I'm just saying it wasn't a planned government subsidized program with waivers and stuff. Also that evil fuck should be chucked down the stairwell of Sears Tower.
I suppose it would depend on how long you stayed in that form.
I'm not sure on that one.
Lets take the idea of reincarnation. You are born into a new body. Nothing of your old body is transferred across. You have none of the memories, no physical relationship, none (or little) of the personality or other traits that are (at least partially) dependent on your physical state.
How much does that make sense? How much of you is transferred? How much of your identity is preserved?
Now lets say something similar happens to you in ten seconds time. You are instantly transferred to a new body. What exactly is it that would be transferred? The brain is very much structure dependent. It isn't like you can take a brain pattern in one person and invoke it in another - the connections don't match up. Memories wouldn't work. Personality probably wouldn't make sense; too hormonal, too tied up in memories and other brain dependent factors. What could be transferred that makes up your identity?
I think this is the reason that a lot of science fiction authors are embracing digital brains rather than having minds transferred between flesh. Something like Richard Morgan's cortical stack allows a transferable mind that can be moved between bodies, while Egan posits quantum computing brains in Schild's Ladder to make it possible to transfer minds across space and between computer constructs and physical bodies at will. Both of these (and some futurist wet dreams) require converting human identity from a mind emerging from the brain to a mind existing from a computer, with some fleshy add-ons.
Now lets say something similar happens to you in ten seconds time. You are instantly transferred to a new body. What exactly is it that would be transferred? The brain is very much structure dependent. It isn't like you can take a brain pattern in one person and invoke it in another - the connections don't match up. Memories wouldn't work. Personality probably wouldn't make sense; too hormonal, too tied up in memories and other brain dependent factors. What could be transferred that makes up your identity?
The entire point of Hinduism has been to figure out who you are once all that other shit is peeled away. This actually is the fundamental question of life.
I thought that it was possible for memories to be retained from "past lives" via reincarnation (I think Jung supported this with his idea of collective unconscious)?
Honestly, I'm not really sure on that one. Again, I'll have to do some research to give an adequate response.
I thought that it was possible for memories to be retained from "past lives" via reincarnation (I think Jung supported this with his idea of collective unconscious)?
Not in Hinduism. Not outside story-books at least.
Actually even in the myths people only remember the past if an outside force makes them remember. So it's more like implanting the memories into you than having you remember something already inside.
See, I think the more general question (what makes us who we are, and what does that mean) is the interesting one. I also see it as the best approach for the narrow version. Trying to understand what (if anything) isn't physical by understanding the physical as fully as possible.
It's also my answer to Matrix scenarios. If we were trapped in a simulated universe, the best way of finding out would be to find out as much about the way the universe worked as possible. Maybe we could detect that it was a simulation that way, and if it isn't then at least we have all this bonus knowledge.
I think it depends on which model you are looking at. But then I think I've only had a brief introduction to actual Hindu/Buddhist thought on this, and a fucktonne of New Age bullshit, so I'd rather not say anything definitive on that side. I'm just looking at it from a speculative position as a hypothetical.
Also Duste, the Genie case was only the first one that came to mind, in a film I had to watch about Genie in my socl. class, we were also shown clips from a film (based on a true story) that was about a boy who had grown up (on his own) in the woods who had been discovered by an intellectual who adopted him and attempted to "domesticate" him. Basically, he wanted to try and make the feral boy into a regular person, which had apparently, turned into a lost cause. The film itself was old, and the story takes place in I'd guess, mid 1800's. In real life, the boy had made some improvement, but would eventually be unable to make anymore improvement after awhile. Genie had a similar experience wherein her adoptive parents were forced to have her be taken in by another couple, who were unfortunatly, also abusive like Genie's mother and father. This caused Genie to regress on a lot of her progress, and she was unable to fully become what we consider "normal". She may have been able to speak, but based on the results of her years of neglect and abuse, she was unable to communicate meaningfully.
The point is, that in both cases, both children had grown up with little to no human contact whatsoever, and when attempts had been made to help them gain some sense of being and intelligence, while they both made progress from when they were originally found, they were both unable to fully assimilate into culture. Having no human contact negates any chances to learn, and therefore, an inability is grown to fully become a part of society.
Victor is much closer to what you may have wanted to mention.
The boy made very, very minimal progress. He only learned to spell one word, "lait".
Actually, the Genie case has been touched by a bit too much fiction. She wasn't placed in an abusive foster care home until later in her life, after the formal studies, so depth of regression and loss are hard to determine. The problem here being a question of how much has actually been lost due to the abuse she suffered, and what new responses it brought about in her (such as a fear of opening her mouth at all).
She would never have achieved "normalcy" in any case due to the mental handicap she was born with. She was able to communicate meaningfully (emotionally and intentionally) just not with any defined "grace" or structure..
One child grew up with feral contact, the other with human contact in a controlled environment.
Don't oversimplify theis very complex issue. Contact existed for Genie, and Victor. Just not representing the necessary structure for human development.
She was born handicapped? That's a new one for me...
Hmmmm... Maybe it was Victor, I don't remember if the film on Genie mentioned his name at all... It only really scratched the full story, pretty much just told me the beginning/concept and the end... Unfortunately the film clips didn't elaborate on how much progress the boy had made, only that he had made progress then stopped...
Regardless, the issue of studying and attempting to rehabilitate children who have gone with out human contact and learning for the majority of their lives are (thankfully) too little and rare to really get a full answer if it's a lost cause to try and save children like Genie and Victor. Reason it's a good thing is that having an en masse study of a multitude of children who were treated no better than Genie is that means that the people studying them would have to be controlling them somehow and have them in similar enviroments... And that'd be seriously messed up.
I'll resist the urge to give you a WTF neg-mod and ask what "if you do good, good happen" means. If you free will didn't exist, which I know, to you, it does, but just entertain for a second that it might not, what do words like good and bad even mean?
And I really have no reply against it because I never said I necessarily agreed with the comment. Twas merely an elaboration as well as an assumption as to his meaning.
I not religious, but yeah Chi got it right, I was reffering to Karma, As for the Holocaust, I don't believe in fatalism. I don't agreed with the fact that thing are bound to happen, Im sure that in most situation there change that can be made by any means. I strongly love philosophy but you outmatch my ability. Sorry to maybe interrupt a deep conversation when I posted my answer I did not see that this topic was gone that far in pages.
Determinism is not fatalism by default. I'm a determinist, but I'm also very up-beast about it. Not that i take any credit for that, as I don't think it could have gone any other way. Fatalism gives up before it starts, like nihilists. I think people have made contributions to the way the multiverse plays out, but only in determined, clockwork ways.
Phrasing the question differently: what is the difference between the freedom to do something and the power to do something? I would argue nothing at all.
I don't believe theres such a thing as fate, however I do believe in coincidence. So based on what im saying is everything is controlled by free will with coincidences intervening every so often
I support soft determinism... Ultimately, what you do with your life is your choice, but there are certain uncontrollable factors which make certain paths more desirable or compelling; Factors like your genes or environmental circumstances. Woah. Totally just got a flashback to A Level Phil + Ethics. I need some chicken nuggets.
