The sense of self doesn't "process and emerge". Ii's always there. — Apollodorus

When you die, it evaporates forever too. Don't be afraid to admit that you won't know where it has gone to.

I think you've copied that from Wikipedia or some other materialist source. The sense of self doesn't "process and emerge". Ii's always there. — Apollodorus

I am afraid your conjecture and thought are wrong.

That is 100% from my opinion. What is the point, copying ideas or texts from Wiki or some dodgy internet site, and bringing here? That would be a waste of time. I will say clearly and ALWAYS, where I got the ideas or quotation, if I were using them.

I come here to read other people's ideas on the philosophical issues, and then debate from my own ideas. I could be wrong of course, but if someone convinces me with his / her logic, reasoning and ideas, so be it. That is the whole point of being here, and worth time and effort of all.

It doesn't prove that. There is still a theoretical possibility that people can remember. And some apparently do remember. — Apollodorus

Another point I would like to add is that, immaterial objects such as souls cannot be used with concept such as existence. The word "exist" only applies to material objects. Using "exist" with immaterial mental properties is a categorical mistake. Mental properties don't exit. They process and emerge.

The concept of "Existence" applies to concrete physical objects with weight, dimension and texture, or at least one of them (e.g gas). It also must have temporal continuity of the existence prior to transforming to another material object. No matter how the physical objects transform, they will always exist as another form of physical object or substance e.g. you burn the woods, and it will become ashes. You burn the propane gas, and it will emit CO2. It can be trapped physically in a bottle.

Mentalities? Nothing like that is possible. Because they are not any form of existence. They are properties, states and tendencies emerged from the matter called "Brain".

You don't seem to have followed the discussion or read the OP. — Apollodorus

I gave my own opinion on the proof of reincarnation issues on the OP. Even if, I seem remember on something, that cannot qualify as proof of existence on the object. But if even the memory is not present, then what chance of proof or verification have we?

It doesn't prove that. There is still a theoretical possibility that people can remember. And some apparently do remember. — Apollodorus

Theoretical possibility of existence of immaterial existence sounds illusional imagination without strong concrete evidence.

OK, you talk about someone remembering their previous lives, but how many are they, out of the whole human population? It is also possible that, they could have been having day dreams or some fantasy? Sometimes, I seem to remember my time in the garden of Eden, but don't believe it ever existed in real world.

That's what I'm saying. The soul's memories. Absence of memories isn't evidence of absence of existence. Temporary or partial amnesia is not unheard-of. — Apollodorus

It proves that reincarnation can never be proven. Therefore the OP is a meaningless question.

Well, people don't remember what they did or who they were in early infancy. This doesn't mean they didn't exist at the time. Absence of memory is no proof of nonexistence. — Apollodorus

Physical existence is not the issue here. The souls (mental entities, most significance being memories) are??

Even if, we could prove one does reincarnate, if one does not remember his / her past life, how could one ever know that one has reincarnated?

Is then reincarnation without past life memory, a reincarnation? Because, even if we suppose that we all have reincarnated from our past lives, no one seems to remember, or knows who they were in their past lives.

Imagine a mom who has a terminally ill child and poodle, with money to treat only one. She treats the poodle. Who wouldn't be disgusted by this choice? — hypericin

Maybe it costed $50 to treat the poodle in the local vet? Whereas the terminally ill child has been told there is no cure (that is what terminally ill means?) by the doctors?

Any justification seems to have unacceptable ethical consequences. — hypericin

Valuable has many different meanings, and does not necessarily equates to morally right. For instance, financially valuable things and actions are not always right. There are different social valuable things and actions, and there are also personal ones.

"Depending on what aspects something is more valuable", must be added in the question to get the answers.

4. So the answer to ‘why is there something rather than nothing?’ is ‘no reason’ — Devans99

Or "No one knows yet."

People know he or she is "I" by seeing their own hands, feet, their own face (in the mirror) etc in front of them, feeling hungry (and they say I am bloody hungry. I need to eat something. I feel thirsty must have something to drink...etc), feeling angry (I am angry now, they say), seeing the objects in front of them (they say, I see a mountain. I see a lake etc). They don't need logical deduction to have "I".

"I" is simply a being perceived by the being, even if they don't realise.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder—very good point. At the same time however, there is a certain convergence in many cases. This is why some artists become influential, and why cultural standards of beauty develop. This is not to say these norms are always right, however 1) convergence does point to some level of objectivity, and 2) insofar as it doesn’t, consensus is sometimes wrong and should be corrected, and this seems to point to at least some linkage between aesthetics and ethics. — Adam Hilstad

yes, I also feel that Ethical issues are more complicated than Aesthetics. I even used to think that they are totally different kind in nature. There are some overlapping parts, but only minor.

Think of the Ethical issues emerging from Euthanasia. Killing a life is bad, under the eyes of ancient and universal moral axiom dominated the whole human history. But recently in some cases, they are now justifying killings under certain situations and call them "Mercy killing" = Euthanasia.

Morality involves far more situational circumstance aspects and reasoning for its judgements.

Aesthetics? Beauty and ugliness are cultural, personal judgements based on momentary feelings on objects. These are direct and simpler mental process largely unsupported by reasoning process than Ethical ones.

The only possible means for “I” at all, is by logical deduction. In humans, all logical deduction is only possible by reason. But “I” am not a being at all, so whether or not a being logically deduced or a being proved by reason, is moot. — Mww

Can't agree. It sounds like if one had no logical deductive reasoning capability (such as children or non philosophical people - who don't know a thing about logic), then he or she has no concept of "I".

It seems to me this is the case. It is ethically right to find and create beauty where appropriate, because it enriches the lives of everyone around us. — Adam Hilstad

I don't see a necessary linkage between beauty and right. What is beautiful is not necessarily right for everyone and every case, and vice versa.

I feel that there are 3 aspects on reality.

1. Reality as the preliminary condition for life and things. It must exist prior to all life and all things. Without the reality, nothing else can exist. In that sense, it is the same concept as "The World".

2. Reality of an individuals in everyday life. What they see, hear, touch and interact with in their own environment. This is equivalent to the material world.

3. Reality as a concept. When born and in early stage of life, one has no concept of reality. But as one grows and being educated about the world, countries and the planets etc, one get to have a concept of reality. This is evolutionary idea which changes and grows.

So, no I don't believe that reality is a emerging property. I feel that it is a narrow and awkwardly pigeonholed concept.

"I" is a perceived being.
It is not a logically deduced or proved by reason being.

"I think, therefore I am" — Qmeri

I used to think that statement has been always wrong.
One cannot deduce "am" from "think".
It is a category mistake.

Existence cannot be logically proved by thoughts.
It can only be perceived.
Perception has possibility of error.
Reason has its limitation.

Merleau-Ponty's Philosophy by L. Haas.

This book seems a good introduction to Phenomenology and Merleau-Ponty's main ideas.

Yes, my choice of words can have negative connotations. But I think it would only bother you this much if you believe that what you’re doing is inherently good. Because you ARE identifying faith and reason and examining or dealing with them separately. And you ARE removing aspects of reality from philosophical consideration. And you have probably always seen this as something good, following in the noble tradition of famous philosopher — Possibility

I am not bothered at all. As I have said, I will say again. You are keep repeating yourself with the same point, which is negative and not productive for you at all. So I was just pointing out. But somehow you think that I am bothered. This is very strange.

Your argument is not consistent even in one post. One minute you say that, you were not negative, but it was positive, and you even bother to copy and paste meanings of the words from some internet site. But then you cannot help noticing it yourself, those words have negative connotations. And then you turn to negative again. It is strange circulation. My points had been put across a few days ago. There is nothing more productive to add to the main topic of the thread, but then you keep saying isolation and exclusion, and your negativity again. So I am just making my points on this situation.

I think you are not after a sound philosophical debate, but just trying to judge others points and ideas. Not productive at all.

You’re getting defensive again. I’m not saying that isolation and exclusion are ‘bad’ or ‘negative’. I would say that they can be seen as ‘positive’ aspects to a model of truth — Possibility

It was not just your choice of the words. You kept saying due to the isolation and exclusion, I will never be able to arrive at the truths that need more than reason.

I have been saying, one arrives at the truths which are outside of boundary of reason, by other means than reason, i.e. faith, meditation or prayers, if they are wanting to or able to.

But ok, you meant to be positive, you confirmed. I will take it, your opinion was positive. Thanks.

You’re getting defensive again. I’m not saying that isolation and exclusion are ‘bad’ or ‘negative’. I would say that they can be seen as ‘positive’ aspects to a model of truth. But I also think they’re no more important than the ‘negative space’. — Possibility

Just quick reply, as I have a lot to do today. Will read the rest laster when quiet.

I was not defending anything, but just noticed that your choice of the words "isolation and exclusion" was very negative. Anyone who can speak English will tell you that. It is not even in any philosophical books or schools unless you are talking about some pessimistic "Existential Philosophy" describing destitute human condition or fate, because they will all die in the end.

Denying that or saying otherwise, I would take it as pure dishonesty or you don't know how to use some basic English words.

Drawing lines on the mental faculties, or boundary of the senses and reason, is perfectly philosophical expression which had been used for long time by many famous philosophers.

Reason, which is universal to human being's mind will authorise you to do that, if you follow proper guidelines and apply the right methodology to your truths seeking process. Surely that is not isolation and exclusion, but it is just a part of the right procedure in truths yielding.

Drawing arbitrary boundaries and lines, declaring what is in and out - please tell me how this is not isolating and excluding. There are no boundaries except those we draw in our own limited perception. I’m not expecting truth to be concrete or conclusive - that doesn’t mean it can’t be both accurate and practical. — Possibility

It is not arbitrary boundaries. The boundary had been drawn since time of Kant. And that was a part of his mission in Philosophy. I thought you did read Kant's Critiques.

Drawing boundaries is not isolating and excluding, because it is saying that you go, and investigate the topics of out of the boundary of reason via faith, meditation or whatever other means that requires for you to get to the knowledge or truths you are after.

Bracketing out skepticism from a discussion of truth or reality is just a way of avoiding uncertainty. So, we can make these assertions about reality IFF our underlying logical assumptions and the meanings we attribute to language are true about reality. That we cannot use reason alone to verify this is a serious problem with the methodology in relation to determining an accurate model of truth. But you’re not after accuracy or correctness, only an illusion of certainty. And you’re willing to ignore, isolate or exclude any human capacity to access truth beyond reason in order to retain that illusion. — Possibility

Again, the same points :) you are the one self oscillating on the same points.
Topics that are out of boundary of reason should be left to the faith and mysticism, because you cannot come to concrete truths or conclusion by reasoning. So boundary has been drawn on the reason and faith. It is not isolating or excluding.

But you ARE treating them with your philosophical methodology by isolating and excluding them from any critical discussion of truth. — Possibility

I was drawing lines between subjects that can be dealt with reason, and subjects which is out of boundary of debate with reason. I cannot understand why you must be negative and keep saying "isolating and excluding".

It just seems to me as if you’re judging the validity of other models against a methodology that is itself limited in relation to truth. Your claim that reason is the ‘best’ tool for verification and validation (ie. an illusion of certainty) is argued within a tradition that dismisses other tools as ‘not philosophy’ because they don’t follow this tradition which claims (arbitrarily) that reason is the ‘best’ tool... It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy, an imaginative ‘what if’ that ‘worked’ consistently enough to be consolidated into a formidable institution - rather like Christianity, or geocentrism - and now fights for ‘survival’ by beating back all but the most ‘pure’ fundamentalism. — Possibility

My claim was not reason is the only and best tool, but rather, I was saying for Western Philosophical tradition rationalism has been dominating trend, and I follow the tradition.

Anyhow I feel that you are repeating yourself with the same thing, on which I have already clearly explained in the previous posts.

hen you need to understand how its methodology differs from your own traditional ‘Western Philosophy’ model — Possibility

I wouldn't treat mysticism, religion and any other non philosophical subject with the philosophical methodology. If I am interested in a mysticism (which I am not in real life), then I would just go and read up about the mysticism. I will not try to bring mysticism under philosophical methodology, unless such situation had risen for some some peculiar circumstance, which I doubt.

keeping in mind that your traditional model has its own serious problems with reality and appearance, language and meaning, etc — Possibility

Could you please explain in detail on your saying "its own serious problems with reality and appearance, language and meaning etc"? What serious problems are you talking about here?

Again, I’m not denying this - my point is that this foundation does not then define what Philosophy is or should be. Philosophy that ventures beyond the capacity of reason does not cease to be philosophy. — Possibility

Perhaps that's where our difference lies. To me, knowledge and truths beyond reason are in the realm of religion or psychology or whatever, but they are not philosophy. What cannot be said, sensed, talked or verified is not subject of philosophy. They are mysticism.

The reference I made to Kant was to counter your suggestion that my definition was formed outside of philosophical discourse - a ‘layman’s definition’, I think were your words. — Possibility

It was obvious that you intended to bring Kant into the debate just to counter the opinion on the "Layman's definition", which suddenly sounded all too abstract and unclear, because a few days ago, you have been saying that reason and logic have no place in philosophy. Without these faculties, you cannot even talk about imagination, understanding or judgement, because these mental activities are based on reason essentially and logic to some degree. It was totally conflicting argument and definition, and had no consistency whatsoever between them.

I want to be clear that I am not defining the whole of Western Philosophy — Possibility

I don't believe it is a possible task for you anyway.

I find it amusing that you consider my approach to be too narrow simply because of the words I’ve used, yet ‘extracting the common denominator from the tradition’ and the ‘prevailing attitudes’ of Western Philosophy to define all philosophy is not narrow? — Possibility

That is just my way of the defining. You have yours.

It’s a bit like defining ‘humanity’ by extracting the ‘common denominator’ from patriarchal tradition and the prevailing attitudes of men. — Possibility

No. Humanity is not Philosophy. I made clear that Philosophy is a very unique subject, different from all other subjects. Humanity is not even a subject. Humanity is - well it will have many definitions I am sure, but it is not a subject, art or science.

You’re only making it clearer to me that you’re unfamiliar with his third critique. I can’t say that I’m surprised — Possibility

I have all the books, and read them years ago light heartedly. I know what they are about roughly. I could reread them and refresh my memory, but I feel that Kant's Critique is not something that to be discussed in detail here.

Separate from philosophy? — Possibility

Separate from the question on what reality is.

Verifying and validating against what? Against your conception of reality? Against logic or reason?

It is the structure of this co-relation that is the key: the model of truth. But where does experience fit into this? Without an understanding of how feeling affects our perception of reality, reason or logic, and how this affected perception influences attention and effort, your verification and validation will never be accurate in relation to reality. At best you have a prediction. — Possibility

Yeah, same point again. verify and validate against what? If you read Kant, you surely would know against what by now. You have universal categorical perceptual tool in your mind called "REASON". That is what you veryfy against.

OK, there are problems with reality and appearance, and whether what you see or hear were correct etc, but that is another issue and it is about skepticism. This is I feel, a separate issue.

Still the best tool human has for the verification and validation is 'reason" and logic. If one doesn't see, or agree to this, then I have no other way to convince than tell him to meditate or pray for the truths he is after.

I’m not ‘just saying it’, I’m employing the discourse of Western Philosophy to define Philosophy. And I’m not talking about any contents or objects, but the faculties themselves. This is a common error that originates with the translation of Kant’s ‘Kritik der Urteilskraft‘ into English, and the failure of many philosophers to even read this third critique. He’s not referring to the actual ‘judgement (urteils) of something’, as in CofPR, but to the faculty of judgement - not just the capacity to judge, but the pure possibility of human judgement - which influences both reason and ethics at an a priori level.

But here Kant glimpses beyond reason, and recognises free, non-judgemental harmony between the faculties of imagination and understanding as the realm of ‘genius’, wisdom, sagacity. He left the door open to a broader approach to philosophy... — Possibility

In Kant, experience and truths is only possible, when you allow the inherent reason and sensory experience are combined. He distinguished different kind of reasons - Pure Reason (for general perception and mathematical perception), Practical Reason (for ethical and aesthetic judgements). These reasons are inborn, and universal. They are transcendental and categorical. It is the foundation for all human knowledge.

But you cannot know Ding-An-Sich, which is God, Freedom and Death and so on. These items does not provide you with the universal sensory data. You must trust them, or presume them or come to some sort of conclusion by some other means than knowledge in general.

This is something that can go on in 1000s of pages, but my idea is just from my fuzzy memory of reading Kan 10 year ago. But you get the gist, and appreciate reason is most significant foundation in Western Philosophy.

I’m not ‘just saying it’, I’m employing the discourse of Western Philosophy to define Philosophy. — Possibility

I feel that "experience" is just far too loose and abstract term in defining methodology for arriving at truths from my description above.

And you cannot just pick out one school or philosopher and use his ideas and definition to define the whole Western Philosophy. As I have been saying, there have been too many divergent schools and ideas even in Western Philosophy, hence why I have been talking in terms of the tradition and prevailing attitudes of Western Philosophy. And I based my own definition from that.

Using Kant's terminology to define the whole Western Philosophy would be too narrow and wrong too to cover the whole Western Philosophy. We can only extract the common denominator from the tradition, and establish our own definition. I feel that it is more practical and constructive.

Ok, you can have your own definition on the WP, no one will tell you that you can't. But we can still debate whether yours is making sense and why mine is more sensible definition than yours.

Well, that was badly worded on my part - sorry. I was trying to say that methodology is limited when a privileged place (over experience) is given to reason and logic. When all experience must be logically structured and filtered through reason, then you begin the process of thinking with a limited access to truth. — Possibility

Experience is another abstract terminology, which is not clear. Experience, to me, is something that you have gone through in the past? It is also always about something. It has contents which is private and past. So what do you mean by privileged place over experience?

To me, experience is like memory? Or it is not even that, but it is so abstract term, I am not sure if it can be used for meaningful tool for arriving at truths. Perhaps, you could reflect or compare something with your own experience? But still you must use reason to do that. Experience sounds like just pile of personal memories of someone on something.

In Philosophy I feel that every issue we are discussing is current, and up-to-date, now issue. We can be talking about the ancient philosophies of course, but we are discussing and contemplating and investigating now. So your saying that "When all experience must be logically structured and filtered through reason, then you begin the process of thinking with a limited access to truth."
I am not quite getting it again. Why do you have to filter all experience logically and filtered through reason? Could you give daily life example for that?

You have a philosophical issue to investigate, and analyse, and come to conclusion via verification or validation. And maybe sometimes, your experience on something might help in that process, if it is related to the topic, background or conclusion, then you might reflect or base on the experience in coming to the conclusion and truth. But is is not necessary step to take always.

I will consider the next part when time is permitting. Just concentrating the part by part whenever I have a chance to be back here.

they have no privileged place over experience that limits the methodology, and thereby access to truth. — Possibility

Could you give some examples on this? I am not sure what experiences you are talking about here, and where it came from.

The use of ‘the faculties of imagination, understanding and judgement’ comes from Kant. — Possibility

They make sense, when one is reading the book "Critique of Pure Reason" with the context, but when someone is just saying it or written down out of blue without telling where it came from, then it can cause confusion. Kant has been talking about them in his grand scheme of human understanding how they all work.

But when you just say it, one will wonder, what imagination, understanding and judgement? Because they are always imagination of something, understanding of something or judement of something. How can you just talk about empty imagination, understanding and judgement without any contents or objects? It just sounded abstract and empty and meaningless.

If reason and logical process and conclusions do not agree with reality, how far back will you go to restructure? If you employ a set methodology that gives primacy to logic and reason within a Western philosophical discourse, how can you investigate the correctness of that methodology?

I get that clinging to a logical foundation or reasonable methodology gives the illusion of certainty. But what if that’s where you’re wrong? How will you ever know? — Possibility

You keep verifying and validating. You don't restructure anything. Restructuring comes automatically after the verification and validation. Reason and logic is the tool for that exercise. But without co-relation of reason, logic and reality, your verification and validation will never be possible.

Philosophy deals with every subject in universe, but its methodology is different from other subject. So if you are doing Philosophy of Religion, then you don't talk about the religion itself, but the criteria for logical validity with reason and reality, of the religion at investigation. To me, that is the core point of Philosophy.

Ignoring and denouncing the relation between logic, reason and reality sound utterly addlepated.

I’ve already answered this question here. Twice.

Philosophy is exploring the faculties of imagination, understanding and judgement to determine a model of truth.
— Possibility — Possibility

It sounded like not Philosophy defined by philosophical view point, but from a psychology or layman. It is just too loose definition, and unclear. It does not mention anything about methodology of the subject.
"determine a model of truth"? by how?. Do you want to determine a model of truth, but deny the importance of logic and reason?

So, when I say that the investigation of logical correctness of terminology, sayings, codes, principles, etc has nothing to do with reality, I’m saying that it is subject to human decisions and conventions - namely, language. — Possibility

Language alone would be insufficient. I am not sure if language alone can cover and reflect the whole picture of mental activities such as thinking, believing, imagination and judgement. Your thinking is very much limited. I feel that reality and logic and reasoning are closely related. If reason and logical process and conclusions do not agree with reality, then something is wrong somewhere, and you need to find out about that.

Then it has no relation to reality, and serves no practical purpose in itself. It’s all just words. The self-appointed ‘voice of Reason’, except no one can agree on what she’s saying... — Possibility

There is more to correct reasoning than logic. — Possibility

This time, let me ask you questions.

1. What is Philosophy in your thought?
2. What is your definition of Reality?