crocodile deathroll

Yes but what about the configuration of your brain when your were a baby, it was different then? and what gave yourself the first kick start in your very first first person experience when your sense of self was first generated into existence for the very first time. What special properties did your brain have at that point of time to cause that to happen?

Why shouldn't another brain do the same job?

That configuration does change over time which is why you are not observing the world from the vantage of the person you were when you were 10. The configuration was very different then. Even if you taste some nasty medicine your Mother may of given you at that age like Hypol (in my case) your mind still recalls memories of that nasty spoonful in spite of the fact the neurons for taste and smell have been replaced. So where does the self sit?
Can you imagine yourself not existing? you clearly can't. I can't I can only deduce that I did not exist for 14 billion years of time before I was born, but unless I was informed (or ill informed in the case of Young Earth Creationist) you cannot possibly gain any intuitive insight on the true age of the universe.

My best way around that problem is that your existence is inevitable by-product of a universe making every possible mistake like the proverbial monkey accidently typing the complete words of Shakespeare. Another theory that when you cease to exist your memories are totally obliterated and in a 4 dimension universe you loop back in time and replay your life all over again totally forgetting that you were ever born and lived your life already. As there is not such a thing as a absolute present moment, the present is purely subjective.

CDR

crocodile deathroll

I feel there has to be a minimal limit for consciousness, a point where is it is reduced any further it really ceases to be conscious at all and this limit is universal. But this very basic consciousness is homogenous and so the universe suddenly enter a phase through hightened complexity when irreducible consciousness necessarily flashes into existence. This has implications for the whole universe because it means for the first time the universe becomes aware of its own existence. A gestalt switch, illustrated, is how the trajectory of one organism is favored over an other. But the process is random.



CDR

jafosei

Interesting question, xorbie. I'll offer my thoughts.

For me personally, I see nothing wrong with the idea that I might never have existed.

Consider: if you never existed, then you would not be around to think "I should exist." Since you wouldn't exist, there would be no "you" to feel that this situation was the ultimate evil. Your definition relies entirely on your perspective, and your non-existence would eliminate both that perspective and your definition.

Alternately, consider all of the people who might have existed, had history been different. For those potential people, if they would have agreed with your definition of ultimate evil (had they existed, hypothetically), the world would be evil because they never existed. Given all of the potential people who might have existed had some things been different, that's a lot of evil in the world. Personally, I don't think it's reasonable to assume that the world is ultimately evil because of non-existent people.

I would agree that all of history is necessary for you to exist exactly as you are right now. I would also agree with the idea that things as they stand now are the only way they can be; in other words, the world is what it is, and we can't change what's past. I would not agree that either of these ideas equates with 'good'-ness in any way.

But then, I don't think I can define 'good' solely in relation to myself. I tend to think of 'good' as a social construct, an idea defined within a community setting for a broader social purpose. To convince others that something is 'good', I think it has to contain a reference to more than just myself, or else there's no reason for anyone else to adopt my definition of 'good'.

crocodile deathroll

Prior to your existence there are an estimated 300 million sperm you father had ejaculated, one of which was half your genetic inheritance - the one and only 300 million to one chance of coming into existence. And that is only the start. The same rules apply to all your preceding generations. That may still be over estimating your chance of coming into existence when you consider the number of possible genetic variants.

But since you exist reading this post, and I posted it, I subscribe more now to the concept that there is a plethora of fall back alternatives in parallel universes existing to counter those overwhelming odds.

I am of the view that self is to only possible means to universe can gain any insight of the passage of time. If you never existed until 10 trilion trillion years and you come into existence that will be the only vantage point in which the universe as you observe it could be aware of its own existence.
If Hitler had been knocked off early in the piece and the Jews were not sent to the gas chambers and one of those Jews gave birth to you back in the 1950s then the Holocaust would be just as fictional in your mind as Dr Strangelove to ours. There are probably alternative universes where Dr Strangelove is a reality.
You do not exist in universes where histories were very different, as you view it now, but I found no reason why you should not switch over into one of those alternative or parallel universes if the memories you have of this life are totally obliterated .
It is just that conscious existence is necessary for the universe to gain insight of its own existence. How will it possibly know of its own big bang event if minds like Edwin Hubble, Paul Davies or Bob Kirshner has never existed?
It is as though the universe created such minds,(purely by accident of course) to generate some curiosity of itself.
IMO There is no objective principle of good and evil, that is all culturally relative. It could be just an egocentric construct to make one feel good or sell a religion. Good and Evil have more to do with sociology and politics and not science.

CDR

jafosei

I don't think it's a question of overwhelming odds. The odds of any individual person winning a lottery are very long, but the odds of someone winning are not so long at all. People win lotteries all the time.

In the same way, the odds of my parents' procreation producing me exactly as I am now may seem long, but the fact is, barring certain circumstances, somebody would have been produced by their mating eventually. Their offspring might not have been 'me', but in the greater scheme of things, I don't think that really matters.

That my parents produced the 'me' that is replying to this post is just the way things played out. Same thing for the other 6 billion people on earth. We all exist because that's the way things turned out. 'Accidents of history', if you will.

I don't have any reason to believe that the universe is intelligent. Even if it were intelligent, I don't know why an intelligent universe would require that individual people come up with theories about the universe in order for the universe to gain insight into itself.

That's more or less what I meant by social construct. Defining good and evil are matters for a large community. xorbie defined ultimate evil entirely in relation to himself, whereas I think it has to be defined in relation to a community or society.

xorbie

My point here is this: Consider two cases.

Case 1: Someone says "If you agree to die, I can eliminate all the evils of the world, all hunger, war, hatred etc." After being given sufficient proof of this, I think I would choose to do so.

Case 2: Some says the same but starting with "If you agree to have never existed..." Here I would have to decline the offer. That is basically my point.

jafosei

Personally, I would find case 2 easier to accept. I have no problem with not existing since, as I suggested earlier, if I hadn't existed, there would be nobody to worry about whether or not I should exist.

To put it another way, I didn't exist for billions of years. Then I was born. The non-existence before my birth didn't bother me; if I hadn't been born, how would I have known?

Anyway, based on your phrasing, it's a matter of what you can be comfortable with.

crocodile deathroll

Case 1 might well apply to G W Bush, because I am sure a lot of people have some sufficient proof of this, I wonder if someone could persuade him to to so? But is a shame he is not in the case 2 catagory.

Darth Dane

"...this non-existance with you(God) is better than all existance"

Rumi



It is an excerpt from a poem of his.






DD - Love & Laughter

xorbie

I suppose this all stems from what might be my utterly naive and idealistic view that in some way part of us lives on, be it through an immortal soul, some sort of consiousness, or through our ideas and the way our lives have affected ours. No matter what, we somehow have a lasting effect upon humanity. If we die, this effect is still around. If we accept not to have ever existed, it is all undone. The two scenarios are very different