Persistence of Self

[joyrex]

In some threads I've noticed different opinions on how "permanent" the self is. So I thought I'd make a poll. Pardon me if it's done before. Above are the options that came to my mind. I tried to make the options somewhat broad (so that poll would apply to the areas such as philosophy, psychology, biology etc...)

It could be that the subject has been beaten to death here, though..

[Piscivore]

Something was bothering me, and I think I know what it is now. The first option should be "unchangable" or "not subject to change" instead of "non- changing"

[RandFan]

Quote:

Originally posted by joyrex
In some threads I've noticed different opinions on how "permanent" the self is. So I thought I'd make a poll. Pardon me if it's done before. Above are the options that came to my mind. I tried to make the options somewhat broad (so that poll would apply to the areas such as philosophy, psychology, biology etc...)

It could be that the subject has been beaten to death here, though..

Great question. I'm in a state of flux on this one. There is a quiz somewhere on the web to test one's view of self and whether one thought the self was both body and mind or just the mind. Damn I wish I could find it. One of the questions asked if transporation through space meant killing the body on earth and reasembling it on a distant planet and you would you do so? It's interesting. I'll vote later after thinking about it.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

RandFan,
Is this it?

http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/identity.htm

Regards

[Marquis de Carabas]

I'd say the self is analogous to a river--it is a state of constant change that creates a singular, (semi-)permanent feature of the world.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Quote:

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
I'd say the self is analogous to a river--it is a state of constant change that creates a singular, (semi-)permanent feature of the world.

And we forget how easy it is to destroy it. Fools.

[Z]

At the very least, I had to vote option 2: several hundred of my neurons will never change, throughout my life, in any meaningful sense.

[RandFan]

Quote:

Originally posted by Lord Muck oGentry
RandFan,
Is this it?

http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/identity.htm

Regards

Thank you. I bookmarked it.

[Robin]

Quote:

Originally posted by RandFan
Thank you. I bookmarked it.

The quiz is rather silly since it adds a new hypothetical in question 3, ie the existence of a soul, and then analyses the first two answers as though you had already read question 3.

[RandFan]

Quote:

Originally posted by Robin
The quiz is rather silly since it adds a new hypothetical in question 3, ie the existence of a soul, and then analyses the first two answers as though you had already read question 3.

I agree but the question was profound for me and I read it at a time in my life when I was questioning the essense of self. In the past there was no way I would have taken the teletransporter because I would have died. Now I don't agree. I am not my body. For all I know I die every night and my memories are put into a new body by morning. What's the difference?

[Correa Neto]

I don´t think we have a permanent self. I think we have an illusion of continuity.

When you wake up after a dreamless sleep or a deep coma, using a very poor analogy, your brain just reboots and a "new self" is created.

[RandFan]

Quote:

Originally posted by Correa Neto
I don´t think we have a permanent self. I think we have an illusion of continuity.

When you wake up after a dreamless sleep or a deep coma, using a very poor analogy, your brain just reboots and a "new self" is created.

I think it is a pretty good analogy. Some people don't completly reboot, they have amnesia.

[joyrex]

Quote:

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
At the very least, I had to vote option 2: several hundred of my neurons will never change, throughout my life, in any meaningful sense.

That I didn't know. I wonder, how big part of the physical body (cells) stays the same for the lifetime?

[Iacchus]

Once an object is set in motion, it continues to -- or, at least tends to -- stay in motion. Isn't that what the Big Bang was all about? So you left out the option that the self begins at birth, and continues to endure, perhaps? even after death. Since what we know of as our self (mentally that is) is not physical, and perhaps compares more to the vacuum which exists in space ... if, that's the correct use of terms.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Quote:

Originally posted by Correa Neto
I don´t think we have a permanent self. I think we have an illusion of continuity.

When you wake up after a dreamless sleep or a deep coma, using a very poor analogy, your brain just reboots and a "new self" is created.

Now, how to explain that to the believers in souls?

Oh! I have a good question!!!


Iacchus!!!! Interesting Ian!!!!! et all!!!

Does a soul sleep?

[Z]

Quote:

Originally posted by joyrex
That I didn't know. I wonder, how big part of the physical body (cells) stays the same for the lifetime?

I want to clarify, lest I be tagged for misrepresentation of the facts:

Many of the neurons in the brain - I don't know the exact percent, but neither do neuroscientists, it seems - remain with us for a lifetime. Of course, they change - that is, they do their function; if they didn't, they would be pretty useless to us. And on occasion, over the course of their lifetime, it is necessary for neurons to replace worn or damaged ganglion; however, the neuron body itself remains relatively unchanged for the lifetime of the human. Reproduction has only been observed very rarely in neurons, and only in specific areas of the brain; unlike the rest of the body, which is systematically replaced on the average of once every seven years.

So there may very well be, somewhere in that fatty grey matter inside your skull, an actual, substantial, tangible 'self' that DOES remain the same year after year after year.

Makes ya think, don't it?

Iacchus - bald assertions are pretty pointless. BTW - did you get my P.M.?

[Mercutio]

I saw a juggler once, in San Francisco, who juggled sharp objects--a cleaver, a knife, and an axe. The axe, he bantered, was the same axe that George Washington used to chop down the cherry tree. "I had to replace the handle........and the head....but it occupies the same space as George Washington's axe..." Even those neurons zaaydragon refers to have changed, their constituent molecules having been replaced by others. A bit at a time, our bodies are replaced; what remains the same? Our perspective. We have a unitary sense of self simply because our physical body occupies its same space, even as molecules are swapped. This physical body-space is responsible for a sense of self; if you wish to call it "illusory", that might be accurate, with a bit of an explanation. As Blackwood suggests, an "illusion" is simply something that is not what it seems to be; it is not necessarily something that does not exist. There really is a continuity, though not of physical matter. (Whether or not there is a continuity of mental or spiritual stuff is another question; there is no evidence, nor can there be, by which to confirm or deny this notion. It is purely a matter of faith.)

I don't see an option that fits this (correct) view, so I will vote planet X.

[Iacchus]

Quote:

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
Now, how to explain that to the believers in souls?

Oh! I have a good question!!!

Iacchus!!!! Interesting Ian!!!!! et all!!!

Does a soul sleep?

The soul is that which "embodies" our experience, albeit that experience is ever-changing. Do we ever look at the same river twice? How so? Yet it's the same river isn't it?

And yes, I believe spirits do experience a state of "less coherence," and do sleep.

[Iacchus]

Quote:

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Iacchus - bald assertions are pretty pointless. BTW - did you get my P.M.?

What are you referring to? I have a full head of hair. And yes, I did receive your PM. I don't know if I would be of much help to you though, since most of what I know is specific to my own experience. I didn't go to college and "get" a degree in religious symbolism, if you catch my drift ... But, then again, this is what makes the whole thing unique and, potent.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Quote:

Originally posted by Iacchus
And yes, I believe spirits do experience a state of "less coherence," and do sleep.

How can that be? Correct me if Im wrong, but, "sleep" is a body function, necessary for the brain/body... but... but... for the soul??? how?? and even more important... why?

[Z]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mercutio
I saw a juggler once, in San Francisco, who juggled sharp objects--a cleaver, a knife, and an axe. The axe, he bantered, was the same axe that George Washington used to chop down the cherry tree. "I had to replace the handle........and the head....but it occupies the same space as George Washington's axe..." Even those neurons zaaydragon refers to have changed, their constituent molecules having been replaced by others. <snip>

I'm not altogether sure that's correct, either. Do you have a good reference to a biology site that explains the molecular exchange in cells? I was always led to believe that, other than normal respiration and function, much of the cell remains the same set of molecules for the duration of that cell's life. I'm curious if this is so, now.

[Correa Neto]

Quote:

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
Now, how to explain that to the believers in souls?

Oh! I have a good question!!!


Iacchus!!!! Interesting Ian!!!!! et all!!!

Does a soul sleep?

For Kardecists, when one is asleep, his/her spirit A.K.A. soul, astral body, [add term here] detaches (to a certain degree) from the body. Sleep would be a type of OBE.

It then enters the spiritual realm (or one of its levels) and interacts with other spirits. Thus the dreams we have with other people, like relatives (living or deceased) and even with people we (supposedly) don´t know. Also this would be an explanation for premonitory dreams - the spirit is probing the future or learning about it from more evolved entities. Same would be valid for dreams where you visit a place you´ve never been

Many religions have similar answers.

Then there are the following questions (among others):

(1) What about the dreamless sleep?
(2) What about dreams that make no sense at all?
(3) Why can´t I propperly remember the interactions with the other spirits?
(4) [Add your question here]

The answers are versions of the veil of Maya (or Isis), something on the following lines:

- There are rules that do not allow certain transferences of information between the spiritual realm and ours. To evolve properely, a spirit must do the correct acts with little or no knoweledge of the spiritual realm. These rules would not allow cheating of the Karma laws.
- Our brain is limited. It can not properly decode and or store informations somehow gathered at the spiritual realm. The material body actualy would act as a veil or a filter, limiting the spirit´s senses and even acces to its own memories.
- Some dreams are just dreams. Products of brain activity when the spirit is having fun outside of th e body.

Now, I would ask, with the informations we have from scientific evidence, what´s more likely? The above explanations or an explanation on the lines of "The self is created by the brain. Damage the brain, damage the self, terminate the brain, terminate the self. When you are asleep, with no dreams, your brain produces no self; when you are awake, your brain is producing a self."

To this, some will answer:
"I know its not like this"
"I belive there is a separate soul"
"You can´t actually prove its not like the first explanation"

Yep, I can´t prove, but when I think about the evidence avaliable, I conclude that the self is discontinous and produced by the brain. Besides, those who belive in the continuity of counsience can´t also actually prove that the self (or some of its manifestations, parts, whatever) can persist after death!!!

So, I stick with my current view. Does this scares me? No. I am not afraid of dreamless sleeps.

Unfortunately, it means the wild interactions I had with Angelina Jolie last night were nothing but products of (possibly) random activity on my brain.

But, who cares if the ~perceived~ pie is ~real~? What really matters is if its ~perceived~ taste is good or not!!!

[IllegalArgument]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mercutio
As Blackwood suggests, an "illusion" is simply something that is not what it seems to be; it is not necessarily something that does not exist. There really is a continuity, though not of physical matter. (Whether or not there is a continuity of mental or spiritual stuff is another question; there is no evidence, nor can there be, by which to confirm or deny this notion. It is purely a matter of faith.)

Merc did you read her book? I haven't found any mention of Verbal Behavior, so far. She mentions behavior studies, but no mention of VB. I would think there should have been at least a footnote about it.

[Mercutio]

Quote:

Originally posted by IllegalArgument
Merc did you read her book? I haven't found any mention of Verbal Behavior, so far. She mentions behavior studies, but no mention of VB. I would think there should have been at least a footnote about it.

I have not yet read it. It would not surprise me if VB is not referenced--it is a tough read, and a new vocabulary for most folks. Not his most popular text...

[Mercutio]

Quote:

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
I'm not altogether sure that's correct, either. Do you have a good reference to a biology site that explains the molecular exchange in cells? I was always led to believe that, other than normal respiration and function, much of the cell remains the same set of molecules for the duration of that cell's life. I'm curious if this is so, now.

It's not my particular area of specialization, so I was relying on my memory of discussions with more knowledgeable folks...but... a quick search does find studies on the role of p73 (a particular protein) in cell maintenence, as well as research on neuron maintenence by various research teams.

At a bare minimum, we can look at the production and enzymatic deactivation of neurotransmitters, which is enough to prove that it is not "these particular molecules" which are responsible for you being you.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Quote:

Originally posted by Iacchus
The soul is that which "embodies" our experience, albeit that experience is ever-changing. Do we ever look at the same river twice? How so? Yet it's the same river isn't it?

Oh, don't go polluting my river analogy with your silly souls. You do notice that the river retains its "sameness" without any recourse to the non-physical? You need no Naiad to preserve a river's continuity, and no soul to preserve the self's. What is important for the continuation is the pattern.

[IllegalArgument]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mercutio
I have not yet read it. It would not surprise me if VB is not referenced--it is a tough read, and a new vocabulary for most folks. Not his most popular text...

Yes. it's a tough read. I borrow it from the library, read some of it, return it, then think about it.

Having said that, you would think she would have read it. Or maybe she read Chomsky's "review" first.

I wonder if Dennet mentions it in his book?

[Mercutio]

Quote:

Originally posted by IllegalArgument
Yes. it's a tough read. I borrow it from the library, read some of it, return it, then think about it.

Having said that, you would think she would have read it. Or maybe she read Chomsky's "review" first.

I wonder if Dennet mentions it in his book?

I will find out. I just picked up a copy today, actually. (well, in truth, a colleague was moving out and put a bunch of books up for grabs... I am nothing if not a cheap bastard...)

[FreeChile]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mercutio
We have a unitary sense of self simply because our physical body occupies its same space, even as molecules are swapped. This physical body-space is responsible for a sense of self; if you wish to call it "illusory", that might be accurate, with a bit of an explanation.

Mercutio,

Just thought to mention that this would imply that other entities have a self by virtue of having a body-space. So body-space can not be solely responsible--unless you are ready to take a leap concerning other entities.

[Z]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mercutio
It's not my particular area of specialization, so I was relying on my memory of discussions with more knowledgeable folks...but... a quick search does find studies on the role of p73 (a particular protein) in cell maintenence, as well as research on neuron maintenence by various research teams.

At a bare minimum, we can look at the production and enzymatic deactivation of neurotransmitters, which is enough to prove that it is not "these particular molecules" which are responsible for you being you.

I will definitely research this. I don't have any particular investment in it either way, but the idea that our bodies are entirely replaced once every seven years was one I was raised to believe - then I came to find out there's an exception with neurons. Now maybe they are, after all, but not whole - not all at once. Are they the same neurons anyway? The question which applies to us applies also to them. Of course, we can keep seeing turtles all the way, can't we? Is an atom the same atom, even though it exchanges an electron with another atom? Are all those sub-atomic particles the same one, or are they sharing some quanta between them as well?

Personally, I have no problem with the idea that the 'self' is an illusion based upon the pattern of existence as relates to memory and continual dynamic physical continuity. Ideally, I believe there's a soul involved - some unobservable, coherent energy matrix that acts as our vital force. But if some neurons can be said to be unexchanged throughout our lives, then wouldn't that lead at least a small amount of credence to the idea that there is an essential physical self?

It is a tough problem, I believe. But not insurmountable.

[RandFan]

Quote:

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
How can that be? Correct me if Im wrong, but, "sleep" is a body function, necessary for the brain/body... but... but... for the soul??? how?? and even more important... why?

Perhaps this is important but I'm not sure why. As one who used to cling to the notion that I had a soul I don't find it perplexing. I would assume that the sould relies on the body. One might as well ask if the soul goes where the body goes? Again, perhaps there is something deep that I'm missing but if I were a believer I would say that the soul in essense sleeps, how could it not?

[Mercutio]

Quote:

Originally posted by FreeChile
Mercutio,

Just thought to mention that this would imply that other entities have a self by virtue of having a body-space. So body-space can not be solely responsible--unless you are ready to take a leap concerning other entities.

Two answers to this, of course--

Not knowing what a "self" is without better definition, I am only at best inferring the existence of self even in other humans. As for other entities...the same inference may be made, depending on the observer. I know many people who swear that their horse (or dog, cat, parrot, monkey, rabbit, rat, whatever) has a real and genuine personality--these folks infer a "self" in their pets. (others will draw the line differently--their cars or computers have a self.) So...I have no real problem inferring "self" in other entities...but...(second point)

I never can remember which one is which, in the "necessary and sufficient" logical stuff. If I get it right, it may be necessary for an entity to have a body-space, but it may also require something else, perhaps something as simple as "behavior". (Honestly, I have not thought this one through, so it may be either simpler or more complex than this.) The trick to this particular answer is that there is not a sufficient definition of "self". It is a fuzzy concept, one we are all familiar with colloquially, but which bogs down when asked to be specific. Because of this, it is difficult to see what is necessary (and/or sufficient) to define "self".

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Quote:

Originally posted by RandFan
Perhaps this is important but I'm not sure why. As one who used to cling to the notion that I had a soul I don't find it perplexing. I would assume that the sould relies on the body. One might as well ask if the soul goes where the body goes? Again, perhaps there is something deep that I'm missing but if I were a believer I would say that the soul in essense sleeps, how could it not?

You are right in that is not clear. Part of the problem resides in that no body has being able to show a soul, or point to it, or even describe it in a coherent manner. Now, some people believe that it is not limited by physical boundaries, that when it is in a body it is "trapped" and most of his "powers" are lost (like being able to perceive the future, of going instantly to anywhere, having an expanded awareness, and such).

Now, if it needs to sleep, I guess it is more terrenal (and limited) than what those people like to believe.

[Iacchus]

Quote:

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
You are right in that is not clear. Part of the problem resides in that no body has being able to show a soul, or point to it, or even describe it in a coherent manner.

Oh? It's that part of you that knows that it exists ... Or, to put it another way, "the experiencer" who does the experiencing.

[RandFan]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mercutio
I never can remember which one is which, in the "necessary and sufficient" logical stuff. If I get it right, it may be necessary for an entity to have a body-space, but it may also require something else, perhaps something as simple as "behavior". (Honestly, I have not thought this one through, so it may be either simpler or more complex than this.) The trick to this particular answer is that there is not a sufficient definition of "self". It is a fuzzy concept, one we are all familiar with colloquially, but which bogs down when asked to be specific. Because of this, it is difficult to see what is necessary (and/or sufficient) to define "self".

It is truly difficult to get an exact definition. However I think most of us intutively understand the concept of self and live our lifes as though we do anyway. If we as individuals simply tried to survive and reproduce then perhaps the task of defining self would be different. But we do more than that. We seek to alter our environment to suit our own personal needs and wants. We consume art and entertainment often based largely on subjective criteria (it looks good to me) and we seek to satisfy our personal egos sometimes to our own detriment. In otherwords we act irrationaly to satisfy emotional desires. So it is not just our occupying of space that meets the criteria, IMO, but that we are self aware that we occupy that space and we talk about it and concerned with how we occupy that space.

It seems counter-intuitive then to consider inanimate objects has having this kind of "self".

[Iacchus]

Quote:

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
Oh, don't go polluting my river analogy with your silly souls. You do notice that the river retains its "sameness" without any recourse to the non-physical? You need no Naiad to preserve a river's continuity, and no soul to preserve the self's. What is important for the continuation is the pattern.

Sorry, I didn't read you initial post. Hmm ... Could it be this is more than just a coincidence?

While it's funny how I've equated the number 11 with the construction of a reservoir and, the thought stream ...

[Marquis de Carabas]

Quote:

Originally posted by Iacchus
Sorry, I didn't read you initial post. Hmm ... Could it be this is more than just a coincidence?

No.

Quote:

While it's funny how I've equated the number 11 with the construction of a reservoir and, the thought stream ...

Not that funny, really. If you need assistance under standing humour, try here.

Now, any chance you'd care to explain what the river analogy has to do with souls, and why it should not merely be interpreted naturalistically as a (fairly) static pattern created by constant change?

[Mercutio]

Quote:

Originally posted by RandFan
It is truly difficult to get an exact definition. However I think most of us intutively understand the concept of self and live our lifes as though we do anyway.

Just as we always intuitively understood that we were at the center of the universe, on a flat, unmoving earth?

Quote:

If we as individuals simply tried to survive and reproduce then perhaps the task of defining self would be different.

I don't follow this line of reasoning. The fact that we try to survive and reproduce in a complicated fashion (by altering our environment, etc.) does impact our perception of self, but *any* change would make such a change.

Quote:

But we do more than that. We seek to alter our environment to suit our own personal needs and wants. We consume art and entertainment often based largely on subjective criteria (it looks good to me) and we seek to satisfy our personal egos sometimes to our own detriment.

And each interaction with our environment changes us (quite literally, at the synaptic level), such that each of these experiences is had by a different person...of course, a different person sharing a continuous perspective...

Quote:

In otherwords we act irrationaly to satisfy emotional desires. So it is not just our occupying of space that meets the criteria, IMO, but that we are self aware that we occupy that space and we talk about it and concerned with how we occupy that space.

But here you beg the question--what does it mean that we are "self aware", other than that there is a continuity of experience?

Quote:

It seems counter-intuitive then to consider inanimate objects has having this kind of "self".

Actually, let me switch gears a bit and somewhat agree with what you have said here. This commonly intuited "sense of self" is indeed a common-sensical notion, and it behooves us to examine how it is that we came by the concept in the first place. You claim it is "intuitively understood"; I am not certain what you mean by that. If you mean that we don't have to learn it, I disagree. We do learn about a sense of self, and we learn it from others--importantly, from people who have no access to our own senses, our own feelings, our own thoughts. We learn these concepts by seeing the labels others attach to particular, observable behaviors, and by making inferences about the private behaviors of others.

So...we learn about "sense of self" from a language community; the things we learn about it define what it is (quite literally). Our language community agrees with you--it seems counter-intuitive to consider inanimate objects as having a sense of self. The things which we have learned about self involve sensation--what we see, what we feel, the memories which are comprised of sense events, the thoughts which are manipulations of sense events. A rock does not behave as if it has the capacity for such things, so we do not (aside from Interesting Ian's questions about whether a rolling rock is conscious) attribute "self" to a rock. Do we attribute "self" to a cat? Some people do, others do not, and the reasons for their attributions tell us a lot about what we consider "self" to be. Some speak of their cars or computers as if they were personalitied (to coin a phrase), and again when we look at the reasons, it tells us about our own "self" definition.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Quote:

Originally posted by Iacchus
Oh? It's that part of you that knows that it exists ... Or, to put it another way, "the experiencer" who does the experiencing.

The eye cant see itself. How on earth do you suppoe "the experiencer" can know (experience) himself?

Nope, "the experiencer" is an idea on your mind. THAT is beyond any form of language, or conception. You can talk about "it" and everything you say will be wrong. Stop trying.

[aggle-rithm]

Quote:

Originally posted by Iacchus


And yes, I believe spirits do experience a state of "less coherence," and do sleep.

I hear they also like pasta!