Souls are same. Why? Because if you dig enough inside you find that there is only a person inside you and difference between you and other people are result of genetics, body and environment.
— bahman

Particles that you talk about are reducible to string.
— bahman

Both are debatable. What if souls are different from each other and reducible, and on top of genes and environment are another factor in who a person is? — BlueBanana

We already discussed the case that soul is reducible. Soul to me is the "I" and indifferent among individuals.

And string theory hasn't been universally accepted yet. — BlueBanana

Yes, that is correct.

A chain of causality cannot start from nothing.
— bahman

Again, debatable, but even if we accept that we could say that soul is just another string with another vibrations. — BlueBanana

This is off topic so please lets put it aside.

Experience is a physical state so it cannot be experienced within materialism.
— bahman
When I think of physical states I think of how matter is arranged such solid, liquid, and gas. I find it hard to conceptualize experience (i.e brain states) being a physical state, but then again I'm no brain scientist. — Purple Pond

Brain is physical therefore brain state is physical state.

The thing which feels amazing must have a good functioning in your body. The question is why it should come with an experience? Why things doesn't go in dark? This is hard problem of consciousness as far as I understand.
— bahman
If everything goes in the dark then it would be impossible to communicate what is happening. We (humans) are a social species and we need experience in order to communicate what happens. — Purple Pond

That as I mentioned is related to hard problem of consciousness. It is not clear to philosopher that why we need consciousness in order to communicate for example.

If you did not checked everything you should not say to others that it aplies on everything. (Also an Ethical one.) — Vajk

You are correct. I should have been more specific.

All of them? — Vajk

Ethical one.

Sorry for not being clear enough. The soul cannot be created if you agree with OP. I already argued that soul cannot be destroyed if it cannot be created.
— bahman

I wasn't talkng of the destruction, I meant the creation (or becoming to existence to be more accurate) accidentally. — BlueBanana

A chain of causality cannot start from nothing. Thing is different if you have an agent with ability to decide.

What you are supposed to design? The thing in your disposal is irreducible.
— bahman

Well if we take irreducible particles for example, they do have different properties (and they can be transformed to other particles but that's beside the point). Those properties can be designed even if what it consists of can't. — BlueBanana

Souls are same. Why? Because if you dig enough inside you find that there is only a person inside you and difference between you and other people are result of genetics, body and environment. So there is nothing to design. Particles that you talk about are reducible to string. All strings are similar but vibrating at different frequencies. Why all strings are similar? Occam's razor.

I already argue about the fact that soul cannot be created or destroyed whether accidentally or intentionally.
— bahman

Can't find that. From 2) and 3): souls cannot be created (intentional act). — BlueBanana

Sorry for not being clear enough. The soul cannot be created if you agree with OP. I already argued that soul cannot be destroyed if it cannot be created.

2) Why can't irreducible be designed? — BlueBanana

What you are supposed to design? The thing in your disposal is irreducible.

So creation is action, and it's always intentional and planned. — BlueBanana

Yes.

Therefor souls can just come to existence (event) but not be intentionally created by conscious agent (act)? — BlueBanana

I already argue about the fact that soul cannot be created or destroyed whether accidentally or intentionally.

No, reducible thing can be built.
— bahman

What's the difference? Has the universe always existed because it has irreducible parts so it can't have been created? — BlueBanana

Irreducible parts of universe have existed since the beginning of time.

You need knowledge to perform any act.
— bahman

No you don't. Tripping over accidentally doesn't, yet it creates a mark on the ground. — BlueBanana

We are talking about act (what you intend to do) and not event.

This is very definition of design.
— bahman

It's not the definition of creation. — BlueBanana

Well, could you perform any act not knowing what you are doing?

Because that is the very person. But suppose that soul is reducible. This means that it has parts which parts are irreducible. So we are back to home, each part cannot be created.
— bahman

So nothing can be created because they contain irreducible parts? — BlueBanana

No, reducible thing can be built.

You just need to reverse time to see this.
— bahman

I'd like to see you reverse time.

And now that you mention it, destroying something irreducible and reversing that would be creation from nothing. I disagree with 3), things can be created without design. — BlueBanana

The creation is an act. You need knowledge to perform any act. This means that we need the knowledge of what we are supposed to create in order to create. This is very definition of design.

Why should they come into existence? They just simply exist.

By making it not exist. It's not reduced to anything if nothing is left. — BlueBanana

I can show that things that can be created can be destroyed also. You just need to reverse time to see this. Now lets suppose that soul is uncreatable but destroyable. Just reverse time to see that soul become creatable.

1) Soul is irreducible
— bahman

This is based on what? — BlueBanana

Because that is the very person. But suppose that soul is reducible. This means that it has parts which parts are irreducible. So we are back to home, each part cannot be created.

Are they? — Vajk

Yes.

And if they are, they are relative in a relative way, or they are relative in an absolut way? — Vajk

They are person dependent.

No. I just said that it cannot be created.

Are you sure that experiences can't be physical. Many physical things are the result of physical activity. For example, the rotation of a fan blade produces something physical - wind. — Purple Pond

We have physical and each physical system is in a state. Physical state is different from physical. A state simply states what is the response of a system to a stimuli. Iron for example is physical but its solidity is a state. We experience physical and our content of our experience in most case reflect the state of physical. Experience is a physical state so it cannot be experienced within materialism.

Are you kidding me? How often did you tell someone "you got to try this, it felt amazing"? — Purple Pond

The thing which feels amazing must have a good functioning in your body. The question is why it should come with an experience? Why things doesn't go in dark? This is hard problem of consciousness as far as I understand.

What many philosophers call "the Socratic Paradox" is Socrates' view that no one intentionally does evil. It is called a "paradox" because it seems so counter-intuitive, yet Socrates had a reputation for being wise. There are several "solutions". The one offered by Plato is that when one does something . evil one mistakenly thinks one is doing something good; we always desire the good. So what do you think? Do you think it is possible to actually desire the bad, knowing that it is bad and that nothing good will come of it? — Mitchell

He is not completely correct. We are rational beings and we consider many factors when we decide. We might give to much weight to our self interest which is good from the person point of view but bad from social point of view. Things are relative.

"You can do as you will but you cannot will as you will", Schopenhauer

You cannot experience what you experience. This is getting silly. — charleton

So you disagree that you can experience experience? Are you aware of being able that can experience?

I doubt we can simultaneously be aware of, as well as aware of our awareness of, anything. I seem to be able to switch instantaneously from one to the other, but not to hold both together. — Janus

That is true. We need to switch.

You need to elaborate on this. What does experience being a product of brain activity make it hard to understand how we can be aware of our experiences? — Purple Pond

This is hard to formulate verbally but I give it a shoot. The experience is a brain state. Brain can experience things/physicals and each experience related to a brain state. It seems absurd to me that brain can be aware of its internal states, experience, because a state is not physical but rather the result of physical activity.

Because we can talk about what we experience. — Purple Pond

And what is the practical use of this?

Experience requires a division between what is self and what is world. To know where the world and its recalcitrant nature starts, the brain has to know where the body and its intentionality leaves off. So to experience the world requires the equally primary experience of the self.

My favourite example is chewing your dinner. Somehow you have to be very sure which bit is your tongue, lips and cheek, which bit is the grisly steak, as your teeth chomp away with savage abandon.

But as has been said, you seem to be talking more about self-consciousness rather than just conscious awareness.

All animals have a sense of self as part of their states of experience. In seeing the world, they see it from their own point of view - the view that includes themselves in the sense of an embodied intentionality that contrast with a world of external material possibilities.

But self-consciousness is a linguistically-structured and culturally-evolved learnt skill. It is not biological but social. We humans learn to objectify our being so as to be psychologically self-regulating. So the reason we are self-conscious is that society needs us to have that habit of attending introspectively - to be policing our own behaviour as socially-constrained creatures.

Biologically there is every reason to make a psychological self~world experiential distinction, but no particular way that this experiencing could be experienced as experiencing. Animals lack the meta-structure that language can provide.

Socially, you can't be a proper human unless you have mastered self-regulation through language. Objectifying your own psychological being is the central skill required to be part of a social order. — apokrisis

I like this and I agree with it.

Experience, memory, data and the whole idea of oneself all are the same. — phrzn

Are you saying that these are all physical state resulted from neurons activity? I would agree with you in this sense otherwise you need to be more specific about what do you mean with same.

Experience exists for you as far as your brain processes the information and keeps the necessary parts in short-term or long-term memory due to its practicality! — phrzn

No. I think experience exists when conscious mind gets involved.

About materialism, I don't specifically believe in it, actually! — phrzn

I have problems with dualism as well as materialism but I am inclined more toward materialism because it makes more sense.

I think there should be first some definitions of the concept you've brought up! What is experience?
According to Britannica, "According to one modern version of the assumption, developed by the 17th-century philosopher René Descartes, all experience is subjective, an exclusively mental phenomenon that cannot provide evidence of the existence or the nature of the physical world, the “matter” of which is ultimately nothing more than changeless extension in motion." — phrzn

This is dualist picture when there is a separate substance--"I"--which is experiencer. In another picture, experience create by the brain activity is the only thing which is real. Experience is the first thing which attaches us to the reality. I can doubt "I" and say that it is byproduct of brain activity. But I cannot doubt experience.

One can deduce anything from what's going on around.
I somehow agree with Bitter Crank. Yes, it's like observing oneself from above. Imagine you are talking with someone, and at the same time your attention goes to a higher level in a way you can see yourself and the other person from another perspective, so that it may help you in the way you respond and react.
And experiencing something inevitably puts in data in our memory, so that we can analyze it and point out something useful for future.. One can simultaneously experience something and also analyze its data. it depend on where the attention is focused. — phrzn

I agree with what you stated. My question is however is that what is the use of experiencing "I" in materialism.

Just a small point on English... Don't forget to put the article "the" in front nouns, such as the brain, the product, the instant, the content... Now, I wish I could think of one simple rule that would cover all the possible placements of "the", "a", and "an" in front of nouns, but I can not. — Bitter Crank

Thanks for the correction.

Not supplying the article where it belongs usually doesn't change meaning a great deal, but it is slightly jarring to read text where "the", "a", and "an" are missing. — Bitter Crank

I am sorry for my bad English. I am just reflecting as I am writing. I don't have any article on this.

There is someone (you, bahman) who is speaking as an "I". If there is no "I" speaking as bahman, then who is speaking? — Bitter Crank

The only thing which I can certainly say that experience exists. The "I" is construct of the brain activities so it doesn't have any essence but it can be experienced.

Right. This is complicated. We could, as the expression goes, "quickly get lost in the weeds" with this. But... There is the conscious mind and the unconscious mind. Both of them "are you" 100% but one function of the conscious mind is to project a person--"I"--to the rest of the world. The unconscious mind (not the Freudian unconscious, but the unconscious part of the brain that does the work) does not represent itself directly. It provides the "I" with a steady flow of organized data. The conscious mind doesn't see or hear "raw" sensory information, because it doesn't mean anything until it is processed by the hearing, vision, language, and memory centers, etc.

The problem in talking about "I" and "you" is that we just don't know where in the brain the "conscious representation of self" is located, or how it is created by the brain. — Bitter Crank

Well, are you a dualist or monist/materialist?

The problem that I mentioned in OP is related to materialism. The experience is byproduct of brain activity in this system. It seems absurd to me that we can experience experience. Its function also is not clear to me. At the end we are just sorting and processing data. That as you mentioned is duty of subconscious mind. What does conscious mind useful except projecting a person to the rest of the world?

Later, I mentioned the problem related to dualism when you have an "I" as separate substance.

Omnipotent means that you can perform act of creation and probably have the ability to destroy it. You have full control on things. For that you need to be omniscient too. You need to know what you are doing always. An omniscient does not do mistake too.

God is perfect so His act should be perfect. Things however seems not perfect. So the main flow in creation should be toward perfection if this is not possible then God is not perfect or there is no God.

We might become Godly but we are of course not God, omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent right now.

You can of course reflect on your memory but you can even experience what you experience at instant you experience them. You just need to focally focus on your experience rather than content of your experience.

I am not sure if there is an "I". There could be only simple experience. There is still a problem even if I agree with your interpretation, that there is an "I". The "I" is simply the experiencer of what it is provided by brain whether what is provided by brain is perceived through sensory system or it is thoughts or feeling. Everything which "I" perceives is external to "I". Our brain in reality should simply feed "I" with what it perceives or process. The problem is how the brain could perceive "I" in order to feed "I" so "I" can watch "I" doing things.

If by memory he means information then information cannot be created or destroyed. Where information is stored? In fabric of universe. There are theoretical and experimental support for this idea. You can google "information" and "conservation" yourself.