Former conspiracy believer here

[Belz...]

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

How do you know it's not just an illusion of the mind ?

The mind has the capacity to believe that it has personal identity.

That doesn't mean anything. I also have the ability to believe that I can be hit by a car. It doesn't mean I can't get hit by a car.

Are you saying that everything that you believe to be true necessarily is true?

You're the one that added "belief", here. I never mentioned it. Have fun with your strawman.

Sounds a bit solipsistic to me!

You have no idea what Solipsism is, then.

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

You haven't been paying attention, Nick.

It's simple logic.

You have no idea what logic is, then.

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?

You're just adding layers and layers, aren't you ?

If the experience of "I" arises solely as a mental process, what then experiences this process?

You've just answered your own question, Nick. Look at the beginning of your sentence.

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

Every bit. If you don't have an answer to my points and questions then say so.

 

[Belz...]

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

That is absolutely false. Why do you think one process is less tangible than the other ? Both produce verifiable results!

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.

What the hell is that supposed to mean ?

What then experiences the brain process?

You've got it backwards.

 

[Nick227]

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.

It is identifiable if one examines the world from a systemic perspective. However, such a perspective proceeds from objectivity and all of its attendant assumptions. What is a priori real to me is simple sensory phenomena. Interpretive analysis, whether reductionist or systemic, proceeds from core assumptions. If you wish to consider interpretation as equally fundamental as sensory experience then of course I cannot argue with you.

People are machines, Nick.

Yes, I agree. What then experiences the machine? For every process you are personally aware of, the seat of experience deepens.

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

If you take the position that everything that you believe in is real then this is so.

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?

I am not denying it.

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.

I'm interested in your brain process idea. Could you elucidate any neurological or neuropharmacological pathways that have been demonstrated to be active in creating our notion of limited selfhood?

This aside, my perspective I derive from experiencing the formation of the personality through the simple watching of thought. This is where I notice the pang of identification - the thoughts that we simply cannot allow to pass without acting on.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

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?

Hi CS,

Well, my position is not so much that limited selfhood is an illusion, rather that it does not survive objective evaluation. There is the notion of an "I" somewhere, but the mind cannot find it, cannot substantiate its existence.

As to answering your other two questions, you are actually in prime position to answer both of them directly, which is really the best route. Perhaps you think I'm copping out, but it is a long discussion with very little objective material. If you look and you see clearly that actually you were never born and will never die, then I would say you are getting there.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

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.

Hi CS,

I know that if I sit calmly and simply watch the passage of thoughts I can see them come and go, and I can see the ones where it's like "I must act on that one! That's my thought!" The only notions of selfhood I have seem to come from thoughts. Without the thoughts, or without this identification with thought, then there's no notion of selfhood. That's my experience.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

There is, as I have explained, one assumption. You take that away and you are left with solipsism,

Hi PM,

I agree. However, this is not the only assumption required in order to create the objective mindset. As I have pointed out, there are actually two:

1) the assumption that sensory phenomena reflect reality
2) the assumption of a limited observer.

Without the first assumption, you are left simply in LaLa land, as you rightly point out.
Without the second assumption you have no notion of where you start and end. You have no notion that the visible world is somehow outside of you. You have no notion that thoughts or feelings are somehow inside of you.

You need both of these assumptions to get objectivity to work.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

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?

Hi PM,

I don't really agree with your conclusions. That a phenomena is apparently split in two through carrying out a physical act does not to me conclusively demonstrate that its origination is physical. It may be, but to me this does not demonstrate it conclusively by any means.

What would demonstrate it would be if you could tell me the lesion you would make to remove the experience of personal identity, the cut that would leave all the other processing functions intact, but take out the arisal of limited selfhood. I would also be bloody impressed!

Nick


ETA: I can think of a few factors that are likely implicated in the formation of the ego perspective, one of which has likely physical roots...

(i) strong identification - by this I mean the sensation of physical pain. It's sensorily observed that pain happens when the body is hurt. the degree of identification is a lot and so it's pretty natural that the mind assumes that the body is me, or the body is mine. This function came from our evolutionary history.
(ii) the developing neurosystem of the infant. It likely develops to the point where it can imagine limited selfhood, where it's a neurological possibility. This is likely why small infants demonstrate little self-awareness - their developing brains have not yet the possibility to create limited self-image.
(iii) social and cultural conditioning - moving out of infancy, developing the possibility to conceive of limited selfhood, the infant observes other people using names and apparently behaving as though they were self-determining entities. It starts playing the same game and starts behaving like they do.

Of course, finally, none of this deals with the real deep issues that arise when you start to examine the notion that personal identity can't be substantiated.

 

[Nick227]

How do you know it's not just an illusion of the mind ?

The duck is sensorily real. It's physically present. The experience of having a personal identity cannot be substantiated in like manner.

If you want to argue that things which can be sensed are no more real than things which can't then you will have to do it with someone else. Sorry, dude, but I have my borders (!)

Nick

 

[volatile]

Exactly how can the NOW exist beyond the five senses, again? I don't think we cleared that one up yet...

 

[Belz...]

It is identifiable if one examines the world from a systemic perspective. However, such a perspective proceeds from objectivity and all of its attendant assumptions. What is a priori real to me is simple sensory phenomena. Interpretive analysis, whether reductionist or systemic, proceeds from core assumptions.

If you're not willing to listen to what anybody tells you, then you'll never learn anything.

Yes, I agree. What then experiences the machine?

There's a reason it's called "self-awareness", Nick.

I'm interested in your brain process idea. Could you elucidate any neurological or neuropharmacological pathways that have been demonstrated to be active in creating our notion of limited selfhood?

Neurology is a fascinating science, Nick.

Well, my position is not so much that limited selfhood is an illusion, rather that it does not survive objective evaluation.

That's because you keep introspecting. There are better tools than that.

The duck is sensorily real. It's physically present.

Irrelevant. You can't tell whether your senses are feeding you false information about the duck. You don't even know if it exists or not.

The experience of having a personal identity cannot be substantiated in like manner.

If your definition of "real" is "I can take it in my hands" you're bound to be confused about this.

If you want to argue that things which can be sensed are no more real than things which can't then you will have to do it with someone else.

I'm saying that solipsism is a direct consequence of your line of argument.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Hi PM,

I agree. However, this is not the only assumption required in order to create the objective mindset. As I have pointed out, there are actually two:

1) the assumption that sensory phenomena reflect reality
2) the assumption of a limited observer.

Without the first assumption, you are left simply in LaLa land, as you rightly point out.
Without the second assumption you have no notion of where you start and end. You have no notion that the visible world is somehow outside of you. You have no notion that thoughts or feelings are somehow inside of you.

You need both of these assumptions to get objectivity to work.

Nick

Number 2 is a conclusion, not an assumption. Thoughts and feelings are, quite literally, inside of me. I start and end at the surface of my skin and my sense receptors.

There is a ton of evidence of internal mechanisms generating thoughts and feelings. There is zero evidence of an external mechanism generating my thoughts and feelings.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Hi CS,

I know that if I sit calmly and simply watch the passage of thoughts I can see them come and go, and I can see the ones where it's like "I must act on that one! That's my thought!" The only notions of selfhood I have seem to come from thoughts. Without the thoughts, or without this identification with thought, then there's no notion of selfhood. That's my experience.

Nick

The observation of a thought is just another thought.

The disidentification with thought is just another thought.

Meditation doesn't stop YOU, yourSELF, from thinking.

 

[Nick227]

I start and end at the surface of my skin and my sense receptors.

That's the assumption! You've hit it right on the head. There are phenomena which cause the mind to believe that this is correct, see this slightly earlier post, but can you objectively demonstrate that you have borders...without proceeding from the prior assumption of limited selfhood?

Nick

 

[Nick227]

The observation of a thought is just another thought.

The disidentification with thought is just another thought.

Meditation doesn't stop YOU, yourSELF, from thinking.

Sitting watching thoughts doesn't stop them from arising, not for me anyway, but after a while I noticed that some of them stopped being me! All of these things I type are thoughts. All of them I believe to be my thoughts. Yet the only evidence that exists for there being an "I" to have my thoughts is these thoughts! Ergo (more thoughts!) the "I" either does not exist or it is entirely passive and observational.

Nick

 

[chipmunk stew]

That's the assumption! You've hit it right on the head. There are phenomena which cause the mind to believe that this is correct, see this slightly earlier post, but can you objectively demonstrate that you have borders...without proceeding from the prior assumption of limited selfhood?

Nick

No. That's the conclusion. Based on the evidence.

The only proposed mechanisms for thought and feeling that withstand experimental scrutiny are internal ones. So I can tentatively accept, with a great deal of confidence, that I start and end at the surface of my skin and my sense receptors.

 

[Pardalis]

*takes a quick look at this thread to know why it is still active, sees Nick discussing solipsism again, gets the hell out of the thread.*

 

[chipmunk stew]

Sitting watching thoughts doesn't stop them from arising, not for me anyway, but after a while I noticed that some of them stopped being me!

In what sense did they "stop being you"? Do you mean they stopped originating from you?

All of these things I type are thoughts. All of them I believe to be my thoughts. Yet the only evidence that exists for there being an "I" to have my thoughts is these thoughts!

You also have the evidence of the external world responding to you as though you have a personal identity.

Ergo (more thoughts!) the "I" either does not exist or it is entirely passive and observational.

Nick

Or it is partially passive and observational.

 

[Diagoras]

*takes a quick look at this thread to know why it is still active, sees Nick discussing solipsism again, gets the hell out of the thread.*

Ditto. I've started a monster, haven't I?

 

[PixyMisa]

It is identifiable if one examines the world from a systemic perspective. However, such a perspective proceeds from objectivity and all of its attendant assumptions. What is a priori real to me is simple sensory phenomena. Interpretive analysis, whether reductionist or systemic, proceeds from core assumptions. If you wish to consider interpretation as equally fundamental as sensory experience then of course I cannot argue with you.

As has been explained, objectivity is founded on a single assumption, and at least one assumption is required for any attempt to explain the world. So objectivity is at least as strong as any other epistemology, and in practical terms is far stronger because it actually works.

Yes, I agree. What then experiences the machine? For every process you are personally aware of, the seat of experience deepens.

This question arises from a deep misunderstanding of the nature of the mind, and of information processing in general. Nothing "experiences the machine". The machine generates experiences.

If you take the position that everything that you believe in is real then this is so.

Again, you fail to grasp the nature of personal identity. Personal identity is simply the ability to consider oneself in the abstract. To look at a mirror and say "Hey, that's me!" is proof of personal identity. It is not possible to grasp the concept of personal identity, of the abstract self, without actually possessing it. It's not a question of belief in a thing, but the ability to believe in the abstract concept of self. If you believe in personal identity, you have it; if you disbelieve in personal identity, you still have it. If you cannot grasp the concept, you might not have it.

I am not denying it.

Then explain how elephants and dolphins are indoctrinated into the concept.

I'm interested in your brain process idea. Could you elucidate any neurological or neuropharmacological pathways that have been demonstrated to be active in creating our notion of limited selfhood?

Consciousness and thus the notion of self appears to be a replay of subconscious activity; we see this in the delay between subconscious decision-making and the conscious awareness of this. As to what region of the brain is responsible for this, I'd need to look that up. You can trace this fairly well using FMRI, but since most brain activity eventually feeds into consciousness, it's difficult to conclusively localise it.

There is, however, no question at all that it is a brain function.

This aside, my perspective I derive from experiencing the formation of the personality through the simple watching of thought. This is where I notice the pang of identification - the thoughts that we simply cannot allow to pass without acting on.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[PixyMisa]

Hi PM,

I agree. However, this is not the only assumption required in order to create the objective mindset. As I have pointed out, there are actually two:

1) the assumption that sensory phenomena reflect reality
2) the assumption of a limited observer.

chipmunk stew has already answered this quite well.

Our senses suggest to us that we are objectively limited entities, and there are other objectively limited entities very much like ourselves. If we make the assumption that our senses reflect some fundamental reality, a reality that we are part of, then we can experiment to determine the nature and extent of this reality.

Is the reality consistent over time? Is it self-consistent? To what extent do these other entities reflect my own perceptions and experiences? What happens if I hit one of them on the head with a rock? What happens if I hit myself on the head with a rock?

So the concept of a limited observer is not an assumption at all, but a testable hypothesis. And one that has been confirmed by every experiment.