The Final Word™ on the whole atheist/theist thing.

[Left]

I still experience nothing and form no new memories, and experience and memories are still dependent on machinery.

So you are the machinery?

When you first brought this up; I thought of something my girlfriend told me.
...Apparently I often mutter "I love you," in my sleep when I'm staying at her place.
So,what I think of as me still demonstrates some evidence of being there while I'm sleeping.
I've had a few instances of doing some rather bizarre things in an ostensibly awake state and not clearly remembering that I had done them.

My personal theory is that "you" is the program. When the program runs, that's you.

I'm not sure, but will have to think about it too.

[P3nT4gR4m]

The sticky bit for me happens at the "top" of the personality pyramid. I keep asking myself "who is experiencing this", "who is the observer" and the answer always seems to allude to single point of observation. "I" can always "look" at my whole being, which suggests "I" am something beyond my body and mind.

Either this is a subtle trick of consciousness, the equivalent of an optical illusion, in which case it really doesn't factor, or there is either some kind of point of god or soul that exists separate from my meat and software, that views it all through the lense that is me.

So if the latter is the case (I don't know so I'm 50/50 on this) but if it is we have one of two plausible scenarios - Either there is one ultimate observer ("god") who experiences every manifestation of consciousness or we get one unique one, each ("soul")

Either way this thing is, by definition, external so why the hell would it be affected one way or another by physical hardware failure. In the "software" analogy, why would the programmer cease to exist if the motherboard melted? Get new hardware, run the software from a backup, experience continues...

[Reginald Ret]

The sticky bit for me happens at the "top" of the personality pyramid. I keep asking myself "who is experiencing this", "who is the observer" and the answer always seems to allude to single point of observation. "I" can always "look" at my whole being, which suggests "I" am something beyond my body and mind.

Either this is a subtle trick of consciousness, the equivalent of an optical illusion, in which case it really doesn't factor, or there is either some kind of point of god or soul that exists separate from my meat and software, that views it all through the lense that is me.

So if the latter is the case (I don't know so I'm 50/50 on this) but if it is we have one of two plausible scenarios - Either there is one ultimate observer ("god") who experiences every manifestation of consciousness or we get one unique one, each ("soul")

Either way this thing is, by definition, external so why the hell would it be affected one way or another by physical hardware failure. In the "software" analogy, why would the programmer cease to exist if the motherboard melted? Get new hardware, run the software from a backup, experience continues...

What makes you think you can't observe yourself?

[P3nT4gR4m]

The sticky bit for me happens at the "top" of the personality pyramid. I keep asking myself "who is experiencing this", "who is the observer" and the answer always seems to allude to single point of observation. "I" can always "look" at my whole being, which suggests "I" am something beyond my body and mind.

Either this is a subtle trick of consciousness, the equivalent of an optical illusion, in which case it really doesn't factor, or there is either some kind of point of god or soul that exists separate from my meat and software, that views it all through the lense that is me.

So if the latter is the case (I don't know so I'm 50/50 on this) but if it is we have one of two plausible scenarios - Either there is one ultimate observer ("god") who experiences every manifestation of consciousness or we get one unique one, each ("soul")

Either way this thing is, by definition, external so why the hell would it be affected one way or another by physical hardware failure. In the "software" analogy, why would the programmer cease to exist if the motherboard melted? Get new hardware, run the software from a backup, experience continues...

What makes you think you can't observe yourself?

Nothing, read the second paragraph again? What I'm saying is that it appears this way. It's kind of like - does the set of all sets also contain itself paradox and, quite honestly, I have no idea. So I explore the implications of both possibilities until it's proven one way or the other.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I suppose that's natural. Instinct is to survive and reproduce, but what does survive mean, even within a spiritual context? Given that immortality of the soul exists, what does that entail after the various phases of the universe? We're currently in the stelliferous era, where stars are still being born. When stars stop forming and start dying (on the order of trillions of years, which, is well beyond the current age of the universe, 13.8 billion years) then it's all dying stars and black holes. No biological life. What do souls do during that whole damn time? Is immortality even worth it at that point? What do they do beyond that, into the degenerate era, and even way way way way way way^way beyond that when degenerate matter decays into diffuse, useless particles? Where are souls then?

Or, even better, where was I for the 13.8 billion years before August, 1981? I don't remember anything before August 1985, even though I was there.

Given that Heaven and Hell exist, what does Eternity mean? And not in the pure definition of the words, but what is the point? What is the point of everlasting love and reward vs everlasting hate and punishment? How is it that we can be more forgiving than God? How is it, at least in the Christian model, that God had to give himself up in the worse BDSM experiment ever in order to forgive us? Does that not make us more perfect than our perfect creator? That we are more readily able to forgive than he, since we require no blood sacrifice, unless in a twisted sense of communal vengeance?

Given that Reincarnation is real, where does Samsara end? Where is the lesson over? What is the point in repeating life? Life on Earth specifically to boot?

AND WHAT IS THE MECHANISM?

What it suggests to me is that we created the creator, as all other interpretations are too depressing to consider.

I'm starting to think that all interpretations are sufficiently depressing in their own way.

Mortality is horrible.

So is immortality.

Lack of agency behind the universe is horrible.

So is agency behind the universe.

I just want to know the punchline.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Given that Reincarnation is real, where does Samsara end? Where is the lesson over? What is the point in repeating life? Life on Earth specifically to boot?

I think the punchline may be related to this.

[Reeducation]

Mind is a myth! There is no such thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NOLopusG68

[Reginald Ret]

The sticky bit for me happens at the "top" of the personality pyramid. I keep asking myself "who is experiencing this", "who is the observer" and the answer always seems to allude to single point of observation. "I" can always "look" at my whole being, which suggests "I" am something beyond my body and mind.

Either this is a subtle trick of consciousness, the equivalent of an optical illusion, in which case it really doesn't factor, or there is either some kind of point of god or soul that exists separate from my meat and software, that views it all through the lense that is me.

So if the latter is the case (I don't know so I'm 50/50 on this) but if it is we have one of two plausible scenarios - Either there is one ultimate observer ("god") who experiences every manifestation of consciousness or we get one unique one, each ("soul")

Either way this thing is, by definition, external so why the hell would it be affected one way or another by physical hardware failure. In the "software" analogy, why would the programmer cease to exist if the motherboard melted? Get new hardware, run the software from a backup, experience continues...

What makes you think you can't observe yourself?

Nothing, read the second paragraph again? What I'm saying is that it appears this way. It's kind of like - does the set of all sets also contain itself paradox and, quite honestly, I have no idea. So I explore the implications of both possibilities until it's proven one way or the other.

Oh woopsie, lazy reading. I'm not sure if applying abstract mathematical theory to human consciousness is wise. The mind, in my mind, is more like a mirror: It has a reflection in it of everything it sees but that does not mean it contains the real thing. So the real you is not the you you observe, it is merely an abstraction. You can even say there is no such thing as a 'you' it is just a name you gave to a pattern you think you are seeing. As you said, akin to an optical illusion.

Thinking about this makes my brain go weird.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Thinking about this makes my brain go weird.

Mine too. I think that's one of the main reasons I spend so much time doing it 

[P3nT4gR4m]

Given that Reincarnation is real, where does Samsara end? Where is the lesson over? What is the point in repeating life? Life on Earth specifically to boot?

I think the punchline may be related to this.

You know me, I don't believe things but I do explore the possibilites. If I had to pick one that I hoped was true, I suspect we're both crossing our fingers for something similar

[Telarus]

Good thread. Posting so I can re-read and contribute.

[Left]

  So the real you is not the you you observe, it is merely an abstraction. You can even say there is no such thing as a 'you' it is just a name you gave to a pattern you think you are seeing. As you said, akin to an optical illusion.

Thinking about this makes my brain go weird.

...A name you give to a pattern you think you are seeing...   Does feel weird, doesn't it?

[P3nT4gR4m]

It's more like a pattern that thinks it's seeing itself, the way I think of it.

The pattern exists but its a dynamic pattern, a program. It creates consciousness as a meta property or an emergent one or whatever and that consciousness trips over some kind of self referencing feedback loop or something and suddenly there's an "I" to think about. An "I" which "am" no less.

Either he gag is there is no "I" outside the pattern, in which case the pattern can always be expected to deliver "I" if replicated.

Alternatively there is a scenario that there's really an external agent or passenger which, by definition doesn't remember getting in the vehicle and is left to run through decades of what, to me at least, is pretty much a simulation, in terms of you die in this world you go somewhere different and do other shit.

I can't discount either possibility, although I prefer the neatness of the first one - I reckon it would look prettier if you made a diagram kinda thing.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

It's more like a pattern that thinks it's seeing itself, the way I think of it.

The pattern exists but its a dynamic pattern, a program. It creates consciousness as a meta property or an emergent one or whatever and that consciousness trips over some kind of self referencing feedback loop or something and suddenly there's an "I" to think about. An "I" which "am" no less.

Either he gag is there is no "I" outside the pattern, in which case the pattern can always be expected to deliver "I" if replicated.

Alternatively there is a scenario that there's really an external agent or passenger which, by definition doesn't remember getting in the vehicle and is left to run through decades of what, to me at least, is pretty much a simulation, in terms of you die in this world you go somewhere different and do other shit.

I can't discount either possibility, although I prefer the neatness of the first one - I reckon it would look prettier if you made a diagram kinda thing.

Hmmm. Kinda like Twid is a video game character that the player gets really absorbed in and sleeping is when the player logs out of the game?

That's and interesting thought. And I can kinda see it. I also lose my identity as Twid when I play a video game and assume the identity of the character I am playing. Say I'm playing STO, I stop being Twid and suddenly become Shrod.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Never thought of it in that particular frame but, yeah. How do you explain the idea of separate "soul" otherwise? We either are some kind of a germ which grows one of these bad boys and then heaven or come back as a snail kinda deal or else it's put in there by someone or some thing.

Both of these seem a bit of a weird way of going about it to me but fuck if I know.