2011/11/3 benjayk <benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com>

>
>
> Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
> >
> > 2011/11/3 benjayk <benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> You picture consciousness as something inherently personal. But you
> >> can
> >> >> be
> >> >> conscious without there being any sense of personhood, or any
> >> experience
> >> >> related to a particular person (like in meditation). So that
> >> assumption
> >> >> doesn't seems to be true.
> >> >>
> >> >>  Also you think that memory has to be conserved in order for the
> >> >> experience
> >> >> to continue consistently. This is also not true, we can experience
> >> things
> >> >> that are totally disconnected from all memories we have, yet still it
> >> is
> >> >> the
> >> >> I (not the "I") that experiences it. For example on a drug trip, you
> >> can
> >> >> literally forget every trace of what your life was like, in terms of
> >> any
> >> >> concretely retrievable memory (you can even forget you are human or
> an
> >> >> animal). So why can't we lose any *concrete* memory after death and
> >> >> experience still continues consistently (and if it does you have to
> >> >> surive
> >> >> in some way - it makes no sense to have a continuous experience while
> >> you
> >> >> totally die).
> >> >> You also don't remember being an infant (probably), yet you were that
> >> >> infant
> >> >> and are still here.
> >> >> Saying that we are the sum of our memory is very simplistic and just
> >> >> isn't
> >> >> true in terms of how we experience (you remember almost nothing of
> >> what
> >> >> you
> >> >> have experienced).
> >> >>
> >> >> So if you say it is death, you only refer to a superficial aspect of
> >> the
> >> >> person, namely their body and explicit memory. Sure, we tend to
> >> indentify
> >> >> with that, but that doesn't mean that there isn't something much more
> >> >> important. The particular person may just be an expression of
> >> something
> >> >> deeper, which is conserved, and is the real essence of the person,
> and
> >> >> really all beings: Their ability to consciously, consistently
> >> experience.
> >> >> We tend to find that scary, as it makes us part of something so much
> >> >> greater
> >> >> that all our attachments, possesions, achievements, memory, beliefs
> >> and
> >> >> security are hardly worth anything at all, in the big picture. But if
> >> >> they
> >> >> aren't, what are we then? Since most of us have not yet looked deeper
> >> >> into
> >> >> ourselves than these things, we feel immensly treatened by the idea
> >> that
> >> >> this is not at all what is important about us. It (apparently)
> reduces
> >> us
> >> >> to
> >> >> nothing.
> >> >> But isn't it, when we face it from a more open perspective,
> >> tremendously
> >> >> liberating and exciting? By confronting that, we can free us from all
> >> >> these
> >> >> superficial baggage like things and relations and identity (freeing
> >> >> mentally
> >> >> speaking, of course), and see the true greatness of what we are which
> >> is
> >> >> beyond all of this. And this is immortal, with death merely being a
> >> >> relative
> >> >> end, just like sleeping.
> >> >>
> >> >> benjayk
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Well if immortality is something which do not preseve the person...
> >> then
> >> > it
> >> > is death.
> >> For the person. The point is that if I don't consider the person to be
> >> what
> >> is most important about me, than I don't die at all. Immortality may be
> >> immortality of I (consciousness)
> >
> >
> > I don't understand what you mean by consciousness. Without a notion of
> > self, it is meaningless.
> >
> >
> >
> >> , not immortality of "I" (personality).
> >>
> >
> > There is no soul... so unless what you mean is soul, it is meaningless.
> > And
> > if you mean soul, I don't believe in soul.
> >
> >
> >> It is death for some aspect,
> >
> >
> > For all aspect.
> >
> >
> >> but just as you don't call it death when some
> >> cells of you die,
> >
> >
> > Your comparison is not relevant for the case at hand.
> >
> >
> >> there is no need to consider it death when the person you
> >> consider to be right now dies.
> >
> >
> > Well most of the people do.
> >
> >
> >> It is just material death,
> >
> >
> > Death is always material.
> >
> >
> >> but not death of
> >> what you really are.
> >
> >
> > And what it is ? What I really am is me.
> >
> >
> >> This can't die,
> >
> >
> > Sure if personhood is erased, it dies.
> >
> >
> >> as is not even subject to time (even
> >> though it can utilize time).
> >>
> >
> > Well unless you have proof about the existence of souls, it is
> > meaningless,
> > consciousness needs time.
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
> >> >
> >> >  If not, what is the difference between your consciousness and
> >> > mine or any other...
> >> There is no difference, as there is no your and mine consciousness.
> >>
> >
> > You don't use consciousness in the commen sense it is used.
> >
> >
> >
> >> Consciousness can not be owned, and can not be divided into pieces.
> There
> >> is
> >> just consciousness.
> >> It is very easily experientally confirmable: Do you ever experience
> >> anything
> >> other than this consciousness? Can you ever find an owner of
> >> consciousness,
> >> which is not just another appearance in consciousness? No, so why would
> >> we
> >> assume that another consciousess or an owner of consciousness exists? We
> >> can't infer that other "consciousnesses" exist by observation of other
> >> people, because we can only infer that other people exist, not that they
> >> have another consciousness. There is no evidence for this at all.
> >>
> >> We can speak of your consciousness and my consciousness on a relative
> >> level,
> >> meaning one particular expression of consciousness and another
> particular
> >> expression. But this is a relative distinction, and there are contexts
> >> where
> >> this distinction makes little or no sense, like when we die or when we
> >> are
> >> in objectless and perceptionless meditation.
> >>
> >>
> >> Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
> >> >
> >> >  what is *preserved* ?
> >> Continuity of consciousness.
> >>
> >>
> > There is no continuity without self.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Immortality still means what it means, what you're talking about is
> not
> >> > immortality. If nothing is preserved (no memories) then nothing is
> left
> >> > and
> >> > I don't care.
> >> But is is not true that nothing is preserved. I already gave an example
> >> that
> >> even without explicit memory something more essential than memory can be
> >> conserved.
> >>
> >
> > No your example is wrong. Taking it to the limit, you never have
> memories,
> > because at no point do you remember everything. The point is that you can
> > remember your own memories.
> >
> >
> >> If you don't care, you are just being superficial with regards to what
> >> you
> >> are.
> >>
> >>
> > I don't thing so, what is important to me is me in the event of dying. I
> > don't care if a not me stays.
> >
> OK, you are just insisting on the dogma that all one could be is a me. If
> you presuppose that, than further discussion doesn't lead anywhere. It is
> just that this assumption is not verified through experience.


Which/what experience ? Don't say "drugs"... this comparison is invalid.


> Actually there
> is just experience, no "me" that experiences that


???


> , apart from the feeling of
> "me" (which is just another feeling).
>
> There is no need for a self for consciousness to be there.


But it exists... that's what demand explanation, that's what lead to the
envy of immortality.


> Neither
> experientally, nor logically or scientifically.
>

You say so...

>
> benjayk
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://old.nabble.com/QTI%2C-Cul-de-sacs-and-differentiation-tp32721336p32773421.html
> Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>


-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to