Most, if not all, of us don't remember being aware of anything before our first years of life, and certainly not before we were born. Our awareness, as we experience it, seems to come with our body. However, it is possible that there is simply a process that erases memory of previous form of awareness. For example, we don't remember our awareness when we were six months old, but yet seeing colors, etc. is already quite a lot of awareness. The same might be true for a possible awareness before we were born. Perhaps we forgot it because it was a different form of awareness.
Why is this considered by some a strange hypothesis whereas the materialistic hypothesis is not. Every modern thinker agrees that materialism doesn't work anymore. It has been replaced with physicalism, which is nothing else than a statement that everything can be reduced to the laws of physics. Sure, but laws of what? Laws need substance. If it is not matter, why not laws of awareness in some form? What else?
2007-10-12 15:15:27 · 15 answers · asked by My account has been compromised 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Some answers are typical of people who hold strong to a position or belief. We had the belief that laws where laws of matter for many years. That was wrong, and yet nobody would say "You see it is not needed, etc..."
It is not delusional to say "Not laws of matter, fine, but there is still existence, so laws of awareness makes sense". Moreover, there is strong evidence for some after "death" experience, which suggests a possible transition to an awareness after complete death. It is not as if we had no evidence at all.
Nowadays, these after death experiences are well accepted, only interpretations differ.
Why some atheists immediately point alternative but not simpler hypotheses as if it meant that the awareness hypothesis was wrong. In view of the importance of this hypothesis, we should consider it with an open mind, especially now that we know that matter is not the ultimate reality. These laws aren't just abstract or only on paper. They must have a substance to act upon.
2007-10-12 16:26:36 · update #1
The fact that we forget our awareness of our first years of life wasn't presented as an evidence. It was just a counter argument to those who would ask why we forget? Those who interpreted it as a presented evidence are just not fair. Moreover, those who say that we have an explanation for why we forget our early years of life are not at all destroying this counter argument. Obviously, if we have some mechanisms in one case, we can also have mechanism in the other case. My point was simply that a lack of memory is not an argument against the proposed hypothesis. The question is not "why don't you believe in awareness as a foundation to reality", but only "why do you reject it." The Occam's razor principle doesn't apply here because, as mentioned above, we have some evidence for it with no obvious simpler alternative.
2007-10-12 16:47:11 · update #2
rt66lt: Amazing that you could get three thumbs up for that. Usually "a way" means like "a tool" and a tool suggests "a design". Are some just against the terminology "design" because it was used by creationists in a more restricted context, but yet a universe that needs "a way" is fine. Unless, the atheists just didn't react to your answer and you got the thumbs up from Christians.
2007-10-12 19:31:03 · update #3
The entire universe may be consciousness only. This in no way undermines atheism.
2007-10-12 15:22:25 · answer #1 · answered by neil s 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I"ll not give a fancy speech nor a long winded lecture upon the nature and very structure of the universe, instead i will give you an assurance and upon this all other "supposed facts"of religions and states, crumble in the presence of this one simple fact.We will all know when we die what happens,the question we are all dying to know the answer to and the answer for which we all must die.with that being said , all arguments over existences and levels and variations thereof really are a waste of what truly is a short span of time to which a human is allotted here in this universe, far better to eat the apple than argue over how where and why the apple was made. namaste.
2007-10-12 15:27:29 · answer #2 · answered by anonomous 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Kinda straw man, don't you think?
However, I think that you are actually describing more a phenomenon of Agnosticism. An atheist wouldn't describe anything as 'ultimate reality'. This in itself implies a state of being beyond the observable, by saying that there are shades of reality- thus the need for an 'ultimate'.
My second problem: "every modern thinker". This is a completely unprovable statement, especially when taken without a context for what group of thinkers you might be referring to.
Ultimately, I would say that the argument you are describing is forwarded most often in a defensive manner, a sort of mental shorthand for those people who want to state their general position quickly in regards to their personal view.
2007-10-12 15:24:04 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Awareness, as we know it, hinges on the ability to perceive. Any good philosopher knows that without a mind, they would not be able to perceive anything. Because of this, it is quite clear that before you were born, you could not perceive anything. We understand that we see colors because the light travels to our eyes, which is then interpreted by the brain. All of our senses are transmitted by our nervous system to our brain to sort out and figure out.
You're suggesting that there is some 'pre-brain' awareness. Which is actually more than impossible. When we were babies, we had brains to be aware, but before then, we had nothing. So there's really no substance to your argument. If you can think of some sort of means of perceiving without a brain, I'd be delighted if you'd share it, but it definitely wouldn't withstand any sort of scrutiny or inquiry.
2007-10-12 15:23:51 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's possible, I'm not denying that. But your hypothesis is, indeed, strange and very unlikely. Lets just stick with "your brain wasn't very developed when you were a baby, therefore your long-term memory couldn't retain much information."
Now, doesn't that seem a little more realistic? There's no evidence for your proposed hypothesis, so why should I take it seriously? I'm not being rude or anything, just honest.
2007-10-12 15:21:23 · answer #5 · answered by Uliju 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
are you sure that this is an idea that some atheists actually have, and not something that you imagine that they have? present some evidence (not mere possibility) for a form of awareness independent of physical substances and processes, a mechanism for forgetting memories associated with this type of awareness, an ultimate reality associated with this type of awareness... i'm dizzy now, where was i? oh yeah, present evidence and we can talk.
2007-10-12 15:29:02 · answer #6 · answered by vorenhutz 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
See the thing is there is no evidence for any of that. I mean you are claiming that some lost memory just might exist, but there is no reason to think that. If you have got some, share...otherwise it is just a wild guess. Those don't usually work out.
2007-10-12 15:20:44 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Actually, the reason why we do not remember our "awareness" at a young age is because we do not have the language skills need to put thoughts and feelings into our memories. As such they are lost.
The rest of your post is just gibberish with no real question.
2007-10-12 15:23:39 · answer #8 · answered by punch 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
interior the 'thinking' we can't. theory on my own does not lead one to the terrific actuality that one will abide there yet in basic terms in and with distinctive ranges of religious understanding.
2016-10-22 05:22:50 · answer #9 · answered by Erika 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Didn't you think of the fact that our brains may not have developed to that extent at that time.
2007-10-12 15:20:13 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋