Identity, individuality

Bloodshot said:
All human science. I didn't measure it, they did.

It's a general consensus, here's one fairly reputable source:
Click to expand...
There's no such thing as "all human science" each science has its own field of study, its own methods and methodologies, its own definition of what data is important, and its own gigantic collections of statistics. What are you talking about.
 
Aupmanyav, I think I can follow part of what you are saying about identities being temporary and eventually being absorbed back into the environment. I think I would phrase this a little differently.

I am not really trying to argue that this proves God, a soul, heaven, or reincarnation. My question is more about what is happening while a human is alive. A human being seems to be a living system that can produce cognition.

That is different from a rock. A rock and a human body are both physical, but they are not organized the same way. A rock does not have a living brain, senses, memory, language, or a nervous system. A human does. So the question I am interested in is not just whether we are made of matter. It is why matter, when organized as a living brain and body, can produce cognition.

I also think humans are not isolated from outside causes. One person can alter another person’s actions because their voice, expression, and presence act as external forces. Those signals enter through the senses and can shift the other person’s mind-body science. So thought may not be coming from a completely separate private place. It may be caused by the brain and body responding to many forces around it.

When a human dies, I would not describe that as the same person continuing in the same way. I would say the human system has transformed. The talking and thinking person is gone, and the body changes into something else through decay, bacteria, heat, chemistry, and time.

So my question is really about consciousness itself. What causes consciousness while the living human system is still working? I think it is different from simply saying “we are molecules” or “we are not molecules.”
 
we6jbo said:
It is why matter, when organized as a living brain and body, can produce cognition. .. What causes consciousness while the living human system is still working? I think it is different from simply saying “we are molecules” or “we are not molecules.”
Click to expand...
Even atoms differently aligned can produce different things. Diamond, graphite and coal.
Why do you think that it is different? It is only chemical and electrical interaction of atoms.
 
Aupmanyav said:
Even atoms differently aligned can produce different things. Diamond, graphite and coal.
Why do you think that it is different? It is only chemical and electrical interaction of atoms.
Click to expand...
Thanks for bring this up. It took me awhile to look into this. It was defently educational and there's still a lot I still do not understand so I'm not sure this time if I will answer this based on how I understand but hopefully this will at least organize my thoughts around this.

From my own idea of Brahman that I just looked into, I visualize Brahman as a larger framework that all temporary identities belong to. A person, animal, tree, or diamond can be talked about as separate things, but Advaita seems to treat those separations as temporary rather than ultimate.

When I look at something like a diamond, I usually rely on science to understand it, such as foundational science concepts. It looks like you do this as well and it looks like Brahman holds a relationship on this. So I am not trying to replace science with a religious idea(if this is a religious idea?). I am trying to understand the difference between a scientific description and an Advaita interpretation.

I can understand the idea that individuality may not be permanent in an ultimate sense. But while a person is alive, individuality still seems meaningful in a temporary sense because a living person has a total human-makeup. So maybe Advaita is talking about ultimate identity, while I am asking about temporary living identity and how humans transform into bodies (as an example).
 
we6jbo said:
So I am not trying to replace science with a religious idea(if this is a religious idea?). I am trying to understand the difference between a scientific description and an Advaita interpretation.

I can understand the idea that individuality may not be permanent in an ultimate sense. But while a person is alive, individuality still seems meaningful in a temporary sense because a living person has a total human-makeup. So maybe Advaita is talking about ultimate identity, while I am asking about temporary living identity and how humans transform into bodies (as an example).
Click to expand...
:) In Advaita, the religious ideas are the same as the scientific ideas. No replacement is required, since there is only be one truth.
Yes, while we live, identities are necessary (name, religious belief, society, nation, etc.). This is known in Advaita as the Pragmatic Truth (Vyavaharika Satya).
"Satya is a Sanskrit word, usually translated as "truth" or "essence"."
Satya - Wikipedia, That which exists (cognate with sit).

The Three Tiers of Reality
The first Shankaracharya (also called 'Adi Sankaracharya') who systematically organized the concept of "reality" into three levels:

1. Pāramārthika (Transcendental Reality): The ultimate reality where only Brahman exists. This is the absolute, unchanging truth.
2. Vyāvahārika (Pragmatic Reality): The everyday world where both individual souls (Jiva) and God (Ishvara) appear real. This reality is valid for practical purposes but is not ultimately true.
3. Prātibhāsika (Apparent Reality): The level of illusion, such as mistaking a rope for a snake or experiencing dream states. This is the most ephemeral reality. (I would add the reality of a mentally affected person who lives in his/her own reality.)
"ābhās" is feels like, semblance, reflection, fallacy, phantom, etc.
Adi Shankaracharya and Advaita Vedanta: The Philosophy of Non-Dualism
 
Last edited:
Aupmanyav said:
:) In Advaita, the religious ideas are the same as the scientific ideas. No replacement is required, since there is only be one truth.
Yes, while we live, identities are necessary (name, religious belief, society, nation, etc.). This is known in Advaita as the Pragmatic Truth (Vyavaharika Satya).
"Satya is a Sanskrit word, usually translated as "truth" or "essence"."
Satya - Wikipedia, That which exists (cognate with sit).

The Three Tiers of Reality
The first Shankaracharya (also called 'Adi Sankaracharya') who systematically organized the concept of "reality" into three levels:

1. Pāramārthika (Transcendental Reality): The ultimate reality where only Brahman exists. This is the absolute, unchanging truth.
2. Vyāvahārika (Pragmatic Reality): The everyday world where both individual souls (Jiva) and God (Ishvara) appear real. This reality is valid for practical purposes but is not ultimately true.
3. Prātibhāsika (Apparent Reality): The level of illusion, such as mistaking a rope for a snake or experiencing dream states. This is the most ephemeral reality. (I would add the reality of a mentally affected person who lives in his/her own reality.)
"ābhās" is feels like, semblance, reflection, fallacy, phantom, etc.
Adi Shankaracharya and Advaita Vedanta: The Philosophy of Non-Dualism
Click to expand...
I would be really interested in knowing if your religious beliefs are compatible with my religious identities.

For example, I am a follower of Andy Thomson. More specifically, I follow the video "American Atheists 09" around the 6:27 mark, where Andy talks about the reshaping of the Homo sapiens brain from Homo erectus. I believe, and this would be my foundational belief system, that the enlarged forehead is where all religions and gods came from. Therefore, that is what sparked religion from humanity’s understanding of the world.

From there, I have this document that ties me into religion. It says, and I am going to vaguely write some personal private information because I personally believe that while the context is sensitive in nature, the information itself could dictate the actual purpose of the document:
Certificate of Baptism. This certifies that JEREMIAH BURKE O'NEAL, child of Dudley O'Neal and his wife, XXXX born March XXX, 1981, in San Diego, CA was baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost on the 12th day of January in the year of our Lord 1983. sponsors R. Maynard B. Maynard. The pastor who signed it: The Rev. Edward W. Wessling. Church: Holy Cross Lutheran Church, 3450 Clairemont Dr. Your heavenly Father willed that you not remain dead in trespasses and sin, but come to new life in Him. In obedience to our Lord's command, you have received Holy Baptism so that by the power of the Holy Spirit through water and the Word you might obtain the forgiveness of all your sin, deliverance from spiritual death and the devil, and the gift of eternal salvation. By Baptism, God has made you a member of the holy Christian Church, and His church, in turn, has acknowledged its responsibility for your further growth in Christian faith and knowledge and for your continued spiritual welfare.

Now, when I read that paragraph, the idea of membership connects with what Thomson said: that through changes in the brain, we humans eventually developed God-believing identities, such as fearing things in the wilderness or not understanding death and life. Everything else attached to Christianity, I omit from my belief because those things are not important to me in relation to the meaning of this document.

But because Edward makes the claim that God has made me a member, and neither Edward nor anyone else can disprove that claim to me now, I can say that the claim still remains true to this day. I do not believe, for instance, that people can hear God speaking about others. Therefore, because I can say that the claim still remains true to this day. I do not believe God comes from the Christian sense, but instead through Thomson’s reasoning about why we believe, what I have been trying to do is find a group where I can comfortably talk about the claim.
Your thread about identity and individualism seems very close to that.
 
Bloodshot said:
Sure, if you like.

Is there some other human science I'm unaware of that adds detail about the other 95%?
Click to expand...
There are MANY branches of science. When you are talking about this percentage, you are talking, I believe, about matter in the cosmos. Other areas of physics and certainly chemistry might be important depending on what your questions are.

Why don't you clarify that a little as to what you think this means. And what your questions are that you are trying to find scientific information to address? Then it might be easier to figure out what "human science" you should consult.
 
we6jbo said:
For example, I am a follower of Andy Thomson. More specifically, I follow the video "American Atheists 09" around the 6:27 mark, where Andy talks about the reshaping of the Homo sapiens brain from Homo erectus. I believe, and this would be my foundational belief system, that the enlarged forehead is where all religions and gods came from. Therefore, that is what sparked religion from humanity’s understanding of the world.
Click to expand...
Can you tell us more about Andy Thomson and put a link to this video? I looked up Andy Thomson and found a politician from Boca Raton FL by that name but nothing about spirituality or religion or anthropology.
 
we6jbo said:
I can say that the claim still remains true to this day. .. I do not believe God comes from the Christian sense, but instead through Thomson’s reasoning about why we believe, what I have been trying to do is find a group where I can comfortably talk about the claim.
Your thread about identity and individualism seems very close to that.
Click to expand...
Claims have no value unless evidence is there. Luckily, I am not entangled in a Christian/Abrahamic cob-web. I think independently. I do not need a God.
"A cobweb is the network of silken threads made by a spider, often covered with dirt and dust, or it can mean something that entangles, obscures, or confuses." DuckAssist
 
TheLightWithin said:
Can you tell us more about Andy Thomson and put a link to this video? I looked up Andy Thomson and found a politician from Boca Raton FL by that name but nothing about spirituality or religion or anthropology.
Click to expand...
This might be taking this thread way off topic but because I brought up Andy, this is the link to the video:
 
Aupmanyav said:
Claims have no value unless evidence is there. Luckily, I am not entangled in a Christian/Abrahamic cob-web. I think independently. I do not need a God.
"A cobweb is the network of silken threads made by a spider, often covered with dirt and dust, or it can mean something that entangles, obscures, or confuses." DuckAssist
Click to expand...
You raise a good point, and I should clarify. I'm using claim not as evidence but to have.

So the closest example I can think of is that I have the deed to this island at 35.03461131430742, -158.69243406770377. The person gave it to me, and it's there. And therefore I own 35.03461131430742, -158.69243406770377. (There's actually no island at 35.03461131430742, -158.69243406770377 btw). Now in the framing of what I was saying before, a reverend said that God made me a member of this church (and I'm assuming it's the mystical God's church, not a church somewhere on this earth) Now what I'm wondering is how do I apply that to my belief to still make that work because I can already tell you that not only do I believe you are right but Andy clearly says why that is right. I think there's a different way to approach this, but I also believe I am still a member, as the certificate states, and that it goes way beyond its initial statement.
 
@we6jbo, manage your beliefs in the way you want. It is your domain.
I do not hesitate to reject even the Hindu beliefs when they have no evidence. I deny God, soul, heaven, hell and rebirth, common beliefs in Hinduism.
That means I have fewer problems to solve. I am guided by Buddha's 'Kesamutti Sutta' (Kesha-mukti Sutra - release from a hair-hold), which says that one must not believe either in scriptures or in teachers (however important people may think them to be), unless there is evidence. That is the Buddha's razor, Buddha's advice to the Kalama tribe, much stronger than the later 14th Century Ockham's razor.

The Kesamutti Sutta states (Pali expression in parentheses):

1. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing (anussava), oral history
2. nor upon tradition (paramparā), tradition
3. nor upon rumor (itikirā), news sources
4. nor upon what is in a scripture (piṭaka-sampadāna), scriptures
5. nor upon surmise (takka-hetu), supposional reasoning
6. nor upon an axiom (naya-hetu), philosophical dogmatism
7. nor upon specious reasoning (ākāra-parivitakka), common sense
8. nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over (diṭṭhi-nijjhān-akkh-antiyā), ones' own opinions
9. nor upon another's seeming ability (bhabba-rūpatāya), experts
10. nor upon the consideration 'The monk is our teacher (samaṇo no garū), authorities or ones' own teacher

Kalamas, when you yourselves know 'These things are good; these things are not blameable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them.

Prejudice is a hair-hold.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top