Any proof of the existence of a self?

[Wittyname]

I have lots of thoughts that refers to a self. Like arrows that points to a center, an "I".
Maybe there's only a multitude of thoughts that refers to a center, i.e. the "thoughts thinking me", not "I think".
Maybe there is no self?
Maybe that's "ego is an illusion"?

I want proof of the existence of a self.

[sadhatter]

I have lots of thoughts that refers to a self. Like arrows that points to a center, an "I".
Maybe there's only a multitude of thoughts that refers to a center, i.e. the "thoughts thinking me", not "I think".
Maybe there is no self?
Maybe that's "ego is an illusion"?

I want proof of the existence of a self.

That depends on your definition of self. Without a specific clear definition of what you mean by self we cannot begin to answer the question.

[tsig]

I have lots of thoughts that refers to a self. Like arrows that points to a center, an "I".
Maybe there's only a multitude of thoughts that refers to a center, i.e. the "thoughts thinking me", not "I think".
Maybe there is no self?
Maybe that's "ego is an illusion"?

I want proof of the existence of a self.

Who's typing your posts?

[Wittyname]

Self: an entity that experience separation from the surroundings and consists over time.

tsig, don't understand. English isn't my first language if you refer to my spelling/grammar.

[Trent Wray]

You might want to check out the thread here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=166705&page=2), "the meaning of life". On the second page, about 1/3 of the way down with post #52, the conversation starts focussing pretty heavily on identifying the self and what exactly it might be or not be.

[CurtC]

Self: an entity that experience separation from the surroundings and consists over time.

If English isn't your first language, you're way ahead of me because I can only communicate in one language. That being said, I can't make sense of this definition you gave.

[Trent Wray]

Self: an entity that experience separation from the surroundings and consists over time.

tsig, don't understand. English isn't my first language if you refer to my spelling/grammar.
tsig was asking you a rhetorical type of question.

in other words, by answering his question: "who is typing your posts?" if you answer "well I am of course" --- then that is possible proof for you that yourself exists.

I think "p-zombie" might be a term you want to google to learn the meaning of :)

[Wittyname]

Ok, realizing that my question maybe should have been; "How real is the self" to avoid definition problem with the word "self". By self i mean the everyday self we all live with.

[Trent Wray]

Ok, realizing that my question maybe should have been; "How real is the self" to avoid definition problem with the word "self". By self i mean the everyday self we all live with.It's not ... it's an illusion. Go dig up a body and show me their "self". And the mark someone made on history is an illusion to ... the words on the pages describing what they did are meaningless to anyone who can't read them.

But the illusions are obviously real, aren't they?

One of the tricks, I think, is realizing that the self changes with each moment. You can choose to be a different self whenever you want. You can create whatever illusion you wish :)

[Nick227]

It's not ... it's an illusion. Go dig up a body and show me their "self". And the mark someone made on history is an illusion to ... the words on the pages describing what they did are meaningless to anyone who can't read them.

But the illusions are obviously real, aren't they?

One of the tricks, I think, is realizing that the self changes with each moment. You can choose to be a different self whenever you want. You can create whatever illusion you wish :)

Would that not beg the question as to which self it was that was choosing?

I liked it when Derek Parfit, least I think that's who it was, began to distinguish between the notions of "persisting" and a "transitory" self. Selfhood seems to me created in the moment and it appears to persist over time, but it's very unlikely this actually happens. Yet it seems a highly convincing illusion. Many of those who claim to uphold materialism still admit they would not travel in his famous "teletransporter," apparently through fear that there is something that is lost when one body is destroyed and an identical one put in its place.

Nick

[Marquis de Carabas]

I am a Strange Loop - Douglas Hofstadter. Read it.

[One Eyed Jack]

I have lots of thoughts that refers to a self. Like arrows that points to a center, an "I".
Maybe there's only a multitude of thoughts that refers to a center, i.e. the "thoughts thinking me", not "I think".
Maybe there is no self?
Maybe that's "ego is an illusion"?

I want proof of the existence of a self.


You don't exist.

/thread

[Nick227]

I am a Strange Loop - Douglas Hofstadter. Read it.

Read it. Care to point out where he considers there to be a self which persists?

Nick

[plumjam]

The Nature of the Ego and Its Termination
http://discoursesbymeherbaba.org/v2-59.php

[Trent Wray]

Would that not beg the question as to which self it was that was choosing? This is the question I have as well ... so far I'm viewing it sort of like the observer in a double-slit experiment (my favorite experiment of all time to which I am biased :) )

I liked it when Derek Parfit, least I think that's who it was, began to distinguish between the notions of "persisting" and a "transitory" self. Selfhood seems to me created in the moment and it appears to persist over time, but it's very unlikely this actually happens. Yet it seems a highly convincing illusion. Many of those who claim to uphold materialism still admit they would not travel in his famous "teletransporter," apparently through fear that there is something that is lost when one body is destroyed and an identical one put in its place.

Nick The teletransporter vs. materialism is interesting ... what it implies ... hmm ...

[Dancing David]

I have lots of thoughts that refers to a self. Like arrows that points to a center, an "I".
Maybe there's only a multitude of thoughts that refers to a center, i.e. the "thoughts thinking me", not "I think".
Maybe there is no self?
Maybe that's "ego is an illusion"?

I want proof of the existence of a self.

Welcome Wittyname. I used to beleive in a self, then I encounted the buddha, there is no self. there is a body, which is the closest approximate of the self.

[Dancing David]

Ok, realizing that my question maybe should have been; "How real is the self" to avoid definition problem with the word "self". By self i mean the everyday self we all live with.

That self, the common self is the body for sure, the persistence of memory in the individual and those around them.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

The Nature of the Ego and Its Termination
http://discoursesbymeherbaba.org/v2-59.php

So it's sanskaras is it? Well that explains everything. :rolleyes:

[Trent Wray]

Welcome Wittyname. I used to beleive in a self, then I encounted the buddha, there is no self. there is a body, which is the closest approximate of the self. Have you followed any of LighteningStrikes thoughts/posts in the "Meaning of Life" thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=166705&page=3)? ... if you're familiar with the posts, is it essentially in line with your thought as well? Just curious ...

[Limbo]

I have lots of thoughts that refers to a self. Like arrows that points to a center, an "I".
Maybe there's only a multitude of thoughts that refers to a center, i.e. the "thoughts thinking me", not "I think".
Maybe there is no self?
Maybe that's "ego is an illusion"?

I want proof of the existence of a self.


Well I read a lot of Jung so when I use the word self I refer to the center of the psyche, the most "real" aspect of it. It is not the same as the ego.

http://home.att.net/~revdak/spir243/images/jung-psyche2.jpg

[kellyb]

I think this is one of those "depends on how you look at it" type of things.

[I Ratant]

You don't exist.

/thread
.
Do too!
Booger Snot!

[Beerina]

What's "collective" unconscious?

[Limbo]

What's "collective" unconscious?


“My thesis then, is as follows: in addition to our immediate consciousness, which is of a thoroughly personal nature and which we believe to be the only empirical psyche (even if we tack on the personal unconscious as an appendix), there exists a second psychic system of a collective, universal, and impersonal nature which is identical in all individuals. This collective unconscious does not develop individually but is inherited. It consists of pre-existent forms, the archetypes, which can only become conscious secondarily and which give definite form to certain psychic contents.” -Carl Jung

[kellyb]

What's "collective" unconscious?

Woo.

[Wittyname]

Psychology is such a young science so let's wait a couple of centuries and see how it develops.


I wondered if the feeling of center (the self) is in fact created by a multitude of thoughts refering to an idea of a center; "my car, I am short, I'll become an astronaut etc).
That feeling is so varied, if I'm creative it's allmost not there, if I'm angry it's very obvious.
Maybe it's because of thousands of references to a center, an "I", give the pattern recognizing brain a "feeling" of "center".

I once wrote a recipe for a self:
take one thousand pieces of paper
write one line on every piece, that refer to a self (e.g. "I have a cat")
take one empty box
put all pieces of paper in the box
close the lid
wait until someone knocks from the inside, begging to come out

[Trent Wray]

I once wrote a recipe for a self:
take one thousand pieces of paper
write one line on every piece, that refer to a self (e.g. "I have a cat")
take one empty box
put all pieces of paper in the box
close the lid
wait until someone knocks from the inside, begging to come outI did this very thing and when I heard knocking from the inside I asked who it was and the response sounded very rude so I just threw the whole box into a fire and started over again ...

[Wittyname]

trentwray, this is how I understand:

There are one identity that observes and manage several "subdentities", sort of realms in the totality of the brain. The identity is unbound to any subdentity, and can choose from which subdentity it will view (and therefore how it's view will be colored) the rest of the brain.
But, because the number and styles of the subdentities not yet are finalized, i.e. the brain is evolving, and the identity is occupied with this evolution, it produces an existential experience of not whole, not one.
Once this evolution is complete, all the subdentities will merge with the identity, forming one unit.
The conciousness will be one, we will be whole.

Correct?

[Wittyname]

I did this very thing and when I heard knocking from the inside I asked who it was and the response sounded very rude so I just threw the whole box into a fire and started over again ...

:boxedin: :D

[Trent Wray]

trentwray, this is how I understand:

There are one identity that observes and manage several "subdentities", sort of realms in the totality of the brain. The identity is unbound to any subdentity, and can choose from which subdentity it will view (and therefore how it's view will be colored) the rest of the brain.
But, because the number and styles of the subdentities not yet are finalized, i.e. the brain is evolving, and the identity is occupied with this evolution, it produces an existential experience of not whole, not one.
Once this evolution is complete, all the subdentities will merge with the identity, forming one unit.
The conciousness will be one, we will be whole.

Correct? If you're summarizing what I was brainstorming outloud about the other day, that's basically it :)

One of the keys to the off-the-cuff hypothesis, was that the portions of our brain which are more or less "empty rooms", yet have the "lights turned on in the room" so to speak, are examining the needs and purposes of the other portions of our brain to find out what to become "next" that will be most helpful to us as a species. Considering our current need of global communication networks, entertainment input in virtual environments, stress related to securing our futures and understanding our psychological pasts, etc and so forth ... my idea was that our brain was trying to find ways to meet these needs for us to further evolve us in our environment. So it would only makes sense that we would "try" to develop abilities to communicate to others the way a phone works ... without a phone. Or the amount of worry and stress we spend on securing our futures ... to try to predict the future by looking for signs, thoughts, feelings, that might yield information for us (like a computer model). Considering our love of fueling our imaginations through visual and auditory stimuli ... why wouldn't our brains try and produce similar effects for us in real life (i.e. more ghost sightings, UFO sightings, paranormal experiences, etc etc)?

So those blank rooms have the lights turned on and maybe the basic, first step of a blank room is to know that , "I exist". After that ... it tries to decide how to furnish itself by examining the rest of the house. This might be what fuels part of the existential experience of the "unwhole" I suppose :)

It could be argued that religion and the paranormal has existed for thousands of years, and people have believed in ghosts and the supernatural for just as long. But how long is a long time? How long does a species take to evolve itself to "the next level"? I mean, the amount of knowledge we have available today for the average person to access and even be able to read/write to study it is tremendous. And compared to nature, our environment that we've created is increasingly complicated and foreign to us. We are more or less aliens in our own world in some ways. So in this sense, I was wondering if those parts of our brains that are waiting to evolve into the next useful function weren't just basically going ape-s*** in some of us LOL. So in other words, someone who is having "psychic" feelings might be completely delusional ... OR ... they might actually be experiencing say, 10% of an actual "ability" that humanity is testing to see if it's practical to be able to do naturally on some level. Does this mean that in 3,000 years we'll all be reading each other's minds? Perhaps not. But ... perhaps we could develop some other means of communicating that other animals possess already which we do not (like elephants for example, or dolphins, bats, etc). I mean, if animals evolve to better cope with their environment and the demands it places on them, combining with the "survival of the fittest" .... perhaps our brains view what computers and telephones and cell phones and televisions do as "competition" and in our attempt to be more like them ... we will actually get to do some of the things they do. Maybe one day we'll receive radio signals organically LOL.

Anyway, my guess would be that the brain would try to become one "conciousness" and thus, the "whole". In a way, it would be "making most of the muscle before making any more" I guess. Perhaps that is how we evolved to a degree in the first place? We made the most of whatever our brain matter was at the time ... and then exploded the size of our brains to a much larger size than we would need, until we maxed out that brain's potential as well. And once that size was limited, we exploded our brain size again ... etc etc. Each time, maxing out the ability possibilities of our brains. Currently, we obviously don't use all of our brain. So perhaps once we "max out" what we have, we'll make more in the future. ? ? ?

Anyway ... just brainstorming. That's all. Pun intended :) :alc:

ETA: and forgive me for doing neuroscience and/or principles of evolution / natural selection any injustice through my ignorance of the topics :(

[Nick227]

Have you followed any of LighteningStrikes thoughts/posts in the "Meaning of Life" thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=166705&page=3)? ... if you're familiar with the posts, is it essentially in line with your thought as well? Just curious ...

Live in peace with your illusory self - that's what I say.

Nick

[Doubt]

How do you know there is anything other than self?




I shall now run away to flee the bricks thrown by those previously dragged into discussions about solipsism.

[Nick227]

The teletransporter vs. materialism is interesting ... what it implies ... hmm ...

For me it implies that bondage to this particular illusion is strong. Your body is destroyed and then recreated identically - according to materialism nothing is lost. Yet, you won't find so many materialists willing to get into the Teletransporter.

The belief seems to be usually that something must be lost when your body is destroyed and recreated - there must be some "experiencer" some "seat of observation" whatever - that needs to be transferred. Rationality versus fear, mostly the latter seems to win here.

Nick

[Nick227]

trentwray, this is how I understand:

There are one identity that observes and manage several "subdentities", sort of realms in the totality of the brain. The identity is unbound to any subdentity, and can choose from which subdentity it will view (and therefore how it's view will be colored) the rest of the brain.
But, because the number and styles of the subdentities not yet are finalized, i.e. the brain is evolving, and the identity is occupied with this evolution, it produces an existential experience of not whole, not one.
Once this evolution is complete, all the subdentities will merge with the identity, forming one unit.
The conciousness will be one, we will be whole.

Correct?

Why do you think there is one identity? What's wrong with a basic materialist perspective... The body is a machine. Consciousness is information processing. Self is an emergent phenomena caused by feedback loops in the information processing. Identity is just an aspect of self, not an absolute.

Nick

[Marquis de Carabas]

Read it. Care to point out where he considers there to be a self which persists?

Nick
My apologies. In context, my reply does sound rather as if I am saying the book contains the proof the OP is asking after. I meant it merely as a recommendation for a great book to read on the topic. I should have made that clear.

[yy2bggggs]

The concept of the "center" is simply a view of the self. When asking if there is a self, shouldn't the question be more along the lines of, "is there something that can reasonably be called the self?"

I think this feeling of the self stems from the constancy of observations. At the heart of it, "we" feel that "we" are in control if "we" have a plan in mind, act with intent to carry out the plan, and in monitoring the plan, perceive that it is being carried out. I propose that in general, there's a "single-mindedness" to this planning, nominally speaking, such that in general mutually exclusive plans don't get committed to (e.g., normally, we wouldn't simultaneously decide to walk to the fridge and walk outside; though we might simultaneously decide to walk to outside and shove some gum in our mouth). In the same manner that our feeling of control stems from our observation that the thing we planned and "acted on" is the thing being carried out, I propose that our sense of self stems in part from our sensing this single-mindedness about the network.

This makes more sense to me than the notion that we have some built-in unexplained tendency towards a belief in the aforementioned "center".

[jakesteele]

I have lots of thoughts that refers to a self. Like arrows that points to a center, an "I".
Maybe there's only a multitude of thoughts that refers to a center, i.e. the "thoughts thinking me", not "I think".
Maybe there is no self?
Maybe that's "ego is an illusion"?



Nondualism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism

You post sounds very spiritual in nature.

[Nick227]

This makes more sense to me than the notion that we have some built-in unexplained tendency towards a belief in the aforementioned "center".

It seems to me that belief in the existence of a self reinforces physical and psychological integrity, and is thus likely to be evolutionarily favoured. The brain is a mass of different modules, originating from different periods of evolution, forced to co-exist and work together in a pretty tight space. To believe in the existence of a central "owner" of all this hardware, on who's behalf one is toiling, would seem to be one way of trying to keep it all together.

Nick

[Perpetual Student]

Does a dog have a sense of self? How about a frog? a fish? a beetle?

[Trent Wray]

It seems to me that belief in the existence of a self reinforces physical and psychological integrity, and is thus likely to be evolutionarily favoured. The brain is a mass of different modules, originating from different periods of evolution, forced to co-exist and work together in a pretty tight space. To believe in the existence of a central "owner" of all this hardware, on who's behalf one is toiling, would seem to be one way of trying to keep it all together.

Nick You mean we need a "conciousness boss"?

The idea is actually somewhat mirrored in other parts of the body to a degree. Take the heart for example. When discussing the electrical pathways of the heart and what actually makes it "pump", the heart basically works off a hierarchal system with a primary "pacemaker" (i.e. the sinus node), and if that fails a secondary one (the A/V Junction for example), then a third one (ventricular rhythms) etc etc. It's not an exact thing, but it's essentially like a president, vice-president, so on and so forth. The respiratory system is similar in the way it uses primary / secondary muscle, etc when more effort is needed to respirate.

Perhaps the conciousness is similar? Perhaps there is a "boss" that coordinates the whole machine, and the belief in this boss reinforces the integrity of the overall system. When that fails, perhaps we slip into secondary forms of "mental leaders" (like perhaps a childlike state, or mood disorders, or pure "logic" with flat affect :) , etc etc) and we lose the ability to function more synergetically (word?) as a machine.

[Trent Wray]

Does a dog have a sense of self? How about a frog? a fish? a beetle? No I don't think so, not in a redundant sense. I think they have a sense of self, but are not aware they have it.

They do not ponder good or evil or hold things accountable for their actions. Even when they "learn" someone is mostly hurtful towards them (like a dog), and continually ignore them, they're not thinking to themselves, "that person is an ******* and screwed me over one too many times," rather I would think it is merely a formed habit from memory use. But they're not "aware" of what they are doing.

An alpha male in a pride of lions is aware "he's the king" so to speak and behaves accordingly. But he isn't aware that he's aware.

Animals don't ask questions, I don't think (a quick google didn't provide me any sources one way or another, but I didn't look into it deeply. I'm going off truthiness :) )I think animals learn associations which reinforce behavioral responses.

But I don't see them having regrets, accussing others of rape or murder, trying to build a shinier object, etc etc.

It's as though their "ethics" are unidirectional. They do not seem to examine their choices. This is something LighteningStrike alluded to as well.

In this sense, they are not observing themselves. They have a self, but are not observing it and passing judgement on it. We do have a judge (our conscience), and we judge ourselves with it and others. I don't see this as an advantage speaking from an evolutionary pov. It causes more harm than good imo.

ETA: so I suppose the conciousness "boss" concept boils down to the conscience in this one perhaps. if this already mirrors Jung / Freud or whomever sorry for butchering it :)

[Nick227]

Perhaps the conciousness is similar? Perhaps there is a "boss" that coordinates the whole machine, and the belief in this boss reinforces the integrity of the overall system.

I've noticed a couple of different sides to it. There is this notion of an "owner" - which helps to maintain integrity. Then there is this related idea of a self which "experiences," which seems to have more of a social function. The brain just processes information, yet there is this very persistent belief that actually there is a self which is experiencing all this processing, that is the subject of this drama constantly unfolding around it. There are cases of highly respected brain scientists still insisting on seeking this experiencing self within the brain! It's a very strong belief.

Maybe the problem is hardware or maybe conceptual. I guess the brain can't make an image of self that is useful for all occasions, so it tends to opt for this notion of an internal agent of causation, an experiencer, with results that vary in their usefulness.

Nick

[Trent Wray]

I've noticed a couple of different sides to it. There is this notion of an "owner" - which helps to maintain integrity. Then there is this related idea of a self which "experiences," which seems to have more of a social function. The brain just processes information, yet there is this very persistent belief that actually there is a self which is experiencing all this processing, that is the subject of this drama constantly unfolding around it. There are cases of highly respected brain scientists still insisting on seeking this experiencing self within the brain! It's a very strong belief.

Maybe the problem is hardware or maybe conceptual. I guess the brain can't make an image of self that is useful for all occasions, so it tends to opt for this notion of an internal agent of causation, an experiencer, with results that vary in their usefulness.

NickAnd this is actually what I'm interested in as well, more or less :) If there is nothing to it and it's just a mental magic trick so to speak, then cool. But I'm starting to like the idea that this very "Self-part" that has all the drama unfolding around it (possibly :) ) is a part of our brain we are using that doesn't know what to do with itself totally yet ... and so imagination and fantastical thinking become part of the picture in an attempt to find for itself a real world function. In other words, it's trying out it's "superpowers" to see if it infact has any or can make some, or whether it's going to be just a regular analysis-machine upgrade to the HD we already have or not ... and either one of these options might not necessarily denote a mental illness or classical "delusional thinking". Rather, it would denote a form of growth that basically doesn't know where to grow to or even what to become. If nurtured a certain way, perhaps over MANY generations (I imagine), a certain form of ability might form. It might not be the superhuman power everyone hoped for, but it could be evolutionarily cool LOL.

At least these are my thoughts today, which will change tommorrow ;)

[yy2bggggs]

It seems to me that belief in the existence of a self reinforces physical and psychological integrity, and is thus likely to be evolutionarily favoured.
What is physical and psychological integrity, why is it evolutionarily favored, and how does a belief in the self reinforce it?

I have presented a sort of physical and psychological integrity. I've explained why it's evolutionarily favored. And the belief in the self doesn't seem to contribute much to it at all--rather, it's a result of the integrity that the belief is formed, not a result of the belief that the integrity is there.
The brain is a mass of different modules, originating from different periods of evolution, forced to co-exist and work together in a pretty tight space.
Sure, sort of... except that this seems a bit misleading to me. It suggests that two independent modules somehow found themselves inside a brain, and were then made to cooperate.

I don't think this ordering makes sense. If the two modules didn't cooperate, I don't see how the second of them could find its way into the population in the first place.
To believe in the existence of a central "owner" of all this hardware, on who's behalf one is toiling, would seem to be one way of trying to keep it all together.
I'm not sure my belief in a self even comes into play until I join some philosophy discussion and am asked about myself.

(ETA: That's not exactly true... belief in a self plays a sort of social role... but I see that role as secondary--as a fairly accurate model of a single minded planning complex, good enough to start working game theory problems).

[Manopolus]

I have lots of thoughts that refers to a self. Like arrows that points to a center, an "I".
Maybe there's only a multitude of thoughts that refers to a center, i.e. the "thoughts thinking me", not "I think".
Maybe there is no self?
Maybe that's "ego is an illusion"?

I want proof of the existence of a self.

Umm.... Cognito, ergo, sum? (I think, therefore I am).

Sure, your thoughts may not be accurate, and this may be some dream that you live in, rather than the reality you seek to know, but nonetheless, even if life is an illusion, it is a stretch to say you don't exist in some manner.

Unless all humanity is merely a computer program and I am the only one that has self awareness, that is. However, if I come to that type of schitzo conclusion, denying empathy, I invalidate you, not me.

(added)

And, as others have suggested, it depends on your definition. Do you identify "self" as your physical being... nerves, neurons, etc? We are not self aware in this manner. We cannot, for instance describe exactly which neurons are firing for what purpose inside our heads.

A better definition of "self" might be the stream of consciousness that experiences, not the tools it uses to experience. I don't necessarily agree with religions that "believe" in the existence of an immortal soul, as such, but I DO affirm that there is SOMETHING in me which is conscious and has the ability to make decisions more complex than your basic mathematical if - then statements used on a computer. Though my thought is influenced by external stimuli, I do not think that it is controlled completely by a combination of stimuli and genetics. In other words, the concept of free will is alive and well in me. It might be independent of brain matter, or it might be merely an aspect of it. I don't really know the mechanics of it, I just AM.

(another addition)

One phenomena I've noticed while studying various religions is the notion that they can extend their "spirit" (or self) outside of their bodies... this would include out of body near death experiences, as well as some meditative practices, and it even exists in Scientology (They believe that the proper position for the perceptual "self" is actually above and in front of the head, actually OUTSIDE the body, weirdly enough). I would reply that the "self" actually does not have a location which is verifiable by any means other than the normal five senses. If you ignore those, and the probable mechanisms which do the experiencing and the analyzing, you can place the "self" anywhere you feel it exists in space, up to and including the outer planets, since the locale is purely perceptual.

[kellyb]

Umm.... Cognito, ergo, sum? (I think, therefore I am).




The problem is that it presupposes that "I" exist.
Although on a purely intuitive woo level, I still agree with the sentiment, personally.

I somewhat prefer "I exist because I say I do, so take THAT".:)

[Manopolus]

The problem is that it presupposes that "I" exist.
Although on a purely intuitive woo level, I still agree with the sentiment, personally.

I somewhat prefer "I exist because I say I do, so take THAT".:)

Even science requires that we are not insane wraiths living in a cave somewhere in the 5th dimension, dreaming all this up, for its claims to be true. We must start with SOME kind of presumption before we can have any knowledge whatsoever. Knowledge of any kind, and the language to pass it on requires some form of presupposition.

(added)

If you go too deeply down this line of thought, you might realize that we cannot assume that we understand the words that we are using in the same fashion, and therefore, we might be arguing about very different concepts... very true, and a good reason to be very specific, but not a reason to invalidate everything anyone has ever said.

[kellyb]

Even science requires that we are not insane wraiths living in a cave somewhere in the 5th dimension, dreaming all this up, for its claims to be true. We must start with SOME kind of presumption before we can have any knowledge whatsoever. Knowledge of any kind, and the language to pass it on requires some form of presupposition.

Yeah, I know, but I also think in logically "proving" that something exists, one shouldn't begin with the assumption that it exists, you know?

But I agree, some presumptions are not just useful, but necessary.

[Manopolus]

Anyway, I guess the base concept that I am arguing is that these base presuppositions, like language, come from basic shared experiences that we can all agree upon, and that the concept of "self" lies in that category, and should thus be inviolable to skepticism. Consciousness may not be properly explained, but I've rarely heard anyone deny that they experience it.

[kellyb]

Anyway, I guess the base concept that I am arguing is that these base presuppositions, like language, come from basic shared experiences that we can all agree upon, and that the concept of "self" lies in that category, and should thus be inviolable to skepticism. Consciousness may not be properly explained, but I've rarely heard anyone deny that they experience it.


I'm pretty sure lots of people here will (sorta, in a way) deny that they experience consciousness.

This is a thread about whether or not the self exists, after all. :)

ETA: If you were to start a poll and ask "Do you experience consciousness?" and the choices were yes, no, and other, I'd guess that "yes" would not be the most popular choice.

[Manopolus]

I'm pretty sure lots of people here will (sorta, in a way) deny that they experience consciousness.

This is a thread about whether or not the self exists, after all. :)

ETA: If you were to start a poll and ask "Do you experience consciousness?" and the choices were yes, no, and other, I'd guess that "yes" would not be the most popular choice.

I expect that this is more due to the fact that "no" would fall more in line with the skeptic's own self identity than that it reflects their actual experience. One would have to twist the meaning of the word consciousness to honestly report that they do not experience it.

Let me be more specific. Bhuddism, specifically their presumption of the "non-self" is not correct by default. Even Bhuddists admit that there is an illusion of self.

If I point to a boulder sitting on the ground that you can see, touch, etc. and tell you that it does not actually exist, then who must provide the evidence, me, or the one that claims that it does exist? If you claim that I am not, actually, at this moment in time typing words into a computer, it is up to you to provide the evidence that I am experiencing something else entirely... since even you have evidence that I am doing just that, whether you are actually watching me do it or not.

This is different than the idea of proving that there is a God, in that the basic evidence of our senses, in a usually agreed upon way, shows the existence of "consciousness" as it is normally described. There is nothing magical or mystical about it... it is merely something that we experience.

Because the whole non-self concept is a significantly wilder claim, given what we experience, it is up to the one who makes that claim to provide evidence, not the other way around.

[CurtC]

If you were to start a poll and ask "Do you experience consciousness?" and the choices were yes, no, and other, I'd guess that "yes" would not be the most popular choice.

I think I'm pretty typical here, and I can't imagine anyone could answer other than "yes" to that question.




Unless there's a "Planet X" option.

[kellyb]

Ok...I thought I'd seen a poll a while back:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=162192&highlight=conscious

So, I was wrong, "yes" did win. 80 yes's compared to 54 non-yes's.

The contention was over the fuzziness of the definition of "conscious".

[I Ratant]

It's actually "Cogito, ergo sum"... and a pretty good explanation all by its lonesome to explain self.

[Manopolus]

It's actually "Cogito, ergo sum"... and a pretty good explanation all by its lonesome to explain self.

Sorry, my Latin sucks (or hell, it might even be Greek for all I know). Thanks for the correction.

[I Ratant]

Not to worry, we cognitize all manner of errors here without derailing the train of thought.
(English is my favoritist language of all because it's so easy to murdalize words both common and uncommon to add sauce to the stew.)

[Trent Wray]

I never did like the "I think therefore I am."

How about, "I will die ... therefore I am now."

?

[Manopolus]

How about, "I will die ... therefore I am now."

?

This makes the assumption that you when you die, you will no longer be. At the very least, you will be a rotting corpse. Who knows, maybe rotting corpses exhibit some form of consciousness that they merely don't bother telling us about... or lack the ability to do so. I hope not, but hey, why not?

Don't get me wrong, I don't "believe" in an afterlife. I sometimes speculate as to the possible consciousness of inanimate objects (especially ones that I am annoyed with), but I don't "have faith" that they possess such. I do, however, allow myself to indulge in periodic wishful thinking. I suppose that's why I call myself an agnostic, rather than an atheist... although neither is particularly accurate, really. I often view religion as metaphor, rather than reality. Sometimes metaphorical truth is the most honest truth of all.

[LightningStrike]

I've noticed a couple of different sides to it. There is this notion of an "owner" - which helps to maintain integrity. Then there is this related idea of a self which "experiences," which seems to have more of a social function. The brain just processes information, yet there is this very persistent belief that actually there is a self which is experiencing all this processing, that is the subject of this drama constantly unfolding around it. There are cases of highly respected brain scientists still insisting on seeking this experiencing self within the brain! It's a very strong belief.

Maybe the problem is hardware or maybe conceptual. I guess the brain can't make an image of self that is useful for all occasions, so it tends to opt for this notion of an internal agent of causation, an experiencer, with results that vary in their usefulness.

Nick

There may be no self but then explain how you know what is going on subjectively without refering to brain, neuron or any formal named structure.

[Trent Wray]

This makes the assumption that you when you die, you will no longer be. At the very least, you will be a rotting corpse. Who knows, maybe rotting corpses exhibit some form of consciousness that they merely don't bother telling us about... or lack the ability to do so. I hope not, but hey, why not?

Don't get me wrong, I don't "believe" in an afterlife. I sometimes speculate as to the possible consciousness of inanimate objects (especially ones that I am annoyed with), but I don't "have faith" that they possess such. I do, however, allow myself to indulge in periodic wishful thinking. I suppose that's why I call myself an agnostic, rather than an atheist... although neither is particularly accurate, really. I often view religion as metaphor, rather than reality. Sometimes metaphorical truth is the most honest truth of all.You know what actually made me mention the "I die ... therefore yada yada" is because I was thinking about the apparent trait that animals do not contemplate their death, where as we do. In fact, I asked my 4.5 year old tonight if he thought he was going to die one day (a conversation he's actually already had with me previously) ... and he said no, that he couldn't die.

It's like there comes a point when I know I will die one day "for real". But I'm not quite sure the impact overall this knowledge has had on me, tbh. At times I think the way I've viewed the death of others has shown me my mortality. But overall, even facing death several times (not medically, rather dangerous situations) I've never been afraid of dying. Only suffering.

But anyway, o/t to the OP somewhat .... being an agnostic, how much credence do you give to the idea that there both is a god and there isn't a god, there is a soul and there isn't a soul, there is an afterlife and there isn't an afterlife, etc etc. And when I contemplate it, I do NOT think of this idea in terms of a multiverse or "extra dimensions". It's not even really a "god of the gaps idea" in my mind. Thoughts?

Anyone? :) .... or is it perhaps too off topic of the OP?

[biomorph]

There may be no self but then explain how you know what is going on subjectively without refering to brain, neuron or any formal named structure.


Its all processes, there's no subjective/objective claptrap.

there's no point in leaving out the brain etc. there isn't anything else..lol

there's those processes that we need to keep an eye on, like eating, and those we don't have to.

we only keep an eye on those processes we have to because otherwise we'd be dead, and our reproductive processes haven't been brought up over the last few mill years to not produce (or die before hand anyway).

Otherwise we'd not be here.

[biomorph]

But anyway, o/t to the OP somewhat .... being an agnostic, how much credence do you give to the idea that there both is a god and there isn't a god, there is a soul and there isn't a soul, there is an afterlife and there isn't an afterlife, etc etc. And when I contemplate it, I do NOT think of this idea in terms of a multiverse or "extra dimensions". It's not even really a "god of the gaps idea" in my mind. Thoughts?

Anyone? :) .... or is it perhaps too off topic of the OP?

<offtopic>
None, no credance what so ever. what for?

now what?
</offtopic>

[Trent Wray]

<offtopic>
None, no credance what so ever. what for?

now what?
</offtopic> I was wanting to know if anyone had ever contemplated the possibility of both answers being "correct" if you will. I was thinking about actually opening up a thread on it, but I'm pretty sure I could predict the pointlessness of it LOL :)

Some of the ideas behind the physics of light (I won't mention the q word) have mind-f***** me for awhile, the wave-particle duality and whatnot. I've had some ideas that my imagination runs wild with, and I was curious if others have as well. But I think it would probably be a wasted thread ...

*flips on topic switch*

[lupus_in_fabula]

Here’s an interesting angle, from a TED-talk:

Daniel Kahneman reveals how our "experiencing selves" and our "remembering selves" perceive happiness differently. (http://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_kahneman_the_riddle_of_experience_vs_memory .html)

In this case, he uses two sets of selves, but mainly in the sense of distinguishable perceptual patterns.

[LightningStrike]

Its all processes, there's no subjective/objective claptrap.

there's no point in leaving out the brain etc. there isn't anything else..lol

there's those processes that we need to keep an eye on, like eating, and those we don't have to.

we only keep an eye on those processes we have to because otherwise we'd be dead, and our reproductive processes haven't been brought up over the last few mill years to not produce (or die before hand anyway).

Otherwise we'd not be here.

Biomorph to demonstrate your above statement please describe your whole subjective condition this moment so I can correlate it in my experience, using words such as perception, sensation, feeling, thought, if you want to you can use love, truth, life or death aswell.
You are not allowed to use 'we' either obviously because you are 'I'. Please have a go at describing your inner reality (in the absence of a perceiver!) and that means no reference to the 5 external senses of sight, hearing etc. and certainly no mention of brains because they are not subjective..

Goodluck ;)

[Dancing David]

Umm.... Cognito, ergo, sum? (I think, therefore I am).

.

Sum ergo cognito?

probably bad latin grammar.

[Dancing David]

Biomorph to demonstrate your above statement please describe your whole subjective condition this moment so I can correlate it in my experience, using words such as perception, sensation, feeling, thought, if you want to you can use love, truth, life or death aswell.
You are not allowed to use 'we' either obviously because you are 'I'. Please have a go at describing your inner reality (in the absence of a perceiver!) and that means no reference to the 5 external senses of sight, hearing etc. and certainly no mention of brains because they are not subjective..

Goodluck ;)

You do know that perceptions are created by the brain ?

There is no perceiver, there is the brain and it manufacture the perceptions. You do not 'see' the 'sensations', about 1/3 of your brain makes then into the visual perception.

[Manopolus]

But anyway, o/t to the OP somewhat .... being an agnostic, how much credence do you give to the idea that there both is a god and there isn't a god, there is a soul and there isn't a soul, there is an afterlife and there isn't an afterlife, etc etc. And when I contemplate it, I do NOT think of this idea in terms of a multiverse or "extra dimensions". It's not even really a "god of the gaps idea" in my mind. Thoughts?

Anyone? :) .... or is it perhaps too off topic of the OP?

The purpose of fiction is not to deceive, but rather, to expose a truth which cannot be fully explained properly without a story to describe it. The entertainment factor is secondary.

Then again, much of modern fiction is written purely for entertainment, but that's a different animal entirely.

Perhaps this could be "true" and "not true" at the same time. You don't need multiple dimensions.

[Nick227]

What is physical and psychological integrity, why is it evolutionarily favored, and how does a belief in the self reinforce it?

Physical integrity that the body stays relatively in one piece, that it doesn't eaten by wild animals or forget to eat or have sex. Whilst for sure there is much simple reactivity in our primal urges, also selfhood has developed through them and is extended in them.

Psychological integrity that the individual does collapse into mental chaos.

For me the latter more needs a self than the former.

I have presented a sort of physical and psychological integrity. I've explained why it's evolutionarily favored. And the belief in the self doesn't seem to contribute much to it at all--rather, it's a result of the integrity that the belief is formed, not a result of the belief that the integrity is there.

How much of your life can you manage without an "I"?

Sure, sort of... except that this seems a bit misleading to me. It suggests that two independent modules somehow found themselves inside a brain, and were then made to cooperate.

I don't think this ordering makes sense. If the two modules didn't cooperate, I don't see how the second of them could find its way into the population in the first place.

I figure this sense of self arose as the brain developed. The two go hand in hand. Creatures lacking self-concept weren't favoured over those that had it. This is what I figure.

Nick

[I Ratant]

Most animals will take some effort to avoid dying.
Fight or flight, ya know.
Some appear to be both aware of dangerous situations, and unaware of others.
The innumerable flattened squirrels around here that failed basic boulevard crossing, for instance.
They'll run from a human on foot, but seem to not realize the danger in repeated crossings of the street, and ultimately become raven food.
The only raccoons I've seen locally in 30 years have been street-flattened.

[LightningStrike]

You do know that perceptions are created by the brain ?

There is no perceiver, there is the brain and it manufacture the perceptions. You do not 'see' the 'sensations', about 1/3 of your brain makes then into the visual perception.

I am talking perception not perceptions. I will have a go;

Perception is occuring, sensation is occuring in me, I know what is going on this moment in my subjective system. There is no brain here, that is only a concept generated by reflection on my memory. That is where the self lives in concept land and that is unreal. But the perception of it all, the perception of now... aren't you overlooking the obvious. I am not talking physical senses, I am pointing to the subjective perceiver and not the subjective perceived.

[Dancing David]

And that is certainly an illusion, it is a conflation of seperate events and not a unified entity, most of it is the persistence of memory.

But what I am saying that there is no 'perceiver', the brain is the parceptions. Wether you detect it directly or not.

[Trent Wray]

You do know that perceptions are created by the brain ?

There is no perceiver, there is the brain and it manufacture the perceptions. You do not 'see' the 'sensations', about 1/3 of your brain makes then into the visual perception. I'm not being a devil's advocate, but is it well understood, in terms of neuroscience, where the "perceiver" actually is or exactly how it is manufactured? If so, do you have good references (I think this is the first time I've asked for references on this forum! LOL)

The purpose of fiction is not to deceive, but rather, to expose a truth which cannot be fully explained properly without a story to describe it. The entertainment factor is secondary.

Then again, much of modern fiction is written purely for entertainment, but that's a different animal entirely.

Perhaps this could be "true" and "not true" at the same time. You don't need multiple dimensions. Great POV. hmm ....

And that is certainly an illusion, it is a conflation of seperate events and not a unified entity, most of it is the persistence of memory.

But what I am saying that there is no 'perceiver', the brain is the parceptions. Wether you detect it directly or not. I think what LS is trying to say (I hope) is that perceptions could be the result of the various functions of the brain and the way data is processed ... but what about "perception" itself as a concept.

The idea of concept itself is an interesting one to me, because in order to identify things we label them. I am a human being, a specific human being named Trent, perhaps I have a self that falls under my umbrella term "Trent", etc etc. In this simple example, there are a couple of concepts that denote a collection of "stuff":

human being = collection of the physical properties (and possibly psychological properties) that make me a human being. DNA specifically can identify my species.

Trent = the unique expression of my genes and DNA to give the physical appearance I have, as well as my recognizable personality traits, etc etc

But human beings fall into a larger concept --- mankind. And trent can be described in terms of other related concepts as well .... self, conciousness, etc etc.

Usually, these concepts can be identified tangibly or through secondary evidence. For example, I am a human being (a concept), and I exist and you can see me. My personality is a concept that exists due to a complex system of factors that you cannot collectively see in their individual parts, but you can see as a whole represented through my actions, etc.

but if you go up the chain of concepts, you arrive eventually at a "grand concept". One could say that we all fit under the great umbrella term of "life" or "existence" or "universe" if you will. At the finite level, you also find concepts when going down the chain. electrons, protons, quarks, etc etc ..... maybe the Higgs-Boson, maybe strings vibrating and spinning, whatever.

But at what point do you "run out of concept" ? In other words, at what point are you at pure, raw, unused concept.

This is an idea that fascinates me .... because what if "stuff" itself exists as a result of "concept potential manifesting". And at first glance, anthropomorphizing this might make you think I'm talking about a creator or something. But perhaps it's our anthropomorphizing it that makes it sound spooky and "woosih" (like the 4th dimension idea used to be the "spirit realm", even though it's accepted it is "time itself", more or less).

What I'm saying is what if conciousness, at it's base level, isn't just a concept or a perception ... what if it is sort of like pure perception that hasn't formed a perception. It's a concept in it's raw, unrealized form. And what if, perhaps, this can be deteced (like an EMF can, or something). I'm not talking psychons and all that jazz .... where the concept itself has a purpose or intention. Again, that's anthropomorphizing it. It would be no different than a electron or any other "thing" that exists. If the Big-Bang has no "intention" and evolution has no "desire" ... then perhaps concept will be discovered somehow as particle of some sort, or a detectable field of some kind, that will be taken out of the realm of woo and metaphysical paranormal crap, and into an identifiable "thing" itself?

Anyway, just brainstorming ... :shocked:

[Trent Wray]

Here’s an interesting angle, from a TED-talk:

Daniel Kahneman reveals how our "experiencing selves" and our "remembering selves" perceive happiness differently. (http://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_kahneman_the_riddle_of_experience_vs_memory .html)

In this case, he uses two sets of selves, but mainly in the sense of distinguishable perceptual patterns. Looks interesting thanx for the link :)

[AlBell]

And that is certainly an illusion, it is a conflation of seperate events and not a unified entity, most of it is the persistence of memory.

But what I am saying that there is no 'perceiver', the brain is the parceptions. Wether you detect it directly or not.
What is it that is deluded by illusion?

ps. Sorry to hear you have no "perceiver". Must be tough listening to all the conflicting advice available for choice.

[Nick227]

What is it that is deluded by illusion?

ps. Sorry to hear you have no "perceiver". Must be tough listening to all the conflicting advice available for choice.

There is no actual "perceiver", no actual "experiencer." This for me is pretty much comprehensively ratified by modern science. The brain processes. Consciousness is processing. On top of basic sensory processing - sounds, sights, etc - the brain overlays a narrative that creates a subject-object story of what's going on. Thus, the base layer is non-dual - there is no subject-object notion. On top of this base layer the mind does a voice-over, telling a story about an "I" that is "doing things." The brain is conditioned through evolution to do this because selfhood is inevitably favoured, but this doesn't mean that there is an actual experiencer. It's just a useful illusion it's learned to maintain.

Nick

[Manopolus]

On a purely devils advocate woo level... the soul is described by some as being not the brain, but the energy which flows through that brain. By the laws of physics, energy never simply ceases to exist. It goes SOMEWHERE. I've even heard of experiments suggested to determine where it goes, in what way, etc.

However, I assume it can be explained perfectly well chemically, and no mysticism need apply.

(added)

(oops, I'm cross-threading here, mixing up "self" and "soul" *sorry*)

[AlBell]

There is no actual "perceiver", no actual "experiencer." This for me is pretty much comprehensively ratified by modern science.
What does science have to say about subjectivity?



The brain processes. Consciousness is processing.
Now if we could just define consciousness.


On top of basic sensory processing - sounds, sights, etc - the brain overlays a narrative that creates a subject-object story of what's going on. Thus, the base layer is non-dual - there is no subject-object notion.
What is a subject-object notion?

My sense of subjectivity hasn't disappeared at "basic sensory processing - sounds, sights, etc".


On top of this base layer the mind does a voice-over, telling a story about an "I" that is "doing things."
Interesting contention, anyway, that doesn't seem to address what is happening in my awareness.

The brain is conditioned through evolution to do this because selfhood is inevitably favoured, but this doesn't mean that there is an actual experiencer. It's just a useful illusion it's learned to maintain.

Nick
Back to what is that "it's" suffering the illusion?

[LightningStrike]

There is no actual "perceiver", no actual "experiencer." This for me is pretty much comprehensively ratified by modern science. The brain processes. Consciousness is processing. On top of basic sensory processing - sounds, sights, etc - the brain overlays a narrative that creates a subject-object story of what's going on. Thus, the base layer is non-dual - there is no subject-object notion. On top of this base layer the mind does a voice-over, telling a story about an "I" that is "doing things." The brain is conditioned through evolution to do this because selfhood is inevitably favoured, but this doesn't mean that there is an actual experiencer. It's just a useful illusion it's learned to maintain.

Nick

How do you know this? In other words is it your knowledge of your self. Any concept you refer to to explain that there is no self is in the self is the self. Is that valid to deny the concept of self using the self itself to deny itself. Don't think about that.

[Trent Wray]

accidental post :(

[LightningStrike]

. Thus, the base layer is non-dual - there is no subject-object notion.

Nick

The above statement is Intellectualism unless it is realised and lived every moment. If it is not lived every moment it is not the truth. You can't just see it once and then say "It is the truth there is no 'I'" you have to live it every moment. Otherwise you just confuse people.

[Nick227]

What does science have to say about subjectivity?

Well, I couldn't give an authoritative answer for the whole of science. I'm not a scientist though I enjoy reading about brain studies. What I'm trying to point out is that subjectivity does not mean that there is a self that is observing. The assumption is usually that there simply "must be" something watching. I imagine this is what led Descartes to formulate his famous model of the soul observing existence via the pineal gland. However, we've pulled the brain apart a great deal now and no such interface or similar jiggery pokery has been found. And if I really observe my own internal processing it can be seen that actually there really might not be a self after all.


What is a subject-object notion?

The sense of their being a subject - I, and, say, a table - that object.

Non-duality = There is a table
Subject-Object voiceover = I see the table.

My sense of subjectivity hasn't disappeared at "basic sensory processing - sounds, sights, etc".

If we say that consciousness is simple processing, not observation of processing, then subjectivity itself does not disappear. It's just that there is no longer anyone experiencing it. One machine takes snapshots via its perspective and via its circuitry. Another does the same job slightly differently.

Nick

[Nick227]

On a purely devils advocate woo level... the soul is described by some as being not the brain, but the energy which flows through that brain. By the laws of physics, energy never simply ceases to exist. It goes SOMEWHERE. I've even heard of experiments suggested to determine where it goes, in what way, etc.

However, I assume it can be explained perfectly well chemically, and no mysticism need apply.

Yup. No need for mysticism at all with consciousness or the self. Of course, just what substance finally is and how all this manifestation came about - to me that's still pretty mysterious.

Nick

[Nick227]

How do you know this? In other words is it your knowledge of your self. Any concept you refer to to explain that there is no self is in the self is the self. Is that valid to deny the concept of self using the self itself to deny itself. Don't think about that.

Only if you do what Descartes did and assume the self is a priori. I think therefore I am presupposes I. But if we look at a brain, there's no I inside. Like Dan Dennett says it's an abandoned factory. We thought there was someone inside but there's not.

Nick

[Nick227]

The above statement is Intellectualism unless it is realised and lived every moment. If it is not lived every moment it is not the truth. You can't just see it once and then say "It is the truth there is no 'I'" you have to live it every moment. Otherwise you just confuse people.

I'm not saying there is no I. It would be a bit of a crazy statement to make. I'm saying there's no internal observer, that the intuitive model we usually make of brain function is wrong.

Nick

[LightningStrike]

Only if you do what Descartes did and assume the self is a priori. I think therefore I am presupposes I. But if we look at a brain, there's no I inside. Like Dan Dennett says it's an abandoned factory. We thought there was someone inside but there's not.

Nick

You are skipping between the subjective and the physical. The subjective is where the self is . Can you feel any emotion in there Nick, any sensation, how do you know what you are feeling? I assume you can feel your subjective state as you mentioned else where that you meditate.

[LightningStrike]

I'm not saying there is no I. It would be a bit of a crazy statement to make. I'm saying there's no internal observer, that the intuitive model we usually make of brain function is wrong.

Nick

Would you call the internal observer also the perceiver of subjectivity? And please do not refer to the brain when speaking of subjectivity, there is no brain in subjectivity. Can you feel your brain or is that just sensation.

[Nick227]

You are skipping between the subjective and the physical. The subjective is where the self is . Can you feel any emotion in there Nick, any sensation, how do you know what you are feeling? I assume you can feel your subjective state as you mentioned else where that you meditate.

Hi LS,

I'm not saying that feelings don't exist. I'm saying that they can only be ascribed to someone when one considers the whole body, the whole organism. The notion of experience exists only at this level. There is nothing inside the brain that is experiencing, even though for most it strongly feels as though there must be. Thus, Descartes had his cogito and his model of this soul experiencing life via the pineal. The belief is that most definitely there must be something inside that is experiencing. But, the reality is that we've looked and looked and it's not there. And, there is an explanation to account for the disparity.

Nick

[Nick227]

Would you call the internal observer also the perceiver of subjectivity?

There is no "perceiver of subjectivity." There is no actual duality, no actual subject-object distinction in terms of our scientific reality. It is simply that evolution has caused the mind to believe that subject-object relationships exist because this helps to preserve life.

If a sabre-tooth tiger comes at me, I am more likely to survive if I consider myself as a being under threat than as the spectator of a body being eaten. In such a manner natural selection conditions us to develop mental selfhood. But natural selection cannot change the underlying natural of reality, and there is no actual dualism.

Nick

[I Ratant]

Well, I couldn't give an authoritative answer for the whole of science. I'm not a scientist though I enjoy reading about brain studies. What I'm trying to point out is that subjectivity does not mean that there is a self that is observing. The assumption is usually that there simply "must be" something watching. I imagine this is what led Descartes to formulate his famous model of the soul observing existence via the pineal gland. However, we've pulled the brain apart a great deal now and no such interface or similar jiggery pokery has been found. And if I really observe my own internal processing it can be seen that actually there really might not be a self after all.




The sense of their being a subject - I, and, say, a table - that object.

Non-duality = There is a table
Subject-Object voiceover = I see the table.



If we say that consciousness is simple processing, not observation of processing, then subjectivity itself does not disappear. It's just that there is no longer anyone experiencing it. One machine takes snapshots via its perspective and via its circuitry. Another does the same job slightly differently.

Nick
.
I bump my leg on the table.
I feel pain.
Both exist.

[jakesteele]

I have lots of thoughts that refers to a self. Like arrows that points to a center, an "I".
Maybe there's only a multitude of thoughts that refers to a center, i.e. the "thoughts thinking me", not "I think".
Maybe there is no self?
Maybe that's "ego is an illusion"?

I want proof of the existence of a self.


Last night I dreamed I was a butterfly

Today I am a butterfly dreaming I'm a man

[LightningStrike]

Hi LS,

I'm not saying that feelings don't exist. I'm saying that they can only be ascribed to someone when one considers the whole body, the whole organism. The notion of experience exists only at this level. There is nothing inside the brain that is experiencing, even though for most it strongly feels as though there must be. Thus, Descartes had his cogito and his model of this soul experiencing life via the pineal. The belief is that most definitely there must be something inside that is experiencing. But, the reality is that we've looked and looked and it's not there. And, there is an explanation to account for the disparity.

Nick

You are talking in the third person and so avoid the first person. The first person is everyones reality.

[LightningStrike]

There is no "perceiver of subjectivity." There is no actual duality, no actual subject-object distinction in terms of our scientific reality. It is simply that evolution has caused the mind to believe that subject-object relationships exist because this helps to preserve life.

If a sabre-tooth tiger comes at me, I am more likely to survive if I consider myself as a being under threat than as the spectator of a body being eaten. In such a manner natural selection conditions us to develop mental selfhood. But natural selection cannot change the underlying natural of reality, and there is no actual dualism.

Nick

There is an intelligence in the body of which self/person/entity is a pathetic shadow. The body can look after itself fine.

If there is no perceiver of subjectivity in your experience, You must be unconscious of now. Which of course is not true. You are conscious of now.

Tell me Nick are you conscious of now. Now being the feelings in your body, the senses all together at once. If so what nonsense are you on about. I am making sense you are making non-sense.

[Nick227]

Tell me Nick are you conscious of now. Now being the feelings in your body, the senses all together at once. If so what nonsense are you on about. I am making sense you are making non-sense.

In actuality no one is conscious of anything. there is this brain, creating these pictures and feelings, and there is this other module doing a voice over that "I am experiencing" this. No one is conscious. Self is just an aspect of consciousness, not its recipient.

btw, i would suggest that it is meaningless to ask if someone is conscious of now. Consciousness is now.

Nick

[Nick227]

.
I bump my leg on the table.
I feel pain.
Both exist.

The leg exists, the table exists, the bump exists, and the pain exists.

Nick

[Trent Wray]

The leg exists, the table exists, the bump exists, and the pain exists.

Nick So the concept they exist is real? Or do they exist even outside of the concept of existence?

I think your argument actually boils down to the: "if a tree falls in a forest, and there is no one around to hear it or see it, did it fall?" stuff.

Being aware the tree fell means that something in you is aware of the "idea" that the tree could fall. If you were not aware of it, it could fall right next to you and you wouldn't even know it, because you were unaware of the concept. Perhaps. Even if you saw it but had no ability to describe it, you are still aware of the concept ... it's just a concept without a label or name. Babies are aware of unnamed concepts.

Regardless, the above argument question about the tree falling is perhaps best represented with Schrodengers Cat. And an observer is needed to determine exactly what state the cat is in. Until the observer measures or sees the cat, the cat is in a state of superposition. Right?

So if this is true (if), what is the factor that determines which outcome will exist? The observer. And how do we "know" this? Because we are aware of it. We are aware of the concept of the scenario and the implications of it. We are aware of the observer and the observer's partial role.

Yes?

[I Ratant]

So the concept they exist is real? Or do they exist even outside of the concept of existence?

I think your argument actually boils down to the: "if a tree falls in a forest, and there is no one around to hear it or see it, did it fall?" stuff.
.
Can be determined.
Is there a tree fallen where there was a tree standing yesterday?
Can it become firewood/table to bump one's leg on?


Being aware the tree fell means that something in you is aware of the "idea" that the tree could fall. If you were not aware of it, it could fall right next to you and you wouldn't even know it, because you were unaware of the concept. Perhaps. Even if you saw it but had no ability to describe it, you are still aware of the concept ... it's just a concept without a label or name. Babies are aware of unnamed concepts.

Regardless, the above argument question about the tree falling is perhaps best represented with Schrodengers Cat. And an observer is needed to determine exactly what state the cat is in. Until the observer measures or sees the cat, the cat is in a state of superposition. Right?
.
The cat, by intent, is in the box.
Wondering about the state of the cat is extra. And mostly just plain silly to the extent the example is taken.
.

So if this is true (if), what is the factor that determines which outcome will exist? The observer. And how do we "know" this? Because we are aware of it. We are aware of the concept of the scenario and the implications of it. We are aware of the observer and the observer's partial role.

Yes?
.
Other than observing, and/or harvesting the tree, or opening the box, the observer does nothing to either.
Both exist (makes noise when it falls/until the air runs out) regardless of any observation.

[Dancing David]

I'm not being a devil's advocate, but is it well understood, in terms of neuroscience, where the "perceiver" actually is or exactly how it is manufactured? If so, do you have good references (I think this is the first time I've asked for references on this forum! LOL)




Now that is a more difficult concept and one that requires some parsing. I am not sure how much research has gone into the 'sense of a self', on one hand there is a lot of research into how the perceptions come about from the sensations, and some strange stuff about how senses interpenetrate, especially in the vestibular sense.

But as far as what constitutes a perceiver? Is it thought, is it meory?

It seems that a brief search is going to be overwhelming! I am not vetting these!

Extended social perception as a model of self perception:
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~johnlab/self.htm

And then I lost interest:

Sorry, I will read later:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=research+on+self+perception&as_sdt=400000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

[Dancing David]

Suprise I am agreeing with Nick227 in many ways, but not in others.

There is a body, all the experiences are of the body, however the brain is not empty.

[Nick227]

So the concept they exist is real? Or do they exist even outside of the concept of existence?

I think your argument actually boils down to the: "if a tree falls in a forest, and there is no one around to hear it or see it, did it fall?" stuff.

I don't think so. I'm looking more at this "self" thing. The assumption is that "I see the tree", but where actually is this is "I" that sees the tree? Is it the body? Are we really saying that the body sees the tree? I don't think so.

Now if you say that this "I" is just a process and not a tangible "thing" so to speak, and that you cannot investigate what "I" is beneath the level of the whole organism, or whole brain, then coolio, no problem. This leaves "I see the tree" with the "I see-ing" bit just as a figure of speech. Which to me is what it is.

Impressions of the tree form in various places inside the brain but there is no one there to see them. They are just there. Yet the brain has learned to create a voice-over - it creates "I see the tree." But this is just something it has learned. There is no tangible "I" that sees the tree in actuality.

The presence of thoughts tends to create the belief that there must be someone who hears the thoughts. Yes? It seems obvious and ridiculous to suggest otherwise. Utterly ridiculous. But when sensory consciousness remains but the amount of thoughts reduce then it can be clearly seen - there is no one there. It is only the presence of thinking that suggests this mental self - this thinker. Without the thoughts there is no one there.

Nick

[Trent Wray]

.
Can be determined.
Is there a tree fallen where there was a tree standing yesterday?
Can it become firewood/table to bump one's leg on?

.
The cat, by intent, is in the box.
Wondering about the state of the cat is extra. And mostly just plain silly to the extent the example is taken.
.

.
Other than observing, and/or harvesting the tree, or opening the box, the observer does nothing to either.
Both exist (makes noise when it falls/until the air runs out) regardless of any observation. But here you are actually reinforcing my point I'm trying to make, essentially (at least from where I'm sitting).

Everything you pointed out can be boiled down to the highlighted statement I think. They exist regardless of whether or not we observe them. BUT ... you are only aware of that, because you understand the various concepts that go into their existence in the first place (like what a tree is, where it will be, the fact it is there even though you're not looking at it, the fact there is a cat in the box and opening it will only reveal the state of the cat, etc etc).

All of those are concepts of concepts of concepts. What I'm saying, is when I get to the root, I am aware of the idea of concept itself. And there is some part of my "make-up" that is aware that I am aware of those concepts. In other word, I am looking at myself saying, "hey, you are looking at me", but I'm doing both at the same time. I can be in the "right side" of my brain as well as the "left side" of my brain simultaneously, looking at both sides. It is analogous to having two eyes that work. One lets me perceive things, combined with the other I can perceive depth more accurately.

BUT still ... there is a "third" thing if you will, that is aware that I am on both sides of my brain. That third thing is how I'm able to understand the concept that I'm understanding the concepts in the first place. It's as though I'm observing myself observing, while observing myself.

I think this might be hard to visualize because
a) it could be an illusion LOL :)
b) we are used to thinking of things in terms of symmetry. Two eyes, two ears, two hands, two halves of the brain, etc etc. Perhaps there is a trio at work that is "unseen" which makes it harder to put the finger on, and produces this illusion.

But what I'm saying is that, regardless of whether or not it's an illusion only, it is "something". At least imo.

Now that is a more difficult concept and one that requires some parsing. I am not sure how much research has gone into the 'sense of a self', on one hand there is a lot of research into how the perceptions come about from the sensations, and some strange stuff about how senses interpenetrate, especially in the vestibular sense.

But as far as what constitutes a perceiver? Is it thought, is it meory?

It seems that a brief search is going to be overwhelming! I am not vetting these!

Extended social perception as a model of self perception:
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~johnlab/self.htm

And then I lost interest:

Sorry, I will read later:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=research+on+self+perception&as_sdt=400000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0 No worries I lose interest about twenty minutes into something ... LOL :)

I don't think so. I'm looking more at this "self" thing. The assumption is that "I see the tree", but where actually is this is "I" that sees the tree? Is it the body? Are we really saying that the body sees the tree? I don't think so.

Now if you say that this "I" is just a process and not a tangible "thing" so to speak, and that you cannot investigate what "I" is beneath the level of the whole organism, or whole brain, then coolio, no problem. This leaves "I see the tree" with the "I see-ing" bit just as a figure of speech. Which to me is what it is.

Impressions of the tree form in various places inside the brain but there is no one there to see them. They are just there. Yet the brain has learned to create a voice-over - it creates "I see the tree." But this is just something it has learned. There is no tangible "I" that sees the tree in actuality.

The presence of thoughts tends to create the belief that there must be someone who hears the thoughts. Yes? It seems obvious and ridiculous to suggest otherwise. Utterly ridiculous. But when sensory consciousness remains but the amount of thoughts reduce then it can be clearly seen - there is no one there. It is only the presence of thinking that suggests this mental self - this thinker. Without the thoughts there is no one there.

Nick Again, it's not trying to find an "I" that is seeing the tree. It is trying to find the "I" that is aware of the fact that you see the tree.

That's the "endless loop" of self-observing. And outside that loop, there seems to be a way I can even observe the loop. That is the third "thing" to me .... that is perhaps the "I" in the way I'm describing it. Even if it is an illusion or the result of the processes at work in my cabesa :)

[Limbo]

The presence of thoughts tends to create the belief that there must be someone who hears the thoughts.


What's the difference between a belief and a thought? Can you have a belief without a thought?

[I Ratant]

What's the difference between a belief and a thought? Can you have a belief without a thought?
.
You, Limbo, are asking THAT??????
:jaw-dropp

[LightningStrike]

In actuality no one is conscious of anything. You may speak for youself by saying "I am not conscious of anything"there is this brain, creating these pictures and feelings, and there is this other module doing a voice over that "I am experiencing" this. Yes that is the expendable, 'little-sir-echo' self No one is conscious. The body is consciousSelf is just an aspect of consciousness, not its recipient. Self is the self reflective point that arises in self-conscious animal bodies.

btw, i would suggest that it is meaningless to ask if someone is conscious of now. Consciousness is now. Waffle. You are either conscious of being now or you are thinking about it. I leave you to confuse everyone, because you have not realised the greater reality behind the 'illusion' of self. Which is pure perception, consciousness perceiving existence and the whole of the subjective reality at once.

[fuelair]

I think therefore I yam.
I think poetically, therefore iambic.
I think musically therefore I jam.
I think of mint jelly, therefore I lamb.
I think about beavers, therefore I dam.
I think about sleep, therefore good night!!

[Dancing David]

Again, it's not trying to find an "I" that is seeing the tree. It is trying to find the "I" that is aware of the fact that you see the tree.



And again that is going to depend upon the defintion of "I".

I will do some reearch but it is part of verbal cognition in some ways, the labeling with internal language. many different models there.
It is partly an illusion created by persistence of memory. the body is the same on many different levels and different on many different levels moment to moment.
Yet the awareness is also just plain old perception. IE awareness of what is going on around 'you'.

This is the danger of the use of blanket words like 'awareness', it actually covers a huge number of possible processes, like attention. (We have possible inputs most of the time, however attention waxes and wanes.)

[Dancing David]

I think therefore I yam.
I think poetically, therefore iambic.
I think musically therefore I jam.
I think of mint jelly, therefore I lamb.
I think about beavers, therefore I dam.
I think about sleep, therefore good night!!

I am pink therefore I'm spam.

[Dancing David]

What's the difference between a belief and a thought? Can you have a belief without a thought?

Depends on the term 'thought'.

[Nick227]

You may speak for youself by saying "I am not conscious of anything"

This is not what I am saying. I'm saying that people tend to create models of self which suggest an observer or experiencer within the brain. What I'm saying is that this "I", this mental self, is purely an emergent phenomenon that arises from brain activity. There is, in reality, no tangible self that experiences or observes.

btw, i would suggest that it is meaningless to ask if someone is conscious of now. Consciousness is now.
Waffle. You are either conscious of being now or you are thinking about it.

Can you give me one example of consciousness not occurring now?

Nick

[Nick227]

What's the difference between a belief and a thought? Can you have a belief without a thought?

Personally, I'd say you need thoughts to create beliefs but that you can have a belief and operate from it without conscious thinking. I could be wrong here, just how it seems.

Nick

[Limbo]

Personally, I'd say you need thoughts to create beliefs but that you can have a belief and operate from it without conscious thinking. I could be wrong here, just how it seems.

Nick


Sort of like how you need leggos to create lego structures?

[Trent Wray]

And again that is going to depend upon the defintion of "I".

I will do some reearch but it is part of verbal cognition in some ways, the labeling with internal language. many different models there.
It is partly an illusion created by persistence of memory. the body is the same on many different levels and different on many different levels moment to moment.
Yet the awareness is also just plain old perception. IE awareness of what is going on around 'you'.

This is the danger of the use of blanket words like 'awareness', it actually covers a huge number of possible processes, like attention. (We have possible inputs most of the time, however attention waxes and wanes.) Perhaps it boils down to this:

I go to a restaurant, and I enjoy the food I order by itself without mixing it all together. In other words, I don't pour my drink over my hamburger and then take the corn and pour that on top of that, etc etc. I leave them separate ... even though in my stomach, it essentially gets all mixed together anyway. I like the separate tastes, flavors, and textures to remain separate.

My grandfather, on the other hand, doesn't give a rip about the flavors or textures being separate. It is a matter of eating to live, and he will do exactly what I mentioned above :)

Either way, we both live.

I'm beginning to see this entire section of the forum can be broken down into "tastes great" verses "less filling" ... ;)

[biomorph]

Biomorph to demonstrate your above statement please describe your whole subjective condition this moment so I can correlate it in my experience, using words such as perception, sensation, feeling, thought, if you want to you can use love, truth, life or death aswell.

I see things.
I hear things
I touch things.
I think things

Love - hormone poisoning

truth - that which is the same for all observers.

life - a form of biochemical, physics related end product derived from primitive self-reproducing molecules

death - cessation of body function, chemical decomposition



You are not allowed to use 'we' either obviously because you are 'I'. Please have a go at describing your inner reality (in the absence of a perceiver!) and that means no reference to the 5 external senses of sight, hearing etc. and certainly no mention of brains because they are not subjective..

Goodluck ;)

I don't have an "inner reality" to describe....just where do I find that data?

Perhaps it got lost......

[LightningStrike]

truth - that which is the same for all observers.

I don't have an "inner reality" to describe....just where do I find that data?

Perhaps it got lost......

I enjoy your definition of truth, that is mine aswell. The truth is that which is the same for all observers or the same in everybodies experience.

Your inner reality starts where you feel hungry, where you feel emotion, where you think, where you feel love, where you know truth.

[Paulhoff]

Well, I am the brain, change me, as with a stroke or other damage and I can be changed.

Now I will leave it up to other human brains to complicate it all and get all magical.


Paul

:) :) :)

[Nick227]

Well, I am the brain,



Do you use the expression "my brain?" If so, it would seem that you are not the brain but its owner.

Nick

[Nick227]

Again, it's not trying to find an "I" that is seeing the tree. It is trying to find the "I" that is aware of the fact that you see the tree.

In accordance with the thread title, I was more asking if there actually is an "I" which sees the tree, within the brain. Can you find one?

Nick

[Paulhoff]

Do you use the expression "my brain?" If so, it would seem that you are not the brain but its owner.

Nick
I didn't say "my brain".

Paul

:) :) :)

[AlBell]

Do you use the expression "my brain?" If so, it would seem that you are not the brain but its owner.

Nick
I didn't say "my brain".

Paul

:) :) :)
Who's brain are you?

[Paulhoff]

Who's brain are you?

Now I will leave it up to other human brains to complicate it all.....

Paul

:) :) :)

[yy2bggggs]

Do you use the expression "my brain?" If so, it would seem that you are not the brain but its owner.
This sounds like it's an interpretation of what "my" means that is specifically biased to demonstrate the point you want to demonstrate, but does not convey what normal English speakers mean.

The "my" in "my brain" doesn't convey ownership in the sense you're trying to attribute, no more than "book's pages" conveys that the book owns the pages. It simply conveys which brain you're talking about, just as saying "book's pages" conveys which pages.

[AlBell]

Who's brain are you?

Now I will leave it up to other human brains to complicate it all.....

Paul

:) :) :)
Good choice, not taking ownership of a brain that can't figure out the quote system.

[Paulhoff]

Brain = ME.

Change Brain = Change Me.

Let the human word games begin and not say anything when doing it.

Paul

:) :) :)

[AlBell]

Brain = ME.

Change Brain = Change Me.

Let the human word games begin and not say anything when doing it.

Paul

:) :) :)
What it's like, just being a (useless) observer of the ride a brain/body is taking?

[yy2bggggs]

What it's like, just being a (useless) observer of the ride a brain/body is taking?
It's like existing. Who says existing is useless?

[Paulhoff]

I want to see how me, a brain, typing now, is not self.

Paul

:) :) :)

[I Ratant]

It goes back to the Big Bang, when it was determined that 13 billion years later, your brain would be exciting your fingers to punch those exact keys on the keyboard today.
Micro-managed determinism at work.

[Paulhoff]

It goes back to the Big Bang, when it was determined that 13 billion years later, your brain would be exciting your fingers to punch those exact keys on the keyboard today.
Micro-managed determinism at work.
Oh, didn't know it was predetermened, throw out the quantum stuff.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Nick227]

This sounds like it's an interpretation of what "my" means that is specifically biased to demonstrate the point you want to demonstrate, but does not convey what normal English speakers mean.

Well, it isn't for me so much related to the rest of the thread. So I don't see that I'm biasing here as there isn't for me such a big point to make. It was more that Paul stated "I am the brain." For me, if he also should use the term "my brain", not that he necessarily does, then there would seem to be an inconsistency. For me the term denotes a "virtual owner" of the brain.

The "my" in "my brain" doesn't convey ownership in the sense you're trying to attribute, no more than "book's pages" conveys that the book owns the pages.

So, for you, stating say "Oh god, my brain hurts!", or something similar, does not denote ownership in the sense that there would appear to be someone who's brain is struggling?

For me, in saying "my brain" the brain creates for itself this sense of there being a virtual owner. This is what this "I" is - a virtual owner, virtual experiencer.

Think my brain is itself hurting now! :)

Nick

[Nick227]

I want to see how me, a brain, typing now, is not self.

Paul

:) :) :)

Well, I experience the typing but my brain does not. It is just processing. That's one sense in which it is not a self. There are other contexts, I'd say, where it is.

Nick

[Paulhoff]

Well, I experience the typing but my brain does not. It is just processing. That's one sense in which it is not a self. There are other contexts, I'd say, where it is.

Nick
So, you are not a brain, funny.

Paul

:) :) :)

[I Ratant]

Oh, didn't know it was predetermened, throw out the quantum stuff.

Paul

:) :) :)
.
I do that anyway... throw out the quantum stuff.
Semantic playground games. :)

[Paulhoff]

.
I do that anyway... throw out the quantum stuff.
Semantic playground games. :)
That is what these threads become all the time.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Nick227]

So, you are not a brain, funny.

Paul

:) :) :)

Nope, I'm not a brain. I'm Nick. I have a brain, sure.

Nick

[Paulhoff]

Nope, I'm not a brain. I'm Nick. I have a brain, sure.

Nick
Funny to call yourself as something you own.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Nick227]

Funny to call yourself as something you own.

Paul

:) :) :)

I don't own Nick. I am Nick.

Nick

[Paulhoff]

I don't own Nick. I am Nick.

Nick
Sell youself, brain, see what happens then.

Not knowing what you are is funny.

Paul

:) :) :)

[yy2bggggs]

So, for you, stating say "Oh god, my brain hurts!", or something similar, does not denote ownership in the sense that there would appear to be someone who's brain is struggling?
Sure, but that's an idiom in English, and it's a metaphor. The suggestion is that your brain is working so hard it hurts, just like if you push yourself too far while running, your legs would hurt. But people who say this aren't saying that they experience a pain in their brains, as you actually recognize here. They are just metaphorically saying that they are struggling really hard about some mental task given them.

I see using a more complete phrase that is an idiom as fishing.
For me, in saying "my brain" the brain creates for itself this sense of there being a virtual owner. This is what this "I" is - a virtual owner, virtual experiencer.
I don't think people are usually aware of their brains except as a theoretical object, so I think you're making this up. People do indeed generally know that they have brains, but there is no such thing as a sense of having a brain. It's factual knowledge, not experiential.

[I Ratant]

A good "Smoothie" or "Blizzard" will freeze a brain instantly!

[AlBell]

It goes back to the Big Bang, when it was determined that 13 billion years later, your brain would be exciting your fingers to punch those exact keys on the keyboard today.
Micro-managed determinism at work.
Oh, didn't know it was predetermened, throw out the quantum stuff.

Paul

:) :) :)
You'll go with 'random', then.

[I Ratant]

You'll go with 'random', then.
.
Pretty much.
There's no discernible direction to anything in this universe.
Stuff happens, other stuff happens, stuff goes away.
Any "purpose" is hidden well.

[Paulhoff]

You'll go with 'random', then.
Tell me how you would know the different between not knowing all positions of every partial and randomness.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Nick227]

Sure, but that's an idiom in English, and it's a metaphor. The suggestion is that your brain is working so hard it hurts, just like if you push yourself too far while running, your legs would hurt. But people who say this aren't saying that they experience a pain in their brains, as you actually recognize here.

How does that make a difference? The sentence is just an example of using "my brain" to denote an apparent virtual owner. I might equally use "The doctors say my brain is in good condition." It makes no difference.

I don't think people are usually aware of their brains except as a theoretical object, so I think you're making this up. People do indeed generally know that they have brains, but there is no such thing as a sense of having a brain. It's factual knowledge, not experiential.

It is factual knowledge. We're both materialists. We agree, I imagine, that mind is just brain activity. So I'm just expressing what I think is going on when I make statements using the word "I."

Nick

[Nick227]

Sell youself, brain, see what happens then.

Not knowing what you are is funny.

Paul

:) :) :)

For sure, without my brain there would be no "I." Yet this does not mean that "I" is the same as brain.

I experience life. I have a girlfriend. I own a Citroen Xsara. I'm struggling with Baudelaire's Spleen et Ideal. Can't really ascribe all these qualities to "brain." My brain doesn't have a girlfriend.

I is a construct, created by the brain, as a virtual owner, virtual experiencer.

Nick

[Trent Wray]

In accordance with the thread title, I was more asking if there actually is an "I" which sees the tree, within the brain. Can you find one?

NickI think that if there is an actual location, the effect is caused by several locations of our brain working more or less in unison at once. But to point to the combined effect as being one "thing" ---- is to subjectively point to an idea or concept that exists only as the concept. It's like a magic trick that is "real" for the lack of a better term. Like the concept of infinity or zero. You cannot point to either objectively, yet they exist as concepts. They can be useful in discussing mathematical terms, and factor into objective equations. The "I" is useful in understanding history, and practical, objective day to day living, as well as identifying humans who are alive or dead, for example. Life is another concept that exists but cannot be pointed to unless you are speaking subjectively. In general, we are alive but a computer is not. Point to the thing that makes the difference. You cannot. Objectively, it is an illusion. Subjectively, it is a practical reality we take into account when dealing with computers verses "living things". It is one of those "real illusions" until we are able to point to the objective mechanism, which we cannot do. We can only see and measure the practical, objective marks that life, "I", zero, infinity, etc .... have on existence.

Dude, our society is built upon subjective and objective concepts. Get over it :) (sorry, I felt like being snarky LOL)

What it's like, just being a (useless) observer of the ride a brain/body is taking? Like being on bottom instead of on top.

[Paulhoff]

I experience life. I have a girlfriend. I own a Citroen Xsara. I'm struggling with Baudelaire's Spleen et Ideal. Can't really ascribe all these qualities to "brain." My brain doesn't have a girlfriend.
Then what too, a soul?

You, brain, same same.

Paul

:) :) :)

[CaptainManacles]

it's impossible for anything to believe it exists and be wrong. For something to be wrong, it has to exist.

[Trent Wray]

it's impossible for anything to believe it exists and be wrong. For something to be wrong, it has to exist.

The first part of your statement never got me anywhere with my previous wives ...

[Dancing David]

What it's like, just being a (useless) observer of the ride a brain/body is taking?

What is it like insisting on an illusory dichotomy?

The brain is the experience. There is a body.

[Dancing David]

I want to see how me, a brain, typing now, is not self.

Paul

:) :) :)

As stated earlier, the body is the self. :)

[Dancing David]

Well, I experience the typing but my brain does not. It is just processing. That's one sense in which it is not a self. There are other contexts, I'd say, where it is.

Nick

Huh, it is all brain processes. What else is there?

[Dancing David]

I don't own Nick. I am Nick.

Nick

Where is Nick, that is not a brain?

[Nick227]

Then what too, a soul?

You, brain, same same.

Paul

:) :) :)

The mental self is generated by the brain, but this does not mean it is the brain. That to me is an over-simplification. The brain creates for itself a virtual owner to help maintain its sense of self! In doing so it creates an artificial duality and so certain qualities and concepts ascribable to this self may not be ascribed to the brain. Thus, for example, I experience but my brain merely processes.

To try and claim that "I am the brain" seems to me to step even further into illusion. It find it more accurate to simply accept that "I" am a virtual owner.

Nick

[yy2bggggs]

How does that make a difference?
Uhm... how does it not make a difference that when someone says "my brain hurts" that it's an idiom, and they do not literally mean that their brain hurts?
I might equally use "The doctors say my brain is in good condition." It makes no difference.
A doctor would not say that my brain is in a good condition, ordinarily, unless it was particularly significant--if there was some possibility that my brain was not in a good condition that was being investigated. Suppose that were the case--there was some reason to suspect I may have a brain tumor.

Then the doctor investigates a particular physical object--a brain--that I'm concerned about. Maybe this doctor investigates brains all day. But the particular brain I'm concerned about is in this particular head.

So how does the doctor say that the brain that I am concerned about is in good condition?

The book's pages tell which pages. Your brain says which brain. And though I obtained factual knowledge that my brain is a very important part--even a critical part--of my well being, I nevertheless have never developed a sense of this brain. As such, I've never developed a sense that I own this brain, akin to the sense that I own my legs. As I said, it's not the same kind of thing.

"My brain hurts" suggests otherwise. But it's only an idiom--only a metaphor. Nobody has a sense of their brain. The closest you get is "my head hurts".

[Paulhoff]

As stated earlier, the body is the self. :)
Brain is self, no body needed for self, only for the support of the brain.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Paulhoff]

The mental self is generated by the brain, but this does not mean it is the brain. That to me is an over-simplification.
The over-simplification is on your end, because you don't understand and/or you want to be more than just a brain only tells me you haven't a clue to all that is you, the brain.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Paulhoff]

Rl2LwnaUA-k

Paul

:) :) :)

[yy2bggggs]

The over-simplification is on your end, because you don't understand and/or you want to be more than just a brain only tells me you haven't a clue to all that is you, the brain.
No, it's on your end. If you were a brain, then if the brain exists, so do you.

But if you die, you no longer exist. But your brain does. So you're not your brain. Your brain has to do particular things for you to be there.

It's not dualism to say that a light bulb doesn't shine when the light is not plugged in.

[Paulhoff]

No, it's on your end. If you were a brain, then if the brain exists, so do you.

But if you die, you no longer exist. But your brain does. So you're not your brain. Your brain has to do particular things for you to be there.

It's not dualism to say that a light bulb doesn't shine when it's not plugged in.
The brain is no longer functional when dead, so of course you the brain, aren't anymore. The functions are not outside of the brain, they are all within the brain. I have a gas engine that is running, it makes power, all the functions are within it, I turn off the gas to the engine, it stops, the power stops. You can't separte self from the brain, without the brain there is no self. There is no self first and than the brain.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Dancing David]

Brain is self, no body needed for self, only for the support of the brain.

Paul

:) :) :)

Brain is body, just as the heart and feet are.

:)

[Dancing David]

No, it's on your end. If you were a brain, then if the brain exists, so do you.

But if you die, you no longer exist. But your brain does. So you're not your brain. Your brain has to do particular things for you to be there.

It's not dualism to say that a light bulb doesn't shine when the light is not plugged in.

A functioning brain?

[Paulhoff]

Brain is body, just as the heart and feet are.

:)
No, if one could only keep the head alive, the rest of the body isn't needed for self.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Paulhoff]

A functioning brain?
Oh my. You didn't watch the video did you.

Functioning, alive, geezzz.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Nick227]

The over-simplification is on your end, because you don't understand and/or you want to be more than just a brain only tells me you haven't a clue to all that is you, the brain.

Paul

:) :) :)

Well, yours might be restricted to the brain. My brain creates a sense of selfhood for the whole body, including the brain. I say "my body" and "my brain."

Selfhood just means there are feedback loops in processing.

Nick

[Paulhoff]

Well, yours might be restricted to the brain. My brain creates a sense of selfhood for the whole body, including the brain. I say "my body" and "my brain."

Selfhood just means there are feedback loops in processing.

Nick
So, where is this selfhood you talk of, without nerves throughout the body going to and from the brain, what you speak of wouldn't be.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Nick227]

So, where is this selfhood you talk of, without nerves throughout the body going to and from the brain, what you speak of wouldn't be.

Paul

:) :) :)

It's not anywhere specifically. Selfhood is an emergent phenomenon. The brain is merely concentrated processing.

Nick

[Paulhoff]

It's not anywhere specifically. Selfhood is an emergent phenomenon. The brain is merely concentrated processing.

Nick
No, it is where the processing is, there is no concentration of it.

Emergent doesn't mean separation.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Nick227]

No, it is where the processing is, there is no concentration of it.

You're saying no processing takes place in the body?

This regardless, my sense of self applies to my whole body. You are saying yours is restricted to the brain. Would you thus regard someone trying to, say, cut your finger off, as a mere sideshow?

Emergent doesn't mean separation.

No, for sure. Yet emergent phenomena can have qualities not present in system substrate. Yes, it is primarily by far the brain which creates a sense of mental selfhood, but this selfhood is not restricted to the brain.

Nick

[Paulhoff]

You're saying no processing takes place in the body?
Input to the brain, yes, which can make one feel bigger than the brain, but self is still only in the brain.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Trent Wray]

I don't own Nick. I am Nick.

Nick Are you all-right?

[Paulhoff]

No, for sure. Yet emergent phenomena can have qualities not present in system substrate. Yes, it is primarily by far the brain which creates a sense of mental selfhood, but this selfhood is not restricted to the brain.

Nick
A school of fish can act as one, an emergent phenomena but it is still fish and still restricted to the fish.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Trent Wray]

Self is in the brain, but due to the ways our brain processes information and tries to understand it, the illusion is sometimes that the self/brain is somewhere that it is not.

Phantom limbs are a good example of this. An amputee who loses a leg, for example, may experience the leg still being there along with positioning illusions of the missing leg and phantom pains as well. But there is no leg that exists, there is no "self in the leg". The brain is still looking for a part of the body that is no longer there ... giving the illusion the leg still is there. Yet the self is intact.

[Paulhoff]

UuRxRGR3VpM

Watch the whole thing, mainly the last couple of minutes.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Paulhoff]

I went to Nick227's homepage. It all makes sense now.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Manopolus]

Input to the brain, yes, which can make one feel bigger than the brain, but self is still only in the brain.

Paul

:) :) :)

Unless you define self as the energy which is present in the brain, and not the brain itself... and therefore, after the energy ceases, there is no self (unless that energy goes somewhere else in some kind of organized fashion), even though there is still a brain.

See, it kinda makes sense.

(added) And then, why limit the "self" to the brain? Why not include the whole nervous system?

[yy2bggggs]

Unless you define self as the energy which is present in the brain, and not the brain itself... and therefore, after the energy ceases, there is no self (unless that energy goes somewhere else in some kind of organized fashion), even though there is still a brain.
But the energy is certainly not the self. Energy flows through the brain in a massive river, placed there perhaps by a bowl of frosted cereal; gets shuffled into the dugout in your brain, and if it's really lucky, goes out for not even half a play, after which it simply radiates into space at a nice warm constant glow of 37 degrees centigrade.

Lest you think you're a ball of energy stuck in the head, you're not. Oh you certainly need that energy to be, but you're more of a pattern... a demon that hungrily devours the energy and spits it out for your sustenance.

[Trent Wray]

I went to Nick227's homepage. It all makes sense now.

Paul

:) :) :) Why, does it say something like:

"I do not own the homepage. I am the homepage.

Homepage."

:)

[Manopolus]

But the energy is certainly not the self. Energy flows through the brain in a massive river, placed there perhaps by a bowl of frosted cereal; gets shuffled into the dugout in your brain, and if it's really lucky, goes out for not even half a play, after which it simply radiates into space at a nice warm constant glow of 37 degrees centigrade.

Lest you think you're a ball of energy stuck in the head, you're not. Oh you certainly need that energy to be, but you're more of a pattern... a demon that hungrily devours the energy and spits it out for your sustenance.

I never said the energy was constant. Like the individual atoms of the body change constantly, so, too does the makeup of the energy. The only thing that makes it consistent is the brain, of course, and memory... but by this hypothetical model, the self is not consistent in material (whether physical or energetic material), but is rather a pattern of energy which constantly renews and exchanges itself with outside sources. It is the pattern which is important, and gives the illusion of constancy, not the energy. Please note that this is a mere hypothetical model with no support... giving an alternative explaination.

[Paulhoff]

Unless you define self as the energy which is present in the brain, and not the brain itself... and therefore, after the energy ceases, there is no self (unless that energy goes somewhere else in some kind of organized fashion), even though there is still a brain.

See, it kinda makes sense.

(added) And then, why limit the "self" to the brain? Why not include the whole nervous system?
Energy is used for the chemical reactions in the cells of the brain, but the energy used is not self.

"We are energy" is a woo idea.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Paulhoff]

Why, does it say something like:

"I do not own the homepage. I am the homepage.

Homepage."

:)
Look at the woo on his homepage.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Pedro De Mello]

Who's typing your posts?

Self: an entity that experience separation from the surroundings and consists over time.

tsig, don't understand. English isn't my first language if you refer to my spelling/grammar.

Are you sure WITTYname is the right nickname for you? :cool:

[Manopolus]

Energy is used for the chemical reactions in the cells of the brain, but the energy used is not self.

"We are energy" is a woo idea.

Paul

:) :) :)

I'm not sure you quite understand my meaning. Without the presence of this energy, there is no self, obviously... and it is by the chemical reactions that we are able to function at all. So why must the self be material, rather than an energetic process that occurs within that material? I guess that's my question. Can it be definitavely shown that the self is material?

I don't think it's woo at all. I'm not really suggesting the presence of a spirit. I am more suggesting the presence of a process.

(added) a process which is necessary for consciousness.

[Paulhoff]

I'm not sure you quite understand my meaning. Without the presence of this energy, there is no self, obviously... and it is by the chemical reactions that we are able to function at all. So why must the self be material, rather than an energetic process that occurs within that material? I guess that's my question. Can it be definitavely shown that the self is material?

I don't think it's woo at all. I'm not really suggesting the presence of a spirit. I am more suggesting the presence of a process.

(added) a process which is necessary for consciousness.
You don't know how many times I talk to people who try to work energy into self so they can go on after death, just another form of soul for them.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Manopolus]

You don't know how many times I talk to people who try to work energy into self so they can go on after death, just another form of soul for them.

Paul

:) :) :)

Yeah, I've seen it too.. but it wasn't quite what I was saying. I have even heard of a medical doctor with a physics degree suggesting an experiment as to where this energy goes... his idea being that it somehow retained something of the origional self...

But I wouldn't go that far astray. I wouldn't however necessarily disagree with the premise that the self could be designated as the process, not the material.

[Paulhoff]

Yeah, I've seen it too.. but it wasn't quite what I was saying. I have even heard of a medical doctor with a physics degree suggesting an experiment as to where this energy goes... his idea being that it somehow retained something of the origional self...

But I wouldn't go that far astray. I wouldn't however necessarily disagree with the premise that the self could be designated as the process, not the material.
It is a process, but that process is still within the brain and energy drives it and it is still material.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Manopolus]

It is a process, but that process is still within the brain and energy drives it and it is still material.

Paul

:) :) :)

Fair enough, perhaps I shouldn't try to separate the process from the mechanism. Admittedly, that could suggest that the process could be independant of the mechanism.

[Trent Wray]

Fair enough, perhaps I shouldn't try to separate the process from the mechanism. Admittedly, that could suggest that the process could be independant of the mechanism. Let me have a go if I may:

It's like an engine. An engine uses mechanisms and components to convert the potential energy stored in fuel (the fuel mixed with air, etc being other components added to the system) into something we find useful. You could call an operating engine the effect of the system.

So the engine = brain / system
effect = consciousness, self, free-will, understanding, illusion, delusion, concept, truth, critical thinking ability, processing, planning, etc
mechanisms = synaptic transfers, electrical system, etc
fuel = glucose delivered by the bloodstream, etc

I think when most people think of "energy of the brain" they are thinking about the electrical aspect, and they think, "omg, my consciousness is in that electricity." But that electricity is possible only because it is part of the potential residing in the system and needs FUEL in order to function. That electricity is part of the effect of the system being "turned on" as well. Take away the fuel, and the brain is a goner. It doesn't continue to "create energy" or anything. It needs it to convert in order to function, and this includes the electrical impulses as well (in the myocardium, this is generally regulated by a sodium-potassium pump effect where the ions of each are exchanged during polarization and depolarization. I'm not sure if those same electrolytes are responsible for the brains impulses or not however, neuroscience isn't my thing :)). And it needs a constant supply of glucose because neurons do not store glucose.

If you really wanted to say that the "self was energy", then looking inward is the wrong place. You should look outward, because that is where the energy comes from. And that energy is stored in the foods we eat, the oxygen we breathe, and the liquids we drink, etc and so forth.

So you could just as easily say that your "self" is on a plate of cookies. Because it is the energy in that plate of cookies your brain uses as a fuel and converts in order to produce the multiple effects your brain actually does when it's up and running.

[Dancing David]

Is 'running' material or immaterial, and why do I have a sense of deja vu?

;)

[Dancing David]

So you could just as easily say that your "self" is on a plate of cookies.

I like it!

[!Kaggen]

The self is a construct of thinking and so is the "process in the brain".

[Paulhoff]

Let me have a go if I may:

It's like an engine. An engine uses mechanisms and components to convert the potential energy stored in fuel (the fuel mixed with air, etc being other components added to the system) into something we find useful. You could call an operating engine the effect of the system.
The electrical part is within the nerve cells, the talking done between the nerve cells is chemical or (mechanical) in a way. The two use the Electromagnetic Force and everything else we deal with in day to day life uses that Force too, so it is nothing unusual.

This is a good video to watch, explains the problem with explaining.

wMFPe-DwULM
Paul

:) :) :)

[Trent Wray]

The electrical part is within the nerve cells, the talking done between the nerve cells is chemical or (mechanical) in a way. The two use the Electromagnetic Force and everything else we deal with in day to day life uses that Force too, so it is nothing unusual.

This is a good video to watch, explains the problem with explaining.

wMFPe-DwULM
Paul

:) :) :) Yes this is what I was trying to get across as well, more or less, is that the electrical activity in the brain is nothing unusual. It is similar to the electrical activity all throughout the body (i.e. myocardium, various types of muscle contractions, etc). My point was that in order for the neurons to be able to operate, they still need the ion transfers from various electrolytes which we intake through consumption, from which our bodies metabolize into usable forms of "fuel" for the brain and other electrical systems to work. And yes, of course, they utilize the EMF.

In other words, if I remove a brain and toss it on a table, it isn't sitting there with "consciousness" in it. It isn't sitting there thinking. It cannot be, because it isn't functioning. It still needs to be animate and fully functioning. Just because it is still composed of neurons, doesn't mean there are all these little sparks happening in it. To be functioning and generate those "sparks", it needs to be fed it's "fuel." So this is why I was saying that if someone actually wanted to think that consciousness existed in "energy" (i.e. a woo idea), they could just as easily say it exists in a donut. Because it is from that donut that we get our energy, specifically the glucose that our brain relies on heavily as it's "gasoline".

In other words, I was agreeing with you :)

As a side note, not all of our bodies electrical systems need the rest of the body in order to operate for a time detached from the body. The heart is an example of a system that, if I were to remove it and toss it on a table, will continue to pump when removed completely from the body for sometime. It is obviously not moving any blood anywhere, but it's electrical system will continue to function, causing it's contraction, without being "told what to do" by the brain. But this doesn't mean that our "self" is stored in that heart's "energy".

[Trent Wray]

The self is a construct of thinking and so is the "process in the brain". Okay, what are constructs made of?

[Paulhoff]

In other words, I was agreeing with you :)

My bad, I should have said the same.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Nick227]

Input to the brain, yes, which can make one feel bigger than the brain, but self is still only in the brain.

Paul

:) :) :)

Well, certainly not the whole brain. Conscious processing is restricted to a tiny part of the brain and the mental self smaller still. You're just a few thoughts and a few areas of representations stored here and there. You're getting smaller by the moment!

Nick

[Nick227]

I went to Nick227's homepage. It all makes sense now.

Paul

:) :) :)

Yes, really must take that down some day! Nick

[Nick227]

Input to the brain, yes, which can make one feel bigger than the brain, but self is still only in the brain.

Paul

:) :) :)

ps And how do you definitively separate input from processing?

Nick

[Nick227]

A school of fish can act as one, an emergent phenomena but it is still fish and still restricted to the fish.

Paul

:) :) :)

Look, you might as well say that monism holds and we're all one anyway, om shanti. The whole point is that new qualities and perspectives emerge from behaviour in base layers. Self and consciousness are two such phenomena.

For me, if you want to insist that you are the brain then you're going to have to be very careful to never use the phrase "my brain," or you're invalidating your own perspective. I have to say that I can't see the point. I think it's patently obvious to anyone who's considered these things that the mental self is a virtual owner or experiencer created by the brain and body. Do you read Dennett or Hofstadter? Or perhaps their co-project "The Mind's I"? I have a copy I can flog you if you want.

Nick

[Trent Wray]

My bad, I should have said the same.

Paul

:) :) :) No worries sir :)

Yes, really must take that down some day! Nick I visited your page as well ... So can I ask if you really believe that the soul has three parts? Isn't that part of Kabbalah traditional thought?

ps And how do you definitively separate input from processing?

Nick Is this a serious question? :)

[Nick227]

I visited your page as well ... So can I ask if you really believe that the soul has three parts? Isn't that part of Kabbalah traditional thought?

There's no such thing as a soul. IMO it's a popular spiritual meme usually taken on by people who are trying not to deal with the reality that one day they will be dead.

Is this a serious question? :)

For sure. Can you answer it? At what point along the path of communication between, say, the big toe and the brain does input stop and processing begin?

Nick

[Trent Wray]

Look, you might as well say that monism holds and we're all one anyway, om shanti. The whole point is that new qualities and perspectives emerge from behaviour in base layers. Self and consciousness are two such phenomena.

For me, if you want to insist that you are the brain then you're going to have to be very careful to never use the phrase "my brain," or you're invalidating your own perspective. I have to say that I can't see the point. I think it's patently obvious to anyone who's considered these things that the mental self is a virtual owner or experiencer created by the brain and body. Do you read Dennett or Hofstadter? Or perhaps their co-project "The Mind's I"? I have a copy I can flog you if you want.

Nick Actually ... I believe recent studies refer to a part of the brains DMN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Default_network) as the "owner" or shot caller (utilizing the slow cortical potentials if I understand it correctly), and it is actually not a part of the effect of our awareness. Our awareness is slower than the "boss" and the activity of the brain that is active (and not responding to any external event) makes up roughty 60-80 % of all energy used by the brain. Focussing on and performing a particular task ups the energy consumption up by only 5%.

In other words, we tend to think of "Awareness" as being at the top of the hierarchy and assume that it would use the most "brain power", but this isn't the case. It is an "extra". The icing on the cake if you will, but not the cake itself.

[!Kaggen]

Okay, what are constructs made of?

I'll assume you mean the conceptual constructs, not bricks and mortar.
Very good question.
I like to think of them in terms of the Projective Geometry.
In other words occupying intensive space as apposed to the extensive space of the percepts they relate to.

[Trent Wray]

There's no such thing as a soul. IMO it's a popular spiritual meme usually taken on by people who are trying not to deal with the reality that one day they will be dead. No worries. I was just curious for you to explain the belief in a soul from a Kabbalistic perspective, but I'm assuming you no longer believe in that woo? LOL



For sure. Can you answer it? At what point along the path of communication between, say, the big toe and the brain does input stop and processing begin?

Nick Well initially I was going to say when the bullet slices through the brain, but I'll give your more specific example a go:

Processing begins the moment my big-toe is formed, approximately 7-8 weeks in utero. And as far as the input (which occurs before the processing), I'd say that began when my pop's boys successfully invaded my mom's egg and fertilized it.

[Trent Wray]

I'll assume you mean the conceptual constructs, not bricks and mortar.
Very good question.
I like to think of them in terms of the Projective Geometry.
In other words occupying intensive space as apposed to the extensive space of the percepts they relate to. Actually I was talking about the bricks and mortar, more or less. I was trying to find out if you were implying that thoughts are more than neurons and the "data" they hold.

At some point, we end up just "thinking about our thoughts", and from there we can divide those thoughts into categories and subcategories (i.e. soul, spirit, self, spark, etc and so forth), but they are all just constructs of our thought processes. But if you're saying they are something else, then what are they (physically)?

[Nick227]

Actually ... I believe recent studies refer to a part of the brains DMN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Default_network) as the "owner" or shot caller (utilizing the slow cortical potentials if I understand it correctly), and it is actually not a part of the effect of our awareness. Our awareness is slower than the "boss" and the activity of the brain that is active (and not responding to any external event) makes up roughty 60-80 % of all energy used by the brain. Focussing on and performing a particular task ups the energy consumption up by only 5%.

In other words, we tend to think of "Awareness" as being at the top of the hierarchy and assume that it would use the most "brain power", but this isn't the case. It is an "extra". The icing on the cake if you will, but not the cake itself.

Yes, I read the article in SciAm a month or so back. So, now Paulhoff is limited to being the brain's DMN?

Nick

[Nick227]

Processing begins the moment my big-toe is formed, approximately 7-8 weeks in utero. And as far as the input (which occurs before the processing), I'd say that began when my pop's boys successfully invaded my mom's egg and fertilized it.

So, again, actually you are agreeing with me when I contest Paulhoff's apparent claim that a clear division can be drawn between input and processing?

Nick

[Paulhoff]

Well, certainly not the whole brain. Conscious processing is restricted to a tiny part of the brain and the mental self smaller still. You're just a few thoughts and a few areas of representations stored here and there. You're getting smaller by the moment!

Nick
Oh, so what other systems do you think don't count in the brain. Conscious is a tiny part? In what science paper did you read that. And size only counts, that is childish. The whole brain takes place in self, tell me want parts you don't want?

Paul

:) :) :)

[!Kaggen]

Actually I was talking about the bricks and mortar, more or less. I was trying to find out if you were implying that thoughts are more than neurons and the "data" they hold.

At some point, we end up just "thinking about our thoughts", and from there we can divide those thoughts into categories and subcategories (i.e. soul, spirit, self, spark, etc and so forth), but they are all just constructs of our thought processes. But if you're saying they are something else, then what are they (physically)? Thinking cannot be categorized into any box as thinking is assumed before any category. The best we can do is to describe our thoughts about thinking, sometimes called philosophy.

[Dancing David]

The self is a construct of thinking and so is the "process in the brain".

So, if your brain stops, what happens to your 'self'?

[Trent Wray]

Thinking cannot be categorized into any box as thinking is assumed before any category. The best we can do is to describe our thoughts about thinking, sometimes called philosophy.Hmm ... well look at it this way. Is a computer a box that thinks? If it is, then wouldn't a brain's "thoughts" be in a box of some kind? And if they are, why can't we nail down the nuts and bolts of what the "data" is made of?

Are you saying thought exists in the "aether" more or less? And I'm not trying to pick you apart, just see your POV :) And I also wish your first trip to the US wasn't to, uh-hum, Kansas City only :(. Not that there's anything wrong with KC! ;) I could just think of a lot more places that would offer a great "intro", but different strokes for different folks .... ;)

[Trent Wray]

So, if your brain stops, what happens to your 'self'? It means you're walking by faith as a believer :)

[Manopolus]

Hmm ... well look at it this way. Is a computer a box that thinks? If it is, then wouldn't a brain's "thoughts" be in a box of some kind? And if they are, why can't we nail down the nuts and bolts of what the "data" is made of?

Are you saying thought exists in the "aether" more or less? And I'm not trying to pick you apart, just see your POV :) And I also wish your first trip to the US wasn't to, uh-hum, Kansas City only :(. Not that there's anything wrong with KC! ;) I could just think of a lot more places that would offer a great "intro", but different strokes for different folks .... ;)

Compared to other cities it's size, probably the best thing about K.C. is the traffic. Culturally, I'd agree that Chicago is much better.

[Trent Wray]

Yes, I read the article in SciAm a month or so back. So, now Paulhoff is limited to being the brain's DMN?

Nick What does Paulhoff have to do with the brain's DMN? Did I miss something?

And since you read the article, you obviously didn't think it very applicable?

[Trent Wray]

So, again, actually you are agreeing with me when I contest Paulhoff's apparent claim that a clear division can be drawn between input and processing?

Nick Well I didn't read every post in this thread, so whatever you're contesting is your thing .... but I would agree there is a division between input and processing, as there is a division between cause and effect :)

[!Kaggen]

So, if your brain stops, what happens to your 'self'?

For a Buddhist DD, that is an interesting question.
Asking what happens to an illusion when the illusion stops.:)

[Trent Wray]

For a Buddhist DD, that is an interesting question.
Asking what happens to an illusion when the illusion stops.:) Your work day begins? :)

[Dancing David]

For a Buddhist DD, that is an interesting question.
Asking what happens to an illusion when the illusion stops.:)

The buddha did not state that the body, nor the wrold was an illusion. The self however is a ghost.

[Dancing David]

Actually ... I believe recent studies refer to a part of the brains DMN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Default_network) as the "owner" or shot caller (utilizing the slow cortical potentials if I understand it correctly), and it is actually not a part of the effect of our awareness. Our awareness is slower than the "boss" and the activity of the brain that is active (and not responding to any external event) makes up roughty 60-80 % of all energy used by the brain. Focussing on and performing a particular task ups the energy consumption up by only 5%.

In other words, we tend to think of "Awareness" as being at the top of the hierarchy and assume that it would use the most "brain power", but this isn't the case. It is an "extra". The icing on the cake if you will, but not the cake itself.

I did not read the wiki throughly, but it seems likely as a general mechanism. One part of the brain interacts with another part of the brain and eventually the sense of self arises. I am not sure there is a 'boss' and 'volition' is a great topic that involves the self.

( I see the brain as more of a huge democracy, with some possible constitutional officers.)

[Paulhoff]

The buddha did not state that the body, nor the wrold was an illusion. The self however is a ghost.
The buddha, there is someone who had a lot of information about the universe.

NOT

Paul

:) :) :)

[!Kaggen]

Thinking cannot be categorized into any box as thinking is assumed before any category. The best we can do is to describe our thoughts about thinking, sometimes called philosophy.
Hmm ... well look at it this way. Is a computer a box that thinks? If it is, then wouldn't a brain's "thoughts" be in a box of some kind? And if they are, why can't we nail down the nuts and bolts of what the "data" is made of? Talking about the origin of thinking is unique as it assumes what it hopes to explain.

Are you saying thought exists in the "aether" more or less? And I'm not trying to pick you apart, just see your POV :) No, I am not interested in the origin of thought since I have to assume thought to answer it. It is a meaningless question. However I am interested how thinking came to be so useful in understanding the world when it is produced by a such a small part of it. :arrow:

And I also wish your first trip to the US wasn't to, uh-hum, Kansas City only :(. Not that there's anything wrong with KC! ;) I could just think of a lot more places that would offer a great "intro", but different strokes for different folks .... ;)
What can I say, work is work :(

[Trent Wray]

No, I am not interested in the origin of thought since I have to assume thought to answer it. It is a meaningless question. However I am interested how thinking came to be so useful in understanding the world when it is produced by a such a small part of it. :arrow: Now actually, this brings up another point ...

We assume our mental prowess and sense of self and understanding of concepts and the physical world are actually "good" evolutionarily speaking. But is it perhaps more of a weakness? Perhaps it's a way of being weeded out somehow, almost like a failsafe mechanism of evolution (i.e. lemmings) where we end up driving ourselves to extinction, depression, war, etc?

[!Kaggen]

Now actually, this brings up another point ...

We assume our mental prowess and sense of self and understanding of concepts and the physical world are actually "good" evolutionarily speaking. But is it perhaps more of a weakness? Perhaps it's a way of being weeded out somehow, almost like a failsafe mechanism of evolution (i.e. lemmings) where we end up driving ourselves to extinction, depression, war, etc?

All the evidence I need for free will :D

[Nick227]

Oh, so what other systems do you think don't count in the brain. Conscious is a tiny part? In what science paper did you read that. And size only counts, that is childish. The whole brain takes place in self, tell me want parts you don't want?

Paul

:) :) :)

What I'm saying is that you can't put it just on the brain. For me, it's the whole organism or nothing. From what I can gather you seem to believe that the brain can be separated from the rest of the body because there is an absolute distinction between input and processing. I haven't seen you justify this yet. You seem to prefer to rely on vaguely critical personal comments and innuendo than actually examining closely what is going on.

Nick

[Nick227]

.... but I would agree there is a division between input and processing, as there is a division between cause and effect :)

Care to categorically identify the precise point at which cause becomes effect for any known process?

Nick

[Nick227]

The buddha did not state that the body, nor the wrold was an illusion. The self however is a ghost.

Well, there is a body and it is also a self.

I think this thing with the self is especially a big issue for materialists. For idealists, if everything is just an idea then I guess it's not such a big deal that self is just an idea. But for materialists it seems a toughie. I think materialism for many is more a personal disposition than a thought-out rationale. These guys can't deal with a non-existing self, or a "user illusion". It's just too scary for these brains to self-examine to any meaningful level and they became materialists because they wanted everything solid, not to deal with the possibility of a user illusion. Put to the test these guys just descend into defensive behaviour, adhoms, innuendo, whatever.

I've seen time and again people who very vocally profess materialism refusing point blank to get into Parfit's Teletransporter...and it's only a bloody thought experiment. Despite their creed they continue to believe in a self which persists and cannot overcome the belief that something must be lost if the body is destroyed and then identically recreated somewhere else. They say one thing but cannot act in accordance. </rant>



Nick

[yy2bggggs]

I think materialism for many is more a personal disposition than a thought-out rationale. These guys can't deal with a non-existing self, or a "user illusion". It's just too scary for these brains to self-examine to any meaningful level and they became materialists because they wanted everything solid, not to deal with the possibility of a user illusion. Put to the test these guys just descend into defensive behaviour, adhoms, innuendo, whatever.
Irony meter's tingling.

Ad hominem describes the above.

[Paulhoff]

What I'm saying is that you can't put it just on the brain. For me, it's the whole organism or nothing.
Why don't you talk to a Quadriplegic about that, I have a few times.

The also have the same one Vote.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Nick227]

Irony meter's tingling.

Ad hominem describes the above.

Well, it's true I am reacting a bit! But, seriously, there are some right idiots out there talking materialism.

Simple Test for Materialist: Imagine you are getting into a box which will upload all the information from your body onto a disc, dematerialise your body (ie kill it), and then download it at some remote location, recreating your body with some super-new technology. Is this...

1) Fine by me! Just make it somewhere exciting where my body is recreated!

2) OMG, no way! It won't be me and it doesn't matter where the new body will be or how exciting it is, it just won't be me, I'll have died, omg, omg...

Answer 1 = materialist
Answer 2 = fool

Nick

[Twiler]

Well, it's true I am reacting a bit! But, seriously, there are some right idiots out there talking materialism.

Simple Test for Materialist: Imagine you are getting into a box which will upload all the information from your body onto a disc, dematerialise your body (ie kill it), and then download it at some remote location, recreating your body with some super-new technology. Is this...

1) Fine by me! Just make it somewhere exciting where my body is recreated!

2) OMG, no way! It won't be me and it doesn't matter where the new body will be or how exciting it is, it just won't be me, I'll have died, omg, omg...

Answer 1 = materialist
Answer 2 = fool

Nick

3) Why dematerialise the original? Two of me is better than one!

[Paulhoff]

Well, it's true I am reacting a bit! But, seriously, there are some right idiots out there talking materialism.
I like people talking about materialism when in fact they, most likely, don't know anything about material to begin with.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Trent Wray]

All the evidence I need for free will :D Hmm .... did I hear somebody say "Humans are Skynet!" ? ... ;)

What I'm saying is that you can't put it just on the brain. For me, it's the whole organism or nothing. From what I can gather you seem to believe that the brain can be separated from the rest of the body because there is an absolute distinction between input and processing. I haven't seen you justify this yet. You seem to prefer to rely on vaguely critical personal comments and innuendo than actually examining closely what is going on.

Nick The brain can imagine parts of the body that are not even there. There is no longer anything to "gather input", and yet the brain "thinks" there is something there.

So the brain identifies the body as part of itself ... and yet when parts of "itself" go bye-bye ... the brain can still think it's there (as in ghost limbs). So let's look at this: the limb is gone, but the brain still thinks that it's there. If the limb is gone, but the brain is still there ... where do you think the idea of the "limb=self" is actually taking place?

I refer you back to the Ghetto Boys , "Mind Playin' Tricks on You" ...

Care to categorically identify the precise point at which cause becomes effect for any known process?

Nick I know it but I'm not tellilng you! j/k. Infinite regression ...

Well, there is a body and it is also a self.

I think this thing with the self is especially a big issue for materialists. For idealists, if everything is just an idea then I guess it's not such a big deal that self is just an idea. But for materialists it seems a toughie. I think materialism for many is more a personal disposition than a thought-out rationale. These guys can't deal with a non-existing self, or a "user illusion". It's just too scary for these brains to self-examine to any meaningful level and they became materialists because they wanted everything solid, not to deal with the possibility of a user illusion. Put to the test these guys just descend into defensive behaviour, adhoms, innuendo, whatever.

I've seen time and again people who very vocally profess materialism refusing point blank to get into Parfit's Teletransporter...and it's only a bloody thought experiment. Despite their creed they continue to believe in a self which persists and cannot overcome the belief that something must be lost if the body is destroyed and then identically recreated somewhere else. They say one thing but cannot act in accordance. </rant>
Nick

Well, it's true I am reacting a bit! But, seriously, there are some right idiots out there talking materialism.

Simple Test for Materialist: Imagine you are getting into a box which will upload all the information from your body onto a disc, dematerialise your body (ie kill it), and then download it at some remote location, recreating your body with some super-new technology. Is this...

1) Fine by me! Just make it somewhere exciting where my body is recreated!

2) OMG, no way! It won't be me and it doesn't matter where the new body will be or how exciting it is, it just won't be me, I'll have died, omg, omg...

Answer 1 = materialist
Answer 2 = fool

Nick Dude ... calm your"self" down :) Why are you ranting and reacting and getting defensive?

I know I'm poking at you ... but seriously ... what's the big deal? I'm curious why it's so important to you ... if you don't mind :)

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Well, it's true I am reacting a bit! But, seriously, there are some right idiots out there talking materialism.

Simple Test for Materialist: Imagine you are getting into a box which will upload all the information from your body onto a disc, dematerialise your body (ie kill it), and then download it at some remote location, recreating your body with some super-new technology. Is this...

1) Fine by me! Just make it somewhere exciting where my body is recreated!

2) OMG, no way! It won't be me and it doesn't matter where the new body will be or how exciting it is, it just won't be me, I'll have died, omg, omg...

Answer 1 = materialist
Answer 2 = fool

Nick

I don't know about materialism, but it occurs to me that there are two ways of looking at the thought experiment:

1. We don't actually understand what we mean by death, or

2. We can imagine a world in which bods may become indifferent to dying because they are offered something that is — or seems — almost as good as not dying.

There may be other ways of looking at it, of course. But I take 1 to be unintelligible.

If your thought experiment should come to pass, I shall raise a glass to your memory with your clone. He'll look rather puzzled, of course...:)

[Nick227]

3) Why dematerialise the original? Two of me is better than one!

Another possibility!

Nick

[Nick227]

So the brain identifies the body as part of itself ... and yet when parts of "itself" go bye-bye ... the brain can still think it's there (as in ghost limbs). So let's look at this: the limb is gone, but the brain still thinks that it's there. If the limb is gone, but the brain is still there ... where do you think the idea of the "limb=self" is actually taking place?

Look, the brain does not think it is still there. The brain is simply reacting according to its programming.

I know it but I'm not tellilng you! j/k. Infinite regression ...

Infinite regression, my ass! What are you, some kind of buzzword chat-bot with its wires crossed! ...er, if a trees falls down on a Default Mode Network... how many infinite regressions hear it, er something, he sounds like he knows what he's talking about so I'll agree with him, er , er...

Dude ... calm your"self" down :) Why are you ranting and reacting and getting defensive?

Calm yourself, valium boy! Who gives a s***? You gotta learn to chill with your own un-chilledness, dude.

Nick

[Nick227]

I don't know about materialism, but it occurs to me that there are two ways of looking at the thought experiment:

1. We don't actually understand what we mean by death,

Yup.

or

2. We can imagine a world in which bods may become indifferent to dying because they are offered something that is — or seems — almost as good as not dying.

I'm programmed by natural selection to resist death. Death's coming, I'm going the other direction. This is my programming. Yet, as a materialist, I am also aware that this mental self, this experiencer, is not an entity. It's a mental contruct, endlessly being created and endlessly being decreated.

There is no persisting self which experiences. But the illusion that there is is very strong. It certainly seems that if I was dematerialised here and rematerialised in Thailand, say, that it would not be "the same me" that lives on in Thailand. It certainly seems that way. But, rationally, as a materialist I know that this sense of there being a persisting self is an illusion.

If your thought experiment should come to pass, I shall raise a glass to your memory with your clone. He'll look rather puzzled, of course...:)

Why should he? He'll remember this exchange just the same.

Nick

[Limbo]

Nick227 just a few questions. Can you direct your thoughts, or direct your dreams at night, or direct your beliefs? Can 'you' have a 'conversation' with 'unconscious' aspects of your 'mind'? Can you direct certain bodily functions that are normally automatic?

[Paulhoff]

Look, the brain does not think it is still there. The brain is simply reacting according to its programming.
Well, maybe you do, not for me, I know what I am and like it.

Paul

:) :) :)

[yy2bggggs]

There is no persisting self which experiences. But the illusion that there is is very strong. It certainly seems that if I was dematerialised here and rematerialised in Thailand, say, that it would not be "the same me" that lives on in Thailand. It certainly seems that way. But, rationally, as a materialist I know that this sense of there being a persisting self is an illusion.
You're going to have to explain this one a bit more.

First off, there's a conceptual error that you're making here. Here's a dollar bill--and here is a silver dollar. They are the same. Yet they are different--but insofar as they are different, here's another dollar bill. The two dollar bills are the same, but they are different. I can say either one. There's always in such applications a context when you're speaking of "same" versus "different"--there's a criteria of similarity, contextually applied, which distinguishes X and Y objects that are similar from X and Y objects that differ... equivalence classes.

But what you are doing is a bit confused. You're saying something like that the context in which we are the same person from moment to moment is only an illusion. As opposed to what? Are these two dollar bills being the same not an illusion? You seem to assume that there's such a thing as absolute similarity in the first place. (If you're not doing this, I retract saying that it's an error).

I don't understand how an illusion of similarity cannot in itself be a similarity criteria, so the only way I can see that your statement could make sense is if you explain what "third party" similarity criteria you're talking about that we have an illusion of maintaining.

The second issue here is this statement:
But, rationally, as a materialist I know that this sense of there being a persisting self is an illusion.
How can you know something merely by being something? This seems to turn proper epistemology on its head. This statement is simply wrong; regardless of whether or not you have the knowledge you claim to have, it has absolutely nothing to do, rationally, with "being a materialist". You need to rephrase this.

This is not so much a rebuttal as it is a request to formulate your ideas clearly.

[Trent Wray]

Look, the brain does not think it is still there. The brain is simply reacting according to its programming. Prove it.

Infinite regression, my ass! What are you, some kind of buzzword chat-bot with its wires crossed! ...er, if a trees falls down on a Default Mode Network... how many infinite regressions hear it, er something, he sounds like he knows what he's talking about so I'll agree with him, er , er... Are you trying to "win" an argument? I think the difference between us is that I'm not attaching as much importance to this as you are. I have nothing to win or lose, so I'll ask you again:

Why is this so important to you that you are getting upset?

And is buzz-word chat-box supposed to be a put-down? I'm quite content to read and learn and cherry-pick from multiple sources to form my own opinions on certain things. This is one of those things because, practically, the experience of self exists and I value it. I find the DMN an interesting new area to explore. And infinite regressions is my stance on trying to separate the difference between a cause and effect, input and process. Look at any unit of something and it will be one or the other, but is it both at the same time? YES it is --- until you infinitely regress.

Can you prove you don't form your opinions based off the work of the rest of the world?

But when you come up against the boundaries of your own understanding, I don't know that put-downs will be the best tactic. Perhaps learning and being open to other ideas might benefit you more. Did you never learn this?

Calm yourself, valium boy! Who gives a s***? You gotta learn to chill with your own un-chilledness, dude.

NickAgain, you're the one who gives a s*** coward boy. It's easy to throw childish put-downs and tantrums behind a keyboard towards someone you will never meet face to face. Is this your "materialist reality" at work? I could tell you that if you ever seriously copped this attitude with me in "reality", and weren't joking, I could teach you some things about materialism ... but personally I don't find any benefit to pushing the rules of the forum that far :)

Now you want to tell me why this is so important to you that you react this way? The psychology behind your reaction is the only thing that is interesting me in our conversation now. Since you're a materialist I'll assume you have no "irrational fear" at withholding the truth about your"self" and we can explore it deeply till we get to the bottom of your immaturity?

[Nick227]

You're going to have to explain this one a bit more.

First off, there's a conceptual error that you're making here. Here's a dollar bill--and here is a silver dollar. They are the same. Yet they are different--but insofar as they are different, here's another dollar bill. The two dollar bills are the same, but they are different. I can say either one. There's always in such applications a context when you're speaking of "same" versus "different"--there's a criteria of similarity, contextually applied, which distinguishes X and Y objects that are similar from X and Y objects that differ... equivalence classes.

The context here is a body, and its sense of self. I don't find a dollar bill comparable because it is not self-aware. It is not speaking of itself, rather you, or another, is speaking of it.

What the Teletransporter deals with are the core beliefs that individuals have about themselves. And, for me, what Parfit and Blackmore showed in their work with this thought experiment was that many who claim materialism actually don't believe it when it comes to themselves.

The second issue here is this statement:
But, rationally, as a materialist I know that this sense of there being a persisting self is an illusion.
How can you know something merely by being something?

I take a position. I cannot equally prove materialism to be correct. But I can take a position. Thus, it would here perhaps be better to phrase it - If materialism is true then this persisting self which appears to be present has to be illusory.

This is not so much a rebuttal as it is a request to formulate your ideas clearly.

No probs.

Nick

[Nick227]

Again, you're the one who gives a s*** coward boy. It's easy to throw childish put-downs and tantrums behind a keyboard towards someone you will never meet face to face. Is this your "materialist reality" at work? I could tell you that if you ever seriously copped this attitude with me in "reality", and weren't joking, I could teach you some things about materialism ... but personally I don't find any benefit to pushing the rules of the forum that far :)

What, because you find your precious self-image threatened, trentwray? You would attack someone because they're implying that actually you don't understand something that you believe you understand?

Now you want to tell me why this is so important to you that you react this way? The psychology behind your reaction is the only thing that is interesting me in our conversation now. Since you're a materialist I'll assume you have no "irrational fear" at withholding the truth about your"self" and we can explore it deeply till we get to the bottom of your immaturity?

No problem. I'm reacting to what I perceive as your pomposity and contrived self image. I don't trust people who try to portray themselves as calm and self-controlled when underneath they are hostile as ****, and quickly become so when challenged. These are my judgments, since you ask. I don't like someone telling me to chill, when I can sense that underneath the facade they so controlledly put out, they're pissed off as ****. From the paragraph above you seem to believe that having emotional reactions is a sign of immaturity. I think there is more you could learn about psychology, trentwray. It's not about being a control freak who can present themselves nicely, dude. Sorry. Chill, man. Really. Who gives a **** how you appear?

Nick

[yy2bggggs]

The context here is a body, and its sense of self.
Which one? If it's the sense of self, I'm not quite sure what the difference is between an illusion of having the sense and really having the sense.

If it's the body, I don't think it's correct to say that we have an illusion of being a particular body, so much as "possessing" one. In fiction, a common theme is "body swapping", for example, and it doesn't offend our senses to imagine that this could be a possible feat.

So I'm not quite sure I buy that you've supplied a context that meets these criteria yet:
Our sense of self over time is a sense of it
Our sense of self over time is a flawed approximation of it (i.e., illusory)

[Nick227]

Which one? If it's the sense of self, I'm not quite sure what the difference is between an illusion of having the sense and really having the sense.

Maybe i explained it badly. The sense of having a self is real. The self itself is not, at least not in the sense its sensed to be!

Put yourself in the box/pod. Imagine it. You get in the pod. Your body is scanned. The information is wired to the other location. And now your body is going to be destroyed yet it has the clear knowledge that an identical replica will be created. Now...how does this seem? Does it seem OK? If not, can you articulate exactly what you believe is being lost?

Nick

[yy2bggggs]

Put yourself in the box/pod. Imagine it. You get in the pod. Your body is scanned. The information is wired to the other location. And now your body is going to be destroyed yet it has the clear knowledge that an identical replica will be created. Now...how does this seem? Does it seem OK? If not, can you articulate exactly what you believe is being lost?
I'm a really terrible example for a number of reasons, so I'm simply trying to get another context.

First, I don't call myself a materialist. Second, I recognize a very real flaw in my own actions--I don't necessarily react to novel situations the way I imagine I would react. So even if I do imagine my reaction to this, if I could somehow face it, I might actually get a different sense. But I think it'd go something like this, which actually defeats the purpose a bit:

I would certainly not be the first to step in. After a number of people have done it, especially if this practice becomes common place, I may or may not gain more trust in this machine's ability to react as advertised. But I would not be completely comfortable until I have some knowledge of how the machine works, and some knowledge of how I work. Given both of these, I'd form a judgment based on both of them--though I might step in based on some more ill-defined, touchy feely kind of sense I get from people who have stepped in (not saying that's rational, just that in practice, I may actually react that way, and wouldn't be sure until it happened).

In other words, the reason for the hypothetical situation--the point of it--is to test if you really do believe what you profess to, given certain ideas of materialism. And the problem with me is that I don't have the belief basis in the first place to react a particular way to it... so it's kind of a backwards setup for me.

Well... you asked!

But that leads back to part of this point... I'm trying to lay down knowledge of myself. But I do focus on what the thing is we sense very seriously. In this case, my sense of being the "same" as I was ten minutes ago, insofar as I have it, is something I've yet to pin down anyway. So I'm trying to figure out what you think the criteria is, such that the sense of being the same is a sense of that thing, and such that it's a flawed sense of that thing.

[Trent Wray]

What, because you find your precious self-image threatened, trentwray? You would attack someone because they're implying that actually you don't understand something that you believe you understand?

No problem. I'm reacting to what I perceive as your pomposity and contrived self image. I don't trust people who try to portray themselves as calm and self-controlled when underneath they are hostile as ****, and quickly become so when challenged. These are my judgments, since you ask. I don't like someone telling me to chill, when I can sense that underneath the facade they so controlledly put out, they're pissed off as ****. From the paragraph above you seem to believe that having emotional reactions is a sign of immaturity. I think there is more you could learn about psychology, trentwray. It's not about being a control freak who can present themselves nicely, dude. Sorry. Chill, man. Really. Who gives a **** how you appear?

Nick Dude ... dude, dude, dude :)

o/t

My take is that we're talking from two different pages of different books. For some reason, you seem to think I'm taking this conversation somewhere it's not going. Maybe it's the way I'm phrasing myself online? But I honestly don't understand why you're getting this defensive. If I had to take a stab, I'm guessing you're pretty much projecting onto me. Because honestly you're reading my mail wrong. And I love to explore the psych behinds peeps, so you'll just have to "take my word for it" that I would admit to something if you pegged me correctly. I will toss my own psyche out into the open for dissection usually with little to no problem. If you read any of my other posts in other threads, I think you'll find I'm not generally too concerned with coming off like a delusional woo or a hardline skeptic (which I'm learning) or whatever.

Pretty much the only thing you came close to pegging is that I'm hostile, but that's not the right word. I'm not hostile, rather I can be aggressive. But when challenged, I do not react aggressively (unless it's a physical challenge). I do not try to maintain an appearance of anything when threatened non-physically, rather I attempt to become quite manipulative in many subtle ways. When I feel "cornered", my goal is to switch places with the individual who is trying to corner me without making it obvious that's what I'm doing. If it becomes obvious, I further my attempt to manipulate applying many different techniques. This can make me feel superior in my own mind when I do it correctly .... HOWEVER .... one of the keys to my own warped sense of this superiority is that no one realize what I just did. I like it to be a secret between me, myself, and I. If someone else notices what I did and were like, "way to manipulate the hell out of that guy!" it would devalue it for me. Maybe I'm Rand-ian in that sense. I'm not a braggart IOW.

So if you think I'm trying to manipulate you now or project a self image, you're mistaken. I told you clearly at what point I would become hostile (if you copped an attitude with me face to face) and I told you honestly and clearly how I felt about the topic. I'm not as interested in it as you seem to be. My opinion could sway all over the place. This thread, to me personally, is brain candy, not sustenance. THUS ... I don't claim to understand everything about it. I understand what I think I understand, and I don't care if that's even true all that much. I throw ideas out there for coffee talk. IOW ... I'm not feeling threatened. What irritates me, though, are bullies, and especially cowardly ones who throw shots at others from behind a monitor. But even then, I find little to no benefit from getting into a "you suck!" "no, you suck!" match online. If I'm going to go that route, I'd prefer to see fists flying tbh :). So instead of going there, I went to the psych route and a "what's wrong Nick?" honest attempt at communication.

It's not about maintaining an appearance. One thing I'm usually pretty good at (I don't think I'm bragging) is knowing where I'm at in the moment. I know when I'm being hostile, or covering it up, or worrying about my appearance, or being a sociopath, or being a p***y or whatever. This isn't one of those times. If I was worried about my appearance, I'd do this:

*lowers head in shame*

Or something to that effect. In other words, I'd admit it. You're trying to read into me things that aren't there. I genuinely don't like to come off as a pompous ass either. I actually try and speak at people's level instead of getting them to speak to mine most of the time (i.e., I learn their personal language). I find I learn more that way. And if I'm not interested in speaking at someone's level or find myself incapable, I generally don't open my mouth.

Now, if you thought me telling you to chill was being arrogant, I was just poking and playing. If you took it the wrong way, I'm sorry. I have no problem admitting I'm sorry, or wrong, or anything. But if you're trying to Alpha challenge me or something, that generally doesn't work on "lone wolf" type of people. And that's the kind of person I am. I have very little to prove. I'm content to be my own alpha and join packs as I wish, and leave them all the same without worrying about how I "appear".

I hope you're listening to me, because I'm being honest. And the reason I'm even spending so much time to respond, is because I do have genuine interests in the psych behind stuff, esp. reactions like you're having to me.

Now ... what I'm curious in now, is why you feel the way you do towards me, when you've never even met me :) ? Is it the way I phrase things? Obviously I have failed to speak your language. I want to know why, for my own sake. And, is there something I have left out that failed to address your judgments? You were "real" with me, so I'm being "real" with you dude ...

[AlBell]

.... If materialism is true then this persisting self which appears to be present has to be illusory.

Finally, a nugget of truth.

trentwray: this is the stance of most posters here, but too many seem to pretend "Materialism is true: Therefore ...".

It's hard to be a 'good atheist' otherwise, and one might slip into dualism, or, OhNoes! idealism. I do not pretend idealism has fewer defects than materialism, only that I find it, for me, a less dogmatic position. ymmv.

[Trent Wray]

Finally, a nugget of truth.

trentwray: this is the stance of most posters here, but too many seem to pretend "Materialism is true: Therefore ...".

It's hard to be a 'good atheist' otherwise, and one might slip into dualism, or, OhNoes! idealism. I do not pretend idealism has fewer defects than materialism, only that I find it, for me, a less dogmatic position. ymmv. Ah .... so challenging it (at times) can be compared to challenging one's belief/faith/religion/value system/identity/etc?

[AlBell]

Finally, a nugget of truth.

trentwray: this is the stance of most posters here, but too many seem to pretend "Materialism is true: Therefore ...".

It's hard to be a 'good atheist' otherwise, and one might slip into dualism, or, OhNoes! idealism. I do not pretend idealism has fewer defects than materialism, only that I find it, for me, a less dogmatic position. ymmv. Ah .... so challenging it (at times) can be compared to challenging one's belief/faith/religion/value system/identity/etc?
As I see things, yes. Most here will apparently fight to the death to deny it.

"Strictly Scientific, don't ya know?". Unfortunately, epistemology doesn't answer the question.

[Paulhoff]

Materialism, there is a funny word, many have different ideas about that word. Do many understand that the atom is almost nothing but empty space, and that in our daily life we only deal with Electromagnetic Force. That what we feel is solid is only an illusion.

Paul

:) :) :)

The empty space thing, make a marble the proton, the electron a grain of salt, that electron should be two miles from that proton, which itself is almost all empty space too with three quarks held together with the strong-force.

[Trent Wray]

As I see things, yes. Most here will apparently fight to the death to deny it.

"Strictly Scientific, don't ya know?". Unfortunately, epistemology doesn't answer the question.

Materialism, there is a funny word, many have different ideas about that word. Do many understand that the atom is almost nothing but empty space, and that in our daily life we only deal with Electromagnetic Force. That what we feel is solid is only an illusion.

Paul

:) :) :)

The empty space thing, make a marble the proton, the electron a grain of salt, that electron should be two miles from that proton, which itself is almost all empty space too with three quarks held together with the strong-force.
Makes me wonder something ... what is there worth fighting to the death over? Ideas? Quarks?

I think I'll open a thread ...