only flat universes obey euclidian(sp?) geometry. In spherical universes traingles=more then 180 degrees, saddle shape= less then 180 degrees. in spherical and flat universes, parrallel lines eventually meet, none of this is so with flat universes. btw i think gravity causes the height dimension.
I meant a flat universe in terms of curvature of space, which is rather hard to envision in a three dimensional environment.
No, don't lock it yet, I think we still have some good stuff to discuss. Peep this.
So I was pondering the definition of an individual or unique consciousness, i.e., what makes me me and you not me but in fact you. I thought of an interesting idea which could be an argument against the existence of the soul, or perhaps something else entirely. Consider someone who lives for 20 years, grows up etc. Fine. Then imagine that this person got complete, total amnesia and couldn't remember a single thing from those 20 years. He or she would have to completely relearn almost everything, and science has shown such an individual would be completely different personality-wise than he or she was before amnesia. Does this mean they're the same person (physical definition of self) or two different people (mental definition of self). Did the first person effectively 'die' when amnesia occured?
So I was pondering the definition of an individual or unique consciousness, i.e., what makes me me and you not me but in fact you. I thought of an interesting idea which could be an argument against the existence of the soul, or perhaps something else entirely. Consider someone who lives for 20 years, grows up etc. Fine. Then imagine that this person got complete, total amnesia and couldn't remember a single thing from those 20 years. He or she would have to completely relearn almost everything, and science has shown such an individual would be completely different personality-wise than he or she was before amnesia. Does this mean they're the same person (physical definition of self) or two different people (mental definition of self). Did the first person effectively 'die' when amnesia occured?
hm.. very nice.. I think they died mentally, of course not physically (duh), but science has also proven that you never forget anything, EVER, this one lady undergowing brain surgery, when they poked this one part of her brain starting singing in french, even though she didnt know french, turns out she had a french nanny when she was a baby who would sing to her in french. and she never forgot it. pree freaky. you just gotsta make the right bridges connecting your conscious to your sub-conscious. if some how we learned how to connect it all the time wed alll be genius'. lol
EDIT: can anybody explain to me what a hyperspere is please. i read something about some guy thinking the universe was a flat hypersphere. which sounds like an oxymoron to me considering spheres are 3D.
EDIT: can anybody explain to me what a hyperspere is please. i read something about some guy thinking the universe was a flat hypersphere. which sounds like an oxymoron to me considering spheres are 3D.
I don't think there is any separation of mental from physical, as our brains are all physical entities. Thats like saying your [computer] OS is really a "spirit" that just happens to require a bunch of physical hardware to exist 
the brain wave things that make up who you are then =P call it whatever. soul, spirit, ect. they get wiped. whamo. your a new person mentally.
For the sake of argument, lets say that the mental is separate from the physical (which I still highly doubt). I don't see any reason why amnesia would cause you to change, though, as there are plenty of cases of people with amnesia managing to "recover", at least partially, their memory - kinda destroys the whole "new person" idea. If amnesia did destroy a person's mental self, then that brings up the question of A) how can they then remember some things, and B) Not only how and what causes such destruction, but also when, as not all amnesia is from a traumatic blow to the head.
Kllrnohj makes an excellent point here, and even so I'm not exactly sure I can wrap my mind around the implications. Check this out:
http://www.minddisorders.com/Del-Fi/Dissociative-amnesia.html
http://www.minddisorders.com/Del-Fi/Dissociative-amnesia.html
Quote:
Five different patterns of memory loss have been reported in patients with dissociative amnesia:
* Localized. The patient cannot recall events that took place within a limited period of time (usually several hours or 1–2 days) following a traumatic event. For example, some survivors of the World Trade Center attacks do not remember how they got out of the damaged buildings or what streets they took to get away from the area.
* Selective. The patient can remember some, but not all of the events that took place during a limited period of time. For example, a veteran of D-Day (June 6, 1944) may recall some details, such as eating a meal on the run or taking prisoners, but not others (seeing a close friend hit or losing a commanding officer).
* Generalized. The person cannot recall anything in his/her entire life. Persons with generalized amnesia are usually found by the police or taken by others to a hospital emergency room.
* Continuous. The amnesia covers the entire period without interruption from a traumatic event in the past to the present.
* Systematized. The amnesia covers only certain categories of information, such as all memories related to a certain location or to a particular person.
* Localized. The patient cannot recall events that took place within a limited period of time (usually several hours or 1–2 days) following a traumatic event. For example, some survivors of the World Trade Center attacks do not remember how they got out of the damaged buildings or what streets they took to get away from the area.
* Selective. The patient can remember some, but not all of the events that took place during a limited period of time. For example, a veteran of D-Day (June 6, 1944) may recall some details, such as eating a meal on the run or taking prisoners, but not others (seeing a close friend hit or losing a commanding officer).
* Generalized. The person cannot recall anything in his/her entire life. Persons with generalized amnesia are usually found by the police or taken by others to a hospital emergency room.
* Continuous. The amnesia covers the entire period without interruption from a traumatic event in the past to the present.
* Systematized. The amnesia covers only certain categories of information, such as all memories related to a certain location or to a particular person.
I asked my science teacher this as I knew she was catholic and left her speechless after I said what Kerm stated earlier 
Pseudoprogrammer wrote:
I asked my science teacher this as I knew she was catholic and left her speechless after I said what Kerm stated earlier
Haha, nice! Did you credit it to me? 
On the subject of mental vs physical, I have to agree that the two are one.
Let me propose a new question that I've been thinking about a bit over the past few days. In short, what is the fundamental unit of consciousness?
What exactly do you define as being the fundamental property of life that would still render it alive. For instance if you were to lose your sight or your sense of smell or any of your other peripheral senses, are you still a conscious being? As I think most of you will agree with me that you are let me take it a step further. What if you had no senses at all? Still think you're conscious? Okay, what if you had limited brain functionality (crap, I didn't mean to segway into debates on whether people who are vegetables are still alive). At what point are you nothing but a mass of organic matter?
On a side note, why did you guys want the topic to be closed. I think we were having some great discussions, and I think YOUR posts calling for a lock on the topic were more spam than the posts we were making in here.
Let me propose a new question that I've been thinking about a bit over the past few days. In short, what is the fundamental unit of consciousness?
What exactly do you define as being the fundamental property of life that would still render it alive. For instance if you were to lose your sight or your sense of smell or any of your other peripheral senses, are you still a conscious being? As I think most of you will agree with me that you are let me take it a step further. What if you had no senses at all? Still think you're conscious? Okay, what if you had limited brain functionality (crap, I didn't mean to segway into debates on whether people who are vegetables are still alive). At what point are you nothing but a mass of organic matter?
On a side note, why did you guys want the topic to be closed. I think we were having some great discussions, and I think YOUR posts calling for a lock on the topic were more spam than the posts we were making in here.
Alright. one last shot on my part to revive this topic.
This movie applies uncannily well to this topic. Check it out
This movie applies uncannily well to this topic. Check it out
Register to Join the Conversation
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Advertisement