You may be right. Do you have inner peace?

I think our choices arise out of the interactions of our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences and we are not truly praiseworthy or blameworthy. — Truth Seeker

Which path led you to this conclusion? — Truth Seeker

First, I assume the "we" used refers to each of us as individuals. "We" = "I"
Very briefly, I think the reason "we" are not truly praiseworthy or blameworthy, is there is no central being "I" upon which to attach praise or blame. And further, no individual one. I am currently exploring what "I" say or do as ultimately the result, not strictly of the interaction of genes etc. referred to by you, though they play am obvious role. Rather, I am looking at each decision, feeling, action (speech or deed) as a point of intersection of all of the "code" input from "history," and interacting in a sort of dialectic ultimately trigger such reaction at that precise given locus in History.

If I "choose" to rescue a drowning child, all of the Signifiers input into the embodied system of which "I" stand-in as signifier of that body worked through the Dialectic in that moment which resulted in the most fitting reaction being to trigger the Body to such reaction.

If I "choose" to drown a child, the same, mutatis mutandis.

Thus "we" are all ultimately writing History while simultaneously writing each story within the circle of our locus.

I agree. Thank you for explaining.

Very briefly, I think the reason "we" are not truly praiseworthy or blameworthy, is there is no central being "I" upon which to attach praise or blame. — ENOAH

I don't know if I'm correctly understanding your position. If I am, then I would say you are insisting on conditions that are counter to our nature. Every cell in my body, it is famously said, is replaced every several years. My body today, at 60, has been ... what's the word? ... renewed, replaced, overwritten, many times in this way since my birth. Also, it has grown in various ways, most obviously weight and height. Still, it is my body. There are many characteristics about it that have not changed, even as the particles that it is built of have. I've been stopped by people who recognized me, even though we hadn't seen each other in decades. People have recognized my voice over the phone after several years. My body is not not my body because it is not made up of the same particles at all points throughout my life. It is my body, and has been for 60 years.

My mind is not a physical object. It is a gathering of processes. Regardless of whether it is entirely physically reducible, or if panpsychism plays a role, or whatever other scenario, the physical brain is essential. It is the medium in which those processes take place. Not only is my brain not made of the same particles it was made of when I was born, but some of the processes taking placer in it no longer take place, have been modified, or are new. Still, I am me. I remember specific events, thoughts, sensory input, and emotions from early childhood. "I" have been present all along, through all the changes. This is the nature of "I".

Scientists have uncovered evidence showing that some neurons in the hippocampus are renewed, but only at a rate of 1.75% annually, according to a 2013 study in Cell. And some types of neurons within the striatum also regenerate, according to a 2014 study in Cell. But other types of neurons stay with a person for their entire lifetime, Bergmann said. And even the distinct cell populations that can rejuvenate are not replaced entirely, but only partly over a lifetime, he said.

- https://www.livescience.com/33179-does-human-body-replace-cells-seven-years.html

After the early period of growth, suicide, and pruning comes to an end, adult neurons survive for a lifetime.

and

Plus, unlike those of fish, amphibians, and reptiles, human brains don’t regenerate much after injury because only a small number of neurons are born during adulthood.

- https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2022/05/a-tour-of-the-growing-brain-complete-with-upside-down-vision

I don't know if I'm correctly understanding your position. If I am, then I would say you are insisting on conditions that are counter to our nature. — Patterner

I'm sorry (possibly, "once again"). Of course you're "not correctly understanding." Because I'm not providing all the details. 1. I do not necessarily fully "comprehend" them in a form coherent enough to provoke understanding, 2. I did not think so until recently, but "my position," (only an acceptable label for the sake of discourse) might "appear" (too) unconventional (for Western(?) listeners), or that might be "me" protecting "myself" and we ought to skip to 3, 3. I might be hastily texting and assuming it's as clear on screen as it is in "head."

I would say you are insisting on conditions that are counter to our nature. Every cell in my body, — Patterner

You can stop right there. That body is the real experience-ing. It's that the "I" and all of the related Narratives is a projection of those Signifiers structuring the Narrative. It's that "I" which we take to be the central agent in the Narrative. But it is just a mechanism satisfying the evolved efficiency of the movement of those projections through Time. These movements are interdependent, not just upon the signifiers moving seemingly "within," an embodied "projector" or Mind, but also upon all signifiers moving through all human minds in History (those signifiers moving closest to an individual locus, having a greater contribution to its projections). Hence when your real body, which we mistake for the name Patterner and their pronouns, rescues a baby, we think, great job, Patterner. But it was the projections constructed by all of us which intersected ultimately triggering its host body (those cells) to act. We are all praiseworthy. Meanwhile those cells "find their reality," or "truth" (those cells really find nothing, not even searching) not in the projections which are constructed out of signifiers and their automous interactions, not in their hollow comings and goings, not in the becoming which is only constructed for meaninf and was never really there; but in the "breathing" the "running" the "diving" the "swimming" the "carrying" and the drive related to bonding with another human, the feelings promoting and conditioning such bodily movements (but not the emotions which are constructed and projected)in the present being which is never constructed in time for meaning, but always only there. Note that much would require further explanation, but I will only elaborate if you so wish.

My body is not not my body because it is not made up of the same particles at all points throughout my life. It is my body, and has been for 60 years. — Patterner

I'm not sure if you're presenting immediately preceding to say the Body is also becoming, or to say it is always being. If it's the former, that is an excellent point. In that case, I cannot tell you what, if anything, in the "individual" is being. But I do believe its not in the projecting, that it is not mind and its fleeting projections. I believe the only way to access being is by being. In our e.g. of Patterner rescuing the drowning child, their true being is in the items I described above, and not in the meanin ascribed. So, to access true being, take the body's aware-ing focus off the constructions and projections, and on the feelings and actions.

An afterthought, and I can predict this might make no difference to you. The e.g. of the rescue might fit with respect to praise or blame post facto, but it is not a good enough.g. to illustrate that the projector provoked the rescue. In rare cases, like rescuing a child, it may just be the human animal being which drove the sudden reaction to rescue. Again, I'll leave it there.

. If I am, then I would say you are insisting on conditions that are counter to our nature. — Patterner

And (I'll stop after this) while what follows is self serving and convenient, it is impossible to argue for or against. 1. Contra-pro: The hypothesis admits that itself is a construction projected but not ever really there. 2. Contra-Contra: it, the hypothesis, would ask you, why you (I.e. we) are insisting on reality being consistent with our Natures, when it already is, to wit, the hypothesis about being; and besides, you're really referring to our constructions and projections when you say our Natures, because the nanosecond that you represent, you are no longer there, but trapped on the road of becoming.

And to tie in to this thread, the "self" the OP had in mind was the constructions and projections, it's true nature being empty, or no nature. The "True" "Self" if there is one (for e.g. if the brain isn't stable) is not an object knowable. It is accessed in being that "self".

The nature of the self is to overcome obstacles and understand the enmity between the obstacles and reality.

I haven't heard this before - the way you are defining the self is awesome!

I didn't say we can eliminate the idea of simulation. We could be aliens experiencing a simulation of what it is like to be a human on Earth. Death could be the exit from this simulation. — Truth Seeker

Sorry for my late reply. I have been busy with the work, and had no time for reading posts.

It sounds too far-fetched to say that we could be aliens experiencing a simulation of what it is like to be a human on Earth, when you were born from your own parents, and been brought up by them going through the state education system, and been living a normal human life on Earth.

There is no logical, empirical or physical ground for that beliefs, unless you remember something realistic experience of yours such as being thrown into the Earth from the outer space, or landed somewhere on Earth via UFO etc.

The belief could be interesting in SF, but without any evidence or ground, it would run the risk of committing self-deception.

No apology is needed for your delayed reply. I think it is extremely unlikely that we are living in a simulation. I agree that there is no logical, empirical or physical ground for this belief. I have never said that this is my belief. I have already said in other posts that it is an extremely unlikely possibility with one-in-infinity chance of being correct. What if there are an infinite number of universes? If so, the one-in-infinity possibilities would be real in at least one out of the infinite number of universes. If the Many-Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct then there could be an infinite number of universes. Unfortunately, we have no way to test this hypothesis.

No apology is needed for your delayed reply. — Truth Seeker

That's cool.

Death could be the exit from this simulation. — Truth Seeker

Death cannot be the exit from the simulation at all, because no dead person has ever survived after their deaths. Once a person dies, he / she never comes back to reality or empirical world at all. They just totally cease to exist eternally.

What if there are an infinite number of universes? If so, the one-in-infinity possibilities would be real in at least one out of the infinite number of universes. — Truth Seeker

You could try to prove their existences. I doubt anyone can prove it, but it doesn't mean that you cannot prove it. If you still believe in the possibilities of the existence of an infinite number of universes, why not try to prove it first?

Many-Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct then there could be an infinite number of universes. — Truth Seeker

You need to read up QM then.

Unfortunately, we have no way to test this hypothesis. — Truth Seeker

If an infinite number of universes existed, it would be in the mind of the believer. Never in the physical world.

I am talking hypothetically. We don't have any way to test the Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. I am not a physicist but I have read books about Quantum Mechanics.

A lot of people believe in either resurrection or reincarnation of souls. I am not convinced that souls exist and I am not convinced that resurrection or reincarnation happens but I could be wrong about these things.

Inner-peace is sought after. That gives the self a sort of function, but I’ll leave it at that.

Hypothetical talks are not philosophy, and they belong to mysticism or esotericism. Philosophical discussions are based on logic, reasoning, facts and the critical investigation on the facts, premises and conclusions in the issues for the verified truths.

Ok, thank you.

Hypothetical talks are interesting even though they are not philosophical statements. I am a big fan of science fiction.

In Catholicism it is believed that a person isn't complete without their body fully restored at the end of days so technically in that view the soul on its own if it exists isn't the whole thing.

As far as the brain alone it has many thoughts and processes that can seem chaotic that needs to be focused in the same direction. Maybe that's the best definition of a self since we aren't simple robots that are perfectly linear?

Personally hope we do survive death mentally and get compensation for all the times our body failed us.lol.

I don't really know where we part ways. It seems you describe things as I see them. You, shall we say, put the puzzle pieces together as I do. But then you see a different picture when the puzzle is assembled.

I'm not sure what your picture is, however, so I'm not sure. Tell me. Serious question, because I just don't know what you're thinking. For you, does what I view as the Self have any value? If you were told it was going to end, because of death, or you were going to develop amnesia, or maybe some scifi thing... Would you have a problem with that? Would it bother you?

Hypothetical talks are not philosophy, and they belong to mysticism or esotericism. Philosophical discussions are based on logic, reasoning, facts and the critical investigation on the facts, premises and conclusions in the issues for the verified truths. — Corvus

Fair enough. I'll do my best to comply because I respect the value in that. Please assure me you don't mean to exclude the imagination.

Also, please keep in mind that even the dogs are permitted the scraps off their masters table.

Hah! Read my seemingly simultaneous reply to you in Captain Homicide confirming just as you said above.

then you see a different picture when the puzzle is assembled. — Patterner

Nice. True

If you were told it was going to end, because of death, or you were going to develop amnesia, or maybe some scifi thing... Would you have a problem with that? Would it bother you? — Patterner

Hah, again. The answer might offend some very reasonable sensibilities in this forum. And I mean no disrespect because the answer seems (and I assure you with no pretense nor comedy that I believe it does not) to leave the realm of philosophy and enter, at best "mysticism," honestly whatever that is (I wont demean it--its not "mine" with an at worst).

But for what it's worth and briefly, yes and know.

Yes, it would bother "me" because the story is ending, the attachments will fade for those still sharing my narrative, they'll suffer. "I" will end "my" role in "my" becomings in History. But no, because my sentences will continue to be used in building history, if only for the tiny but equally valuable locus of x people around me.

No it would not bother "me" reflecting upon the real me whatever that ultimately is--my dying body--because "I" have the humbling privilege of "knowing" (believing) that my body does not hold any opinion (including by the way my brain). My body is driven to live and my body dies. And though I am, by being, that always presently aware-ing Body, I am only that by being it, and presently. When it ceases either that aware-ing "melts" into nature's aware-ing (which I sense it already is) or it vanishes. Either way, so what? "What" only belongs to I/me".

For you, does what I view as the Self have any value? — Patterner

Yes, as I said in the CaptHom thread, you have an understanding which allows you to pose questions which are relatively more free from the fetters of "xyz"
E.g. below. I completely understand that characterization, and I suspect you might even be going beyond simple functionalism(?)

My mind is not a physical object. It is a gathering of processes. — Patterner

My mind is not a physical object. It is a gathering of processes. — Patterner

If you were told it was going to end, because of death, or you were going to develop amnesia, or maybe some scifi thing... Would you have a problem with that? Would it bother you?
— Patterner

I've had an afterthought (assuming I've even made my (previous) thought clear enough to follow).

I had left it vague, though a hunch had been brewing, just too early to surface when I said:

And though I am, by being, that always presently aware-ing Body, I am only that by being it, and presently. When it ceases either that aware-ing "melts" into nature's aware-ing (which I sense it already is) or it vanishes. Either way, so what? "What" only belongs to I/me". — ENOAH

Now add:

Or. … have I not gone far enough? I hypothesize body is real. But is that, though real to Mind, ultimately also a projection of atoms and energy? Ultimately only that aware-ing is real.

When you die, you are what you always already are, aware-ing being; not an aware-ing Being.

And yes, smells like panpsychism(?). I have not studied that, albeit it has crossed my path. If it is, so be it. I am not favorable to labels when exploring the less established regions of (I guess any discipline) say, philosophy (the latter too, a label which admittedly makes me nervous because it reasonably implies adherence to a certain process which even this very statement may have violated; though I think not).

Now, it unfolds, and I fear, we are not yet equipped to settle there. Alas, at risk to (not of) being taken seriously, What is the nature of the True [and not the so called] self?
The aware-ing of the Universe. Not the dance it projects out of atoms and energy manifesting as "your" body. Not the dance it projects out of signifiers and flesh manifesting as "your" mind. And certainly not the character in that dance manifesting as an "I". Those are projections of what you really are,. What really is, is (just the) aware-ing.

When "I", Enoah die, I don't die. I was never born. I (only always just) am (aware-ing the dance of the universe; and not, as commonly mis-conceived, "through" Enoah. That is "Enoah’s" problem, not Enoah’s truth. Who's Enoah think Enoah’s kidding? Enoah’s not aware-ing anything. Enoah’s part of the projected dance.)

The true nature of the self; It is in Being, just not human being; it's in (Universal) Being.

Interesting thing is, I'm pretty sure serious so called eastern philosophy have arrived at that construction (e.g. Thathagata/Nirguna Brahman) centuries ago. I'm not sure panpsychism does their interpretations justice; again, I do not know panpsychism.

I am not myself (purporting/pretending to be) "professing" Buddhism or Vedanta, and only incidentally note the parallels--but lest one be inclined to reject an idea simply because of its parallels to what some may naively call mysticism, there are parallels (to the view depicted here regarding mind body and being) in western philosophy from Socrates and Plato to Kant, Hegel, Husserl, and so on. Parallels are inevitable. We write nothing, we think of nothing on our own.

Fair enough. I'll do my best to comply because I respect the value in that. Please assure me you don't mean to exclude the imagination. — ENOAH

Imagination is a powerful mental event, which is a vital concept for providing us with the answers to the discussions. For example, isn't imagination the source of the idea of Cause and Effect in Hume?

Also, please keep in mind that even the dogs are permitted the scraps off their masters table. — ENOAH

Of course, we all co-exist in this universe communicating and sharing the ideas and information via language and actions.

Hypothetical talks are interesting even though they are not philosophical statements. I am a big fan of science fiction. — Truth Seeker

We shouldn't stop at hypothetical talks, but once certain presumptions are agreed, then we could move on to the reasoning on the presumptions, arguments and finally the conclusions can be induced from the arguments.

For instance, what does simulations have as the properties? If somethings is a simulation, then it must have a simulator (God?), simulated (people or you), and observers of the simulation. Simulations also can have hypotheses, forecasted processes and the results. Do we have some or all of these elements / properties on the simulation of life in this universe?

We don't have the means to test the simulation hypothesis.

:up:

I very much appreciate your view. I've been more than somewhat interested in taoism for most of my life. I loved Le Guin's Earthsea books and the old Kung Fu tv show as a kid. Years later, for whatever reason, I started reading the Tao Te Ching , and immediately recognized it.

I don't know much about Buddhism, but I gather it goes much farther than taoism does in the direction you're speaking of. But I believe both offer paths to a life that is more content and less frantic. Which probably also helps people be physically healthier.

(Joel learned these lessons in the last season of Northern Exposure, and seemed to me to be a much better person for it.)

So I can see a great value in applying aspects of this truth, if it is, indeed, truth, to our lives. Heck, even if it isn't truth, I see the value. (I suppose that's a matter of opinion.)

The problem I have is that taking this view to the logical conclusion, of I can call it that, which you seem to be advocating, is a rejection of our individuality. The universe allows for me, and for you, to exist. Why should we not embrace and explore this? Why reject what is possible? Why try to not fully embrace that individually?

I would think this attitude would be even more logical if there is a universal consciousness. If a universal consciousness is (what's the right word) focusing itself in one place/time, why would that focused consciousness reject what it, as the universal consciousness, is trying to do? One day, I'll be dead. At which point, I'll, shall we say, melt back into the universal consciousness. What would have been accomplished by having tried to deny the individual point of acute consciousness when it was possible?

And what would have been the point if there is not a universal consciousness, and this is it?

We don't have the means to test the simulation hypothesis. — Truth Seeker

Philosophy doesn't dirty its hands doing tests. That's the job of science.
Philosophy inspects the problems, investigates, analyses, reasons, argues, criticises and come to the conclusions.