Im also saying that the experience of seeing the car does not involve a first experiencer either. Its an important point

It just seems to me that we discover logical absolutes rather than construct them. A formal system of logic that constructs rather than discovers absolutes within reality would be incoherent (what meaning could absolute have in this context?) and useless. Any idea could necessarily be true. We know this isn't the case.

BTW...this is *way* over my pay grade. Hopefully OrP will jump in and help clarify this particular point (on either side).

That's fair and it's probably beyond the scope of the thread anyway. As a quick aside, would you ever be willing to do an 'Ask Me' thread? I would be very interested to see how you came to your current state of beliefs (and the methodology you used).

This is where things get interesting. I'm not saying that we necessarily "construct" the logical system. It can be "out there" for us to discover, but it's "out there" in an immaterial way. The statement "1+1=2" isn't found by looking at rocks and trees, but it's still there in some real way... just not in a physical way.

(Undoubtedly, OrP knows precise search words to try to get a few SEP articles on the matter. You might be able to find something in the physicalism and the dualism articles, but there may also be something else out there that is directed more at this specific question.)

Not in the near future. Responding to these posts has already put me a little behind in a couple of projects. And these are things where I'm spitting out a couple paragraphs at a time. An "Ask Me" thread will probably require much more time than I have right now.

*nods* So you grasp what my post was saying? You know it, experience it, find it to be truthful, etc? OK.

So.....when you expressed this judgment:

You were making an illustrative point? When this thought arose from your conditioned mind, and you chose to attach to it and identify with it, the expression of the judgment of your self/story was so all could see how it works?

Larry is the pilot of a jet, flying from Miami to Seattle. The jet is currently on auto-pilot.
The spirit of man is like the pilot.
The body/soul of man is like the jet, a vehicle for spirit.
And when one believes they are--(attaches to and identifies with)--the jet,
they are (mostly) on auto-pilot, flying by programming and conditioning.
And a whole "story of self" develops from the trips taken on auto-pilot.
Which is also attached to and identified with
And that story of self is what most think they are.
When in truth, they are being of the Being; spirit; Larry the pilot.

Confusing metaphor, but nm

Even when one doesnt believe they are the jet, they are still on auto pilot, flying by programming and conditioning. Thats the whole point. Theres no one there, ever.

The one that doesn't believe, is the one that's there.

The jet will fly by it's programming and conditioning; and when Larry hits a button, the jet will fly according to the new input.

If the one that doesnt believe is the one thats there, then that means that there is in fact a self. You cant have it both ways, you cant say, theres not a self, except when there is.

There is no entity, no one, no self, that is doing the believing, or doing the non believing. Im sure you know that by now.

Sorry to disappoint you, but there is no self, anywhere. Ever.

Especially in alzheimer's and amnesiac patients.

Any chance you would expound in the thread RLK created? I think I got your position right, but am not sure.

Examine this. You are equating 'the one that's there' and 'self'. Because you already know the self is illusionary and ultimately not real, you are believing that the 'one that's there' doesn't exist.

You are taking the one thing that everyone can know and denying it.
I exist. I am. There is a 'one that's there' named aj, named neeeeel, named Larry.

Do you have a reference? I am aware of the phenomenon which occurs when the corpus callosum is severed. That is what I think of as "split brain syndrome". In that case, I have never read that the victim experiences two distinct "selfs". There are problems, such as an inability to verbally express the result of an observation perceived with the wrong side of the brain from the verbal center. But that is the extent of my knowledge, so I would need to see your source to comment.

After a cursory search it looks like I was mistaken.

I would like to discuss something else related to the idea of self, but will do so in the 'sense of self' thread you created.

again, there is nothing here, no entity, that is doing the believing or non believing.

No problem. We all make mistakes.

It obviously occured to me to use this as an argument for my point, but with a little thought I could come up with enough confounding counterarguments to render this inconclusive, so there is no point.

I think you better re-think that statement.

I'll not be taking reasoning advice from you. kthxbai

neeeel, love to you.
i am led to get involved.

a piper plays a pipe..
but also plays a role..
how attached to that role are You?

don't answer this.
just contemplate.

---------------------------

do you consider yourself to be 'better' ( in the "deserving to exist" sense ), than say, a big turd in the gutter?
this answer relates to the above question.

what part of you do you believe it is, that has at some point felt the need to stop playing that role?

----------------------------

why is it that our personalities are not a big enough clue as to the existence of a Soul?

it seems to me, that the "evidence" lies in All of Our Soul-Fed Personas..

Ooh...I went to deep for you so you thought you'd act out, huh?

wiki:
Time is the indefinite continued progress of existence and events that occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.

Under causal chain see:

Causality
Event
Property
Origination
Sequence of events

Sequence of events is Time.

You don't think having a family isn't do to a sequence of events?

Nm. kthxbai!

So, animals have souls? Bugs? Do trees? Do viruses?

Do they have an experience of reality, or are they merely responding to it mechanistically (ie, pure stimulus/response)?

Do we have an experience of reality, or are we merely responding to it mechanistically? There is no division or separation between the experience, and reality.

LOL Unless you want to include a butterfly flapping its wings 30,000 years ago in the causal chain to your coffee choice this morning, you should understand why I'm not necessarily qualifying a family as a causal chain.

What was wrong with my white dwarf example?

this question doesnt make much sense. Deserve to exist? Theres no such thing as deserve. And I dont exist. Theres a bunch of atoms and stuff here, theres a bunch of atoms and stuff in the gutter. Actually, theres just a bunch of stuff everywhere, but I havent seen that clearly yet.



Not sure what you mean here. Realisations can be had, without any "one" to have them.