Is it not Christianity which tells us that God is a "hidden God" a God who hides Himself? — Agustino

Got a citation?

A "pluralistic" world is just the effect of pride and selfishness, of man who thinks he can, alone, by his own efforts, reach up to God. — Agustino

Right. So everyone should believe the same, think the same, in accordance with revealed truth, which is the same for everyone, and those who don't should be outcaste?

It is also a fact that God would revealed himself across the whole planet, not only in one place. But these revelations are partial. — Agustino

A Philosophy Forum is not the place for proselytizing.

Hadn't thought of that before, a very good point. But yes, unless one is dreaming. — BlueBanana

So then how does the same self return when you awaken, and where does it go while you're asleep?

Got a citation? — Wayfarer

It's in there, please read it more carefully. It's in Pascal's quote, a citation from Isaiah :)

Right. So everyone should believe the same, think the same, in accordance with revealed truth, which is the same for everyone, and those who don't should be outcaste? — Wayfarer

You're mixing up a whole different set of issues here. On the one hand there is the Truth, and what or Who that Truth is. On the other hand is how people relate to that Truth (which is individual). And finally there is the question of how society should be organised (whether those who reject the Truth should be outcasts). These questions have little to do with each other. So which one do you want to address?

A Philosophy Forum is not the place for proselytizing. — Wayfarer

Yes, that's why I said it's a fact that God WOULD reveal Himself (if He exists) across the whole planet.

Hadn't thought of that before, a very good point. But yes, unless one is dreaming. — BlueBanana

The other question you have to consider is, that if this is so, and the self disappears in dreamless sleep, then it would follow that one commits no wrong if they were to kill you while you were in dreamless sleep, for there would be no "you" to be harmed in that case. And I think we can both conclude that this is wrong, and thus identifying consciousness with the self must be rejected.

As I mentioned, I hadn't thought of the question before but I think I have a better answer now.

I think human mind exists outside human body as a "physical" object (not physical as in being matter). There exists some other substance that our minds consist of, and the reactions in our brains are some kind of "projections" of that mind/self. While asleep, that self does not disappear, it just hibernates. The consciousness is there, just not conscious of anything. Besides, while asleep, people are to some extent aware of the physical reality.

It's probably not the question I am avoiding.

There exists some other substance that our minds consist of, and the reactions in our brains are some kind of "projections" of that mind/self. — BlueBanana

Would this substance be physical or? And how are the reactions of our brain correlated with that mind/self? In other words, how is that mind/self attached to our brain, and only our brain?

While asleep, that self does not disappear, it just hibernates. — BlueBanana

I agree with this.

The consciousness is there, just not conscious of anything. — BlueBanana

But how can consciousness exist without an object towards which it is directed? This goes to the point I was discussing with unenlightened before:

You create a division between "the fact of consciousness" and the "contents of consciousness", but I think no such distinction can be drawn in the first place. How can consciousness be conceived to exist without the attendant intentionality - or better said directionality - towards particular contents? If so, then it would seem that consciousness cannot be conceived without reference to the constituents of consciousness. One is always conscious of something, one cannot simply be conscious. — Agustino

Would this substance be physical or? And how are the reactions of our brain correlated with that mind/self? In other words, how is that mind/self attached to our brain, and only our brain? — Agustino

Most of this I have no idea of. I guess some structures of matter are capable of interfering with that substance, and brains are some of those structures. A bit similarly to how eg. matter can be turned into energy and vice versa, but we don't really see that in our everyday lives but instead need to build hugely complex nuclear reactors for that to happen, that substance can in some way interact with the substances we are more familiar with such as matter and energy but that just doesn't happen "naturally" (seemingly unnecessary quotations because it's arguable whether high tier technology is natural). Human brain certainly is complex enough of a structure to justify the thought.

But how can consciousness exist without an object towards which it is directed? — Agustino

I'll go to sleep while pondering this very disturbing thought, and answer tomorrow.

One can turn it upside down and say all the waves contain the ocean. — Rich

I don't see how you can say this, because when the ocean is calm there is still an ocean but no waves. So it is impossible that the waves contain the ocean.

An ocean without waves is extremely easy to imagine as is the opposite (one big wave). One only need to exercise creative imagination. — Rich

A wave is a particular form. It is impossible to imagine a calm ocean as one big wave, because it does not have the appropriate form to be called a wave.

I don't see how you can say this, because when the ocean is calm there is still an ocean but no waves. So it is impossible that the waves contain the ocean. — Metaphysician Undercover

The ocean becomes over wave but doing absolutely nothing. This would be comparable to death or to b the sleep state without dreaming.

A wave is a particular form. It is impossible to imagine a calm ocean as one big wave, because it does not have the appropriate form to be called a wave. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's a wave without amplitude. It's dead in the water. Flatlined.

Take a jump rope, add energy, and you have waves. It's the energy that creates. In Daoism it is the Three (energy) combined with the Two (polarity) that creates the Multitude (everything).

But how can consciousness exist without an object towards which it is directed? — Agustino

Why can't consciousness simply be aware of itself? Is it necessary that consciousness is aware of objects prior to being aware of itself? Itself would not be an object.

It's a wave without amplitude. — Rich

Doesn't sound like a wave to me.

You have to add energy.

The model is very straightforward. All it needs is mind (the flatline), polarity (amplitude) and energy (will) to get things going. This is the Daoist Genesis story.

Humans are waves in the ocean (of a particular sort of course).

So this is the first premise. There is cause of movement of parts of your body which is not something external to your body, but it is properly a "cause" in the sense that the movement is not random. The second premise is that any living body is describable as parts which are moving in this way, described by the first premise. The conclusion is that this cause of movement is the cause of the living body. — Metaphysician Undercover

Interesting. Can you set out for me the structure of this argument? I don't see a negation, so is it modus ponens? Or is it a hypothetical? Or is it a transcendental deduction? Or some other?

Well, perhaps. But there is something you have not mentioned, that for my money is quite central.

"I see the cup on the table" is true just in the case that I see the cup on the table. It will be true even if the cup is not on the table, and I am deluded.

But "The cup is on the table" is true just in the case that the cup is indeed on the table.

That is a significant difference. "I see the cup on the table" does not imply that "The cup is on the table". Nor is "I see the cup on the table" implied by "The cup is on the table".

That is a significant difference. "I see the cup on the table" does not imply that "The cup is on the table". Nor is "I see the cup on the table" implied by "The cup is on the table". — Banno

I read your post. Did you post though?

If you put logic before the world, then you are in trouble. Amend your logic to follow the world. Perhaps someone has hacked your account, that would explain it, or perhaps I had too much wine last night. No, I read your post, and I am quite certain you posted. What is central is that I see the cup is empty, and I'm taking it to the kitchen for a refill.

Enjoy.

Well, perhaps. But there is something you have not mentioned, that for my money is quite central.

"I see the cup on the table" is true just in the case that I see the cup on the table. It will be true even if the cup is not on the table, and I am deluded.

But "The cup is on the table" is true just in the case that the cup is indeed on the table.

That is a significant difference. "I see the cup on the table" does not imply that "The cup is on the table". Nor is "I see the cup on the table" implied by "The cup is on the table". — Banno

But can you see something that isn't there? If someone were to tell me that they saw me in London yesterday then I would be quite right in saying that they didn't see me (and couldn't have seen me) in London yesterday because I wasn't there.

Do people see ghosts? Or do they see natural things that they simply mistake for ghosts?

If someone were to tell me that they saw me in London yesterday then I would be quite right in saying that they didn't see (and couldn't have seen) me in London yesterday because I wasn't there. — Michael

If I was that someone, I'd believe you, because my facial recognition is not great, but if it was a policeman investigating you as a suspect, they might not. But could you be mistaken about where you were yesterday? It's conceivable. But like me, you don't bother to conceive it unless there is good reason to; like me you are generally certain that you were where you think you were, and that what you see is what is there. Because to be limited by logical implication is to be unable to function at all.

That inner voice people talk about... is yours usually in first, second, or third person?

Interesting. Can you set out for me the structure of this argument? — Banno

You probably know me well enough to know that formal logic is not my thing. The argument is most likely modus ponens but the important aspect, what actually makes the argument, is the defining of the terms, and definitions are validated by induction. So once the definitions are accepted (the inductive aspect), the argument follows by modus ponens. Let me start with the definitions.

First we have to accept the existence of "objects", or in this case "bodies", the two are one and the same. An object or body is a collection of parts forming a unity which is distinguishable from its surroundings. Call this the foundation of individuation if you like, but without this definition, "a unity which is distinguishable from its surroundings", or some similar definition, we have no basis for claiming the existence of any objects. And without "collection of parts" we have no basis for the claim that an object can be divided.

The second definition is the "living" object, or "living" body, which signifies a distinct type of object. What distinguishes it from an inanimate object is the special way that its parts move. As per the physical demonstration which you must perform yourself, the movements of the parts cannot be said to be caused by a force originating from outside the body, nor are the movements random. The cause of the movements of its parts is within the body. This is a special type of movement which defines living, the cause of the movement of the body's parts is within the body itself. That is the most difficult definition to justify because one must demonstrate it to oneself, and even then there may be doubt that all the parts of a living body move in this way. What is necessary is to assume that all living bodies have some parts which move this way.

Accepting the definitions, we can proceed to say that the living body is a collection of parts forming a unity, which is distinguishable from its surroundings. Its parts have a special type of movement, in which the cause of movement of its parts is within the body itself.

Third definition is of "cause" or source of motion, and this means what is responsible for, or what initiates a movement, and is necessarily prior in time to the movement itself.

According to the second definition, if there is not the special type of movement of parts required for a living body, then there is not a living body. According to the third definition, the cause of the special type of movement is prior in time to that special type of movement.

All living bodies must have the special type of movement. The cause of the special movement is prior in time to the special movement. Therefore the cause of the special movement is prior in time to the existence of the living body.

The "cause of the special type of movement", which is required for a body to be living, is what we call "the soul". So the soul exists prior in time to the living body. What type of existence does the soul have, prior to its activities within the living body? And, if the soul exists prior to the living body, could it not continue to exist after the living body? The living body is dependent on the existence of the soul, not vise versa.

Third person: The cup is on the table.
First person:
I see that the cup is on the table
I believe that the cup is on the table
I know that the cup is on the table.

I'm fine with the grammar, but what is a third person point of view?

Third person: The cup is on the table.
First person:
I see that the cup is on the table
I believe that the cup is on the table
I know that the cup is on the table.

I think there are only two points of view, the first person subjective and the second person inter-subjective. If truth lies somewhere, my money is on the second person inter-subjective point of view. What we agreed on. 'The cup is on the table' is true if the consensus is that it is on the table.

The third person point of view is the view from nowhere, a merely formal point of view.

but that is just not true. "The cup is on the table" will only be true if the cup is indeed on the table.

right there.

A few more comments, to answer possible arguments about my suggested reincarnation-mode:
.
There might be some reluctance to accept that, in a stage of death, a mere hypothetical story could be a subsequent life.
.
But I’ve been saying that the previous life was nothing other than a hypothetical story too.
.
When you’re so shut-down that you don’t even remember that you're ending had a life, then being at the beginning of a life is no more implausible than being at the end of a life. More plausible, really, given your inclinations and future-orientateion..
.
Due to your Vasanas, your subconscious tendencies, inclinations, feelings, and—in particular—your natural deeply-built-in future-oriention, a story in which you’re beginning a life is what would feel plausible to your feelings. That’s the story that is about the you that has the subconscious feelings, tendencies, inclinations and future-orientation that you have. …the Vasanas that are all that remain of you.
.
In the Dali Lama’s wording, that propels you into a next life.

In my wording, being at the beginning of a life is what’s plausible to your feelings. And a life that's beginning is the story that’s about the you who has the Vasanas that i named above.
.
In that life, as hypothetical as your previous one, there’s no memory or indication that there was ever a different life. Who’s to say that this isn’t your life?
.
Not only is reincarnation consistent with Skepticism—It’s evidently implied by Skepticism.
.
If the reason for this life-experience story (even if in modified form) remains at the end of this life (and it usually does), then there is a life-experience story about you then, just as there is now.
.
Michael Ossipoff

In that life, as hypothetical as your previous one, there’s no memory or indication that there was ever a different life. — Michael Ossipoff

There is memory. It is called inherited, innate, instinctual traits or unaccountable skills (idiot savants, prodigies, etc.).

Only true in formal sense. There is no truth outside of our own determination and our agreement. The statement might be true formally but this may have no correspondence to reality, which is solely apparent. I don't believe it can be shown otherwise.

Only true in formal sense — Cavacava

As in, only true in the sense of being true.