• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

A theory I want ripped to shreds.

JanisChambers

Thinker
J
Joined
Jan 26, 2007
Messages
174
Alright, I have to first say that I no longer believe in this theory I made when I was rather young, but it still bothers me. I thought the skeptics here could have a little fun ripping this to shreds, honestly I've never gone too deep into studying it... never found the need to really. For me any god would have to present it's self before I could have faith in it or the geology of it's supernatural worlds (heaven). Anyway, here's the crazyness.

Subjectively, if a person forgets something, than it is as if it does not exist. (note I do not mean objectively, as in that person can gather evidence of that place/thing/time actually did exist) If we are to ultimately die and all of our memories fade, how it is we have the ability to know what we are doing now... seeing as later on recollections of the present/past/and future will be completely gone?

Again, I've taken a pragmatic stance on this, I don't want to make the same mistake creationists make with evolution, not able to understand the process and immediately putting a silly anthropomorphic solution such as "god must have done it". Specially as it begs the question... when what made god? Now have fun.
 
Last edited:
JanisChambers said:
Alright, I have to first say that I no longer believe in this theory I made when I was rather young, but it still bothers me. I thought the skeptics here could have a little fun ripping this to shreds, honestly I've never gone too deep into studying it... never found the need to really. For me any god would have to present it's self before I could have faith in it or the geology of it's supernatural worlds (heaven). Anyway, here's the crazyness.

Subjectively, if a person forgets something, than it is as if it does not exist. (note I do not mean objectively, as in that person can gather evidence of that place/thing/time actually did exist) If we are to ultimately die and all of our memories fade, how it is we have the ability to know what we are doing now... seeing as later on recollections of the present/past/and future will be completely gone?

Again, I've taken a pragmatic stance on this, I don't want to make the same mistake creationists make with evolution, not able to understand the process and immediately putting a silly anthropomorphic solution such as "god must have done it". Specially as it begs the question... when what made god? Now have fun.
Click to expand...

I'm confused, and trying for clarification.

Are you asking how it is that if we know things now (while alive) how can we not know things after we die?

Our brain chemistry is functioning "now", while we live. It stops doing that when it's supplies are cut off (when we die). I guess I see your question, as I understand it, the same as asking why we breath now, but not when we die. When we die, the body shuts down. The brain that held those memories (in a way that others can explain far better than I) stops holding them. They dissolve away with the rest of our life functions.

Which makes me wonder, if we could supply a brain with the right inputs/supplies, after it's removed from a dead person, could that person's memories be restored? But, that's a way off topic diversion.

Anyway, I believe the religious' hang up on everlasting souls is the result of an unwillingness to accept that at some point in time, we simply die, and stop being what we were. What we experienced, and learned are, as far as we are concerned, gone. Only the influence of our having been here remains. That's a hard idea for some to grasp/accept.
 
JanisChambers said:
If we are to ultimately die and all of our memories fade, how it is we have the ability to know what we are doing now...
Click to expand...

Let's rephrase the question: "Our consciousness of current events becomes memories as time passes. What happens to our counsciousness and our memories when we die?"

Is that it?

If so, the answer is, "Pretty much the same thing as happens to the numbers and formulae you entered on your calculator, when you shut it off."

It sounds flip but, functionally, that's pretty much it.
 
I know what he is getting at -- if, when we die, that's it, then we must therefore be existing "now" since we couldn't be recalling this moment from the future after we die.

When you recall a memory, that moment in time "lives again", so to speak, as an experienced experience, even if clouded and imperfect in reproduction. Hence your current experience must either be live, or be in the process of being recalled and experienced from the future.


Basically, my own take on it is that, since I don't believe in life after death (techno-rapture possibilities aside) that this is prima facie evidence that we do exist in the here and now, rather than are memories being recalled in the future.

The point is made more clearly -- imagine you are sitting there and there's an asteroid about 0.2 seconds from obliterating you and everything around you for half a mile. While you will remain conscious at that moment and for 0.2 more seconds, there will never be a recalling of that moment from some point in the future, even a fraction of a second in the future, unlike other moments in your life.
 
Creepy...I've had the same exact thoughts, Janis.

Perhaps evidence for a collective unconscious?!
 
JanisChambers said:
If we are to ultimately die and all of our memories fade, how it is we have the ability to know what we are doing now... seeing as later on recollections of the present/past/and future will be completely gone?
Click to expand...

To me, this seems exactly like asking how we're able to eat a cake now knowing the cake will be eaten soon and cease to exist as a cake.

???

One of us here is a bit mad. You, I think.
 
John Blonn said:
Creepy...I've had the same exact thoughts, Janis.

Perhaps evidence for a collective unconscious?!
Click to expand...

I run, you run, we all run (barring physical damage and laziness). Evidence for a collective spiritual running body?
 
How are we able to do anything now that, in future, we won't be able to do?

Don't get it.
 
*crouches for cover* I'm somewhat sorry I even wrote this one. The blunt truth, I think, is that the future does not exist until it's the present, so the very idea of this proving anything is useless.

I think this is simply a logical fallacy, I was just wanting to see if anyone could find it. But to help you understand the crazyness, maybee I can clear it up.

1. I am speaking of subjective reality, from a single persons perspective.

2. I am assuming that if a person loses memory of an event, then subjectively that event does not exist.

3. In the event of death, where no memory survives, no event will exist subjectively.

4. In a point in the future every event will no longer exist to that person, this includes the memory of what we are doing in the present. Hince 'now' will not exist, again this is only in that persons perspective.

The argument against it? I suppose it's because I can confusing memory for consciousness, memory is nothing more than a record of precious points of consciousness, once it becomes a memory, it's subject to being lost.

^_^; yay... I figured that out while typing....

If I die and no longer exist, then what does it matter? In the end the idea of an afterlife is not only pointless, but frightening. How many years does it take for everything to loose it's luster, it's interest... If there is a god, he must be very bored.
 
Oh and Jesus freak, what I meant about God presenting it's self before I would have faith in it, I guess I mix the world 'faith' for trust. I have faith in my firends. Having faith in thinking something exists is dellusion, in my opinion.
 
I'm having trouble understanding this pov too.

There is no 'now' that we experience in the way you imply. Sense perceptions are not accessed directly, but all pulled from memory, even if a very short time passes between the sense and our 'experience' of it.

If we had direct access to the universe, would there be any need for philosophy?

The problem with 'god must give evidence' lies in the inability to access 'god' directly. We experience everything through a potentially flawed process.

How do we know that our memory access to something is faithful to whatever the 'direct' thing was?

Philosophy of science offers some methods of approaching what the 'direct' thing is, but it is in the end, an educated guess supported by observation and testing that are repeatable and falsifiable.

So we can never know absolutely. Claiming to know absolutely is actually the realm of faith, not reason or science.
 
JanisChambers said:
*crouches for cover* I'm somewhat sorry I even wrote this one. The blunt truth, I think, is that the future does not exist until it's the present, so the very idea of this proving anything is useless.

I think this is simply a logical fallacy, I was just wanting to see if anyone could find it. But to help you understand the crazyness, maybee I can clear it up.

1. I am speaking of subjective reality, from a single persons perspective.

2. I am assuming that if a person loses memory of an event, then subjectively that event does not exist.

3. In the event of death, where no memory survives, no event will exist subjectively.

4. In a point in the future every event will no longer exist to that person, this includes the memory of what we are doing in the present. Hince 'now' will not exist, again this is only in that persons perspective.

The argument against it? I suppose it's because I can confusing memory for consciousness, memory is nothing more than a record of precious points of consciousness, once it becomes a memory, it's subject to being lost.

^_^; yay... I figured that out while typing....

If I die and no longer exist, then what does it matter? In the end the idea of an afterlife is not only pointless, but frightening. How many years does it take for everything to loose it's luster, it's interest... If there is a god, he must be very bored.
Click to expand...


Try this one on for size, fun philosophical mumbo-jumbo:

People change considerably throughput their lives. Who you are now is quite different than when you were 6. But you share common memories with that child of 6 and thus we say you are the same person. Let's say that you at age 20 (pretend you are twenty) recall events from age 6 and thus you are the same person because you share the same memories, even though you are quite different in many respects.

Okay, then let's imagine you at age 65, a more accomplished person still. You can recall being the 20 year old you formerly were, but you can no longer recall being 6. We would have to say that you are no longer the same person as the 6 year old, but still the same person as the 20 year old. But wait! Paradox - the 20 year old is the same person as the 6 year old - so you are simultaneously the same person as the 20 year old and not the same person the 20 year old.

Problem of using memory as reference for metaphysics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom