thantounderscore 2010-04-26 01:05:23

There is a specific part of our brain that controls our sense of separation from the universe. Damage to this part of the brain or intense meditation results in a sense of one-ness with the universe. So, yes, meditating monk or brain damaged person may feel that he/she is the universe around him/her, but the reality is not so. We are not the universe we perceive. If we were, there would be no surprise.

Additionally, we would also never doubt or have reason to doubt our senses, but we do. I'll give you a little mental exercise to explain: suppose you are walking home from the store, and you see a tyrannosaurus rex walking around, eating people, smashing cars, and all around making a big ruckus. You run home so as to avoid being eaten/destroyed by the tyrannosaurus rex. And, as any normal person would, you turn on the telly to see what's going on. No news coverage. You walk back outside to where the tyrannosaurus was. No dino prints. Buildings are fine, no damaged cars, people milling about as normal. As if nothing happened. What would you think of your perceptions at that point?

god27dog 2010-04-26 02:43:55

Though we could learn to accept we are the universe as we perceive it, we still have ceartain patterns which have become raw instinct within our nature and are apparent in all beings, so even saying we are dependent of our entity we are possibly all the same form of creators of our existance because there is an outside entity that without it we become the opposite of omnipotent; we fall in an oblivion of selfvalue.

How is it we exist even if there is nobody there to be aware of us? In the same manner, if a tree falls in the middle of the forest and there is no one around to listen, does it make a sound?

Kajenx 2010-04-26 03:43:42

You only perceive yourself as being somewhere between your eyes because both of your dominant spacial orienting senses are located on your head (eyes and ears). If you close your eyes and poke your foot, you'll notice that you exist down there too. The singularity your identifying is a limited consciousness that can only focus on one thing at a time. Focus is not equal to existence though...or is it? :3

Also, we do not live in different universes. If I make a realistic painting of something and show it to you, you will agree that the colors match and the shapes are correct. And even if something with a different sort of eyesight looked at the painting, the wavelengths of color would come to their eyes in the same way that they do on the thing that was being represented and they would agree the picture matches. However, they also might see a wider range of colors and details that we can't and might say the picture is missing something, or is oddly distorted. Still, the fact remains that a distortion is still recognizable as a representation, and we can understand intentional and unintentional distortions as errors, not alternative ways of actually seeing.

Our senses are a connection to the universe, yes, but the fact that we can compare them accurately means that the universe is the same for all of us, or we all live in the same delusion. Occam's razor makes me think the former is correct.

Your analogy works on a more metaphysical level, though. If you acknowledge that it's impossible to know the complete truth about anything, then even people who share an opinion will have different reasons for doing so. In this way people could be said to live in different "universes" of thought. Most rational people seem to believe this, all the while passionately arguing in defense of their opinions. It's actually pretty silly.

Anyhoo, all of this reminds me of Platonic Idealism, so if you're addicted to Wikipedia like me, that should send you on a 3 or 4 hour binge.

CatFat 2010-04-26 13:37:50

It seems you've sort of blended or confused two similar topics into one here, really you are talking about perceived reality, not identity.
I believe that self or 'I' is in the personality (and is what needs definition) as opposed to the physical being as you have mentioned. A good example of this is body reconstruction. If you have your body replaced by a bionic one you still feel your 'self'. A very real and common example of this would be with plastic surgery or hip replacements etc, the people who have these operations don't come out being a different person, proving that the body is merely a vehicle. Therefore to some extent you are correct that an individual is a sort of 'universe', as to take an empirical view point, the personality can only grow through the senses. Though this has been covered by many philosophers, the main quarrel remains around the elusive 'a priori' system. An internal logic, by which reality exists in ones head. I believe in the a priori system in conjunction with the empirical theory as it explains a lot of how we can see an object from two different angles and know they are the same object. Robert Pirsig goes into alot of this in the book i've listed below. It's a great introduction into the wide range of philosophical theories.

The main question to ask is, can the a priori system exist BEFORE the senses. The example I learned was; if a child was born without any senses, that is, no hearing, smell, sight, touch or taste, not having even one of these senses active for even a moment, would they be a person? would they have a world? and would they think? A total a priori system that comes before the senses would say yes, just not in human way, at least not to our comprehension of it.

A good book to read about such things in a unique structure and style would be 'Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance' It's a seriously brilliant book, i've just finished, I think you'd be interested in it.

I-smel 2010-04-26 14:02:59

yea I guess that makes sense

Pocru 2010-04-26 17:10:17

Fundamentally, It's against my principles to disagree with a philosophy, seeing as each one is rooted very deeply in each individual persona.

But I'd like to ask a question: if nothing exists until we're aware of it, how do we become aware of something that dosn't exist?

AnonymousAwsomeness 2010-04-26 18:22:22

Philosophy concerning self-identification is often coupled with theories of reality. Kinda awesome once you see the paradox. The basic argument is this: Reality itself comes from the individual people, and was no preset by some divine prescence. This is not to say that there is no god, it just means that his job was a lot easier. He just created us, who by design created reality. Supporting this theory is Einstein's Theory of Relativity, which not only states that space, time, and matter are all the same thing, but that all information ever process can differ depending on the individual observer. In relation to my case, it states that reality can be altered by the observer.

Now, in recent developments scientists have found something called the Quantum Zeno effect, I think it was called. What is is, is that on a quantum level, where the laws of physics don't apply, electrons appear and disappear like static. We can't see them, but when scientists do work out equations and tests, they find that every time we observe an electron, it freezes in place for us. Lemme give you a logic string. If molecule is studied at point A and then studied again at point B then it will immediately shift back to point A for absolutely no reason other than the fact that you looked at it in the first place. The research is a bit sketchy, but what that basically means is that the very fabric of our universe depends on our comprehension of it to remain to be something that we call "reality" That means that the apple the falls from the tree falls, not because gravity exists, but because we know that it will fall. We didn't even have to know about gravity, the molecules responded to our synapses(spellcheck)

Einstein concluded that in order for we and the universe to exist, there had to be one, omnipotent, intelligent being. Maybe God created the universe and we slipped into it. Maybe God created us and we did a little somethin. Maybe he created us both at the same time, i dont know. I'm not God.

As for personalities. What this basically is, is Psychology. Throughout out lives, different hormones and life experiences build up our psyche to what it is today. Nothing more, nothing less. I mean, it hasn't been proven that there is a universe beyond our own minds, all we have are the massive amounts of similarities between our percieved worlds. There are tons of theories I've heard of how we fit into the whole sha-bang, but if there's one thing I've learned over the course of my short life it is this. However it happened, I am me, and no one else, and I am proud of who I am. If not, I shall crush myself and rebuild.

On a last note, swimming in philosophy is simply not healthy. Thinking about all the good things you should do isn't the same thing as doing them. Philosophy shouldn't be a profession, or a degree. Neither should poetry, but that's not what I'm talking about here. Philosophy is the contemplation of what is the good, and what is, and is therefore good. If you walk this path you will come to find yourself right where you started, and you will know it's name.

CatFat 2010-04-27 09:51:55

haha okay, you have the right to disagree. Philosophy is made up of theories building upon one another and questioning itself, it is the love of wisdom and therefore does not affirm one theory without accounting others theories to weigh up against or expand from.
I find that you are asserting your theory as being absolute, with such statements as 'The theory that reality exists only within our minds helped me to uncover the answer to what we really are.' which comes across as being rather arrogant and contradicts the idea of philosophical thought. You cannot expect to expand your understanding if you are so set on disagreeing with every point to prove your own, it becomes a thought trap, narrowing and weakening your own theory.

You appear to have misinterpreted what I was trying to say, maybe I wasn't clear enough. I was not talking about personality in a general, social way. I did say that the personality was what needs to be defined.
If you were to think of it as a kind of pattern, neither matter nor form, it may aid your understanding of what I am trying to say. Primitive cultures would call these patterns 'spirits' or 'ghosts' and believe in them entirely, even worshipping them, and it isn't so absurd once you look into it in the way we have been discussing.
The 'I' cannot be in the perception, it must be the perceiver. In your dispute you have basically reiterated exactly what I had said about the personality developing and expanding through what it perceives. But what you have stated is that the 'I' is the senses, that are absorbed by the personality, and comes before the personality itself. Whilst that is true in some sense, it is too contentious, for example, what is then being produced as the personality, is it just a by product? or a bank to store memories and extract values in social or problematic circumstances?
I will try to use a metaphor to help explain my argument. The personality could be exchanged as a seed, the senses are the soil, water and sun light that give it the nutrients to grow, it would then become a flower and provide resources for insects, such as bee's, like nectar and pollen. In turn, that Personality would add to the general universe. See what I mean?

What I am trying to understand is where does this personality, or pattern, exist?
Is it in the mind? or is it in others or is it a mysterious 'spirit'?

I hope you don't take any offence to some from my words, I am aware that I have been a bit brash here and there and I want you to know that I am enjoying this debate, it's very stimulating. You are REALLY intelligent for your age, but it is important and healthy to question your own theories and try your hardest to find flaws in them like a good scientist will always try to prove his hypothesis wrong in order to build up the validity/strength of his theory.
- Shaun

Kajenx 2010-04-27 11:42:51

Positive thinking can't break good sound logic, only good sound logic can. :3

Psychofig 2010-05-06 00:58:59

penis

Pinkv86 2010-05-24 12:58:45

holy crap there is a lot of words on this page. o_O

Pinkv86 2010-05-26 01:37:57

I CANT READ! AWW!!
damn you.. eyes... X_X

Pinkv86 2010-05-26 18:32:40

I have feeling you would enjoy that.

;)

Pinkv86 2010-05-28 04:00:03

five years is not much diffrent in age... ;)
after school is done, that is :P