Are we the same or different?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

"I'm not"

Oh I'd say you most definitely are.

[KichigaiNeko]

We as individuals are the sum total of our experiences.

Since every person has different experiences(even twins and triplets)

Yes Virginia, we are all "individual distinct "snowflakes""

Snowflake?? Moi?? How sweet!!

Yes I am very different to any identity you are likely to encounter...

And I am just like every other walking compost heap.

[tackattack]

I get that 2 objects existing in seperate places in our universal laws of space time are different. But if "identity" or "consciousness" is personal and subjective and non-material or insubstntial, could someone exist with exactly the same identity or consciousness elsehwere if we could exclude space-time from identity?

[Edwardo Piet]

Hmm...why would we exclude space-time from identity?

Identity may be subjective... but why would you think that subjectivity is non-material? I think that consciousness is in the mind and the mind is the material brain and in all probability consciousness itself is material... I think I'd need a reason to believe it was for some odd reason the only known thing that is non-material (or perhaps more specifically, isn't non-physical).

To separate our identity from space time is surely to separate it from the universe ? I would think?

And isn't that basically a way of saying that our identities don't exist? Or perhaps - that they are illusions?

But then if they are illusions, then they still exist as illusions. Presumably in the brain I would think.

EvF

[tackattack]

Excluding identity from space-time was just a mental excercise to help me better understand a concept.

I feel consciousness is a constuct of ideals and values, is subjective and as a concept is immaterial. It may be created by the material brain, but the brain is just the machine that produces them. It obviously exists and is a universal concept, thus we can call it real, but I still wouldn't call it tangible. Could you? My point is trying to define , consciousness, holy spirit and concepts like God and irrational numbers. Christians view the holy spirit as something everyone has access to if it's accepted, therefore a universal existance of intangible concept, thus real. God is external from the self and thusly unprovable, but through the holy spirit can be "known" and better defined and seem more real and less intangible. Opinions?

[theVOID]

Excluding identity from space-time was just a mental excercise to help me better understand a concept.

I feel consciousness is a constuct of ideals and values

That would posit that ideals and values are possible without consciousness, which i totally disagree with.

is subjective and as a concept is immaterial

Yes in it's self it is immaterial, but it also has a basis in the physical circuitry of the brain, much the same way an operating system is immaterial yet entirely dependent on physical circuitry.

It may be created by the material brain, but the brain is just the machine that produces them.
It obviously exists and is a universal concept, thus we can call it real, but I still wouldn't call it tangible.

This to me seems to demean the role of the brain in consciousness, it not only creates it but it sustains it and is absolutely essential for it's survival.

My point is trying to define , consciousness, holy spirit and concepts like God and irrational numbers. Christians view the holy spirit as something everyone has access to if it's accepted, therefore a universal existance of intangible concept, thus real.

Insisting that this spirit is real and that everyone has access to it does not make it so, can you demonstrate the spirit in any way? Without definition and demonstration you have achieved nothing.

Also note that the idea or concept of something can exist regardless of whether or not the thing that it points to exists or not, so you can easily say that the concept of the spirit exists, but you cannot demonstrate the spirit to which the concept points.

God is external from the self and thusly unprovable, but through the holy spirit can be "known" and better defined and seem more real and less intangible. Opinions?

So it seems real to you... So what? The earth seemed flat once, didn't make it so.

[ib.me.ub]

I believe we are all the same. I believe all life (actually everything is the same, for it is). However, along the lines of people, we are the same but different, depending on which dimension of thought you are considering.

E.g -

On a World scale we are all of the human species. We all function the same at a sub-conscious level. Thoughts/functions such as instinct, life (wanting to live), survival, sex, reproduction, happiness, etc, etc, we all share.

On an individual level, we are all different, as in we all make our own decisions as what to do/think to a certain degree.

In the end however you will find that all people adhere to their shared sub-conscious instincts.

On a much larger scale (I will say Universal), everthing is made of the same thing, hence all the same. Everybody (well those who think) already know this, but they prefer to think on an individual level much of the time.

Its easier that way.

God is external from the self and thusly unprovable, but through the holy spirit can be "known" and better defined and seem more real and less intangible. Opinions?

What if what you think is the holy spirit is something else?

[tackattack]

---

Excluding identity from space-time was just a mental excercise to help me better understand a concept.

I feel consciousness is a constuct of ideals and values

That would posit that ideals and values are possible without consciousness, which i totally disagree with.

is subjective and as a concept is immaterial

Yes in it's self it is immaterial, but it also has a basis in the physical circuitry of the brain, much the same way an operating system is immaterial yet entirely dependent on physical circuitry.

It may be created by the material brain, but the brain is just the machine that produces them.
It obviously exists and is a universal concept, thus we can call it real, but I still wouldn't call it tangible.

This to me seems to demean the role of the brain in consciousness, it not only creates it but it sustains it and is absolutely essential for it's survival.

My point is trying to define , consciousness, holy spirit and concepts like God and irrational numbers. Christians view the holy spirit as something everyone has access to if it's accepted, therefore a universal existance of intangible concept, thus real.

Insisting that this spirit is real and that everyone has access to it does not make it so, can you demonstrate the spirit in any way? Without definition and demonstration you have achieved nothing.

Also note that the idea or concept of something can exist regardless of whether or not the thing that it points to exists or not, so you can easily say that the concept of the spirit exists, but you cannot demonstrate the spirit to which the concept points.

God is external from the self and thusly unprovable, but through the holy spirit can be "known" and better defined and seem more real and less intangible. Opinions?

So it seems real to you... So what? The earth seemed flat once, didn't make it so.

---

1. It was just some "mental judo" as someone else here said. Clearly by the second sentence I also agree consciousness can not be seperate from spacetime or ideals and morals. Ideals would be some of the parts that sum up to consciousness

2. No demeaning of the brain intended and I like the computer analogy. I think this is a presupposition difference between theists and atheists. You place so much importantance on the brain which produces consciousness because you see consciouness as only residing in the brain, and one it's gone poof. As a theist I presuppose the opposite. Our brain interprets and molds our consciouness through free will, independant thought and instinct. While the brain dies our consciouness continues.

3. I think the holy spirit is demonstratable. Guilt, vindication, tounges, well-spiring of unintended emotion all seperate from our consciousness and happening when not intended are aspects of the spirit. Objectively I don't know of any studies into the chemistry, thermal imaging or pki of the spirit.

4. I agree that even proving the insubstantial spirit still doesn't prove God, but would add to the belief.

5. So what? if the Spirit seemed real to you we wouldn't be having this conversations. As far as the flat earth.. that's goot to be a fallacy of comparison of some type.

---

I believe we are all the same. I believe all life (actually everything is the same, for it is). However, along the lines of people, we are the same but different, depending on which dimension of thought you are considering.

E.g -

On a World scale we are all of the human species. We all function the same at a sub-conscious level. Thoughts/functions such as instinct, life (wanting to live), survival, sex, reproduction, happiness, etc, etc, we all share.

On an individual level, we are all different, as in we all make our own decisions as what to do/think to a certain degree.

In the end however you will find that all people adhere to their shared sub-conscious instincts.

On a much larger scale (I will say Universal), everthing is made of the same thing, hence all the same. Everybody (well those who think) already know this, but they prefer to think on an individual level much ogf the time.

Its easier that way.

God is external from the self and thusly unprovable, but through the holy spirit can be "known" and better defined and seem more real and less intangible. Opinions?

What if what you think is the holy spirit is something else?

---

1. We agree then that the scientific approach is best on an individual level as is best observable. When your subject matter is more subjective than objective though perspective is an important factor in analysis. If I limited my religious views to myself, I'd deffinately be a lot more fanatical, which is detrimental in almost every sense.

2. Something else as in subconsious thought or human nature? If you're willing to cite examples we'll discuss when there's time. I would say if you could convince me that the holy spirit isn't what I believe it is, then I would be more than willing to re-evaluate my entire faith and belief system.

[ib.me.ub]

I like your attitude. Firstly, can I ask you why you believe in the holy spirit. What has caused you to belive this?

I am not try to deny you of your belief, but I am asking this as a basis to discussion.

[tackattack]

I'm going to haveto post on this when I have more time..(arnold)I'll be back