It just
so happens that a superior court listened ONLY to a Ph. D. in psychology, (fearful to say anything different
than what already said by his illustrious colleagues in my past) - rather than talking with me directly
for at least 2 minutes - decided to assign to me for the management of my hard
earned money a young woman who inherited such profitable occupation from her
mother, who was abandoned through divorce by her husband as soon as he realized
what type of a loser he had mistakenly married. Now since my own real sister,
the still very beloved mother of my children and one of my plenty caregivers
when I lived in Ventura found it easier and less concerning not to have
anything to do with me, I'm imprisoned in a retirement home for ancient people
without any possibility to even look at my own money.
While in
a way I'm very upset for this, I really don't care too much because of what I
learned during my coma related NDE, or that we continue to exist also after we
die and we, ourselves decide what wrongs we did to others while living and
determine on our own how to spend our eternity as souls, this - of course - is
what any Christian Catholic believes - based on the teachings of Jesus Christ
(real person) - that is now confirmed beyond any doubt by official scientific
research done by true and famous researchers in different fields, now without
sounding like a "religious racist" I find it important to underline
that what we are discovering (and measuring) is the carbon copy of the Catholic
teachings as spoken and demonstrated directly by our creator made man into
Jesus Christ. So I put here something interesting I recently learned DIRECTLY FROM MY PHILOSOPHER FRIEND IACOPO.
I want to describe my idea pointing out some issues that allow me to define it more precisely. I understand that for those who do not lend confidence to it, these issues represent useless fantasies, but at least they can make their criticism without relying on wrong prejudices.
A good example to easy explain the basic idea of this hypothesis is to compare our world to a movie in which, thanks to a special effect, all roles are played by the same actor, so able to immerse itself in every character without revealing any personal trait. This means that I preclude the existence of any embedded information in this "shared I": it's not something that can exist outside of one of our common "earthly lives", it's just a "property of being percipient" that the matter expresses in some structures sufficiently complex, such as in men, but also in animals, and perhaps it could be up to
a single cell.
Considering the mind as a property that emerges from the matter is an already existing thesis and is widely shared: the only statement that I want to add is that its interpretation, from the subjective point of view, must be reflected in the acknowledgment that the subject experiencing the perception is always the same "I" that everyone experiences as individual "I". Therefore, instead of referring to a shared "I", it's more appropriate to refer to a "myself-ness" property, which manifests the same in each "perceiver subject". In this paper I use the word "I" for convenience of exposition, but put in mind that I consider conceptually wrong to figure it as an entity independent from the lives that express it.
My attitude is deliberately "minimalist", so I avoid taking positions on issues that, even if connected to questions of conscience, are not essential to my hypothesis, as the limit of complexity required to define "living" a physical structure, or about the existence of the "free will", even if the example of the movie with a single actor may suggest that it is impossible.
The difficulty to conceive how a single actor can not only act, but also to improvise during a performance in which he plays all the characters are tied to our need to imagine his interpretations as done "one after the other". We have no problem imagining that with a skillful editing we can make a movie with only one actor, but we cannot conceive how the same could also be realized as a show of improvisational theater.
The same problem also arises when we try to consider the "sequence of our lives". If my own "I" will also experience all the other lives, what are the lives that I have lived yet? What is my next life? In the metaphor of the actor, the scene is the entire pace-time where our lives take place, and we are not permitted to presume the existence of "absolute time" in which them can be ordered. In the movie example, the order in which the actor plays the individual parts of the movie superimposed during editing, is irrelevant, and cannot be deduced simply by watching the movie. So also the "sequence of our lives" cannot be inferred from any information traceable in our physical world.
We must consider the problem as an expression of our need to imagine the events in a temporal order. I think there is an appropriate analogy with the famous "double slit experiment", whose description is available in the link below, where is not allowed to ask what exact path each electron follows from its emission to its detection on the final screen, we can only note that it is influenced by the presence of both slits.
Finally, I want to make a clear distinction from solipsism, for which the existence of others cannot be proved, and therefore considers the other individual life as an illusion without a true reality, as if all other living beings were robots without a true awareness. I consider this point of view naive and harmful. I would simply note that just recognizing the difficulties that we face every day, makes it impossible to deny the existence of a "will" as opposed to ours. In my proposal, every other "will"
is identified with a different expression of my same "I", but because every physical and mental characteristics is defined entirely by the physical structure in which it occurs, it is inevitable that the same "I" each time expresses a different will, if only for the instinct of personal survival.
If we concede to acknowledge an "equivalence principle", for which our "present life" did not have any "special" feature when compared to any other life, we must also exclude the possibility that the "I" can somehow "choose" to live only a few lives, or has the opportunity to repeat "ad lib" the experience of a particular life, as we are not allowed to assume any awareness possible outside of a physical "normal" life. But from this principle of equivalence can be deduced also that all the lives that interact in the same space-time must be considered as part of a "unity of experimentation" that the "I" must experience as a whole set, without any exception. This is experience that distinguishes the "reality" from a dream or hallucination: the fact that the "I" must experience the same event from the different points of view of all the living beings who participate.
A good example to easy explain the basic idea of this hypothesis is to compare our world to a movie in which, thanks to a special effect, all roles are played by the same actor, so able to immerse itself in every character without revealing any personal trait. This means that I preclude the existence of any embedded information in this "shared I": it's not something that can exist outside of one of our common "earthly lives", it's just a "property of being percipient" that the matter expresses in some structures sufficiently complex, such as in men, but also in animals, and perhaps it could be up to
a single cell.
Considering the mind as a property that emerges from the matter is an already existing thesis and is widely shared: the only statement that I want to add is that its interpretation, from the subjective point of view, must be reflected in the acknowledgment that the subject experiencing the perception is always the same "I" that everyone experiences as individual "I". Therefore, instead of referring to a shared "I", it's more appropriate to refer to a "myself-ness" property, which manifests the same in each "perceiver subject". In this paper I use the word "I" for convenience of exposition, but put in mind that I consider conceptually wrong to figure it as an entity independent from the lives that express it.
My attitude is deliberately "minimalist", so I avoid taking positions on issues that, even if connected to questions of conscience, are not essential to my hypothesis, as the limit of complexity required to define "living" a physical structure, or about the existence of the "free will", even if the example of the movie with a single actor may suggest that it is impossible.
The difficulty to conceive how a single actor can not only act, but also to improvise during a performance in which he plays all the characters are tied to our need to imagine his interpretations as done "one after the other". We have no problem imagining that with a skillful editing we can make a movie with only one actor, but we cannot conceive how the same could also be realized as a show of improvisational theater.
The same problem also arises when we try to consider the "sequence of our lives". If my own "I" will also experience all the other lives, what are the lives that I have lived yet? What is my next life? In the metaphor of the actor, the scene is the entire pace-time where our lives take place, and we are not permitted to presume the existence of "absolute time" in which them can be ordered. In the movie example, the order in which the actor plays the individual parts of the movie superimposed during editing, is irrelevant, and cannot be deduced simply by watching the movie. So also the "sequence of our lives" cannot be inferred from any information traceable in our physical world.
We must consider the problem as an expression of our need to imagine the events in a temporal order. I think there is an appropriate analogy with the famous "double slit experiment", whose description is available in the link below, where is not allowed to ask what exact path each electron follows from its emission to its detection on the final screen, we can only note that it is influenced by the presence of both slits.
Finally, I want to make a clear distinction from solipsism, for which the existence of others cannot be proved, and therefore considers the other individual life as an illusion without a true reality, as if all other living beings were robots without a true awareness. I consider this point of view naive and harmful. I would simply note that just recognizing the difficulties that we face every day, makes it impossible to deny the existence of a "will" as opposed to ours. In my proposal, every other "will"
is identified with a different expression of my same "I", but because every physical and mental characteristics is defined entirely by the physical structure in which it occurs, it is inevitable that the same "I" each time expresses a different will, if only for the instinct of personal survival.
If we concede to acknowledge an "equivalence principle", for which our "present life" did not have any "special" feature when compared to any other life, we must also exclude the possibility that the "I" can somehow "choose" to live only a few lives, or has the opportunity to repeat "ad lib" the experience of a particular life, as we are not allowed to assume any awareness possible outside of a physical "normal" life. But from this principle of equivalence can be deduced also that all the lives that interact in the same space-time must be considered as part of a "unity of experimentation" that the "I" must experience as a whole set, without any exception. This is experience that distinguishes the "reality" from a dream or hallucination: the fact that the "I" must experience the same event from the different points of view of all the living beings who participate.
No comments:
Post a Comment