Former conspiracy believer here

[Nick227]

Just like emotions and perceptions ?

Are you going to adress my last posts, or not ?

Hi Belz,

Apologies. Could you just ask the question(s) again, or link me to where you are referring?

Regarding feelings or perceptions - what about them? They happen. Can you demonstrate that they happen to anyone. Can you demonstrate the existence of a finite experiencer or observer?

Nick

 

[Belz...]

Personally, I figure that through the pursuit of Alchemy and other subjective sciences

Why do you persist in saying that Alchemy was a subjective science ? What makes you think so ?

some people succeeded in overcoming the need to die quite an age ago.

And how do you "figure" that ?

Globalisation, the first goal, has been a bit tricky for them.

Why would they even bother with that, now ?

They set up the USA as prototype world culture

Typical US-centrism...

What do you think?

I think you should see a psychologist.

I don't see how splitting this identification into owned-disowned aspects, such as certain neurological phenomena like the one you mention, can do, is relevant. Can you explain more?

It's easy. If the "I" was a construct, it wouldn't be come TWO "I"s when you sever the corpus.

 

[Belz...]

Except that a duck has substance. Personal identity does not.

By that logic, how do you know a duck has substance ?

Yes, the brain develops the capacity to create the notion of limited selfhood. This doesn't mean that limited selfhood, personal identity, actually exists.

Why, yes it does. If I have the ability to build cars, then cars exist.

Merely that the apparatus of mind has the capacity to respond to situations as though it were.

See PMs calculator analogy.

I'm saying it has no basis in empiric reality. Many people believed that the earth was flat once upon a time. Would you consider this proof that it was?

Bad analogy. People don't believe they have identity. It's demonstratably true.

Would you agree that without this process objectivity would be a pretty tough proposition?

Nope.

Well, I was just posting a bit of conjecture!

Everything you say is a conjecture, so far.

 

[Belz...]

if it is then this does rather beg the question "What is it that experiences this process?"

NOW you're doing philosophy. Science has no use for an ego-stroking answer.

 

[Belz...]

Nick, I was refering to this post.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Nick,

I have a basic question. I apologize if you've answered this elsewhere, but:

What is the alternative to "limited selfhood"?

 

[Belz...]

Chiipmunk, the alternative is the pan-dimensional illuminati !!!

 

[Nick227]

By that logic, how do you know a duck has substance ?

I've picked one up. Albeit a dead one.

Why, yes it does. If I have the ability to build cars, then cars exist.

The mind has the capacity to believe that it has personal identity. Are you saying that everything that you believe to be true necessarily is true? Sounds a bit solipsistic to me!

Bad analogy. People don't believe they have identity. It's demonstratably true.

Then demonstrate it! The only "proof" PM could apparently find was that other people believed it! Me too.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

BTW, with regard to the notion of limited selfhood being a mental process - if it is then this does rather beg the question "What is it that experiences this process?" It seems to me that whatever entity this might be would have rather more right to being considered "I" than the process itself.

NOW you're doing philosophy. Science has no use for an ego-stroking answer.

Hi Belz,

It's simple logic. If I understand PM correctly, his contention is that the notion of limited selfhood results from a brain process. (Personally I prefer mental process). What I'm saying is that, if this is true, then what is it that is experiencing this process?

If the experience of "I" arises solely as a mental process, what then experiences this process? Because, quite logically, whatever it is has far more right to be termed "I" than the process itself.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Nick, I was refering to this post.

Hi Belz,

It's quite a long one. Could you tell me which bit.

I don't see anything in it on the surface that challenges the notion that personal identity is unsubtantiable.

Nick

 

[PixyMisa]

The mind has the capacity to believe that it has personal identity. Are you saying that everything that you believe to be true necessarily is true? Sounds a bit solipsistic to me!

No; I don't think Belz's analogy is quite right.

Calculation is information processing. It doesn't matter what is doing it or how; if the answer is correct, whatever the mechanism is, is a calculator.

The same applies to personal identity, consciousness, self-awareness, ego, whatever you want to call it.

Then demonstrate it! The only "proof" PM could apparently find was that other people believed it! Me too.

There are a number of mental properties that we can determine very simply and directly by asking people.

"Are you awake?" is one such question.
"Can you understand me?" is another.
And then we have, "Do you experience personal identity?"

By the very definition of these experiences, an affirmative answer is objective evidence in itself.

We wouldn't take a single answer as sufficient evidence, any more than 2+2=4 would be enough to confirm that a calculator really works (it might always return 4 when you press the = button). But it's easy to ask further questions to get confirmation. And we do ask, and we do get confirmation.

Personal identity is verifiably, objectively real, and it's a brain process.

 

[Nick227]

Nick,

I have a basic question. I apologize if you've answered this elsewhere, but:

What is the alternative to "limited selfhood"?

Hi Chipmunk Stew,

Well, I think we're veering a bit into philosophy now, but to try and answer you I'd say "unlimited selfhood" or "no selfhood" off the top of my head.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

No; I don't think Belz's analogy is quite right.

Calculation is information processing. It doesn't matter what is doing it or how; if the answer is correct, whatever the mechanism is, is a calculator.

The same applies to personal identity, consciousness, self-awareness, ego, whatever you want to call it.

Hi PM,

A calculator does however come up with something tangible. Personal identity is purely assumption. That is the limit of its tangibility in physical terms.

In a purely systemic viewpoint of life, I think I would agree that ego exists, in that many humans certainly believe that they have a personal identity and behave as though this were the case. However, I would point out that this belief in personal identity arises unexamined. Very few people look to see if there actually is anything in there that can distinguish them from a machine. They assume there is, or they subscribe to a belief system that tells them there is.

There are a number of mental properties that we can determine very simply and directly by asking people.

"Are you awake?" is one such question.
"Can you understand me?" is another.
And then we have, "Do you experience personal identity?"

By the very definition of these experiences, an affirmative answer is objective evidence in itself.

Well, in the case of the latter, it's objective in that it affirms the belief. It does nothing to substantiate the belief.

We wouldn't take a single answer as sufficient evidence, any more than 2+2=4 would be enough to confirm that a calculator really works (it might always return 4 when you press the = button). But it's easy to ask further questions to get confirmation. And we do ask, and we do get confirmation.

The experience of having a personal identity is certainly real, in that people have it. This can be verified. However, it happens to no one! Or, perhaps better, it happens to no finite entity.

Personal identity is verifiably, objectively real, and it's a brain process.

What then experiences the brain process?

Nick

 

[chipmunk stew]

Hi Chipmunk Stew,

Well, I think we're veering a bit into philosophy now, but to try and answer you I'd say "unlimited selfhood" or "no selfhood" off the top of my head.

Nick

Well, considering that your position rests on the premise of limited selfhood being an illusion, I'd say it's crucial to understand what you mean by that. What would be the origin of this illusion? What would the reality behind it look like?

 

[chipmunk stew]

What then experiences the brain process?

Nick

The experience is the brain process. There's no separate entity experiencing the experience. There's no "seat of the soul" because there is no soul. You can't separate the mind from the body.

 

[PixyMisa]

A calculator does however come up with something tangible.

In precisely the way personal identity does.

Personal identity is purely assumption. That is the limit of its tangibility in physical terms.

Personal identity is identifiable through interaction, the same way we identify a functioning calculator. It might not look like a calculator, but if it consistently acts like one, it's a calculator.

In a purely systemic viewpoint of life, I think I would agree that ego exists, in that many humans certainly believe that they have a personal identity and behave as though this were the case. However, I would point out that this belief in personal identity arises unexamined. Very few people look to see if there actually is anything in there that can distinguish them from a machine. They assume there is, or they subscribe to a belief system that tells them there is.

People are machines, Nick.

Well, in the case of the latter, it's objective in that it affirms the belief. It does nothing to substantiate the belief.

You can't have a belief in personal identity without having personal identity.

The experience of having a personal identity is certainly real, in that people have it. This can be verified. However, it happens to no one! Or, perhaps better, it happens to no finite entity.

All normal humans (beyond about 18 months), and most adult dolphins, chimps, elephants and so on reliably demonstrate the existence of a persistent personal identity. On what basis do you deny this?

What then experiences the brain process?

That's not even a meaningful question. The biochemical activity of the brain is what generates experiences in the first place. Subjective experience is simply an objective process viewed from an odd angle.

 

[PixyMisa]

If the experience of "I" arises solely as a mental process, what then experiences this process? Because, quite logically, whatever it is has far more right to be termed "I" than the process itself.

Nothing experiences the process; the process generates the experience. But the process isn't linear; it can also interact with itself. In computer science terms, it's reflective. This sort of thing is very common in the world of electronics and computing, and the brain is just a squishy computer after all.

 

[PixyMisa]

Well, I do have a basic grounding in the sciences. It's just that these things don't really deal with what I'm talking about here. Which to be honest is a big part of the issue.

Science addresses your claims directly and in great depth and detail. We keep trying to point this out; you keep ignoring it.

As I'm endeavouring to point out, science (objective science) merely offers the opportunity to evaluate phenomena, and attempt to construct relationships, from a perspective that proceeds from assumptions. When you take away the assumptions, you are left with what actually is.

There is, as I have explained, one assumption. You take that away and you are left with solipsism, which cannot explain anything at all. That's why the assumption was made in the first place. Such an assumption is necessary to any attempt at understanding anything. The assumption leading to objectivity is not the only option, but it's the only one that works.

I'm not trying to devalue science, nor objectivity. I'm just seeking to put it into overall context.

And failing, miserably.

I'm seeking to allow people to see for themselves that it is a house constructed on nothing.

It's founded on a single assumption. If science had failed us, that would suggest that the assumption was wrong. Science has not failed us, but has been vastly more successful than any other branch of thought in human history. Which indicates - does not, can not, prove, but indicates - that the assumption is indeed the correct one.

And perhaps offering the opportunity to start to grasp just how much may have been missed through our pursuit of objectivity.

Since you are completely unable to point to any evidence, the clear answer to this is "not much".

For one who can see this, they can also see how the Illuminati are perhaps not so unlikely after all.

I understand what you are saying, Nick. It's simply wrong.

 

[PixyMisa]

Could you explain to me how this undermines what I'm saying because I don't see it. I'm talking about the phenomena of identification with thought - the belief that the thoughts are yours - from which the notion of personal selfhood is constructed.

I don't see how splitting this identification into owned-disowned aspects, such as certain neurological phenomena like the one you mention, can do, is relevant. Can you explain more?

When you sever the corpus callosum, the patient experiences and exhibits what amounts to two simultaneous distinct personal identities. The corpus callosum is a physical structure in the brain. How can this happen, if not that personal identity is a process in the brain?

 

[PixyMisa]

You can demonstrate that humans and some animal specifies can believe in limited selfhood, or recognise the image of their body. However this does nothing to demonstrate that limited selfhood is real, that there is anything substantial on which to base the belief. It's an assumption.

This is beyond specious.

If an animal can recognise that the image it sees in a mirror is a representation of itself, then it has personal identity. That's definitive. Nothing else is required.