Summations Only

No, after long effort, I don't think you are capable of understanding what I mean.

Given that I am not alone in finding your answers evasive and vague I am unconvinced that you really know what you mean yourself.Your thinking seems confused to say the least.

Viscerally, it feels like my mind isn't physical. And for many, the thought of your consciousness existing eternally is very comforting...but no, I don't think either of those reasons are valid for actually thinking this is actually true.

Firstly - How do you reconcile the fact that changes to ones physical brain can shape ones preferences with the belief that ones preferences are independent of physical brains.Secondly - Why does it matter which one is original?

That's fine. There are several audiences, the person you actually respond to and the wider audience that reads the thread.

One is the original. The other is not.

True. Some sense of dualism is the intuitive conclusion. But it seems to fly in the face of the evidence now available to us. Indeed. But this idea of an ethereal "real you" just doesn't make any sense. I mean our behaviour and personalities are demonstrably shaped by variable things like hormone levels. Is the "real me" the way I would be if I were hormoneless? Is the "real" me as I am with average levels of things like seratonin and testosterone?I don't know what a non-physical "real me" would possibly be like. I'm not even sure it could recognisably be "me" at all. The whole idea just hasn't been thought through.

How do you reconcile the fact that changes to ones physical brain can shape ones preferences with the belief that ones preferences are independent of physical brains? Why do you think that matters?

Well with the wider audience in mind perhaps you can consider this much evaded question?How do you reconcile the fact that changes to ones physical brain can shape ones preferences with the belief that ones preferences are independent of physical brains?

Hi bluegenes, still struggling?I notice we still do not have your answer for why the sky appears blue. In which case, context is of utmost importance. In the context of providing a complete answer or explanation you end up at the "Big Why" unavoidably. In the absence of context you should default to the "Big Why" question or ask for context. If you are satisfied with an incomplete, tentative and partial answer then wail away. Indeed. Those are the purposes that singing has been used for, it is how they accomplish those tasks, but it doesn't answer why birds sing.We also have some species of birds that don't (or very rarely) sing, and yet they are not handicapped in either survival or breeding compared to ones that do. There appears to be no relationship between song verbosity and survival. There are also some birds that sing and don't attract mates. There appears to be no real 1 to 1 correlation between any singing behavior and the assigned purpose, as each of these purposes are also achieved without song in many species.If your answer were correct then the non-singing species would not survive.It is a bit like the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy, the complex cause logical fallacy, and the part for the whole logical fallacy all mixed together. Just because you know a (small) part of the answer does not mean that you know (all) the answer.Science may be able to discuss partial answers, based on observations, assumptions, and inference, but that does not mean that science provides the full answer, or that it ever can. There are certain details in a complete answer that science is not equipped to determine.

• Why did it happen that birds can sing?
• Why did it happen that the sky appears blue?

These are essentially untestable\unfalsifiable aspects of the "why" issue, and thus cannot be determined through science. They are part of the "Big Why" question.By contrast, science can do very well at answering the how questions, and while those answers may be incomplete, there is no significant reason that would suggest that more details can be developed through science.

• How did it happen that birds can sing?
• How did it happen that the sky appears blue?

These can be answered through science. Is there a "Big How" question that theoretically cannot be answered through science?Have fun.Enjoy.

It matters to me because it is a fact.

I do not try to reconcile those things.

Especially when you add in temporal considerations. Is the real me when I'm 20? 50? 90? Maybe it's when I'm 5?And wouldn't it be less comforting to think that either your real you degrades as you reach advanced age...or the real you is less and less able to communicate with the real world, essentially stuck in a box until the release of sweet death?

Too funny. It is also a fact that physical changes can demonstrably effect the things you are claiming lack any physical cause.But I guess some facts are less convenient, less in line with your chosen beliefs and thus don't matter so much.

Shit yeah!! When you think of it like that it's downright spooky.I think some sort of creepy psychological horror movie could be made along these lines.