Thomas Eshuis wrote:

cavarka9 wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

cavarka9 wrote: As far as I and you is concerned. My sense of 'I' is never constant, me as 8 yr old is totally different person to whom I am right now.

It's also a different, not totally, person from me at any age, ergo to claim that everyone is one is woo.

The statement is to question 'I' as an entity of existence, we use it in our language to communicate. But doesnt exist for it changes .

Words are necesarrily limited in conveying concepts.
A tree is not a 'tree', doesn't change that we call it that though or that it exists.

So, you agree the limitations of the conventional words we use. So we go down to details and conventional meanings change.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

cavarka9 wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

cavarka9 wrote: And If I were to suffer amnesia, what 'I' am would be different given my lack of memories.

You would still be you as opposed to me or him, her, they etc.

In absence of any memories, It makes no sense to say that.

It does. You =/= me. Hence you're you and I'm me.
Regardless of whether you're a different you than 5 minutes ago.

wrong, 'I' changes and hence is not the same. 'You' changes too and hence is not the same. I and you are one as in we are parts of the universe.I never said I and you are equal,your use of equality sign is therefore wrong.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

cavarka9 wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

True, doesn't change that you're seperate and different from me and others and not one.

being skeptical of 'I', 'You'.

Playing unnecessarry semantic games.

It is not unnecessary, it is the truth.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

cavarka9 wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Non-sequitur.
Even if our atoms become part of other configurations, they will never be a merging of a 100% of our atoms.

Was only quoting Einstein " A human being is a part of the whole, called by us "Universe," a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest—a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. The striving to free oneself from this delusion is the one issue of true religion. Not to nourish it but to try to overcome it is the way to reach the attainable measure of peace of mind."

This is a flawed appeal to authority.
Einstein is saying we are not seperate from the universe, not that we are all one.

Wrong understanding. Einstein is saying that the sense of who we are is an optical illusion. Comes from his understanding of General Relativity, he was alluding to its parmenides like conclusion. There is only continuity. Go to quantum mechanics, and there is still time. In quantum mechanics time 't' tells the evolution of wave function. There is no free will according to the most successful physical theories of universe. So yes, the conclusion of physics is 'I' changes and we are all one as we are only parts of the common universe.The ordinary sense of locality is wrong because there is no free will, who we are necessarily is caused by all that preceded us The problem is your assumption of "prophetical powers". Your misunderstanding that I was claiming that "I" and "you" are equal, something which I never claimed.
Now it is on you to show how exactly do you remain you in absence of your memories. Will there be any change, if there is then it is not exactly you. You start making assumptions and start arguing without asking what I meant!.

I think we have all had the 'feeling' about something about to happen and on some occasions I find this a little unsettling. If I have a close relationship with a lady friend, I am aware when she is about to ring me (which can be any time) - strange! But I wouldn't call it a 'prophetic power'.
This may be something that may become more pronounced as we evolve and up to the point where 'it' can be scientifically evaluated. Probably in a few thousand years - if we are still around.

As for the wooberish* claim that 'we are all one' after death, well, I suppose in a molecular sense we are...

*I forget who invented that term (one of us lot), but it's apt.

Alan B wrote:I think we have all had the 'feeling' about something about to happen and on some occasions I find this a little unsettling. If I have a close relationship with a lady friend, I am aware when she is about to ring me (which can be any time) - strange! But I wouldn't call it a 'prophetic power'.
This may be something that may become more pronounced as we evolve and up to the point where 'it' can be scientifically evaluated. Probably in a few thousand years - if we are still around.

As for the wooberish* claim that 'we are all one' after death, well, I suppose in a molecular sense we are...

*I forget who invented that term (one of us lot), but it's apt.

it isnt even about being right, its that perhaps there is a natural hypothesis which could explain these things or it could very well be wrong, I only had such incidents when I was close to the area, few hundred meters to abt 1-2 km distance as far as I remember and so I make a natural hypothesis based on scent. It could very well be wrong and perhaps a mere accident. That could also be true. I began by invoking that even if such things are true, it shall only be science which shall explain it.

Well there is some support for this theory:

For example if you happened to take a pair of strangers passing, say.... in the street, and the pair glanced at each other, they would both be entitled to claim that

"I am you and what I see is me....."

Well played Sir!

campermon wrote::lol:

Well played Sir!

Please Camperon, dont meddle....

cavarka9 wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

cavarka9 wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Completely irrelevant.


We know humans are capable of random thoughts.
Isn't evidence for prophetic powers though,

I believe this is a strawman, never claimed prophetic powers. Please show me where I did that?

See my other response to you.

cavarka9 wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

And again, until you do, you have no rational basis to assume predictive powers.

It is not about me, it is about human beings, I am making a hypothesis that can be tested and checked out that perhaps human beings can pick up scents of others(or not picking up others scents) unconsciously and realize the possibility of someone approaching or not.

That's not the same as actually predicting anything though.

So, you are the one who used the term "prophetic powers".

Nope, you made the claim you could predict the future.

cavarka9 wrote: Even when I claimed a natural hypothesis.

False dichotomy. You claimed you could predict the future, it's irrelevant whether you could do so naturally or not.

cavarka9 wrote: So, you did use straw man argument.

Nope.

cavarka9 wrote: Else it is on you to show that what I meant could have meant only and only "prophetic powers".

I already quoted you saying that you could predict the future.

Please watch how you quote posts, I have to fix the tags everytime I respond.

cavarka9 wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

cavarka9 wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

It's also a different, not totally, person from me at any age, ergo to claim that everyone is one is woo.

The statement is to question 'I' as an entity of existence, we use it in our language to communicate. But doesnt exist for it changes .

Words are necesarrily limited in conveying concepts.
A tree is not a 'tree', doesn't change that we call it that though or that it exists.

So, you agree the limitations of the conventional words we use. So we go down to details and conventional meanings change.

You and I have perfectly reasonable meanings.
There's no point in waxing philsophically about it. In common usage it's perfectly rational to use the terms.

cavarka9 wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

cavarka9 wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

You would still be you as opposed to me or him, her, they etc.

In absence of any memories, It makes no sense to say that.

It does. You =/= me. Hence you're you and I'm me.
Regardless of whether you're a different you than 5 minutes ago.

wrong,

cavarka9 wrote: 'I' changes and hence is not the same.

It's still I though.
You're conflating an identifier with ego.

cavarka9 wrote: 'You' changes too and hence is not the same.

If someone's talking to me and referring to me, it's still perfectly rational to use you.

cavarka9 wrote: I and you are one as in we are parts of the universe.I never said I and you are equal,your use of equality sign is therefore wrong.

Except that isn't the point I'm making, I'm pointing out that 'you', 'I' and 'me' have colloquial definitions that don't require any philosophical navelgazing about ego.
They are descriptions in relation other people.

cavarka9 wrote:It is not unnecessary, it is the truth.

Blind assertion and missing the point.

cavarka9 wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

cavarka9 wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Non-sequitur.
Even if our atoms become part of other configurations, they will never be a merging of a 100% of our atoms.

Was only quoting Einstein " A human being is a part of the whole, called by us "Universe," a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest—a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. The striving to free oneself from this delusion is the one issue of true religion. Not to nourish it but to try to overcome it is the way to reach the attainable measure of peace of mind."

This is a flawed appeal to authority.
Einstein is saying we are not seperate from the universe, not that we are all one.

Wrong understanding.[/quote]
FFS. Yes, on your part.

cavarka9 wrote: Einstein is saying that the sense of who we are is an optical illusion.

Nope, he's saying that the notion that we exist seperate from the rest of the universe is an optical illusion.

his thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest

cavarka9 wrote: Comes from his understanding of General Relativity, he was alluding to its parmenides like conclusion. There is only continuity. Go to quantum mechanics, and there is still time. In quantum mechanics time 't' tells the evolution of wave function. There is no free will according to the most successful physical theories of universe.

This does not adress any point I made nor does it support your all are one claim.

cavarka9 wrote: So yes, the conclusion of physics is 'I' changes

Ego changes. I refers to something else.

cavarka9 wrote: and we are all one as we are only parts of the common universe.

True. But being part of something =/= all being one.

cavarka9 wrote:The ordinary sense of locality is wrong because there is no free will, who we are necessarily is caused by all that preceded us

This again, does not adress anything I wrote.

cavarka9 wrote: The problem is your assumption of "prophetical powers".

I think the problem is your use of language.

cavarka9 wrote: Your misunderstanding that I was claiming that "I" and "you" are equal, something which I never claimed. .

I've already explained what I actually said.

cavarka9 wrote: Now it is on you to show how exactly do you remain you in absence of your memories. Will there be any change, if there is then it is not exactly you. You start making assumptions and start arguing without asking what I meant!.

I have no obligation whatsoever to defend positions I have not claimed. Do try to adress what I actually post.

Alan B wrote:I think we have all had the 'feeling' about something about to happen and on some occasions I find this a little unsettling. If I have a close relationship with a lady friend, I am aware when she is about to ring me (which can be any time) - strange! But I wouldn't call it a 'prophetic power'.
This may be something that may become more pronounced as we evolve and up to the point where 'it' can be scientifically evaluated. Probably in a few thousand years - if we are still around.

Or it might just be our instinct to see patterns combined with things like cognitive dissonance.

cavarka9 wrote:There might very well be certain things science has not yet explained about human limits, the answer for that shall also be science, not religion or woo.
I for example had experience of being able to predict the days my tutor would not show up. something like being right abt it for 5 times. Without any conscious intention. When I did intend to check 2 times, it didnt happen as i had wanted. I think, humans can probably pick a scent from perhaps long distance away, but only statistically.I knew instinctively that I was going to meet someone about a distance of 1-2 kms and I did. It can be tested out and explained perhaps. Also, when I was young, i used to play with friends with me blindfolded. I remember that by sound i could make out the shapes and people and move out in their direction. So, this patient could perhaps hear out the doctor and sense from sound the movements of the doctor.

Science has explained this - confirmation bias.

cavarka9 wrote:It will need experiment to check it out wouldnt it. As far as I and you is concerned. My sense of 'I' is never constant, me as 8 yr old is totally different person to whom I am right now. And If I were to suffer amnesia, what 'I' am would be different given my lack of memories. So 'I' and 'You' is ever changing.

Changing, but not totally changing. Your DNA, memories, learned skills, competencies, preferences, blood type, lost body parts and a billion other things are remarkably static or continuous throughout your life.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Alan B wrote:I think we have all had the 'feeling' about something about to happen and on some occasions I find this a little unsettling. If I have a close relationship with a lady friend, I am aware when she is about to ring me (which can be any time) - strange! But I wouldn't call it a 'prophetic power'.
This may be something that may become more pronounced as we evolve and up to the point where 'it' can be scientifically evaluated. Probably in a few thousand years - if we are still around.

Or it might just be our instinct to see patterns combined with things like cognitive dissonance.

Well, yes, of course.
But when I look at the phone and know it is going to ring and who it is doing the ringing...

(Doesn't happen every time, of course).

Goo goo ga choob.

Thommo wrote:

cavarka9 wrote:There might very well be certain things science has not yet explained about human limits, the answer for that shall also be science, not religion or woo.
I for example had experience of being able to predict the days my tutor would not show up. something like being right abt it for 5 times. Without any conscious intention. When I did intend to check 2 times, it didnt happen as i had wanted. I think, humans can probably pick a scent from perhaps long distance away, but only statistically.I knew instinctively that I was going to meet someone about a distance of 1-2 kms and I did. It can be tested out and explained perhaps. Also, when I was young, i used to play with friends with me blindfolded. I remember that by sound i could make out the shapes and people and move out in their direction. So, this patient could perhaps hear out the doctor and sense from sound the movements of the doctor.

Science has explained this - confirmation bias.

I never said it necessarily had to be the case, it could very well be wrong. I am absolutely fine with that.

cavarka9 wrote:

Thommo wrote:

cavarka9 wrote:There might very well be certain things science has not yet explained about human limits, the answer for that shall also be science, not religion or woo.
I for example had experience of being able to predict the days my tutor would not show up. something like being right abt it for 5 times. Without any conscious intention. When I did intend to check 2 times, it didnt happen as i had wanted. I think, humans can probably pick a scent from perhaps long distance away, but only statistically.I knew instinctively that I was going to meet someone about a distance of 1-2 kms and I did. It can be tested out and explained perhaps. Also, when I was young, i used to play with friends with me blindfolded. I remember that by sound i could make out the shapes and people and move out in their direction. So, this patient could perhaps hear out the doctor and sense from sound the movements of the doctor.

Science has explained this - confirmation bias.

I never said it necessarily had to be the case, it could very well be wrong. I am absolutely fine with that.

I beg your pardon then, I thought you were saying that the example was of something that science has not yet explained. Recalling that you predicted maybe five times out of seven that someone would not turn up at some kind of appointment even before getting to whether you recalled correctly, or were tipped off (by knowledge of sickness, something the person mentioned but you didn't consciously recall etc.) isn't really that unlikely compared to the number of times people do and don't turn up to appointments through your life.

Thommo wrote:

cavarka9 wrote:It will need experiment to check it out wouldnt it. As far as I and you is concerned. My sense of 'I' is never constant, me as 8 yr old is totally different person to whom I am right now. And If I were to suffer amnesia, what 'I' am would be different given my lack of memories. So 'I' and 'You' is ever changing.

Changing, but not totally changing. Your DNA, memories, learned skills, competencies, preferences, blood type, lost body parts and a billion other things are remarkably static or continuous throughout your life.

True but without my memories it wouldnt be me .And what I was 5 yrs back or 10 yrs back or 15 yrs back and so on are different creatures.They are not me as I am now. And eventually I would die and my body disintegrates and would my disintegrating body also be me?.And the entire mass of what constitutes me was yet to come before my birth.So even by continuing your own logic, I would change totally. And in long age of universe, what constitutes my life is a minuscule blip. I never said "I am you" is right , I said

As far as 'I am you' is concerned. There is no 'I' and no 'you'. We are all a part of universe, so we are all one. So, that is true

To make it clear, I should have written as I thought. There is no absolute "I" or absolute "you". I changes, hence we are all one in the sense of being part of the same universe.

Thommo wrote:

cavarka9 wrote:

Thommo wrote:

cavarka9 wrote:There might very well be certain things science has not yet explained about human limits, the answer for that shall also be science, not religion or woo.
I for example had experience of being able to predict the days my tutor would not show up. something like being right abt it for 5 times. Without any conscious intention. When I did intend to check 2 times, it didnt happen as i had wanted. I think, humans can probably pick a scent from perhaps long distance away, but only statistically.I knew instinctively that I was going to meet someone about a distance of 1-2 kms and I did. It can be tested out and explained perhaps. Also, when I was young, i used to play with friends with me blindfolded. I remember that by sound i could make out the shapes and people and move out in their direction. So, this patient could perhaps hear out the doctor and sense from sound the movements of the doctor.

Science has explained this - confirmation bias.

I never said it necessarily had to be the case, it could very well be wrong. I am absolutely fine with that.

I beg your pardon then, I thought you were saying that the example was of something that science has not yet explained. Recalling that you predicted maybe five times out of seven that someone would not turn up at some kind of appointment even before getting to whether you recalled correctly, or were tipped off (by knowledge of sickness, something the person mentioned but you didn't consciously recall etc.) isn't really that unlikely compared to the number of times people do and don't turn up to appointments through your life.

I said that even if something has not been explained by science then science is still the way to go, not religion or woo.

There is no absolute "you" or "me", but there is a relative you and me. In Buddhism this is the distinction between ultimate truth and the truth of "worldly convention".

Our identities only exist as ever changing streams of consciousness and memories, out of which we create an abstract self. There is nothing you can point at specificially and say "that is me," our identities are artificial constructs, and what delineates our identities is also artificial.

It's actually more complex than that. In fact, I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together.