What is the true nature of 'I' in relation to sensations and thoughts?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lifegazer
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Nature
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the philosophical assertion that 'thinking' and 'sensation-of-awareness' are fundamental to understanding existence, supporting the claim "I think, therefore I am." Participants explore the nature of 'I', questioning whether the self can be defined through sensations and thoughts or if it exists independently. The conversation delves into the distinction between internal perceptions and external realities, suggesting that awareness may not be separate from its content. There is debate over whether the self can make true judgments about its existence, with some arguing that understanding is inherently relative. Ultimately, the discourse highlights the complexity of defining the self and the relationship between perception and reality.
  • #61
Originally posted by FZ+
You mean physical changes = God?
I wonder though if deities can in fact be consistent with an materialistic view...

Materialism did not include deities, cause materialism tries to explain the world without the help of deities. Consistent materialism therefore goes without any reference to a deity.


Just to be fair, I'll list some of the assumptions of materialism...

  • We can understand all things without the intervention of logical loopholes.
  • Logic applies to all existence.
  • Physical laws are universal.
  • Reality is not abolute (ok, kinda doesn't make sense, but...)
  • Existence is objective and separate from perception.
  • Observations are meaningful in respect to truth.
    [/list=a]


  • Some critique on this list of "assumptions" hold by materialism...

    You refer to "logical loopholes" and the "application of logic" in the context of materialism. It can be shown however that the aristotelian logic does not apply to matter. So it seems to me, you made the wrong list of assumptions, since clearly they do not fit materialism.

    To mention one item of logic, that does not fit the material world:
    the most fundamantal law of logic is the law of identity (A=A).
    This law of identity works well for abstract categories of the mind, like numbers. For the material world however, the law of identity has no application. Nowhere in nature you will find something that is exactly equal to something else, not even something that equals itself, cause everything is changing and moving, and is never the same. The only way of introducing the law of identity in the real world, would be to consider things without their inherent motion, thus by removing time. But this is just an absurdity, because things don't exist outside of time. Even a proton is never equal to itself, cause it is constantly interchanging the gluon force particles (mesons) with other nuclear particles, and changes from proton to neutron and then back to a neutron. And there is no way in which you can stop a proton from being in motion.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
Originally posted by heusdens
I don't know what a perfect definition of God is, the only conclusion I make is that anything that is existing, can be explained in material terms, and therefore can do without defining a God.

The phenomena of "love" can be explained in such a way also, absolutely. The most important part is of course the explenation why human behaviour includes something like love. The kind of explenation that could fit in here, is to explain this in terms of evolution.
"Love" is then a "chemical" bond between partners, which is functional in the sense of reproduction and raising children.
greg says: if I have a partner and am raising chidren that is love?
 
  • #63
Majin says: No. Raising children isn't neccasiraly love. Some people raise children, but treat them brutally. Love is the result of a series of chemical reactions in the brain.
 
  • #64
Originally posted by heusdens
I don't know what a perfect definition of God is, the only conclusion I make is that anything that is existing, can be explained in material terms, and therefore can do without defining a God.

The phenomena of "love" can be explained in such a way also, absolutely. The most important part is of course the explenation why human behaviour includes something like love. The kind of explenation that could fit in here, is to explain this in terms of evolution.
"Love" is then a "chemical" bond between partners, which is functional in the sense of reproduction and raising children.
greg says: I see you know there is a God so you don't have to define him. sounds good to me
 
  • #65
Originally posted by greg
greg says: if I have a partner and am raising chidren that is love?

Human practices in the field of having partners and raising children, do not always include "love" I'm affraid.
 
  • #66
Originally posted by greg
greg says: I see you know there is a God so you don't have to define him. sounds good to me

You say so, all I do is look at the totality of things in a materialistisc way, and proceed from there.
As I said, nowhere in my reasoning I need to explain things by including God into the explenation. If I would need that, then it would be that I find myself being unable to explain things.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
306
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
320
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K