On Life

[Angrboda]

[Pushingedingeding]

 Nope

Very well.

You’re completely wrong on all counts. Life is a series of biochemical interactions, consciousness is a byproduct of those interaction. 

Boru

 So according to this view, man’s rational consciousness is only an accident which is concomitant with a certain condition of matter?

[Angrboda]

Very well.

You’re completely wrong on all counts. Life is a series of biochemical interactions, consciousness is a byproduct of those interaction. 

Boru

 So according to this view, man’s rational consciousness is only an accident which is concomitant with a certain condition of matter?

You don't read so good.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Very well.

You’re completely wrong on all counts. Life is a series of biochemical interactions, consciousness is a byproduct of those interaction. 

Boru

 So according to this view, man’s rational consciousness is only an accident which is concomitant with a certain condition of matter?

Who said it was an accident? Certainly not me.

Boru

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Very well.

You’re completely wrong on all counts. Life is a series of biochemical interactions, consciousness is a byproduct of those interaction. 

Boru

 I never thought it was so easy, thanks!

FTFY

Boru

[Pushingedingeding]

 So according to this view, man’s rational consciousness is only an accident which is concomitant with a certain condition of matter?

Who said it was an accident? Certainly not me.

Boru

 Heavenly providence? 

 Sound sleep

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Who said it was an accident? Certainly not me.

Boru

 Heavenly providence? 

 Sound sleep

False dichotomy.

Pleasant dreams.

Boru

[Belacqua]

 There are only two strictly logical views of life: one, the false view, by which life is understood as those visible phenomena which take place in my body from birth to death, and the other, the true view, by which life is understood as that invisible consciousness of life which I bear in myself. One view is false, the other true, but both are logical, and men may have the one or the other, but with neither is the dread of death possible.
 
The first, the false view, which understands life as the visible phenomena in the body from birth until death, is as old as the world. It is not, as many think, a view of life which has been worked out by the materialistic science and philosophy of our time: the science and philosophy of our time have only carried this conception to its farthest limits, where it has become more obvious than ever that this view is not compatible with the fundamental demands of human nature; this is an old, primitive view of those people who stood on a lower level of development: it is expressed by the Chinese, by the Buddhists, by the Jews, in the book of Job, and in the expression, “Dust thou art, and to dust returnest.”
 
This view, in its present expression, is as follows: life is an accidental play of forces in matter, as manifested in time and space. But that which we call our consciousness is not life: it is a certain deception of the sensations, which makes us believe that life consists in this consciousness. Consciousness is a spark which under certain conditions bursts into fire on the matter. This spark bursts into fire, flames up, goes out, and finally is no more. This spark, that is, consciousness, which is experienced by matter in the course of a definite period of time between two infinities, is nothing. And although consciousness sees itself and all the infinite world and all the play of accidents of this world, and, what is most important, in contradistinction to something not accidental, calls this game accidental, this consciousness is in itself nothing but the product of dead matter, a phantom, which rises and disappears without any residue or meaning. Everything is the product of endlessly changing matter, and what is called life is only a certain condition of dead matter.
 
Such is one view of life. This view is quite logical. According to this view, man’s rational consciousness is only an accident which is concomitant with a certain condition of matter; and so that which in our consciousness we call life is a phantom. There exists nothing but what is dead. What we call life is the play of death. With such a view of life, it is not death that ought to be terrible, but life, as something unnatural and irrational, as is the case with the Buddhists and the modern pessimists, Schopenhauer and Hartmann.
 
The other view of life is as follows: life is only what I am conscious of in myself. Now, I do not cognize my life as that I was or shall be (thus I reflect on life), but as that I am, — never beginning anywhere and never ending anywhere. With the consciousness of my life the concept of time and space is not compatible. My life is manifested in time and space, but that is only its manifestation. Life itself, as cognized by me, is cognized by me outside time and space. Thus, with this view it turns out, on the contrary, that it is not the consciousness of life which is a phantom, but that everything spatial and temporal is phantasmal. Consequently, the temporal and spatial cessation of bodily existence has with this view nothing that is real, and so cannot cut off, nor even impair, my true life. 

Wow! There's a lot here. 

You've brought up a dozen things that could lead to some good serious conversation. Let me start with one, which jumps out at me:

You say: "life is only what I am conscious of in myself." 

No doubt you see how others would question this. Our bodies are always busy doing things that we're not conscious of, after all. Your liver, right now, is engaged in all kinds of activities which are necessary for your life. Are you somehow excluding all the unconscious activities of your living body from the category "life"? That seems strange to me. 

Then there is the whole question of the unconscious or subconscious mind. There appears to be a lot going on there, in most people, and it influences us in various ways. 

So that's something I think you'd want to deal with as you work out your theories here. 

Secondly, you say: "I do not cognize my life as that I was or shall be (thus I reflect on life), but as that I am, — never beginning anywhere and never ending anywhere. With the consciousness of my life the concept of time and space is not compatible."

That raises another big question. Is it possible for your cognizance to be in error? We all know there are optical illusions in which things appear differently from what they are. Is it possible for a mind to be mistaken in somewhat the same way? Maybe the impression you have of not beginning or ending anywhere is a kind of blind spot, and in fact we do have beginnings and endings. 

I mean, just because you cognize your life to exist without relation to space and time doesn't mean that it really is that way. 

I'm not fighting you here! If you're confident of the ideas you're expressing I'm sure you've addressed these things before.

[Nay_Sayer]

^Lemme guess - first year philosophy student?

Boru

Nope.  A smelly sock

[Ferrocyanide]

the true view, by which life is understood as that invisible consciousness of life which I bear in myself. One view is false, the other true, but both are logical, and men may have the one or the other, but with neither is the dread of death possible.

People who make this claim, they tend to believe that consciousness exists without a brain.
But what is the evidence that supports this?
If it is true that you can have consciousness without a brain, then why do we have a brain? What are these ~70 billion neurons for?
What do you need atoms for?
Is everything conscious and with the same level of consciousness: the trees, the rocks, an electron?

This view, in its present expression, is as follows: life is an accidental play of forces in matter, as manifested in time and space.

Yes, this is the universe we live in. There is space, there is time, there is energy and there is matter. These things have their own intrinsic properties and they interact with each other in certain ways.

That is something that is observable. It is a chaotic system.

Consciousness is a spark which under certain conditions bursts into fire on the matter. This spark bursts into fire, flames up, goes out, and finally is no more. This spark, that is, consciousness, which is experienced by matter in the course of a definite period of time between two infinities, is nothing. And although consciousness sees itself and all the infinite world and all the play of accidents of this world, and, what is most important, in contradistinction to something not accidental, calls this game accidental, this consciousness is in itself nothing but the product of dead matter, a phantom, which rises and disappears without any residue or meaning. Everything is the product of endlessly changing matter, and what is called life is only a certain condition of dead matter.

I don’t know what all the above is about. You seem to be saying that consciousness is the product of our brain. Once the brain is sufficiently damaged, the consciousness is gone. I agree with that.
I liken it to software, such as Win XP. You need hardware to run an OS such as Win XP. Once the hardware is sufficiently damaged, Win XP can malfunction, some services might crash.
It might be quite easy to bring down Win XP.
For the brain, it can be damaged and since it is a dynamic system, it can self-repair, create new circuits and keep going. I can’t say much about it, since the brain is a mystery to me.

Anyway, you can’t have Win XP without a supporting hardware, without atoms.
You can’t have a painting without atoms.
You can’t have music without a cassette, without atoms.
There is always a need to have a representation of these non physical things: consciousness, Win XP, any software, painting, stories, music, books, movies, languages, letters, numbers.
These things don’t exist on their own. They always need a supporting structure, some representation made of atoms.

The other view of life is as follows: life is only what I am conscious of in myself. Now, I do not cognize my life as that I was or shall be (thus I reflect on life), but as that I am, — never beginning anywhere and never ending anywhere. With the consciousness of my life the concept of time and space is not compatible. My life is manifested in time and space, but that is only its manifestation. Life itself, as cognized by me, is cognized by me outside time and space. Thus, with this view it turns out, on the contrary, that it is not the consciousness of life which is a phantom, but that everything spatial and temporal is phantasmal. Consequently, the temporal and spatial cessation of bodily existence has with this view nothing that is real, and so cannot cut off, nor even impair, my true life.

You seem to believe that your consciousness exists forever. You would need to define for me what exactly conscious means for you.
You seem to say that life is something else: when you are born into this world, you have a life.

Death:
For me, death means the machine breaks down. It is over unless if someone can repair the brain.
You seem to also accept that. Except, you seem to say that consciousness continues to exist. Again, you would need explain what conscious means for you.
For me, if you lose your memories, your ways of thinking, then it is over for you.

Consequently, the temporal and spatial cessation of bodily existence has with this view nothing that is real, and so cannot cut off, nor even impair, my true life..

It is part of human desire and by extension, all animals, to avoid pain, avoid hunger, avoid unpleasant things in life and survive.
We are all survival machines. That’s where our emotions lead us to.

Anyways, looks like your account is disabled. Maybe someone else can pick up your ideas and explain things.