Your response is a little confusing. What does it mean? Are bodies necessary for consciousness or is consciousness necessary for bodies? And by saying bodies do you mean only that which has physical properties?

Do you consider your various personalities extensions of a whole person or are they separate entities who simply do not have their own bodies? If they all “share” one body, then they must all share the same consciousness, which means that each one is cognizant of every conscious moment at the same time as all the personalities are – sound right?

Your response


It is my belief that consciousness is necessary for bodies. As for "physical" properties yes. But I suppose that would depend on what one describes as "physical." I like the term "material" which would include anti-mater and/or parallel universes.



They are separate personalities that share the same body, and at the same time they are extensions of a whole person.



Yes, but some are more conscious than others. LOL.

We also live in the memories and experiences of others.
Our influence in felt everywhere even after death particularly in
our writings, artwork and all other deeds.

hargwarsh

an idea is not a substance and exists independently of any
single person and can outlast humanity and requires no physical
substance for its existence

take the concept of freedom for example

Are you certain about the part I put in bold? How do you know?

Prove that the concept of freedom requires a physical substance for its existence.
Prove which of the elements of the periodic table are necessary.



yeah yeah i know somebody or something has to think it right?
but what if they are not thinking about it - does it cease to
exist? just pop in and out of existence depending on who or
what is thinking about it? Nah, that is a lame version of
existence. The idea of freedom exists even if no one is thinking
about it at the time. They are still experiencing it - or not -
if they are incarcerated. Not to mention the freedom of a rock
floating through space...neither of which "thinks"...and before
you mention it - neither the rock nor space are requisite for
"the concept" of that type of freedom...imagine an imaginary
rock and an imaginary space...ok STOP!...did they cease to exist
if they never existed or had any substance in the first place?

Slowhand, these are the parts of your text which I feel most centrally express your position:



My questions, should you choose to indulge them, are (a) whether or not you are certain about this, and (b) how you know that this is true - on what is this position based.

You responded by asking me to prove an alternative view - which would be a poor way to justify an assertion.

A: John killed Henry!
B: How do you know?
A: Can you prove that he didn't??



This is a really interesting question. Similarly, do numbers exist independent of human thought? Do conic sections (the shape of planetary orbits) exist outside of human thought?

It seems to me that the relationships exist independent of human thought, but concepts we use to identify, label, explain those relationships appear to not exist without a physical means of mediating those concepts - in your words "somebody or something has to think it."




The processes of that thought cease to exist, but the memory of that thought does not cease to exist, nor does any recording (audio, written words, etc) of that thought cease to exist.

MT you speak so well and are so nice and polite that I cannot
(even against my better judgement) deny you an honest non-jocular
and polite response!

First - Am I certain?

My answer is that I am as certain as I think I can be about anything. The analogy is good with numbers. The idea of counting
and enumerating things exists without anyone thinking about it.
It is a structure which exist without us but which we discovered
through investigation and measurement of our world. Other animals
are capable of counting of course and clearly the quantity of
items of any sort doesn't depend on the observer or even the
presence of an observer.

Certainty is overrated. But I am certain about it because
God told me.



I would still be interested in finding out if anyone can prove
what elements of the periodic are required for ideas because
no elements from the periodic table were used in making this post.



Ok Ok How do I justify my position? By noting that the relationships
such as the elliptical orbits of the planets existed long before me
and before everybody discovered them and will exist long after
all of us are gone. They're universal and eternal and thus
independent.

Yes, I'm talking about the relationships existing independent of
human thought. Nobody has to think about the relationships for
them to exist.

The use of the words concept or idea is a bit trickier but if
the relationships exist without thought then the so does the
concept in my opinion because the concept merely describes the
relationship. Although there may be many independent descriptions
they all are describing the same concept and the same relationship
so it gets into boring semantics.

The fact that when the processes of thought stop but the memories
and recordings and relationships do not stop is my whole point
pretty much. All this beautiful intricate math stuff exists without
us. Which is great even godlike.



Well I could not keep from being jocular. It was just not possible.
At least I was sincere.

There is a tenet of physics that states:nothing is lost,only converted to another state.Information,which is the essence of existence,cannot be lost.A more accurate question would be:Upon death,do we remain a cohesive unit or dose everything we are disperse into the unknown all.Kinda Buddhist in nature but still solid physics.

I think the 'tenet' of physics that you refer to is about energy. Exergy can be expended but it it continues in the work that was done, what was producted and so on.

Also referring to 'information' can be confusing. 'Information' can be a friend telling you that Coke is on sale at the grocery story. In fact most of our daily experience includes these tid-bits of information that would be utterly useless for any eternal reasons so it hardly makes sense to think that information is so vital that it must continue on without humanity to process that 'information'.

Now maybe you meant something entirely different, so try considering your idea again in greater detail so it can be explained more thoroughly.

I believe in the universal law of vibration.

"That which is like (in vibration) unto itself is drawn."

I think information, the essence of existence, is cohesive because of the law of vibration. I think that this information is contained within unified fields. I think consciousness flows through these fields.

Note: The information I speak of is more like a functioning program or a code within the matrix that holds reality together and functions as vibrational law.

After death of the physical body, the information or experience translates into vibration and joins it's counter part (its unique source) on the other side where it contributes its information to that unit, (which is a conscious being) which is what I call the "inner being" or "higher self."