(May 17, 2016 at 3:44 pm)quip Wrote: Can anyone answer why you're you.....and not me?

(May 17, 2016 at 3:44 pm)quip Wrote: Why here, why now...why not exist a thousand years from now or a thousand years past?

(May 17, 2016 at 3:44 pm)quip Wrote: what determined both our particular experiences and could one have been shunt in place of another (by what alternate means could I have experienced existence through your perspective or vice versa)?

(May 17, 2016 at 3:44 pm)quip Wrote: Why here, why now...why not exist a thousand years from now or a thousand years past?

Asking why presupposes meaning. There is no meaning. There is no why. It just is.

(May 17, 2016 at 3:44 pm)quip Wrote: By what method of determination do I experience existence separate from your experience;

What does this question mean?

(May 17, 2016 at 3:44 pm)quip Wrote: Can this ever be coherently approached or determined materialistically/scientifically? Or, is metaphysics a fundamental necessity?

Metaphysics by definition does not exist. For your questions to be scientifically explored they first need to be falsifiable. They are currently not.

The idea of self is very confusing for me.

Abstractly, "I" am the emergent properties of my brain. I am the experiences my brain has. My brain and the rest of my body is a tool/shell of sorts.

I can't do any better than that at the moment, and talking on this forum helped me arrive at this much.

(May 17, 2016 at 3:44 pm)quip Wrote: Can anyone answer why you're you.....and not me?

By what method of determination do I experience existence separate from your experience; more to the point, what determined both our particular experiences and could one have been shunt in place of another (by what alternate means could I have experienced existence through your perspective or vice versa)?

Why here, why now...why not exist a thousand years from now or a thousand years past?

Can this ever be coherently approached or determined materialistically/scientifically? Or, is metaphysics a fundamental necessity?

Our limits are defined by our crania, and our cerebral cortices processing sensory information. Metaphysics need not apply.

We can each get a simulacrum of the others' experiences via language, photography, filmwork, or music ... or even empathy, if we're in tune with the folks we love.

As for "why here, why now"? I'm not sure there is a reason, nor am I sure there's a need for one.

I'm me because my experiences are locked inside my cranium, only able to escape using language, art, and literature. Because those are imperfect means of transmission, you can get an idea of what I experience, but you cannot experience it yourself, because abstract, symbolic languages cannot convey the richly-detailed nuances of reality.

(May 18, 2016 at 3:54 am)quip Wrote:

Quote:Anyway. You can't just say "a deity must come up at some point" without any evidence. I strongly dislike that because we've heard it several times and none who claim such things have succeeded in convincing me or anyone else here in AF as to why a deity must be and none of them got evidence. You must understand that our lack of knowledge is not evidence for a deity. If I'm wrong, tell me why. Even if we can never answer this question it still isn't evidence for a deity because we are simply humans and our knowledge is limited.

 

I'm specifically and explicitly not positing any form of deity. I'm simply offering up food for thought...a "reasonable doubt" to the atheist perspective, if you will.

Quote:What I think is happening here is, since you're human, your brain tries to find patterns and make sense of random data. the random data being something along individuals and consciousness. There's even a word for that, Apophenia.

What patterns have I meted out? I'm simply referring to the self...clearly a self-evident proposition. (for lack of an alternate term.)

Quote:And yes I've had the thought about why I am me and not him/her the longer I thought about it the less sense it made. It was like one of those moments where you repeat a word several times and it loses its meaning :p

Yes, I understand.

Aye, ok. My english is not very good when it comes to some finer, more advanced or "sophisticated" words or whatever one calls them, so excuse me if I wrongly interpret what you're saying. Anyway, at least to me, this is still not a reasonable doubt. Anything that would make me doubt my lack of belief in a deity would be evidence.

The pattern that I assumed you were trying to find was somewhere between: Why I am the conscious observer of specifically this body and not someone elses body, and I assumed that the answer you found for that "pattern" was a deity, and I was wrong.

(May 18, 2016 at 3:57 am)Mathilda Wrote: Asking why presupposes meaning. There is no meaning. There is no why. It just is.

Asking why is also a helpful technique in examining "how" in perhaps efforts to change or understand what "just is".

Quote:

(May 17, 2016 at 3:44 pm)quip Wrote: By what method of determination do I experience existence separate from your experience;

What does this question mean?

What determines the experience of "me" in distinction to the experience of "you". Clear as mud?

Quote:

(May 17, 2016 at 3:44 pm)quip Wrote: Can this ever be coherently approached or determined materialistically/scientifically? Or, is metaphysics a fundamental necessity?

Metaphysics by definition does not exist. For your questions to be scientifically explored they first need to be falsifiable. They are currently not.

Hence, the inquiry for a more mundane explanation.

Remember that just because you can ask "why" doesn't mean there is a coherent answer.

(May 18, 2016 at 4:13 am)robvalue Wrote: Remember that just because you can ask "why" doesn't mean there is a coherent answer.

"Why" was/is the philosophical catalyst for all advancement. You can simply wave it away because it fails to conform to your world-view.

(May 18, 2016 at 4:21 am)quip Wrote:

(May 18, 2016 at 4:13 am)robvalue Wrote: Remember that just because you can ask "why" doesn't mean there is a coherent answer.

"Why" was/is the philosophical catalyst for all advancement. You can simply wave it away because it fails to conform to your world-view.

And do all the whys' in philosophy have a coherent answer?

(May 18, 2016 at 4:25 am)RozKek Wrote:

(May 18, 2016 at 4:21 am)quip Wrote: "Why" was/is the philosophical catalyst for all advancement. You can simply wave it away because it fails to conform to your world-view.

And do all the whys' in philosophy have a coherent answer?

Of course not...but one must first inquire to reach that point.

(May 18, 2016 at 4:26 am)quip Wrote:

(May 18, 2016 at 4:25 am)RozKek Wrote: And do all the whys' in philosophy have a coherent answer?

Of course not...but one must first inquire to reach that point.

Point is this question you're asking can be without a coherent answer. But you're right, we do not know yet, just wanted to point out it can be without a coherent answer.