Perspective can be viewed as memory that transcends physical lives. Memory never ceases as it is embedded in the fabric of the universe.

Memory never ceases as it is embedded in the fabric of the universe.

Care to elaborate?

Care to elaborate?

Do you care to elaborate on your name?

Care to elaborate? — SnowyChainsaw

The Universe is fundamentally memory that is in constant flow due to Creative action. We see this memory as habitual movement with slight, continuous changes. We feel it as time.

Memory is everywhere and is never destroyed. What we may call inherited characteristics or inborn skills or quizzical innate abilities (idiot savants), is memory evolved from the past. We are all different and because of this have different perspectives.

I have always thought perspective is a result of consciousness, as opposed to a part of it.
Our consciousness allows us to experience our environment and therefore creates a unique perspective based on that information. Perspective cannot exist without consciousness, but is not an intrinsic part of our psyche.

It was a randomly generated email i got the first time i set up a hotmail account, years ago. I guess it just stuck.

Interesting, but I have to disagree with you. Since its not the topic of the thread however, perhaps we'll get the chance to discuss it another time.

it is relevant, since the question is where does perspective come from. Basically it is acquired memory which is the core of consciousness along with the creative spirit. Together consciousness evolves.

Saying "memory is embedded in the fabric of reality" is redundant since everything that exists is embedded in reality, otherwise we would not say it exists.
Memory is nothing more then a sequence of chemical and electrical signals the brain can recreate. Consciousness may collect memories but it is the initial information, and not necessarily the recalled information, that shapes our perspective: our interpretation of that information.

I guess when one is faced with new information that might change, or at least adjust, one's perspective, we might use memories as a reference to see if the new information aligns with one's current perspective and decide whether or not it needs amending. However, i would consider that a process after the fact of forming a perspective, and not a part of it.

And memory can cease, since anything that can exist can also be destroyed (cease to exist).

Saying "memory is embedded in the fabric of reality" is redundant since everything that exists is embedded in reality, otherwise we would not say it exists. — SnowyChainsaw

Yes. And memory has persistence though it is evolving. A straightforward observation.

Memory is nothing more then a sequence of chemical and electrical signals the brain can recreate. — SnowyChainsaw

It's the other way around. Memory is fundamental and persists with our without the physical manifestation. A memory signal persists whether or not there is a receiver, be it a TV set or brain.

And memory can cease, since anything that can exist can also be destroyed (cease to exist). — SnowyChainsaw

That is the rub. Memory persists, it doesn't cease, nothing ever ceases, which is the answer to the OP's question of the origin of perspective.

Yes, perspective is an important part of what we're talking about when we talk about consciousness. In fact, "from the inside", it could be said that the perspectivalness of one's experience is the essence of what one really and truly is. Eastern traditions of meditation have also inquired around this area.

Suppose you say, in the ordinary way of things, "I'm seeing a tree." The "story" around this includes a whole bunch of stuff about the world that we normally take for granted - e.g. that you're a physical object, perceiving another physical object.

But then suppose you set all that stuff to the side - it may or may not be true, but what can you truthfully say about your experience without presupposing that background story to be true? Well you could say something like "I'm perceiving a patch of green and brown" or something of that sort. But that's an incomplete reduction - what could the "I" be in that situation, if it's not the normal you with a body?

Perhaps an abstract sort of "point of view"? Or, to reverse the metaphor, some sort of bare "capacity?" A mere space-for-experiences-to-occur-in? But that, again, implies some sort of distance, some kind of space or space analogue - and if it's not physical distance, what kind of distance is it?

Diving deeper, we can say something like, "There exist certain patches of what I call "colour" that seem to reveal a perspective on a world." But even that's not quite right, because what is this "calling things names" process? It's also something that's revealed as part of the picture. IOW, the thought "this is green" is itself part of the "show" of what's being revealed, it's not something that stands outside the show, like the original self stood physically outside its perceived object, or the notional point-of-view stands outside its presented show.

So ultimately you just come down to an event, we know not what it is or what to call it (we're long past the point where calling it "consciousness" at all - or even "matter" for that matter - makes any sense we'd normally understand), that seems to reveal a perspective, and that perspectival quality, the way it sort of "shapes" the content of what's presented, is the faint remnant of "me" or an "observer" of the show.

When I was born, how did 'nature' conjure up my perspective into this body? Why and how did it decide that my perspective is the right one? These were questions that I asked myself since I was 9 years old. Why am I me? Why am I not my brother? How did 'I' happen to be? — Susu

Welcome to the forum Susu.

What's preoccupied me lately is the I-you relation. We spend a lot of time on this 'How did I get to be me?' question, and the related ones about subjective point-of-view or perspective. And an analytic answer like gurugeorge's expands from that to I-it...'I perceive a this or a that.' No particular quarrel with that. Just that a particular, instrumental idea of the world starts to unfold before you know it.

I feel I experience the world primarily as I-you. Indeed, the 'you' multiplies as the 'I' gets to know oneself.

I think it just happens from birth. One major difference between chimp mothers and human mothers is...chimp mothers expect their children to learn by imitating them...but human mothers also imitate their infants from the word go. Mum shows me how my actions are. I see myself reflected. And at the same time I recognise the 'you' in Mum. The other. There is no 'I' without 'the other'. We are related but separate.

If by memory he means information then information cannot be created or destroyed. Where information is stored? In fabric of universe. There are theoretical and experimental support for this idea. You can google "information" and "conservation" yourself.

I agree, but the memory is not the same as information. Information is an arbitrary term used to conceptualize the fabric of reality. Memory, however, is the recollection of the fabric of reality and can be altered, created and destroyed.

, not to detract from your angle with the opening post, but perhaps perspective could be contrasted by omnipresence if you will (ignoring the religious denotations).
So, we're locally individuated (and mutually separated), which automatically sets a perspective, both in scale, scope and experience.
My here-now is hence more or less my (mutable) perspective, which differs from others'.

Memory, however, is the recollection of the fabric of reality and can be altered, created and destroyed. — SnowyChainsaw

Destroyed, probably not, since it is the fabric of the universe. However, it does morph and evolve. This is what we actually experience in every day life. Memory changes.

The fabric of reality, by definition, is unchanging: it is the constant that defines existence. If memory can change, then it is not the fabric of reality. If memory is a recollection of the fabric of the reality, then it is open to interpretation and therefore can change, evolve, be created, be destroyed and be incorrect.

The fabric of reality, by definition, is unchanging — SnowyChainsaw

It is always changing. Just observe.

When I was born, how did 'nature' conjure up my perspective into this body? Why and how did it decide that my perspective is the right one? These were questions that I asked myself since I was 9 years old. Why am I me? Why am I not my brother? How did 'I' happen to be?

Anyway, this is the thought I never had the chance to discuss with anyone. I tried raising it with my friends but none of them had any good answers. Would really like to gain some insight from someone who has delved very deep into this subject matter — Susu

Sometimes a seemingly difficult question like that is just the result of metaphysical assumptions that aren't valid. For example, the metaphysics of Materialism has been hammered into us from elementary-school on.

Materialism has several aliases. A currently fashionable one is "Naturalism". Also, the word "Nominalism" is often, currently fashionably, used to refer to what is really another way of wording Materialism.

Sometimes, answering questions such as the ones that you expressed, requires a completely different metaphysics.

I'll answer that in terms of the inevitable and uncontroversial metaphysics that I've been proposing here.

I've posted the whole proposition at so many discussions in these forums, that I shouldn't repeat it all here.

But, to just summarize:

All that you know about the physical world is from your experience, in fact all of it is your experience. That's all there is, for you.

There are abstract if-then facts. There couldn't have not been abstract if-then facts. And, just as inevitably, there are complex inter-referring systems of inevitable abstract if-then facts about hypotheticals.

In fact, there are infinitely-many such complex logical systems.

In fact, there's one whose events and relations are those that you encounter in your experience,

That complex system of inter-referring inevitable abstract logical facts about hypotheticals is your life-experience possibility-story,

Let me re-quote your question:

When I was born, how did 'nature' conjure up my perspective into this body? — Susu

Your perspective is prior to this life. Your perspective consists of your inclinations, predispositions, etc.

Those are attributes of the protagonist of one of the infinitely-many life-experience possibility-stories.

So, why are you in a life? Because you, someone with your perspective, is the protagonist of one of the infinitely-many life-experience possibility-stories.

Being in a life is part of the your nature, as the possessor of your perspective, the protagonist of a life-experience possibility-story.

So it's no surprise that you're in a life. That's why this life started.

Why and how did it decide that my perspective is the right one?

Your perspective is what it started from. ...your perspective and the life-experience possibility-story whose protagonist has that perspective.

So there's really no question of why it's the right perspective for you. It is you, and it's the reason why this life started.

Michael Ossipoff

I would agree with the OP that perspective is an expression of each unique spatio-temproal embodiment, and in that sense is prior to consciousness. Of course, under different interpretations of the terms the order of priority could be reversed.

Interesting. I suppose the question is how to define consciousness then? If it can be defined as a spatio-temproal embodiment's ability to form a unique perspective, then consciousness would would need to be present prior to perspective in order to form said perspective.

Yes, but there is a sense in which it seems perfectly reasonable to assume that all beings have or maybe better, are, a perspective; whether or not we might think they are conscious. This is the sense in which they all live within and interact with their own unique niche within the world. The totality or range of what they can encounter and interact with, consciously or unconsciously, could be termed their 'perspective'. That's kind of the way I read the OP.

Ah, i see what your getting at. I'd argue that when you apply the term perspective in this way, the term is actually referring to your perspective as an observer. Id est, you are using your perspective and applying it to to something else rather then observing the formation of a separate, unique perspective. Whereas this does not necessarily prove the phenomenon is not forming a perspective, it also cannot suggest that it is. Unless the observed phenomenon is able to communicate its unique perspective, which would suggest consciousness, then there is no real way of knowing.

I think you are looking at it as though I am imputing a 'perspective as qualia' or something of the sort, to other creatures. I don't think of it that way; all I see myself doing with the idea of perspective in this context is applying it as a term to signify the idea of a particular, unique orientation to, and interaction with, the world that each creature comprises.

you're perspective can be influenced as you grow into an adult. as a child you are easily influenced and it doesn't matter how much you believe you are different from your parents and the people that were significant during your childhood you will always have something about you that is like them. you really aren't your own person when you really think about it.

I'm not sure "qualia" is the right word but yeah, i'd say your close enough. You see, i don't think you can equate perspective and interaction. If you were to observe a rock floating in space, you, as a conscious observer, can say that it is in front of you and this would be you forming a unique perspective. The rock, assuming it is conscious, might then say that you are behind it and that would be different perspective to yours. However, if the rock is not conscious, then the act of you observing it does not inherently form a perspective for the rock that is different from yours. What i think you are doing is applying your perspective as a point of reference and saying: "since i observe the rock, the rock's perspective is that I am nearby." Since the rock has no way of communicating that it is conscious of your presence, i don't think you should assume that it is either conscious nor forming a perspective, regardless of your interaction.

In one sense I would say the rock does not have a perspective in relation to you because you have no effect on it. Looked at another way, if your seeing of the rock is thought of as being part of the rock, in the sense of contributing to its whole history, then you do have an effect on the rock. This latter is not an efficient "physical" effect, though.

I am not attributing any consciousness to the rock either way.

The universe is complex energy interaction. Perspective is a summation of all the complex interactions that form a temporary balance. Perspective is energy balance. Humans are an energy balance, and most of us share a mostly similar perspective. The imperfection intrinsic in interaction is evident in our slight individuality.