Why am i not You?

[Spirithound]

I seem to remember Aquinas saying that all creatures are body and soul, but only humans have immortal souls. The soul could then be seen as integral with the body while we’re alive, just another term for “body”, and so would be shaped by things like our DNA and experiences.

Yes, Summa Theologica I, Q. 75 and 76 deal with the soul.

 

[WmJackP]

Why am I not You? Why is my consciousness not your consciousness?

A profound question. Science may someday discover the underlying principles which give rise to the mystry–but, for now, it is beyond the ability to men and women to comprehend. All that can be said of it, in any manner not entirely abstract, is that the “self” or one’s own consciousness, is entirely subjective—so much so that it is even impossible to prove (or experience) any self except one’s own. Some philosophers have even posited that it may be that there is no “others”–only the self (solipsism). The subjective aspect also allows one to state that consciousness is singular. A self cannot co-exist . Even in the pathological state of “multible personalities” there is a singularity of consciousness. Finally, consciousness exists only in the present. My past “self” for example is only a memory of the present self.

I hardly think the Church’s doctrines of the soul even begin to touch on this most profound of these mysteries. Much of what Christians call the soul are only poorly disguised versions of one’s personality. The “self” may survive death (clearly, there is no evidence either way). However, the human personality can hardly be said to survive death—except, of course, in fertile imaginations.

 

[Spirithound]

I hardly think the Church’s doctrines of the soul even begin to touch on this most profound of these mysteries. Much of what Christians call the soul are only poorly disguised versions of one’s personality. The “self” may survive death (clearly, there is no evidence either way). However, the human personality can hardly be said to survive death—except, of course, in fertile imaginations.

If the personality is not wholly contained in the “self”, then where is it contained?
And if it is wholly contained in the “self”, then why should it not survive death, if the “self” does?

 

[JDaniel]

A profound question. Science may someday discover the underlying principles which give rise to the mystry–but, for now, it is beyond the ability to men and women to comprehend. All that can be said of it, in any manner not entirely abstract, is that the “self” or one’s own consciousness, is entirely subjective—so much so that it is even impossible to prove (or experience) any self except one’s own. Some philosophers have even posited that it may be that there is no “others”–only the self (solipsism). The subjective aspect also allows one to state that consciousness is singular. A self cannot co-exist . Even in the pathological state of “multible personalities” there is a singularity of consciousness. Finally, consciousness exists only in the present. My past “self” for example is only a memory of the present self.

I hardly think the Church’s doctrines of the soul even begin to touch on this most profound of these mysteries. Much of what Christians call the soul are only poorly disguised versions of one’s personality. The “self” may survive death (clearly, there is no evidence either way). However, the human personality can hardly be said to survive death—except, of course, in fertile imaginations.

Well, Wm, you make a lot of bold, naked assertions; I’ll give you that.

God bless,
jd

 

[WmJackP]

If the personality is not wholly contained in the “self”, then where is it contained?
And if it is wholly contained in the “self”, then why should it not survive death, if the “self” does?

The personality is a function of the brain, is it not? Perhaps more accurately, it is a function of past experience and brain chemistry. What I call “the self” isn’t merely something which contains the personality because, afterall “I have a personality”. “The self” is the unadorned, subjective amorphous complex to which my body, memory and personality all belong. If that is what you call a “soul” then you must also recognize that it possesses no memory, no intellect, no characteristics of any kind. It is entirely singular, subjective and locked into the present.

My perception also is that the self similarly has no free will. What you call “free will” is the tendency by one to behave in a particular way. Certainly, you will agree with me that it is not simply coincidence that those raised in a certain culture tend to believe similarly. If the “truth” were as you claim, and, men and women were free to choose the truth, then would we not see more of a mixture of these various faiths, perhaps even a preponderance of beliefs with the camp having the so called “fullness of faith”? Instead we see, concentrations of particular systems of beliefs in well defined regions. Indeed, in spite of centuries and decades of evangelization.

Some people convincingly argue that consciousness may actually be only a by-product of cerebreal activity rather than any “thing” at all. I think it is a bit more mysterious than that because, of the subjective nature (in the sense of the orginal post: “why am I not you”). It is this subjective aspect that is so intriguing. When I speculate I tend to think that “the self” that I experience in the singular and subjective is only one aspect of something much more universal.

 

[tomarin]

Why am I not You? Why is my consciousness not your consciousness?

These kinds of philosophical questions (i.e. why does something exist rather than nothing, etc.) amuse me to no end since they seem like something only a metaphysician could come up with.

 

[kildare]

The tele-transportation idea was very interesting. Obviously if they could ever get it to work they would then be able to create thousands of copies of the individuals, and then why not even let them co-exist at the same time?
So which body would the “I” inhabit?

Obviously I think there is something far greater at work here then mere “dumb” atoms. And did I say that atomic particles were dumb? Theres an electron gun experiment with two slits which shows that photons/electrons have some sort of weird memory thing, for want of a better word, going on, and then theres Heisebergs uncertainty Principal. Well, who knows!
Anyway it seems to me that awareness is an intrinsic property of matter/energy. Like gravity its very being is a complete mystery!

 

[WmJackP]

The tele-transportation idea was very interesting. Obviously if they could ever get it to work they would then be able to create thousands of copies of the individuals, and then why not even let them co-exist at the same time?
So which body would the “I” inhabit?

Obviously I think there is something far greater at work here then mere “dumb” atoms. And did I say that atomic particles were dumb? Theres an electron gun experiment with two slits which shows that photons/electrons have some sort of weird memory thing, for want of a better word, going on, and then theres Heisebergs uncertainty Principal. Well, who knows!
Anyway it seems to me that awareness is an intrinsic property of matter/energy. Like gravity its very being is a complete mystery!

Those are thoughts worth reflecting on. I ask the same questions—but, I am mystified by how you can ask questions which are so deep, yet, hold to beliefs which are—well, not very rational? Explain that if you can. Thanks.

 

[yppop]

Why am I not You? Why is my consciousness not your consciousness?

MOM
I am never sure whether you are merely stimulating discussion with your frequent posts or if you are really interested in a serious answer. If it is the latter you may want to reread an answer I gave you a year and a half ago on my thread, “God Exists, But How” now on page 4. I refer to a mechanism I call “corpusculation”, by which I mean that when matter forms a corpus, a self sufficient and enclosed structure, it “captures” a particle of the spiritual substance I refer to as infinite nothingness, a phrase which you found distasteful, because I equate it with the spirit of God. And I don’t want to go there, but no matter what it is called, the spiritual substance that is"encapsulated" is the basis for consciousness, mind, and soul, and the physical mechanism I call corpusculation provides individuality and specific identity to each of us.

This answer may seem silly to you, but at least its unique and unusual and isn’t that what philosophy is all about - the search for answers.?
I refer you to post 107, on page 8 my answer to your question.

YPPOP

 

[kildare]

Those are thoughts worth reflecting on. I ask the same questions—but, I am mystified by how you can ask questions which are so deep, yet, hold to beliefs which are—well, not very rational? Explain that if you can. Thanks.

Well the mystery of life and existence makes me feel very humble. Like a child actually.
From your perspective the church seems dogmatic and inflexible, but from mine it is filled with limitless possibilities and a guiding light. What we call supernatural does not have to be considered irrational merely because it does not leave a clearly visible footprints.
Maybe its the poet in me, but I find the materialistic explanation, lacking in the kind of imagination that actually got us to think about these things in the first place. The feeling I get is that there is something altogether impoverishing with the general trend of the Enlightenment (both the theistic clockwork designer and the materialistic determinist) of the 18th century which would consign Mystery to the cemetery of rustic ignorance and pagan superstition.

As for your position I would ask whether it rational to assume the universe knowable, measurable? I believe it is, but it is still an article of faith, which I happened to picked up by virtue of tradition and community and was able to test somewhat
I believe that the bible, which culminates in the life of Jesus Christ is a miracle of language, tradition and truth. The abstract truth appear to often go against the grain but in my heart (that is where my emotional intelligence meets the intellectual side) I see it for the Truth that it is. Judge a tree by its fruit! Well Western taught is the daughter of Judeo-christian theology and while many Christians have done stupid and terrible things in the name of their religion, I’ve yet to hear of a single refutation for any one of the Truths taught by Jesus. In fact as my life goes on these Truths seem to be confirmed to me ever more.

Divine revelation? Makes perfect sense if there is a personal God and as to that I have no doubts. Furthermore the Judeo-Christian revelation wasn’t revealed to a single man, but to a collective over thousands of years. Community, Tradition, Faith, the Word! The Word is Love. Real Love. Call me a socialist or an egalitarian, but I’m glad that God doesn´t just reveal Truth to those smartest or most fortunate. The language of Love is free!

 

[GaryTaylor]

Why am I not You? Why is my consciousness not your consciousness?

First off we can’t automatically attribute consciousness to our Brain. Thats a false path. For the main reason that there are variables which come into play before the existence of the Brain.

Consciousness implys a few concepts, subjectivity, change, continuity, and selectivity.

In theory, under the exact same conditions we would be the same. Yet there’s still another variable though and thats the Soul. Or is it? Would the Souls be all the same, and what proceeds through selectivity etc, “is” what makes the difference?

 

[GaryTaylor]

If we contemplate “para insomnia” The Brain protects the Soul. So in essense the individual is walking and acting and talking. Yet they cannot remember there actions because of protection from the Brain of the Soul. Often through PTSD or some Trauma.

I have to think deeper on this topic, interesting though to be sure. The Soul in the above case precedes the Brain though. I assume

 

[WmJackP]

Well the mystery of life and existence makes me feel very humble. Like a child actually.

Well, there is a lot to be said for latin and greek platitudes and maxims. They make very simplistic statements so much more profound. when I was in school, for some reason some of the Aenied always stuck with me, like “Facilis est decendere ad Adverno sed revocare grades–ille labor est” but, isn’t it easier to say “its easier to fall down than to get up”? Is one version less true than the other and is it really like wine, which becomes better with age? All it is is simply an observation of some universal applicaltion—not all that profound. Spoken in latin and pre-dating much of what you call the holy scripture, is it even remotely a “truth” that cannot be seen today as easily as by some ancient?

So altogether, your dogmatic truths, spoken in latin, greek or even if culled out in pieces from the shards of ancient clay jars in coptic venecular—they are words of uninspired men of their own times. Stand in awe if you like, but, in the fullness of time, like all things made of men, it will wither away.

 

[Betterave]

kildare;7424875:

Well, there is a lot to be said for latin and greek platitudes and maxims. They make very simplistic statements so much more profound. when I was in school, for some reason some of the Aenied always stuck with me, like “Facilis est decendere ad Adverno sed revocare grades–ille labor est” but, isn’t it easier to say “its easier to fall down than to get up”?

I’m curious: how would you literally translate this phrase?

 

[tomarin]

More importantly, why are you not me?

 

[Betterave]

Why am I not You? Why is my consciousness not your consciousness?

You are *not *identical to me insofar as each of us is constituted as a self-identical being relative to a different set of relations; this includes, but is not limited to, the relations that constitute our respective ‘consciousnesses’ (to these we could add our respective relations to God and to the natural world). You *are *identical to me insofar as we share the same nature.

 

[WmJackP]

WmJackP;7448114:

I’m curious: how would you literally translate this phrase?

“It is easy to descend into ‘Adverno’ *, but to recover one’s steps, that is the labor”… or more literally, it is quite simple to go down into hell, but, to come back, there is the toil and labor.

Thanks for asking.

JP*

 

[Tonitz]

Why am I not You? Why is my consciousness not your consciousness?

It is the same. You’re just not distinguishing between Consciousness as Principle and awareness as it’s manifestation in your case and mine as person. Awareness is Consciousness manifested as the body/mind experienced as ideas and thoughts. All three of these, awareness, ideas, and thought are each concentrically supported by Consciousness. The gift of reflexive awareness explored through prayer, meditation, contemplation and adoration can experientially reveal this dynamic.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

It is the same…

If it was the same I would experience things as you experience them. I would be you; but I evidently am not you, so why am I not you? Why did I come in to existence as me rather than you?

You’re just not distinguishing between Consciousness as Principle and awareness as it’s manifestation in your case and mine as person. Awareness is Consciousness manifested as the body/mind experienced as ideas and thoughts. All three of these, awareness, ideas, and thought are each concentrically supported by Consciousness. The gift of reflexive awareness explored through prayer, meditation, contemplation and adoration can experientially reveal this dynamic.

So…why is my consciousness not your consciousness?

 

[Tonitz]

@MindOverMatter2, Uh… Perhaps you could read the post again? It goes like this: Consciousness (as Principle or the unmanifest with no distinctions) is the light to awareness (the sense of individuality associated with a body and distinctions, or you and me) and is the container for the perception of ideas and thoughts (our individual and distinct experiences.) If you can understand that, you might adjust your handle on here as well, happily and voluntarily.