If materialism is true and all of us a consigned to our bodies and individuality/brains...

If materialism is true and all of us a consigned to our bodies and individuality/brains, the ehat is it that put each of us in our bodies at birth\? Like which law of physics is that?

People only believe such nonsense because most of them don't even realize they're alive at all. The question of consciousness scarcely occurs to them.

How would assigning souls to certain bodies be a function that needs to be explained in a system that doesn't include souls?

King James Bible
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

>what is it that put each of us in our bodies at birth

You weren't put into a body at birth. Your sense of identity ("you") emerged after birth as a program running on the software of the mind to the hardware of the brain.

I believe in materialism because if you believe in reincarnation or spiritualism, you have to admit animals or maybe even video game characters have souls., which is irrational.

How do you explain the boundries of individuality with material sceince? I mean you can, in that from each brain arises its own phenomena we call "conscience". But that follows, if conscience is discreet, there must be some code in the universe or law of pyhsics that chooses *which* body and time period *your* conscience will arise.

>emerged after birth as a program running on the software of the mind to the hardware of the brain.

What law put the identity there though? Why is the identity discrete instead of continuous?

>What law put the identity there though?

No one particular "law" causes identity to form. You'd probably want to look at evolutionary biology. Identity is a useful behavioral routine. And when creatures develop useful behavioral routines that help them survive and reproduce more than other creatures, then those tendencies will be selected for and made more pronounced over time.

>Why is the identity discrete instead of continuous?

Can you explain what discrete identity vs. continuous identity would look like? I don't understand what you're asking about right now.

>I believe in materialism because if you believe in reincarnation or spiritualism, you have to admit animals or maybe even video game characters have souls., which is irrational.
Why?

But what law determines the 7 billion distinct identity routines?

>Can you explain what discrete identity vs. continuous identity would look like?

Well, there's a definite boudry between me and you. I can't access what you're feeling. What prevents that?

I believe in materials because everything is linked to the physical world.

>But what law determines the 7 billion distinct identity routines?

>Well, there's a definite boudry between me and you. I can't access what you're feeling. What prevents that?

You would need something extra to make one brain network with another. By analogy, a program running on a computer can't jump to another computer unless you have something else that makes a connection between them.

Thi is what I'm sayiing though why do you need networking? And its no good using competer program analogies, becase that would imply computer programs are also indivduals and so you need to ask why I'm seperated from a computer program.

>Thi is what I'm sayiing though why do you need networking?

Why wouldn't you need networking? It wouldn't make sense if transmission of information between two objects (brains) just magically worked without a mechanism allowing for it,

>And its no good using competer program analogies

It's plenty good using computer program analogies. Analogies are never between two exactly identical things, otherwise there would be no point in using an analogy since you'd just be comparing something to itself.

>why I'm separated from a computer program

The computer programs that exist today don't do what the sense of identity on a brain does. While not identical with what the brain does, you can still see how they operate under similar principles, and how there's no reason why there can't eventually be a program ran on a computer that does do what the sense of identity on a brain does.

It sounds like you're really asking about the continuous "agent"(perceived cause) of conscious actions, which does not actually relate to identity at all. That agent is a constant of reality, but is measured within a limited space by humans. It's everywhere, but a human can only perceive it in things that are familiar(the human's own body) because it has a high degree of information about it.

It would make absolute sense if all things in the universe were one. The only thing that presents a unified "you" experience is neurones, and even deeper the elecrity between the nuerones. So that's what you are, electricty. Electricity and magnetism are nothing more than vibrations within the electromagnetic field. And so, that's what I, you, everything that can sense or have individuality is, vibrations of this field. And the electromagnetic field is constant, it extends throught the universe. So why isn't it one?

>It's plenty good using computer program analogies

Its not because you're assuming computers programs are individuals are basing your argument of that.

>While not identical with what the brain does, you can still see how they operate under similar principles

They dont at all, not even in principle. The brain is fundementally different from a computer.

I was asksing why we're all discrete "consciences" rather than one continuous, unified conscience that experiences everything all at once. A "universal" consciounse.

>I was asksing why we're all discrete "consciences" rather than one continuous, unified conscience that experiences everything all at once. A "universal" consciounse.
There is a "universal consciousness" though, we just don't have perfect access to it. What reason do you have to think this isn't the case?

>The only thing that presents a unified "you" experience is neurones, and even deeper the elecrity between the nuerones. So that's what you are, electricty.

No, "you" (the sense of identity) aren't (isn't) electricity. Electricity is part of the hardware, not the software. The sense of identity is an abstraction, not a physical thing. Just like the imaginary "box" with text inside it that you're reading isn't a physical box, it's the illusion of a physical box made possible through lights on a screen that are made to change in coordination with the input received from the keys you press or the movement you make with your mouse. None of the underlying physical components *are* that "box." The box is an abstract object you entertain as though it were real because it's useful to have that imaginary / abstract world play out as a way to guide your behavior and make the machine work in ways you expect it to. The machine's really working based on purely physical principles, but that imaginary / abstract world bridges the gap between how you think and what it needs to operate in a way you'd expect based on how you think. And the sense of identity along with the other mental programs on your brain work in the same way. Nobody actually engages their brain in a direct way to get it to do things. We generally don't stick physical tools into our brains and prod at parts of it to get a reaction. What happens instead is we interact with abstract / imaginary worlds which bridge the gap between the simplified models we think in terms of and the lower level complicated details that need to happen for the brain to do what we expect it to in response to our senses and impulses.

Well if there's a universal conscious it implies an afterlife of some sort which isn't true.

>The sense of identity is an abstraction, not a physical thing

There's no such thing as an abraction. A fairy tale exists as electric pulses. Idenitity may exist as electric pusles but that just comlicates everything, since electricity is a manifestation of the electric field which is one homogenous field.

>Well if there's a universal conscious it implies an afterlife of some sort
What? No.

Two go

the thing is that the electro-magnetic field of the earth doesn't interfere with brain activity, so there is no connection between people from it. sticking a magnet next to someone's head does nothing, but sticking electrodes to their head does

Yes. If there's a universal consiounce that experiences everything, once you're dead, it should not be over. Why should you not return to it and then get put in another discrete identity? This is the thing. No one has a straight answer. Personally I think reincarnation is the most likely scenario, that we're all discrete "parts" of a single field that just finds another "self" to insert itself into. From purely observational evidence, reincarnation is the most likely scenario, since Iwe all came into existance once, it can happen again. But we're still no closer to answering any questions about what it means to be conscious.

I think it's more along the lines of if you can imagine it, it's possible.

No, but its the same entity. Ture, it doesn't interfere, but neither do ripples in water, despite being the same body. Actualoly, im cheating you there because the ripples in water use the mechanics of "ripples" or "vibrations" in the electroagnetic field. But it *is* the same entity. Imagine a single, continuous, homogenous line, extending in three dimensions throughout the whole universe. Your magnet and our consience are the same line, just vibrating in different areas. The magnet has no effect for the same reason water ripples have no effect on each other, they don't repel.

Its comlicated stuff, but essentially a magnet has all the electrons spinning in the same direction which amplifies the "repelling" effect between elctrons, but the electons in out brains are moving in a way that isn't the same as the magnet, so there's no repulsion or nteraction. But you can still see in this example they're the same phenomena.

Not imagine, but people say we die and then that's it. But observaqtion prooves it wrong. I came into existance once, so it can happen again. The most likely scenario is another birth.

>There's no such thing as an abstraction.

There's no such thing as numbers? If so, there's no such thing as programs and no such thing as you, because all three all abstractions.

>Not imagine, but people say we die and then that's it.
It goes like this. See everything in front of you? It just breaks up leaving nothing but black and silence. Then you wait. Then you speak.

I know the pieces fit because I watched them fall away.

>return to
Nothing is separate from it in the first place.

I don't think numbers are abstractions, I think they're inferences. Maths is the language we use, but I think its an inference of a universal language. It has to be, otherwise there shouldn't be anyway to use math in higher spacial dimensions. There are 3 spacial and 1 time dimsensions in our universe. Why then can we use math to determine what happens in 11, 20 or even 59 deimensions? We shouldn't be able to, but we can because whatever framework the universe uses, it accounts for it. Which is my original question, there must be something, some law or anything, that states all of us are individuals and seperates us.

>It just breaks up leaving nothing but black and silence.

I don't deny that. But from my own experience, I leap to around 4 years old and start experiencing again, and am surrounded by other indivduals who tell me I was alive longer and all the things I did.

If nothing is seperate then why do we have seperate experiences? Shouldn't it be one entity that experiences everything at once?

sorry asshole but you don't get away with "we are all one entity" bullshit. Only Spinoza does.

"We are all connected" yadda yadda. Have you gone past that shitty job, finished college, or found the love of your life?

if no, then everything you say is literal faggotry. The only thing you can do is deftly maneuver around the veil of Maya a day at a time.

The God(s) of this universe don't have a logical necessity where they must be sentimental about the value of your life or about the value of being overwhelmed by the "feeling for the sublime".

I don't say this out of mean spiritedness. Only out of the following observational wisdom: Humans will indulge any vice and swallow any faggotry as long as they are admired by their peers.

Unlike Spinoza, I'm arguing from a pureley material, physical standpoint and I'm seeking conversation, not making a solid argument. If I knew what the fuck was going on I'd go and get a fucking nobel prize and change the way humanity thinks forever rather that talking to you.

I will not die, it's the world that will end

Mental experiment: Would Mario be able to ascertain the complexities of 3-d life while being stuck in a lower energy simulation?

My default is a "don't know".

A clever mind can quickly ascertain winning strategems and create crystallized concepts. But the problem space for a world of human agents is far larger than the ability of a single human to claim mastery over.

So the winning strategy for most agents is to pass on the difficulty of higher energy systems and instead work on smaller, more local problem spaces.

>If nothing is seperate then why do we have seperate experiences? Shouldn't it be one entity that experiences everything at once?
This a poorly formed question. "Experiencing" is a type of action; nothing is "passive". So what we've been calling "universal consciousness"(which is also a bad term) is what moves everything. When a human thinks or moves, they perceive this universal actor as the initiator of those thoughts and motion. Having perfect perception of that actor would be omniscience, but humans only perceive it for a brief moment and thus can only hold onto information that is "close" to what they already have. It's not well understood right now.

Well you will die according to conventional definition. Whether the essence of you persists is a question I don't think anyone can answer. Worse care scenario, the universe quantum tunnels an plays out exactly the same way with everyone doing exactly the same thing. Which means ever aborted child, every teenager who suffers the worst murder possible and every starving peasents is condemned to live in a cycle of suffering for eternity.

Mario isn't a unified entity like you or me are. Mario exists in various incarnations and what "Mario" means or is is different to every person.So comparing Mario to us is not really a valid equivalence.

Do you thnk Stirner was right in that our language will never be adequete to explain the "root" of what everything is and thus we'll never be able to know what's really going on, and so will have to resign ourselves to using poetic language and "hope" other people understand us?

>Mario isn't a unified entity like you or me are. Mario exists in various incarnations and what "Mario" means or is is different to every person.So comparing Mario to us is not really a valid equivalence.

What makes mario not "unified"?

We might not be "unified" but just the result of a seed generation in some incomprehensible simulation analogue in some n+3 configuration.

I told you, the problem space is too large. Especially when one can create infinite statements about the problem space. The ocean of reality will drown you LONG LONG before you drown it.

As I said, my default is "Don't know". If you attain enlightenment, you still have to do the fucking dishes.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7Ax2BqZo3Y

>Do you thnk Stirner was right in that our language will never be adequete to explain the "root" of what everything is and thus we'll never be able to know what's really going on, and so will have to resign ourselves to using poetic language and "hope" other people understand us?
What does this have to do with my post exactly?

>What makes mario not "unified"?

Because there is no branwave activity that can be linked to him other than human branwaves when thinking of him.

>As I said, my default is "Don't know"

I agree, I'm just asking questions. I think reincarnation is most likely, but I don't say that with dogma.

Because you were talking a lot like him with quotations around things to denote a deeper meaning. I just thought you'd read him.

>Because there is no branwave activity that can be linked to him other than human branwaves when thinking of him.

I was talking about a hypothetical mario that could (somehow) reason within his space.

>I think reincarnation is most likely,

How to ascertain what a lot of people say:

"How much would you bet on the validity of your own beliefs?"

Also "brainwaves" are one mechanism in a problem space which could contain x number of interlocking mechanisms and y number trans-dimensional mechanics

"brainwaves" is but one element in the language game of neurology. Which in of itself could be a single element in an infinite set of "stories and/or mechanics which could explain consciousness".

As I implied, smart money works on manageable local space problems, Not megalomania.

>I was talking about a hypothetical mario that could (somehow) reason within his space.

Well I don't know. Take a Mario in a typical Mario 64 game on a Nintendo 64 console. Does this Mario feel? Does Qualia exist for him? When he loses health, does he feel pain? Based purely on science, he should do, since all he is is electrity flowing from one bit to another, And all we are is electricty flowing from one neurone to the other. But he can't possess any higher rationalization powers we allowed him. Which brings me to my point: its clear we, just like Mario have limited experience. So what, in the universe or out, set our experience to be limited?

>"How much would you bet on the validity of your own beliefs?"

It depends on the stakes.

>
As I implied, smart money works on manageable local space problems, Not megalomania.

I don't propose to the have the answers at all. Are you saying the question is not worth asking until we have further information?

ITT: Sophistry and flagrant mental masturbation.

Did some guy really say math and numbers aren't abstract? Jesus fucking Christ.

>question is not worth asking until we have further information?

Pretty much.

But there's an odd thing in this culture (but not exclusively to it) which demands that the universe bow to the gates leading to the palace of the mind.

Which leads to another flaw. Humans want a model of the universe that fits their minds. Not an expansion of their mind to probe unknowns.

Which leads to another flaw. Models of the universe are part of language games that human agents use to signal intelligence, obedience to authority, and cleverness (to themselves).

So you have these fucktards talking about quantum mechanics who haven't done a fraction of the math but who impress other fucktards and a lot of non-fucktards. i don't claim to understands it, I can't even do the math. Unless given mescaline, the ability of spatio-visual reasoning, in an average human, pales in comparison to the shorthand that maths introduces for processing possible systems that govern our visible universe.

Nothing? What are you even talking about? Do you think personhood happens at birth? That's only a legal construct.

>math and numbers aren't abstract?

Then why can we use them to work out things that shouldn't be able to happen? I can calculate the plankary reccurence time for a Universe far bigger than ours will ever be. If Math was an abstract made-up thing I shouldn't be able to do that.

Math is an intrinsic feature of the universe

Abstract doesn't mean "made up." It's when you remove (ab- means "from" and --stract means "take") and work with a concept separate from the details of an instance of its use. Looking over this thread a lot of your probems stem from not knowing what words mean. Look them up, don't make up your own definitions.

It's just a matter of perspective you fucking idiot

>I don't think numbers are an abstraction


Hmmmm....