Recent content by lem09

i congenitally blind person maybe but i think that yeah i don't normally "see" out of the back of my head but I'm still aware of if visuospatially.

Yeah another sense organ does seem possible... But... I thought that maybe there was something peculiar about touch and sight. We feel [I take this to mean we are embodied in] and see empty space and IMVHO the space that these senses engage with cannot be done away with... What would it mean...

What I mean is that they'd be about the same thing (me) but because the mind would not be reduced the descriptions would not fully map onto each other (this itch is these neurons). So if that can happen then maybe in principle a similar thing does with the timing of neuronal events. That would...

But do they say the exact same thing: is personal existence just biological processes? If the mind is not just what science says it is, then maybe descriptions of mental events are not a map of descriptions of material events, in the sense of mind flowing past the point where we would otherwise...

Well I mean something close enough to "thinking" as to be OK with you understanding it as such in such and such a way... How can some item of knowledge [I exist] be nothing more than some other item of knowledge [I am this chemical body] if the event they both describe is more likely the first...

My reason? Lots of people have different reasons and I suppose that the one I'll give now is that believing I am just physical processes does an injustice to the conviction of the cogito.

Well no. There's a (big obvious) difference between an explanation of how something comes about and a reason to believe it.

I don't really understand your facetiousness..? I'd suggest that all minds "revert" to the same state. Does physics really say nothing about the mind or what happens to it at death? In_that_case I suppose that the only question left for me is whether argument can pick up on these little gaps.

A difference between a chemical explanation of me and something like the cogito is that the cogito is more certain. Does greater conviction in a lower level theory ever have consequences to their integration? I'm not sure that I know much about how science works tbh.

This is imho a poor analogy because a machine is just a machine nothing more, as i mentioned above. Again, like I said above, my lack of imagination. I see no reason why that couldn't be formulated into a philosophical argument, e.g. a phenomenological one. I don't know what makes it so but I...

I'm not sure I'm talking about thought processes as much as something like the container of the brain. Or maybe that the life of the brain is a reality that is separate from that of natural cause and effect. Not that science cannot say we die extinguished and that's it but that that reality...

Because philosophy might have something to say about it and philosophy might say that we survive death. Yes I know that all I've said is the word philosophy twice there, so I'll add that my starting point is just that I can't imagine it being any other way. You might reply that I can or you...

Death, being dead, afterlives and other nonsense! Dear scientists! What do you think happens to you when you die? By which I mean, according to physics what happens to the mind? I have this strong belief that the mind can't die, in some senses of the word. I don't actually mean in the sense...

Hi I hope someone can reply to this, it's a very interesting topic and surely central to Heidegger. According to that link death is not the end of Dasein. Does this mean that to be dead is to be like something, like some people say "what is it like it be a bat?"? I'm not religious [in fact an...