DigitalDruid

I just don't understand this "living for eternity through immortal soul" business propounded by some religions. I don't seem to remember anything from past life. Heck I have problem remembering all the things I am supposed to remember just in this life. Prospect of remebering anything from supposed past life is grim.

Even if as Plato said it is because my recollection is clouded, surely the physical body is as much part of me as the ethereal soul? I think that's why it was not enough for Chritianity to merely talk about immortal soul, but to go further and guarantee physical resurrection for those who toe the line. It sure knew what was in hot demand in the market.

But I think Woody Allen articulated best what people really, really want, with his anguished and exasperated cry:
"I don't want to be immortal through fame. I want to be immortal through NOT DYING!"

Valmorian

Yes. Well, depending upon what you mean by 'Zombie'. The problem with that word is that it conjures up images different from what is meant by it in this context.

Why should I presume a soul exists at all? Why assume there is some kind of 'intangible essense' that for some reason can influence my brain?

crocodile deathroll

I am not claiming the "soul" (although I feel consciousness is the better word) can exists as a separate entity from the brain, but an emergent property of complexity. As soon as matter reached a critical level of complexity (namely the brain in this case) consciousness flashed into existence. Just like that is a critical level of physical processes for carbon to emerge in the interiors of stars.
There or not billions of different formulas for the emergence of carbon, there is only one that was explained so eloquently by Fred Hoyle (forget about his bad theory of the ill fated steady state theory) However, his theories about the <a href="http://www.nashville.com/~al.schroeder/anthro1.htm" target="_blank">necleosynthesis of carbon</a> is truly ground breaking stuff. I am using carbon as an example because it is the most important pathway to the emergence of complexity, namely organic matter, and a single carbon atom in isolation is is organic matter in its simplest state.

So just like carbon, I do not think there would need to be billions of different explanations for the emergence of consciousness in the universe. There need only be the one, period.

[ November 14, 2002: Message edited by: crocodile deathroll ]</p>

Valmorian

</strong>

What makes you think that the 'emergent property' of consciousness is anything that can exist independantly of the brain? If it can't, how could reincarnation be possible?

</strong>

You don't see a substansive difference between a process (consciousness) and a physical entity (carbon)? I would liken consciousness more to such things as "motion".

This still says nothing about your fanciful assumption of reincarnation. Why should this consciousness be anything more than a process of the brain?

Sidian

i don't see it as a paradox at all...and certainly not as time splitting. or new possible nows being formed.

we keep time based on motion. if we were on a ship flying 100,000 km/s with ms. alien our time pieces will have slowed along with our bodies, our perceptions and even the effects that cause SEEZEEUMMM(sp?) to do its thing.

light would leave our ship at 200,000 km/s because we are traveling at 100,000 km/s already and light doesn't go faster then 300,000 km/s.

now to us on the fast ship of doom, the light seems to be traveling away at 300,000 because we have slowed down along with the time pieces we use to detect the light's speed.

it's a nasty concept to wrap yer nugget around. the author of the article doesn't help with the misconception.

crocodile deathroll

Then how would our existence in the first place be possible?
I am stating consciousness is am emergent property of complexity, and the brain happens the just be the most complex known object in the universe. It is not until the universe achieves that critical level of complexity is it possible for anything like consciousness the emerge.


I am not saying it is any more than a process of the brain, but once you die the spacial distances between all brains are subjectively smeared our of existence.
The individual brain encompassed your lifetime of memories that's all.
But the brain as a collective biological phenomena is what made it possible for you the observer to exist in this world in the first place.

croc

crocodile deathroll

If you do not see as a paradox, then the above sentence is a paradox. Because I see it just as an effect and the slitting of "nows" is part of the effect.

[ November 14, 2002: Message edited by: crocodile deathroll ]</p>