FWIW, I have explored that same question in several posts on the BothAnd Blog. The traditional terms you listed go back thousands of years. Which indicates that the Mind/Body distinction has always been important to philosophical thinkers. Until recently, that is. Modern materialists smugly simply the problem by asserting that the Mind is just the function of the Brain.I am aware that there are possible clear attempts at definitions of soul, mind, spirit and self. However, while these may be interesting and useful, I am interested more in how such definitions and concepts inform the understanding of consciousness on a philosophical level. What do you think about the various concepts in the understanding of consciousness? Which of these concepts are more helpful or unhelpful in the twentieth first century climate of philosophical thought, especially in relation to the mind-body problem? — Jack Cummins
A stable platform, especially in the solidity of a personal sense of self, may be important for philosophical clarity... In that way, the idea of self may be a safe philosophical concept because it is neither grandiose or diminishing in its basis for a foundation for personal human identity. — Jack Cummins
Isn't each one of us simultaneously and fluidly a 'past-self, present-self, future-self' imbedded in, or enabled and constrained by, some 'past-population, present-population, future-population' – a heteronomous rather than autonomous agent (i.e. existent)? Consider this old thread ...The question of a stable sense of 'self' for philosophy or living is an interesting dilemma. — Jack Cummins
"Who" you are is constituted by your personal and social relationships. Self-identity (ego) supervenes on self-continuity (embodiment). And, like an orchestra after the final encore of an evening's symphony performance, your (everyone's) identity's constitution dissipates due to entropy into oblivion "postmortem". Anicca —> anatta, no?Who am I and what happens to me (postmortem)? — Agent Smith
Who am I and what happens to me (postmortem)?
— Agent Smith
"Who" you are is constituted by your personal and social relationships. Self-identity (ego) supervenes on self-continuity (embodiment). And, like an orchestra after the final encore of an evening's symphony performance, your (everyone's) identity's constitution dissipates due to entropy into oblivion "postmortem". Anicca —> anatta, no? — 180 Proof
... moksha :fire:Cancel my subscription to the
Resurrection ...
Your rambling has lost me again. — 180 Proof
Cancel my subscription to the
Resurrection ...
... moksha :fire: — 180 Proof
from what I've heard the soul of Buddhism, like that of a cornered government official, is to neither affirm nor deny neither the existence nor the nonexistence of souls. — Agent Smith
These are all extremes which Buddhism attempts to avoid. — Agent Smith
Thesleepawakening ofreasonimagination begets monsters. — Numerius Negedius
Sorry, soteriological services are not on the menu for Enformationism. Instead, the default assumption, pending alternative evidence, is that this positive/negative world, this good/bad life is as good as it gets. As the semi-buddhist Stoics advised, all you have control over is your attitude (mind-set, philosophical framing) toward imperfect reality. Don't put your faith in a future Afterlife or Nirvana, just adapt your mind to your current situation. As Hamlet says to himself, as he contemplates self-salvation (suicide) : “There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so”. Of course, a defeatist attitude is only going to allow the bad to get worse. Yet an optimistic attitude will allow you to maneuver around the potholes in life's road.Gnomon, remember you said, quite a number of times, that your Enformationism doesn't offer any soteriological services. I see an opening here. How exactly you'll work the idea of moksha into your theory is currently beyond me. — Agent Smith
I don't think so. 'Future self' is 'present self's' handiwork (or wreckage). Insofar as there's a "blueprint", it's the 'past self' that both enables and constrains the 'present self' – that genetic-existential hand each one of us is dealth at birth when "into this world we're thrown".In other words, does future self exist from the beginning as a blueprint? — Jack Cummins
However, that is the internalised concept of self as a conscious process but there may a rudimentary self beginning in the womb. Memory itself may be the basic brain aspect of this, in the form of ego consciousness. Even during dreams the sense of ego differentiates and self is in a state of becoming. — Jack Cummins
"into this world we're thrown". — 180 Proof
What do we want? As teleological-thinking beings, we want what we do not have, but can imagine : Perfection. We can envision a new improved simulation of reality, and we can try to work together to make our imaginary future Utopia into a here & now real Reality*1. Unfortunately for us Idealists, only the Architect of the Matrix controls the whole complex system from a central Nexus (the program of evolution). All we humans can do is fiddle with peripheral levers & dials of Nature. Which is what pragmatic scientists attempt to do . . . . with mixed results. We are only interested in Salvation from the less-than-ideal results of natural & cultural changes.See, you do have the basic ingredients to weave some form of salvation into your Enformationism. Anyway, what I find intriguing is that in your theory the simulation is reality, making the idea of moksha moot. Your point seems to be that The Architect of The Matrix is your Enformer aka G*D. Remember what Agent Smith says to Morpheus - we rejected the first Matrix (no evil/paradise) for the current version of The Matrix (with evil)? That says a lot, oui? We're not actually interested in liberation/salvation. What then is the deal here? What exactly do we want? — Agent Smith
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.