Am I the physical or am I the essence

This spawned from a discussion thread on a Google+ community today.  Someone posted the question, "If Life decomposes & redistributes the material to be used again in some other form or forms, is there any such thing as death?"  Which sparked a great deal of thought on my part as to whether I am truly the physical form in which I reside, or if I am just the thoughts imprinted on my essence through my experiences.  My physical form is important, but is it really more than a vessel.  Is it more than just a vessel carrying something greater? Is my essence truly greater?

I firmly believe that my essence belongs to me. It is, after all, my experiences that have been imprinted upon it.  In a recent post (Man vs. Machine Part 1) I refer to the difference between the brain and the mind, in comparing to a computer.  In that post I wrote:

When I think of the brain, I think of the actual organ, not the mind, not our personalized spin on things.  The mind is more like the software stack than the CPU, it takes our own experiences and adds interpretation onto what the brain is processing.

This is at the heart of what I'm getting at here today.  Without our mind we are nothing.  I see the mind and soul (or essence) as one.  However, the real question remains: "What is our essence".

Some people believe that we are mere extensions of a greater god being.  We are part of this god, and so is every other living thing.  The belief also stands that we are experiencing for a god whom is incapable of experiencing these things for itself.  If this were considered truth, would this mean our essence is the part that binds us to this God?

Upon our demise is this essence rejoin God, and perhaps return again later - as suggested by the ideas of reincarnation.  Could it be that instead, we do simply cease to exist.  Our body takes our soul with it?  If our body were reincarnated without the mind would it matter?  Would that reincarnated being still be you?   Would the mind without the body still be you?

I believe that our image of our "self" is imprinted on the mind, and while elements may fragment and change if the body is destroyed, it seems conceivable - at least to me - that the preservation of the mind preserves ones self.

Man vs. Machine (Part 1 - Similarities)

I am a computer software engineer.  I understand computers to a degree that most people do not.  I understand what takes place, inside the machine, to make the magic happen.  This is something that I've spent most of my life immersed in, it is a non-stop learning experience to write software.  Every time you turn around there is something new to learn.  However, the fundamental truth is that the core workings remain the same.  Moreover, I have come to find that those core workings of the machine resemble our own.

While they are not perfectly humanistic (yet) the basic model is highly similar.  Perhaps this was on purpose, or it was just the natural evolution of technology.  The best way to explain my point is probably through a simplistic example.   Note, this is a high level example.  For the sake of brevity and entertainment, I have omitted or briefly touched on some of the specifics.  


Example: Input, Processing, Storage, and Output.
A keyboard, mouse, fingerprint reader, microphone, etc. are all input devices, and they respond to the touch of the user, or the sounds in the environment, or in some scenarios data that comes in from a variety of sensors.   These input mechanisms represent the 5 human senses (touch, taste, smell, sight, and sound) although they manifest in different forms for a computer, again the core mechanics are quite the same.

The signals from our senses are transferred through our bodies using our nervous system.  The nervous system is akin to the System Bus in a computer.  This is simply a path by which data travels from the various ports on the machine to the CPU for processing, and from the CPU to the output devices.   The CPU is pretty much the brain of the machine.  

Our brain processes data at amazing speeds, because of this - with little thought - we can throw a ball at an arc to put it through a basket 10 feet away, judge the angle required for a golf shot to get within a few feet of the hole, or bounce a cue ball off the rail to sink the 8 ball.  Similarly a CPU can churn through the data coming from the various input devices at blazing speeds to tell the operating system and software (call it the software stack) what to do with it.

When I think of the brain, I think of the actual organ, not the mind, not our personalized spin on things.  The mind is more like the software stack than the CPU, it takes our own experiences and adds interpretation onto what the brain is processing.   Much in the way that the operating system and application software add interpretation about how to handle a key press event, mouse click, or voice command.  The responses to some of these events can be tailored, by settings that we can change.  Just as we can control our responses to certain stimuli, but not so much to others.

As we are processing data in this manner, it is being retained in short term memory.  So we can hang onto it briefly but then just discard it later.  Again, computers do this same thing using RAM.  It is quite explicitly volatile memory designed to allow the machine to discard it when it's done with it.  Only persisting what the software (mind) deems appropriate to remember to non-volatile storage media such as a hard disk (long term memory).

Later we may tell stories of events that went through this process described above and share it with others, offering them - if they are listening - a window into our world, how we think and feel about things, and how we interpreted that story.  We recall it by reaching into our long term memory and reading it up, just like a file from a hard disk.  We share the story by writing it out, speaking it, or even creating media to help visualize it.  This final piece is representative of the computer's output mechanisms - monitors, speakers, printers, etc.

In the near future I'll publish some differences, the big one of course being binary logic vs. human logic, and expand on things by discussing some programming structures and how those compare to human traits as well.

In an instant...

Today my mother and my daughter went out for a short walk   When they returned my child presented my wife and I each with a wildflower she'd picked for us.  I struggled, but could not recall the name of the flower I'd picked so many times as a child.  Nevertheless, it invoked a very strong sense of nostalgia for me.  It forced me to think back to all those many years ago when I was growing up.  It prompted me to consider moments spanning nearly two decades of my life.  There, in an instant, they were recaptured, but only to dissipate almost as quickly.

How symbolic must this plant, fleabane, be to me.  Why do violets, dandelions, and for that matter clover, not have the same value to me.  Words cannot truly express how powerful an experience this was. I had memories of loved ones long gone; experiences with friends that I've not spoken to in many years; stepping on chestnut hulls with bare feet; swinging in the backyard on a hammock, where the trees that held it have been cut down for nearly 3 decades; swinging on my swing set, thinking I saw someone out of the corner of my eye, but finding that no one was there; playing in the creek with my cousin; playing in the pool with the same cousin; my grandpa asking me about things I'd drawn; my family gathered on the porch talking for hours on end about "grown up things", and me wishing I understood and could participate.  All of this came, and left, in an instant.

My family is very close, and for that I am thankful.  My mom and dad live next door to the house where his parents lived, and where he grew up.  Behind them the younger of my older brothers, and behind him my aunt.  Within a few hundred yards are two other aunts, and a few member of my more distant family.  When I was a child I would spend much of my time playing between houses.   As for the expression "It Takes a Village", it did, but luckily I had one.

From time to time I do stop and feel a lot of regret, regardless of how I tell myself that there is no need to waste time looking back.  If only I'd understood those conversations on the porch with the grown ups.  If only I had listened to the advice of my family.  If only I'd known then, what I've come to know now.  I'd have played parts of my hand differently for sure.

Don't misunderstand, I love who I've become.  I also know that I would have never become this guy that I am today without the decisions I made, and their respective consequences. Nevertheless, if I had the chance at a do-over, I'd cherish the moments more and embrace my loved ones longer.  I would have asked more questions about the "old days" and listened more to the nuggets of wisdom my grandparents would have loved to share.  Because, if there is nothing else I've learned in life, it is to love and be loved because it can all be over in an instant.

Anti-Christian Christianity

Slowly I'm coming to realize that my problem with Christianity is not the religion.  It's not the story of Jesus himself.  It's not the fact that the matter of biblical canonization was... questionable.  It has little to do with the fact that there are so many different versions of the bible, that you really need a BA in history to fully understand what the reasons are behind each.  Nor is it the fact that there are so many different denominations of the Christian religion across the world that practice in such different ways that it's hard to say, in today's world, what Christianity truly is.  The real reason I have a problem with Christianity is... Christians.

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” - Ghandi. 

Don't get me wrong, I have known some fantastic folks who follow Jesus.  In fact some of my best friends are very devout Christians.  However, the majority of Christians in America, in this day and age, certainly appear to miss some of the things that I consider explicitly defined in the text of the bible we have.

I firmly believe that the Jesus in the bible, living today, would support social programs and universal healthcare.  He would not deny happiness of anyone. While he would know if it were a choice for them, in absence of that knowledge he'd still give the benefit of a doubt - instead of assuming they were "choosing" to be ridiculed and different.  He would not fill his closet with furs and hang gold and diamonds from his ears and neck.  He would not drive a car that costs more than a minimum wage worker's annual salary.

Unfortunately, I feel that many of today's Christians would disagree with me on all of the points above.  Regardless of the fact their most important book, the Holy Bible, the supposedly infallible word of God, would tell them to take their riches and give them away to receive their reward in heaven.  It saddens me that we live in a world filled with the self-righteous and pious who would besmirch and bastardize something as good and pure as the teachings of Christ.  However, I guess that is the way it has always been, and will continue to be.

Heads I win, tails you lose

In general I believe that we humans have a desire to do what is right, or at least what seems right to us.  The notion that there is an explicit good and an explicit evil is in my mind a fallacy.  To deny the knowledge of evil would would render the good imperfect.  To admit the knowledge of evil, means the good truly knows the evil.  Either way, the good is imperfect and thus impure.  The inverse could be said of evil, a knowledge of good is required to be evil.  This is essentially the Taoist concept of yin and yang.

There is an old saying, that every coin has two sides.  Or as another states it, there are two sides to every story.  While we echo these expressions like parrots we seldom stop to consider their implied meanings.  They simply indicate that looking only at the surface reveals an act of pure good, or a heinous act of evil.  However, somewhere deeper you see that it's not so cut and dry.

Consider a man (lets call him Dave) who kills his brother (Mike), who came to confront him over an issue they'd been having.  Things escalated and Dave, the younger of the two, pulls out a gun and leaves a slug lodged inside the cranium of his closest kin.  A life is taken, and a young man spends his life behind bars.  Deservedly so, he is insane to resort to such an act of violence so quickly.  

Dave has committed an unspeakably evil act.  He was unreasonable and reacted so unexpectedly and with such furor that elder brother - who'd only come to talk - now lays prone on the dirt ground with a fairly large entry wound on his forehead.  Dave deserves severe punishment for such an act.

Except...  Mike had been making threats against his wife and children, and both men knew he was planning to carry them out.  That was the reason for the altercation, and the resulting action.  However the only two who know this are the deceased, and the one who was absolutely guilty of the murder.  He is imprisoned, but his family is now safe.

Who is the bad guy and who is the good.  Would you believe his defense?  Would you have leniency if you did?  Even in this very simple example, the lines are now blurry once you know the rest of the story.  This applies to many things in life - except we never get to know the rest of the story.   Humans for all of our values, have a tendency to make harsh and rather rash judgement against our fellow humans.  We are all-too-often ready to condemn, in spite of the fact that only a part of the story is known.  I know that if we could somehow drop the shoot (off at the mouth) first ask questions later mindset, we could find the deeper answers in so many things.