No one remembers being a baby or being born, being in the womb and having an existence prior to that. Memory doesn’t exist until it is made [until your brain exists], so we have to ask if it can be considered ‘an existence’, to exist without knowledge of existing – memory?
I suspect that when scientists finish decoding the info in a brain by dissecting it in micro-slices, there will be absolutely no information concerning a former existence.
How can one be e.g. a girl in a boys body, if there is nothing before our births to determine that? That doesn’t mean you can’t act like a tranny, men historically wore make-up so its no big deal. It also doesn’t mean you can’t like whatever your brain is telling you to like [given that its legal] sexually, as there is nothing to predetermine such things. I do however question the wisdom of giving children sex changes, or hormone therapy to deter natural sexual development. That is, given there is nothing before birth ~ no ‘you’ which is male or female. The objective reality comes directly in the form of the object which is your body, but there will of course be great variance in ‘neuronal sexuality’ [preferred object reference/attractions], as we can observe in the world. Fundamentally life-forms are in perpetual sympathy with their environments, and in nature when animals get parted from the opposite sex, that converts to intimate relations and hence attractions will form with respect to that. It would appear that the brain composes our sexuality mostly in the observing of our own physical forms, and how that is seen societally. It then builds up a picture of the given societal feminine/masculine behaviours and attributes, likes and dislikes.
Doesn’t it take time to forge that? i.e. the very reason why we have age limits! I am all for adults having free choice as long as no harm is caused, and I can observe that the world is much and varied, but what’s all these ideas about a male/female ‘meta-beings’? Is there a boy or girl inside, or are we all the same inside, and such things develop and change over time?
Yeah no kidding, when they slice a brain they don’t find consciousness either, so it’s an irrelevant issue, it wouldn’t disprove the existence of memories outside the brain.
You’re taking the idea way too literal. Obvious there isn’t a tiny girl physically living inside someone’s body. She only lives physically in their minds. It’s more about a mind that has feminine centers in certain sectors being dissatisfied with the body it was randomly assigned due to ? unknown? bodily assignment process binding of consciousness.
Try harder next time.
It takes time to forge masculinity, not femininity.
Masculinity - mask-ulinity, a character hardening, perversion of the norm. Femininity is the default state of the fetus. Once the organism becomes fully male, fully mutated, it is a monster, with no sensitivity that remains, off to ride into the distance of Perdition with no hope of returning to feminine grace.
That’s probably because consciousness concerns electromagnetic patterns and chemical fluctuations i.e. ones which are entirely denoted by physical information. Admittedly a dead brain is but a frozen moment of all that, but I can’t imagine info outside of the system arises. Surely that would show up on em scans.
I naturally didn’t mean that, I was referring to the notion that someone is a boy or girl prior to one’s existence! hence it cannot be the case that someone is a boy in a girls body in that manner.
Scientists on horizon [bbc documentary] said there is nothing to denote sexuality [not sex obviously, there will be function for organs] in a brain, its functions are more to do with doing things, function of the body, senses, imagination even. there is no part of a brain which is male or female apart from function, but for sure go ahead and prove me wrong! Show me a current paper on it?
Doesn’t sexual maturity finalise at genetic adulthood I.E age 25? or at least until and during puberty?..
It is not, genes have a certain way of arriving at sex [as above], but it is equally important genetically to become males and females such to procreate. Both the masculine and feminine [except obvious exceptions] are long term changes upon individuals. There is no norm, if genes didn’t require sex to replicate, then we’d have no sexual organs at all. Equally there would nothing et al going on in brains concerning sexuality, and yet there are [probably] no cases of this. You speak as if your philosophy is the usual case, stating that masculinity is a perversion of a norm which does not itself exist. The norm is objectively what evolution denotes! i.e. both the masculine and feminine. - I am not saying minds can’t change that as obviously they can, but minds can’t change the physical reality. Besides I am not saying that adults can’t be ‘confused’ or ‘different’ [in their own terms that is], I am saying that you need to be an adult to make choices like that.
Nature uses sexual polarisation in order to procreate, which can be visualised as like a pair of scales. Each parent has to also have the facility to procreate, so also has to have a pair of [internal] scales. You get people like you who are physically weighted in the masculine [are men], but with internal scales weighted in the feminine, then others weighted in the masculine like I dunno magnus or at least his online persona, and then someone perfectly balance like me lol.
There is no confusion except in our [well, yours] misperception.
There is no need for collective or individual memory when we have centrally controlled corporate media platforms to report and archive everything for us via a 24/7 cable broadcast.
Hmm come to think of it, in meditations one can I assume, exist without memory for sure. I say that, because when I focus purely upon my breathing, there’s still a whole science fiction film going by lol. …however…
The specific context I meant it in, was that if we have no memory of self before we were born or existed at all, then there is no inner boy or girl [objectively], and we are all just differently weighted individuals which are essentially all the same – just people! Brains are brains, they don’t particularly have masculinity or femininity, except as concerns their practical utility.
I’m an objectivist contemporary stoic, or something like that. I see it all like rocks. …where rocks in fast enough motion are like rivers, just look at the patina upon jade mine stone faces.
These rocks and living beings without memories exist.
Living beings need a concept of themselves, thus a self-consciousness, in order to know that they are, that they exist, that they are themselves. But that does not mean that they do not exist before they have their concept of themselves, their self-consciousness, and when they have lost their concept of themselves, their self-consciousness.
An example of someone living without memory, would be someone who cannot perform even simple tasks. they wouldn’t know anything other than their objective truth as a sexual object. confusions on this issue are therefore arise from a conflation of otherwise rudimentary truths.
They may feel that they need that, but I think ones reality as an observer [or the experiencing thing] is real in itself. Prisons are full of people who associate self with all that stuff going on in our information sponges [brains], as if it is something other than the thing itself which defines the thing itself.
But all this people you are talking about do exist.
As I already said: You are arguing subjectively or even solipsistically. Although you are also saying that you are an objectivist, your arguments come along as if they were told by one of those said people. If one has lost any memory, then there may be no existence according to this one (thus: to this subject, philosophically said), but this one does objectively exist. Only an extreme subjectivist or a solipsist denies this.
What he means is that living without memory is being unconscious of one’s own past, and thus not really living at all. Life and consciousness require memory in order to be conscious life.
Of course to some who enjoy conflating ontologies, “no life” = “no existence”.
“Living without memory” does not mean that it is “no life” or even “no existence”. It means that it is no conscious life, as you said, but not “no life”. It is life. And above all: it is existence. Of course, to the memoryless persons themselves there is no this and no that or only this and that (who knows?), but this does not (at least not objectively) mean that they do not live, not have any affect, not exist.
Doesn’t sexual maturity finalise at genetic adulthood I.E age 25? or at least until and during puberty?..
