mind is action and not substance, there is no need to postulate a realm separate from normal time and space where it resides, as Descartes felt to be necessary.

                        This still doesn't answer the "hard question" of how patterns of activity in neural networks become subjective experience, which is to me the most intimate aspect of selfhood.  We may come to know *that* activity of a certain sort in certain networks in the occipital cortex produces the perception of redness, but we still won't know *how* that makes us see red.  Why red instead of blue?

                        I think the reason for this is that consciousness is not like anything else.  It is axiomatic, too fundamental.  To explain atoms, we imagine minature solar systems, swirling clouds, or billiard balls.  There is nothing to compare consciousness to.  It can't be broken down into simpler components or described by analogy to things in our everyday experience.  When we ask how neurophysiology produces phenomenology, there is no possibility of answering, look, here's how it works.  The answer is rather, that's just how it is.  It is not that we aren't smart enough to come up with a better answer, that's all the answer there is.

                        David

                        On 10/12/2011 01:08 PM, stephnlawrnce@... wrote: Hi David,
                        Your question combines two of the hardest problems in cognitive science
                        and physics, the nature of subjective experience (aka, "the hard
                        problem") and the nature of time.
                        Yes, I combine them because I think this is intrinsic to what the self is.
                         
                        One might say take care of your future self, meaning you now shouldn't do things that will make things difficult for you in the future, care about your future self, empathise with your future self, feel compassion for your future self. 
                         
                        But we know there is more to the way we feel about this, what we think and feel is me now will be around tomorrow!
                         
                        That's what I find puzzling. What is it that's wholly present now that will be wholly present tomorrow?
                         
                        Sorry if people have already attempted to answer that and it's gone over my head.
                         
                        And is the short answer, it's an illusion?
                         
                        Stephen
                      • Tom Clark
                        Message 11 of 21 , Oct 13, 2011
                        • 0 Attachment
                          <When we ask how neurophysiology produces phenomenology, there is no
                          possibility of answering, look, here's how it works. The answer is
                          rather, that's just how it is. It is not that we aren't smart
                          enough to come up with a better answer, that's all the answer there is.>

                          Not sure about that. If we drop the idea of the brain producing or
                          causing phenomenology and think of a non-causal relationship - a
                          parallelism that's a function of differing epistemic perspectives on the
                          world - then we might conceivably make progress on the hard problem of
                          consciousness. About which see "The appearance of reality" at
                          http://www.naturalism.org/appearance.htm

                          best,

                          Tom


                          >
                          > Self, like consciousness, seems to be a complicated, fuzzy, poorly
                          > defined concept. Do you include the body, for example? Depends on
                          how
                          > you are using the word. Perhaps the usage you are trying to get at is
                          a
                          > sense of identity that is continuous through time which depends mainly
                          > on memory. If my memory could be wiped clean and rewritten with the
                          > contents of yours, once I regained consciousness I would think I was
                          you
                          > -- my self would have become yours. Seeing a continuous record of our
                          > perceptions and thoughts over time (with some interruptions, for
                          example
                          > during deep sleep) leads us to believe in a continuous perceiver and
                          > thinker, the self.
                          >
                          > These acts of perceiving and thinking aren't illusory -- we are
                          clearly
                          > perceiving and thinking, although maybe not exactly in the way we
                          think
                          > we are -- but I think the idea that the self and the mind are *things*
                          > is an illusion and the source of much confusion. They are not
                          entities
                          > but actions, specifically brain activity. The mind is no more an
                          entity
                          > than running is. Because the mind is action and not substance, there
                          is
                          > no need to postulate a realm separate from normal time and space where
                          > it resides, as Descartes felt to be necessary.
                          >
                          > This still doesn't answer the "hard question" of how patterns of
                          > activity in neural networks become subjective experience, which is to
                          me
                          > the most intimate aspect of selfhood. We may come to know *that*
                          > activity of a certain sort in certain networks in the occipital cortex
                          > produces the perception of redness, but we still won't know *how* that
                          > makes us see red. Why red instead of blue?
                          >
                          > I think the reason for this is that consciousness is not like anything
                          > else. It is axiomatic, too fundamental. To explain atoms, we imagine
                          > minature solar systems, swirling clouds, or billiard balls. There is
                          > nothing to compare consciousness to. It can't be broken down into
                          > simpler components or described by analogy to things in our everyday
                          > experience. When we ask how neurophysiology produces phenomenology,
                          > there is no possibility of answering, look, here's how it works. The
                          > answer is rather, that's just how it is. It is not that we aren't
                          smart
                          > enough to come up with a better answer, that's all the answer there
                          is.
                          >
                          > David
                          >
                          > On 10/12/2011 01:08 PM, stephnlawrnce@... wrote:
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > Hi David,
                          > >
                          > > Your question combines two of the hardest problems in cognitive
                          > > science
                          > > and physics, the nature of subjective experience (aka, "the hard
                          > > problem") and the nature of time.
                          > >
                          > > Yes, I combine them because I think this is intrinsic to what the
                          self is.
                          > > One might say take care of your future self, meaning/you
                          > > now/ shouldn't do things that will make things difficult for /you in
                          > > the future/, care about your future self, empathise with your future
                          > > self, feel compassion for your future self.
                          > > But we know there is more to the way we feel about this, what we
                          think
                          > > and feel is /me now/ will be around tomorrow!
                          > > That's what I find puzzling. What is it that's wholly present now
                          that
                          > > will be wholly present tomorrow?
                          > > Sorry if people have already attempted to answer that and it's gone
                          > > over my head.
                          > > And is the short answer, it's an illusion?
                          > > Stephen
                          >
                          >
                        • Stephen Lawrence
                          David,
                          Message 12 of 21 , Oct 19, 2011
                          • 0 Attachment
                            David,

                            <<No, it's the whole you at different times, just like when you walk from
                            the kitchen into the hall, it's you in the kitchen, then you in the
                            hall. It's the whole me sitting in front of my computer now, and the
                            same whole me a minute later. Moving through time in the block universe
                            is like moving through space, just that our movements are much more
                            constrained. I guess I'm not seeing why this is problematic for you.
                            Ok, see if I can show you.>>

                            Can the whole of me be in two places at once?

                            No.

                            Why not?

                            Because if the whole of me is in one place there is nothing left to be in another place.

                            Can the whole of me be in two places at different times?

                            Still no.

                            Why not?

                            Because if the whole of me is in one place and time there is nothing left to be in another place and time.

                            The block universe view is the view that the universe is 4 dimensional and so is everything in it.

                            Only three dimensional things can be wholly present at different times.

                            And when you view us as "the process" you are viewing us as four dimensional
                            , and when you view us as wholly present at a particular time you are viewing us as three dimensional

                            So, what I think is happening is you're not seeing the problem because you are switching between viewing us a four dimensional and three dimensional without being aware of the switch.

                            Stephen
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.