Philosophy of Science

[shelltree (Shelley)]

Originally Posted by bojan

Hmmm..
Now this is a provocative question from me, but I simply can't resist:
What exactly is reborn?
Our memories (which actually determine at least the part of what we are - that elusive "ME") are gone after death.. because they are recorded somehow in our brains (synapses, or on molecular level.. we still don't know the details, it is certainly not a flash drive , but consequences of loosing memory are the same in both cases). And when our brains decay or after it is eaten by worms... it's gone.
So how do we know we are reborn, when the memory of previous life is gone?
Or, even if we are indeed reborn.. does it really matter ?.. if we can't access those past memories in future life? How can anyone prove the "new" person/entity is actually the "old" one ??

Perhaps it is not so much to do with memories and more to do with a rebirth of a similar internal structure. The same or similar DNA and use of the brain and similar capacity for thought. If an entity that was similarly created to one before it, perhaps this would have influence on its eventual thought processes and feelings, which parts of the brain are most active and therefore shape the new form.

Could it not be possible that if rebirth occurs that (if they were reborn human or a similar "intellectual" being) their thoughts and feelings, opinions and beliefs could be similar to the life before it? So if by chance two people met in the Universe, the new form and a human from the form's previous existence, would they recognise the familiar characteristics of this new being?

Completely philosophical and contemplative I know and only what my thought process eventually came up with but I just thought I would share a different possibility to this discussion.

Thanks

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by shelltree

Perhaps it is not so much to do with memories and more to do with a rebirth of a similar internal structure. The same or similar DNA and use of the brain and similar capacity for thought. If an entity that was similarly created to one before it, perhaps this would have influence on its eventual thought processes and feelings, which parts of the brain are most active and therefore shape the new form.

Could it not be possible that if rebirth occurs that (if they were reborn human or a similar "intellectual" being) their thoughts and feelings, opinions and beliefs could be similar to the life before it? So if by chance two people met in the Universe, the new form and a human from the form's previous existence, would they recognise the familiar characteristics of this new being?

Completely philosophical and contemplative I know and only what my thought process eventually came up with but I just thought I would share a different possibility to this discussion.

Thanks

Hmm … you mean like parents imprinting their own values, beliefs and philosophies upon their offspring ?

Yep … its real … it happens … and it can be really annoying for the offspring!

As Bert would say, (apologies here Bert .. couldn't resist it … just having some fun), its all about the survival of those selfish 'genes, (and the thinking which emerges from them), … survival of the fittest ones ! The ones best suited to adapt to the battle for survival in present-day environments, will be the ultimate winners !

The offspring go on to be influenced by the environmental conditions of their generation .. and ultimately, selectively ignore some of the values of the previous generation ... because the environment has changed.
Different thinking is required to survive (again) !


So, Bojan: Why is it so important for the software to be an exact duplicate and for the information to be preserved precisely ?

(Be careful to not let that Guinness take out too much of it, either. )

Cheers

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

About something carrying over from previous lives. How can we explain child prodigies who can play instruments or do mathimatics or whatever at 4 or 5 years of age to a skill level it would normally take decades to achieve. Where did it come from.

[bojan]

Originally Posted by CraigS

So, Bojan: Why is it so important for the software to be an exact duplicate and for the information to be preserved precisely ?

(Be careful to not let that Guinness take out too much of it, either. )

Cheers

Well, I am trying to define what "ME" ("myself", my person etcetera) exactly is (since I am atheist/agnostic, I don't want to use the term "soul" here.. I don't know what that is anyway).

So, the only acceptable way for me to be "me" again in some other place and time is to make exact copy of all my memories and other critical components of "me".. and even then the outcome may not be guaranteed, of course.

In my life I had couple of surgeries when I was knocked out by anaesthesia..
The experience was perfectly expected, logical and consistent with what I said before - one instant I was still on the table waiting for consciousness to go away, the next one I am in intensive care room. There was no sense of discontinuity - but objectively there was a time gap, of course.
In all those cases, the software and information was preserved 100% (well, minus those parts of hardware that were removed during the surgeries.. but they were not needed/wanted anyway)

And, of course, very similar thing may happen after too many Guinnesses (not that it ever happened to me)

EDIT:
It seems this is very much OT already .. so I'd better stop with my personal musings and concentrate on work... or the original topic of this thread

[CraigS]

Bojan;
I disagree that your musings are off topic ! They are right on the mark for a Philosophy thread, (as far as I'm concerned).

To the best of my knowledge, they still don't know why anaesthesia has the effect you describe. And the reason is: that no-one has really worked out what consciousness (or sentience) is. Anaesthesia reverses whatever it is.

Originally Posted by bojan

So, the only acceptable way for me to be "me" again in some other place and time is to make exact copy of all my memories and other critical components of "me".. and even then the outcome may not be guaranteed, of course.

"Acceptable" would suggest you have your own criteria.
What if you already exist somewhere else, but you just don't know it, (nor ever will) ?
.. or, what if you are the copy, and the original thinks the same about you ?

Parallel Universe Hypotheses, cater for these kinds of thoughts, and there's heaps of physical bases underpinning these ideas. Its not as impossible as your beliefs might lead you to think.

… or, (as I suspect you are prone to believe), what if there is no other Bojan ?

My point is that trying to force a conclusion to an 'open-ender' in science, limits one's thinking and invariably prematurely closes off other options which might be real. (Eg: my favourite .. exo-life … trying to force a 'yes' or 'no' is unproductive and can lead away from reality).

It also assumes that the individual already knows all of mankind's accumulated knowledge, thus far in our existence !

And shuts off all there is which we know that we don't know …
… and all there is that we don't know that we don't know !
.. which is the majority of all knowledge, (& information), there is in the Universe !

…Way too limiting from my perspective.


Cheers

[joe_smith]

Originally Posted by supernova1965

About something carrying over from previous lives. How can we explain child prodigies who can play instruments or do mathimatics or whatever at 4 or 5 years of age to a skill level it would normally take decades to achieve. Where did it come from.

I have often wondered about this myself. I think there is more to human consciousness than science would like to go into because it may lead to a path they despise. One documentary the BBC did called the "The Day I died" had a very interesting case about a lady called Pam Reynolds that might show our consciousness my survive after death. Its the best case they have so far for a NDE.

Philosophy has been big part of human evolution though the ages look at what the ancients did in Puma Punku they did all this without science they didn't have the wheel, mathematics or cad computer programs. Someone must of had a philosophical moment to pull it off. Where did this knowledge or idea come from it had to come from somewhere in their consciousness. science is science and is black or white, but human consciousness is an endless grey area. We are all made of the same stuff as the universe. Including stuff we haven't found yet, stuff we still don't understand and it goes all the way down to the quantum level, and is the quantum level really the lowest level??

When you take a step back and look at human consciousness, forget about what we are behind the labels we like to give ourselves, you have to admit it doesn't really fit in with the big-bang to conscious man evolutionary approach. there is more to evolution of human consciousness than science can see with the five senses we have. maybe we are evolving a so called "sixth scene" and the only way we can explain it at our level is with "religious views and ideas" it might not be the right meaning but its a phenomena that's not going any were soon because people feel it in their consciousness so its a real phenomena like love and hate ect.

I would love to have an open discussion with people interested in the "meaning of life" A lot of people are into astronomy because they want to know where they fit in the universe what is our role here and why?. If anyone would like to continue more on this topic PM me and we can share ideas. Its a shame it cant be an open discussion for everyone to see and learn new ideas and has to be done behind closed walls. but hey that's the ego in consciousness for you some people haven't evolved to that level yet or cant see or don't want to see. Mother nature has forced us evolve with a consciousness mind all we need to know now is why???? because so far all it dose is generate conflict with our conscious ideas and views and not in harmony like the rest of nature so far found.

[bojan]

Originally Posted by CraigS

To the best of my knowledge, they still don't know why anaesthesia has the effect you describe. And the reason is: that no-one has really worked out what consciousness (or sentience) is. Anaesthesia reverses whatever it is.

You don' have to know what consciousness is to know why anaesthesia has its effects. The way I see it is simple: it blocks the acquisition of data from outside world (by stopping the CPU clock (or whatever this is in brains) and there is no more memory storage during that time.
Obviously, what the computer might "perceive" (after restarting the clock) is instant change of environment, but the sense of time passage will not be there (because for it, there was no passage of time - because nothing was recorded during the time clock was inactive.

I know, I am stressing the analogy with computers ad nauseaum.. But computers are the simple but common enough information systems we use in everyday life, and I think it is a good analogy for start.

Originally Posted by CraigS

"Acceptable" would suggest you have your own criteria.
What if you already exist somewhere else, but you just don't know it, (nor ever will) ?
.. or, what if you are the copy, and the original thinks the same about you ?

Well, I have to start with something... but I am not saying the criteria is not going to be changed...
About copies of "me"..
If a copy can exist without me being aware of it, that means it is not "ME", this is someone else then..
And this is definitely true because the experience of that copy from the moment of its "creation" is different from mine.. and it may even not be aware of "me" (In theory I may be watching while it was created from the other room through the one-way mirror). It IS different person (or, different information system - because the content of memory is already different).

Originally Posted by CraigS

My point is that trying to force a conclusion to an 'open-ender' in science, limits one's thinking and invariably prematurely closes off other options which might be real. (Eg: my favourite .. exo-life … trying to force a 'yes' or 'no' is unproductive and can lead away from reality).

On the contrary, in this discussion I actually I tried to use the method "Reductio ad absurdum".
In other words, I am trying to see if I will hit the contradiction at the end, which will/may point into other direction.
So, actually, my mind is open (I think)

Or perhaps I just have read too many SF novels

[joe_smith]

Originally Posted by bojan

Or perhaps I just have read too many SF novels

Isn't that the driving force of science

[bojan]

Originally Posted by joe_smith

Isn't that the driving force of science

Yes, sometimes it certainly is

[shelltree (Shelley)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Hmm … you mean like parents imprinting their own values, beliefs and philosophies upon their offspring ?

Yep … its real … it happens … and it can be really annoying for the offspring!

As Bert would say, (apologies here Bert .. couldn't resist it … just having some fun), its all about the survival of those selfish 'genes, (and the thinking which emerges from them), … survival of the fittest ones ! The ones best suited to adapt to the battle for survival in present-day environments, will be the ultimate winners !

The offspring go on to be influenced by the environmental conditions of their generation .. and ultimately, selectively ignore some of the values of the previous generation ... because the environment has changed.
Different thinking is required to survive (again) !


So, Bojan: Why is it so important for the software to be an exact duplicate and for the information to be preserved precisely ?

(Be careful to not let that Guinness take out too much of it, either. )

Cheers

Not necessarily Craig though I'm certain our experiences have been shaped by our parents from an early age and therefore the function of the mind swayed by what they believe but there comes a point where we become an independent being. The DNA carried down through birth would of course have an influence on a person but that is more genetic and physical and perhaps not so much to do with the mind philosophically.

What I meant by my statement is that if a person were to somehow lose all memory of themselves and everything else that had happened in their lives, characteristics still remain that make them who they are, no matter if they don't know themselves. "Gut feeling" for instance or certain integral morals and emotions that shape a person, all come from the brain and the way in which it is used. Is the person more likely to think with the left hemisphere of the brain or right. Are these differences programmed at birth or are they shaped by experience?

If they are shaped by experience then I suppose rebirth would indeed be like starting again from scratch, with no physical stimuli to shape who "they" become but if it is shaped by the formation of the brain in the womb, then it seems a possibility that if a person were reborn with similar or the same physical characteristics (perhaps with exterior changes) then their brain would produce the same reactions to emotion, thought and processes.

I hope this makes some form of sense and that I'm not rambling for nothing. I am enjoying this discussion thoroughly. It is great to talk with such intelligent people about such thought provoking things.

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

I know that if people were shaped by their upbring I would be a completely different person now than what I am. My parents were strictly right in their politics and didn't have time for gays or people of different colour. So if I don't follow my parents beliefs WHY NOT

[bojan]

Originally Posted by supernova1965

I know that if people were shaped by their upbring I would be a completely different person now than what I am. My parents were strictly right in their politics and didn't have time for gays or people of different colour. So if I don't follow my parents beliefs WHY NOT

Because you are different .

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by bojan

You don't have to know what consciousness is to know why anaesthesia has its effects. The way I see it is simple: it blocks the acquisition of data from outside world (by stopping the CPU clock (or whatever this is in brains) and there is no more memory storage during that time.

Bojan .. I am not at all convinced of your assertion here.
For example, you just defined what consciousness is (for you) in order to explain why anaesthesia works ! Ie you define consciousness to be:

Originally Posted by bojan

the acquisition of data from outside world

.. in order for your explanation to make sense, as to ‘why’ it works.

There are many different definitions of consciousness applicable to many different fields of study, and the same applies when discussing the specific subject of anaesthesia.

For example: protein targets for anaesthetics have been partly identified.
This requires a molecular/sub molecular definition of what causes consciousness at this level, ie: presumably, “the protein targets”, in order for the explanation of ‘why’ it has an effect, to make sense.

Further, its interesting that the exact nature of general anaesthetic-protein interactions still remains a mystery. I maintain that its not until they understand the interactions, that consciousness will achieve some clarity of definition in the study of anaesthesia.

I think the ‘why’ questions in science, require a much deeper understanding of the ‘what’.

Another example: if there were such a thing as anti-gravity, then I think you’d have to explain exactly the gravity mechanism, before you could explain why the anti-gravity mechanism effects gravity in the way it does.

You’ve got me thinking very deeply about this and I’m going to have to do a lot more, before I’m convinced. (I'm open to more inputs .. but for the sake of not dragging the thread down, I'll do this quietly on my own … fascinating !).

Cheers

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by shelltree

Not necessarily Craig though I'm certain our experiences have been shaped by our parents from an early age and therefore the function of the mind swayed by what they believe but there comes a point where we become an independent being. The DNA carried down through birth would of course have an influence on a person but that is more genetic and physical and perhaps not so much to do with the mind philosophically.

But the mind is also a function of physiology, and DNA as well as a bunch of complex processes, built your brain.
It is scientific fact that DNA can be altered by the environment.
There is an inescapable duality about physiology and environmental changes.
Where it starts and finishes … is the mystery ..

Originally Posted by shelltree

What I meant by my statement is that if a person were to somehow lose all memory of themselves and everything else that had happened in their lives, characteristics still remain that make them who they are, no matter if they don't know themselves. "Gut feeling" for instance or certain integral morals and emotions that shape a person, all come from the brain and the way in which it is used. Is the person more likely to think with the left hemisphere of the brain or right. Are these differences programmed at birth or are they shaped by experience?

Both - depends on which aspect.

Originally Posted by shelltree

If they are shaped by experience then I suppose rebirth would indeed be like starting again from scratch, with no physical stimuli to shape who "they" become but if it is shaped by the formation of the brain in the womb, then it seems a possibility that if a person were reborn with similar or the same physical characteristics (perhaps with exterior changes) then their brain would produce the same reactions to emotion, thought and processes.

We all produce the same primal reactions to emotions. That part is instinctive. How we display them, is an entirely different matter as this is more a function of behaviour .. and behaviours are easily modified, hence the variations you observe.
We a re called 'Human Beings' … and that might mean that we can 'Be' anything we want !

Originally Posted by shelltree

I hope this makes some form of sense and that I'm not rambling for nothing. I am enjoying this discussion thoroughly. It is great to talk with such intelligent people about such thought provoking things.

You're welcome. Gee, I hope I'm not included in the intelligent category … we need some more instinctiveness around here.
Good to see you at the Science Forum !

Cheers

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by supernova1965

I know that if people were shaped by their upbring I would be a completely different person now than what I am. My parents were strictly right in their politics and didn't have time for gays or people of different colour. So if I don't follow my parents beliefs WHY NOT

I used to think this too Warren.

But the more honest I got with myself, the more of my parents I could see in me.
The more I denied it … the more like them I became.

(Hilarious .. isn't it ?)

Cheers

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

I used to think this too Warren.

But the more honest I got with myself, the more of my parents I could see in me.
The more I denied it … the more like them I became.

(Hilarious .. isn't it ?)

Cheers

The only thing I got from my parents is my taste in music ABBA and I look like my mum in a masculine way of course It is harder to say with my mum as she died when I was 13 but I remember enough to know that we had very different views on things. And I have checked my honesty on this and it holds true.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by supernova1965

The only thing I got from my parents is my taste in music ABBA and I look like my mum in a masculine way of course It is harder to say with my mum as she died when I was 13 but I remember enough to know that we had very different views on things. And I have checked my honesty on this and it holds true.

Perhaps the characteristic you acquired from your Mum was your ability to have very different views on things …

Cheers

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Perhaps the characteristic you acquired from your Mum was your ability to have very different views on things …

Cheers

Could be

[snas (Stuart)]

We all produce the same primal reactions to emotions. That part is instinctive. How we display them, is an entirely different matter as this is more a function of behaviour .. and behaviours are easily modified, hence the variations you observe.
We a re called 'Human Beings' … and that might mean that we can 'Be' anything we want ! from Craig

I guess having started this thread I should add something to it.

Craig, what you have said above is quite an interesting subject. "We all produce the same primal reactions to emotions." This is true at the very base of the response, but then there is variation in intensity of response (how much hormone is released to stimulate a response such as the "fright, flight" response). The degree of variation in this response is somewhat genetically pre-programmed into us. For example, in my case that initial release of hormones that lead to fright/flight is strong. I suspect that this may be a contributing factor to my very fast reflexes. Of course, I may be wrong in that too. Correlation does not necessarily mean causation; something we have a great deal of trouble getting medical quacks like homeopaths to understand.

But additionally there is emotional learning which is a function of the amygdala, a very primitive part of the brain. In this context primitive means that this would have been one of the first parts of the brain to evolve, which makes sense because this is a necessary survival response. Emotional learning occurs when an event happens (lion chases primitive man across savannah) and the amygdala begins to store this kind of event as a memory. As repeated events happen, the memory becomes stronger until eventually fear may be produced simply by thinking about lions.

The really curious thing to me is instinct. How does a dog who has never seen a snake seem to instinctively know that snakes are dangerous and either to be avoided or attacked and killed? How can information like this be inherited?

Warren, this from Wikipedia may interest you, although I suspect you probably already know that this sort of thing occurs:
Buddhist monks who do compassion meditation have been shown to modulate their amygdala, along with their temporoparietal junction and insula, during their practice.

Stuart

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

Originally Posted by snas

Warren, this from Wikipedia may interest you, although I suspect you probably already know that this sort of thing occurs:
Buddhist monks who do compassion meditation have been shown to modulate their amygdala, along with their temporoparietal junction and insula, during their practice.

Stuart

Hi Stuart,

I have had a very small hint of this while Meditating though in no way to the level of the monks mentioned and I usually can control my reactions to events much better than I could before I started practising Buddhism.