(February 19, 2012 at 7:31 pm)Abracadabra Wrote:(February 19, 2012 at 7:18 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: I've seen some people here mention the concept of the "soul". The only difference I can see between the definition of the soul and the mind is that the soul carries on after death.
That being said, I know I have a mind. Its the term for me, my personality, my thoughts. Its demonstrable because without a mind I would not have an opinion. It really boils down to: "I think therefore I am".
The same cannot be said for the soul. Its very nice in a poetic sense but there is nothing to indicate anything of me will live on after I die.
That being said; isn't the existence of the mind, the essence of who we are enough to sate such longings for something transcendental? It can be damaged and destroyed but doesn't that make it more precious? Although a man may not hold onto the dream that is eternity I don't think that makes him any less capable of grasping the beauty and the eloquence behind what makes an individual an individual.
These kinds of questions are extremely interesting.
The first thought that comes to my mind when these types of questions are raised, are questions of people who have suffered severe amnesia.
If they have basically forgotten who they are. Their entire past. And can't even recognize their own family and friends. Does this mean that the "person" they used to be has "died"?
Doe this mean that the body now contains a brand "new" awareness. And brand "new" individual?
I think arguments can be made on either side of the fence.
However, my personal view is that the awareness would still be the 'same person' even though they no longer remember their past.
And these types of questions are indeed the very types of questions that are interesting to ponder in terms of Eastern Mysticism.
If, when we die, we are reincarnated into a completely new body and we have absolutely no recollection of our past life. How would this be any different from the situation of someone who has suffered extreme amnesia?
That new awareness could potentially be the same underlying being.
I think as difficult as this concept is to grasp, this may very well be how it actually works in some sense.
This is why the question of "What is it that is aware?" is such a paramount question.
If the biological brain the thing that is 'aware'?
And if so, how can that be? A biological brain is nothing other than stardust in a given configuration. What is it that would be having this experience of "awareness"?
The stardust? The configuration?
What sense does it make to say that either stardust, or "a configuration" could be aware of anything?
This is precisely the reason the Eastern Mystics chose to believe in "mysticism" (i.e. that something far more mystical is going on).
I tend to agree.
And my only position on that is that I can't "rule it out".
Neither can I "rule-in" why a mere configuration of stardust should be able to experience anything.
What is it that is having the experience?
That's the $64,000 question.
If someone has total amnesia then the mind that define their personality and sense of being is gone, replaced instead with a blank slate in place of it. Sometimes cognitive memory can remain intact allowing them to excel at what they used to excel at but it is no longer the experiences and the personality of that individual deciding how those skills are used. That individual is gone and if the long-term memories do not repair themselves then its permanent. It couldn't be literally interpreted as death but that person is no longer that person.
If I typed up some work, saved it half way through then finished it I would lose everything up until the point I last saved. I wouldn't be able to use philosophy to argue with the person who marks it. The fact is that half-finished work would not be the same as the completed and I would have to type up the second half again which would almost certainly not be like the original.
I have nothing to suggest reincarnation is true, only that people possess consciousnesses. I have nothing to suggest mysticism is true either. If you define awareness as the capacity to look at your surroundings and understand them then all living things have that ability to some degree but you meant that in an "I-Robot" sort of way didn't you? Our detailed understanding of whats around us, our willingness to learn and our long-term memory build up the experience, the knowledge base of each individual and their different view points on the world around them. These combined, it is easy to see why peoples minds are such varied, multi-faceted and complex things. That being said, its not that hard of a concept to grasp and theres simply no need to add anything supernatural to it.
As for us being "mere configurations of stardust", well we simply aren't. I mean, its possible we *were* but thats not what we are now. Thats not what our brains are now. Our brains are amazingly complex machines that after decades of research we have grasped a surface understanding of. Capable of storing cognitive, long-term and short-term memory within a seconds notice and making complex observations about our surrounds such as color, distance, texture, shape. We can visualize, fantasize, dream. Our brains are incredible, they formulate a complex system linking emotions, sensations, facts and memory in a large web where a single tremor can bring an entire section to the forefront of our thoughts.
So I ask you, is it really so surprising that through all of these astounding processes that occur every second of everyday; a consciousnous with its own views and tastes emerges?
So to conclude my point and in answer to your question: "What is having that experience?"... that is, you are.
(P.S. I would also like to point out that I'm slightly insulted by being bundled in with someone else. It is rather galling when you look at your reply and find someones decided you're going to be the afterthought to an unrelated point someone else made. I'm sure it wasn't intentional.)
