The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Have you ever wondered how many people have had exactly the same thoughts that you are having right now?
Sometimes I look at people going about their buisness and wonder what is going on in their minds. What are they thinking about, what are their hopes and dreams. Then I wonder if other people ever wonder what people are thinking. The next logical step is to wonder if anyway has every wondered what I am thinking. Maybe the person I am looking at right now, wondering what they are thinking, is looking at me, and wondering what I am thinking.
My thoughts seem so personal to me, stuff that even my partner doesn't know about me. But if other people are thinking the same things as me then how do I locate my sense of individuality. Have I ever had a thought that no one else has had? I bet this isn't the first time this has been voiced either.
But somebody must have thought these things first? Some early philospher. But of course he wouldn't have know that he was the first person to think that thought, how can anyone ever know that the thoughts they have are original.
And are we using up what original thoughts there are left? Are there any original thoughts left. and if there aren't any original thoughts left, then how can I possibly hope to become anything that is different. How can I be 'me'.
Whenever I have felt inspired to post something recently this has been holding me back. Can I say anything that you haven't heard a million times before? And if thats the case, then why would you want to read something that you have already read?
I would love to know what your feelings are on this.
Sometimes I look at people going about their buisness and wonder what is going on in their minds. What are they thinking about, what are their hopes and dreams. Then I wonder if other people ever wonder what people are thinking. The next logical step is to wonder if anyway has every wondered what I am thinking. Maybe the person I am looking at right now, wondering what they are thinking, is looking at me, and wondering what I am thinking.
My thoughts seem so personal to me, stuff that even my partner doesn't know about me. But if other people are thinking the same things as me then how do I locate my sense of individuality. Have I ever had a thought that no one else has had? I bet this isn't the first time this has been voiced either.
But somebody must have thought these things first? Some early philospher. But of course he wouldn't have know that he was the first person to think that thought, how can anyone ever know that the thoughts they have are original.
And are we using up what original thoughts there are left? Are there any original thoughts left. and if there aren't any original thoughts left, then how can I possibly hope to become anything that is different. How can I be 'me'.
Whenever I have felt inspired to post something recently this has been holding me back. Can I say anything that you haven't heard a million times before? And if thats the case, then why would you want to read something that you have already read?
I would love to know what your feelings are on this.
Page:
Cheers, I'll go have a look in a while.
For now I think I need to go address my coursework...
For now I think I need to go address my coursework...
Simon Says wrote:
>
> No, don't remember where is was but I think it was in a book called
>
> Richard Feynman's the lost lectures
>
No, it wasn't, but if you do a Google search on Feynman and consiousness you get a while host of links if you're interested.
I'm late for an appointment now (possibly involving beer) but I'd be interested to talk more later ;)
>
> No, don't remember where is was but I think it was in a book called
>
> Richard Feynman's the lost lectures
>
No, it wasn't, but if you do a Google search on Feynman and consiousness you get a while host of links if you're interested.
I'm late for an appointment now (possibly involving beer) but I'd be interested to talk more later ;)
Dr Duck wrote:
> Simon Says wrote:
> This was the basis of the contraversy around Richard Feynman's
> theory
> about consciouness, because it implied that there is no such thing
> as
> a soul, which is a big no no in religious circles.
>
> Do you have a link?
No, don't remember where is was but I think it was in a book called
Richard Feynman's the lost lectures
I'll see if I can root it out.
> Simon Says wrote:
> This was the basis of the contraversy around Richard Feynman's
> theory
> about consciouness, because it implied that there is no such thing
> as
> a soul, which is a big no no in religious circles.
>
> Do you have a link?
No, don't remember where is was but I think it was in a book called
Richard Feynman's the lost lectures
I'll see if I can root it out.
Simon Says wrote:
> This was the basis of the contraversy around Richard Feynman's theory
> about consciouness, because it implied that there is no such thing as
> a soul, which is a big no no in religious circles.
Do you have a link?
> This was the basis of the contraversy around Richard Feynman's theory
> about consciouness, because it implied that there is no such thing as
> a soul, which is a big no no in religious circles.
Do you have a link?
Dr Duck wrote:
> Hmm. I was toying with the idea of 'who is 'me''.
>
> Given that you can change the body (surgery, amputation, transplants,
> etc) and still be you, I'd have to tie the self to consciousness.
> Then an old star-trek-ish question occured to me: When you come out of
> the teleporter is it 'you' or an exact replica of 'you', meaning 'you'
> died when you went in.
> Presumably if you were to reproduce a human brain in the exact
> likeness of your own, the consciousness created would be identical to
> yours, but it wouldn't *be* yours.
> Thus in fact the self is tied not only to your consciousness, but also
> to the physical thing that is your brain.
>
This was the basis of the contraversy around Richard Feynman's theory about consciouness, because it implied that there is no such thing as a soul, which is a big no no in religious circles.
> Hmm. I was toying with the idea of 'who is 'me''.
>
> Given that you can change the body (surgery, amputation, transplants,
> etc) and still be you, I'd have to tie the self to consciousness.
> Then an old star-trek-ish question occured to me: When you come out of
> the teleporter is it 'you' or an exact replica of 'you', meaning 'you'
> died when you went in.
> Presumably if you were to reproduce a human brain in the exact
> likeness of your own, the consciousness created would be identical to
> yours, but it wouldn't *be* yours.
> Thus in fact the self is tied not only to your consciousness, but also
> to the physical thing that is your brain.
>
This was the basis of the contraversy around Richard Feynman's theory about consciouness, because it implied that there is no such thing as a soul, which is a big no no in religious circles.
Rosalind wrote:
> Have I ever had a thought that no one else has had?
I spend a lot of my "thinking time" in pursuit of original thoughts and ideas, but whether anything I arrive at is actually original is difficult to distinguish.
The world is cluttered with differing perspectives and ideas, and sometimes I find myself asking the question: have I ever had an orignal thought?.....
My major ambition in life is to create an imaginative work which is truly original, or at the very least unique. Whether I'll achieve this, only time will tell.
But using your imagination and creating something from stratch is probably the best thing about being human. The imagination is a great and powerful thing.
> Have I ever had a thought that no one else has had?
I spend a lot of my "thinking time" in pursuit of original thoughts and ideas, but whether anything I arrive at is actually original is difficult to distinguish.
The world is cluttered with differing perspectives and ideas, and sometimes I find myself asking the question: have I ever had an orignal thought?.....
My major ambition in life is to create an imaginative work which is truly original, or at the very least unique. Whether I'll achieve this, only time will tell.
But using your imagination and creating something from stratch is probably the best thing about being human. The imagination is a great and powerful thing.
Hmm. I was toying with the idea of 'who is 'me''.
Given that you can change the body (surgery, amputation, transplants, etc) and still be you, I'd have to tie the self to consciousness.
Then an old star-trek-ish question occured to me: When you come out of the teleporter is it 'you' or an exact replica of 'you', meaning 'you' died when you went in.
Presumably if you were to reproduce a human brain in the exact likeness of your own, the consciousness created would be identical to yours, but it wouldn't *be* yours.
Thus in fact the self is tied not only to your consciousness, but also to the physical thing that is your brain.
Obviously heavily based in speculation and assumption, and it may not address Ros's question at all (but I'm allowed my tangents :^) ).
Another line occured to me too. In the above bit it was mentioned how changing the body wouldn't stop you being you. Obviously physical changes do affect the consciousness, from giving it different feelings and sensations to the provision of the necessities for existence, or the alternative, death.
So when these changes occur, the 'self' changes too. Like a river (to spin ot a clichéd example) - from one moment to the next it changes, it isn't the same river as at any other moment in time, despite that we call it one river for the sake of convenience.
So too the self changes. I'm not the same as when I started typing this and you're not the same as when (if :^) ) you started reading it.
What does that mean? Don't know, maybe I'll play with the idea a little more...
Given that you can change the body (surgery, amputation, transplants, etc) and still be you, I'd have to tie the self to consciousness.
Then an old star-trek-ish question occured to me: When you come out of the teleporter is it 'you' or an exact replica of 'you', meaning 'you' died when you went in.
Presumably if you were to reproduce a human brain in the exact likeness of your own, the consciousness created would be identical to yours, but it wouldn't *be* yours.
Thus in fact the self is tied not only to your consciousness, but also to the physical thing that is your brain.
Obviously heavily based in speculation and assumption, and it may not address Ros's question at all (but I'm allowed my tangents :^) ).
Another line occured to me too. In the above bit it was mentioned how changing the body wouldn't stop you being you. Obviously physical changes do affect the consciousness, from giving it different feelings and sensations to the provision of the necessities for existence, or the alternative, death.
So when these changes occur, the 'self' changes too. Like a river (to spin ot a clichéd example) - from one moment to the next it changes, it isn't the same river as at any other moment in time, despite that we call it one river for the sake of convenience.
So too the self changes. I'm not the same as when I started typing this and you're not the same as when (if :^) ) you started reading it.
What does that mean? Don't know, maybe I'll play with the idea a little more...
Maybe you don't feel that you would recognise your face because you have never had to recognise it. You've just known that the person looking back at you from the mirror is you. Perhaps you've taken that for granted.
Personally I think that you've got a pretty recognisable face.
Personally I think that you've got a pretty recognisable face.
Rosalind wrote:
> I'm saying that I'm not sure I know my own face well enough to
> recognise it.
>
> Maybe I don't have a very recognisable face.
I don't know about that. I wouldn't say I had a very recognisable face but I've lived with it very nearly 25 years :*( and I don't think it's really changed much in all that time either.
I think its pretty amazing the way the brain recognises faces anyway.
> I'm saying that I'm not sure I know my own face well enough to
> recognise it.
>
> Maybe I don't have a very recognisable face.
I don't know about that. I wouldn't say I had a very recognisable face but I've lived with it very nearly 25 years :*( and I don't think it's really changed much in all that time either.
I think its pretty amazing the way the brain recognises faces anyway.
I'm saying that I'm not sure I know my own face well enough to recognise it.
Maybe I don't have a very recognisable face.
Maybe I don't have a very recognisable face.
Page: