Former conspiracy believer here

[PixyMisa]

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!

I don't recall coming across anything quite that specific. But alien hand syndrome is a fascinating malfunction of personal identity, and it manifests itself in different ways depending on the area of the brain that suffers the damage.

 

[Dave Rogers]

*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.*

You've just chosen to experience a world where he's talking about solipsism. In my world it's a pleasant chat about kittens.

Dave

 

[gumboot]

*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.

-Gumboot

 

[Belz...]

That's the assumption!

No, it's not. It's demonstratably true.

Are you EVER going to adress my earlier points ? I even provided you with a link, Nick. Are you giving up ?

 

[Belz...]

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 is not APPARENTLY split in two, Nick. There is no direct communication between the two brains. Each brain has its own mind, at that point, and you can isolate their responses to verify that.

For example, ask someone a question, and the answer that they give with the left brain (right hand or speech) or the right brain (left hand) will be different. They don't even have the same tastes or opinions!

 

[Nick227]

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.

Hi CS,

What is the evidence?

I believe that if you look closely you will see that it is supposition. I submit that the mind learns the duality "I/not I" through a combination of factors earlier discussed. The effect is to create the basis for the objective mindset. The mind proceeds to evaluate phenomena through this filter. But can you empirically demonstrate that anything - any object, sensation, thought, belief - that has ever been experienced has possession, that it belongs to anyone?

When you state above that the "only proposed mechanisms for thought and feeling that withstand experimental scrutiny are internal ones," you are already assuming that the duality exists.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

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

I have no idea (!) where thoughts originate from. I started to experience that I could let thoughts pass on through without the need to act on them. I understood that something was changing - the degree of prior identification was diminishing. Thus I (!) understood that identification causes the belief in the mind that thoughts are my thoughts, and thus creates the illusory sense of selfhood.

If you feel your response coming as you read this can you also experience that the subsidiary action of thought here reinforces the notion that there is an "I," an "I" that is reading, is responding. It's an illusion.

In Alchemy this illusion-creating power, identification, is known as the Great Magical Agent, or Astral Light. It's associated with snakes and serpents and its story is famously found in allegory in Genesis.

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

Yes, this reinforces the belief. But as evidence it is not so good. Once you have understood the experience of identification for yourself, you can also see that this is what is creating the illusion in others around you.

Or it is partially passive and observational.

How do you mean?

Nick

 

[Nick227]

*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.*

*decides whether to let Pardalis continue upon his way believing that Nick's discussing solipsism and thinks, well what's the point of taking his little get-out clause away from him. if he wants to actually look it up in a dictionary he can*

 

[Nick227]

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.

Hi PM,

Objectivity proceeds from two assumptions, as I have previously pointed out. I can only assume at this juncture that you are simply unable to examine the notion that this second assumption exists, which is fair enough.

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.

You are saying that you have never experienced thoughts?

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.

This is one aspect of personal identity, yes, the belief that the body belongs to someone. As you say, the capacity for the human brain to believe in limited selfhood, that it has the necessarily neurological bits and bobs to do so, is obviously essential. However, this does not mean that limited selfhood exists, merely that the brain is capable of believing that it does. This is what gives humans their immense power to transform the world - the capacity to believe that they have personal identity.

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

I'd say they developed the notion of personal selfhood through the need to survive.

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.

I will be happy to read the evidence once you have it.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Is there not a certain flow of thoughts involved in you writing your reply? Can you see that without this flow there would be no reply? Is it possible you could stop for a moment and ask yourself - how do I know that this is my thought, not that it might be someone elses, but that it has possession at all? It's all just thoughts. The entire personality is constructed and maintained solely through thoughts and the phenomenon of identification with thought. If you don't believe me, just sit and watch it happening!

Nick

 

[Belz...]

You are saying that you have never experienced thoughts?

Troll.

I believe that if you look closely you will see that it is supposition.

Nick, you are willfully ignoring everything I said earlier. The logical conclusion of your line of reasoning is solipsism. It's strange that you don't see that.

I still haven't heard from you concering the corpus callosum.

 

[Nick227]

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.

What sensory experience proves that there is an "I?" That pain arises through the body being hurt, for example, does not empirically demonstrate that it is your body, merely that the experience of pain arises when certain things happen to the body. The notion of "I" is constructed by the mind, through the phenomenon of identification.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

I still haven't heard from you concering the corpus callosum.

Hi Belz,

Does cutting the cc stop the belief in personal identity?

BTW, according to Wik "Solipsism (Latin: solus, alone + ipse, self) is the philosophical idea that "My mind is the only thing that I know exists" - I am saying that you cannot substantiate empirically the notion of an "I." This is not solipsism, though if believing that it is helps you discount what I'm discussing, well, that's ok! Everyone needs a bit of distance sometime.

Nick

 

[Belz...]

Hi Belz,

Does cutting the cc stop the belief in personal identity?

No, it creates two of them.

Not only is that fact a terrible hurdle for the theory of the soul, but it plays havok with your theory, as well. The fact that people with a severed callosum now have two distinct minds is very strong evidence that the brain is the sole source of thoughts and that they are quite physical. Ergo, they belong to that brain, and nothing else.

BTW, according to Wik "Solipsism (Latin: solus, alone + ipse, self) is the philosophical idea that "My mind is the only thing that I know exists" - I am saying that you cannot substantiate empirically the notion of an "I." This is not solipsism

It is not solipsism, but if you had bothered to read what I wrote you'd know that I said it LEADS to solipsism, because by your logic, NOTHING CAN EVER BE KNOWN.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Hi CS,

What is the evidence?

I believe that if you look closely you will see that it is supposition. I submit that the mind learns the duality "I/not I" through a combination of factors earlier discussed. The effect is to create the basis for the objective mindset. The mind proceeds to evaluate phenomena through this filter. But can you empirically demonstrate that anything - any object, sensation, thought, belief - that has ever been experienced has possession, that it belongs to anyone?

Yes. Without a biological organism to generate the sensation, thought, or belief, the sensation, thought, or belief will never be experienced. Therefore, the sensation, thought, or belief belongs to the biological organism that experiences it.

When you state above that the "only proposed mechanisms for thought and feeling that withstand experimental scrutiny are internal ones," you are already assuming that the duality exists.

Nick

No. If the thought or feeling originated from some process other than a biological process innate to the organism experiencing it, we would expect some evidence of this process to be apparent. All experimental results come up empty on everything except innate biological processes.

 

[chipmunk stew]

I have no idea (!) where thoughts originate from.

I suggest you listen to that lecture series that Pixy Misa posted. It's fascinating!

I started to experience that I could let thoughts pass on through without the need to act on them. I understood that something was changing - the degree of prior identification was diminishing. Thus I (!) understood that identification causes the belief in the mind that thoughts are my thoughts, and thus creates the illusory sense of selfhood.

What does this insight (that self identification is a contrivance) mean to you?

If you feel your response coming as you read this can you also experience that the subsidiary action of thought here reinforces the notion that there is an "I," an "I" that is reading, is responding. It's an illusion.

What is the reality?

In Alchemy this illusion-creating power, identification, is known as the Great Magical Agent, or Astral Light. It's associated with snakes and serpents and its story is famously found in allegory in Genesis.

Is this Great Magical Agent innate to the biological organism, or is it a force independent of the organism experiencing it?

Yes, this reinforces the belief. But as evidence it is not so good. Once you have understood the experience of identification for yourself, you can also see that this is what is creating the illusion in others around you.

It's just fine as evidence. In order to negate the evidence, you require a Great Magical Agent to account for the "illusion" of evidence.

Or [the "I"] is partially passive and observational.

How do you mean?

Nick

I mean human beings are self-reflective. We can think about thinking. Our brains function non-linearly, and we can both passively observe our thoughts and feelings and actively guide them toward specific actions.

 

[Nick227]

No, it creates two of them.

Not only is that fact a terrible hurdle for the theory of the soul, but it plays havok with your theory, as well. The fact that people with a severed callosum now have two distinct minds is very strong evidence that the brain is the sole source of thoughts and that they are quite physical. Ergo, they belong to that brain, and nothing else.

I don't see how it even affects the notion that there is no "I" - that personal identity is a mental construct. Do you?

As regards thoughts in general, I've not heard that they originate in the soul, though I'm not an expert on metaphysics. Maybe some people believe they do.

Personally I believe that thoughts originate in the physical apparatus of the brain. As to the phenomenom of identification with thought, I think that will be a bit harder to track down! As to the sense of personal identity, well, if you're looking for that in the physical apparatus of the brain, then I can only wish you good luck.

It is not solipsism, but if you had bothered to read what I wrote you'd know that I said it LEADS to solipsism, because by your logic, NOTHING CAN EVER BE KNOWN.

I don't see how it leads to that at all. I'm just saying that there isn't actually anyone that knows!

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Yes. Without a biological organism to generate the sensation, thought, or belief, the sensation, thought, or belief will never be experienced. Therefore, the sensation, thought, or belief belongs to the biological organism that experiences it.

Hi CS,

The organism experiences it, but this does not mean that it has personal identity, just because it experiences things.

No. If the thought or feeling originated from some process other than a biological process innate to the organism experiencing it, we would expect some evidence of this process to be apparent. All experimental results come up empty on everything except innate biological processes.

But I don't see that this infers that there is an inner world and an outer world. The thoughts or feelings arise as the result of an interaction between the sensory world and other apparatus of mind. The sensory world is also experienced within the mind. The belief in an "inner world" of thoughts and feelings, and an "outer world" of objects arises simply as a consequence of identification with the body. I don't see how it can be substantiated empirically. It's just an untested assumption.

Nick

 

[Pardalis]

BTW, according to Wik "Solipsism (Latin: solus, alone + ipse, self) is the philosophical idea that "My mind is the only thing that I know exists" - I am saying that you cannot substantiate empirically the notion of an "I." This is not solipsism, though if believing that it is helps you discount what I'm discussing, well, that's ok! Everyone needs a bit of distance sometime.

Then it's something dumber than solipsism. Who would have known that such a thing existed!

Oh right, nobody knows anything because there isn't anybody to know one thing, because you would have to be someone to know something, and nothing can be known by nobodies... or something.

Carry on.

 

[Nick227]

I suggest you listen to that lecture series that Pixy Misa posted. It's fascinating!

I'm a bit strapped for time at the moment and busy with finding gibbon sounds. Does the series deal with identification at all? With the process by which human minds come to believe they have personal identity?

What does this insight (that self identification is a contrivance) mean to you?

Well, it sets off more thoughts, more identified thoughts! (Is there no end!?) Amongst which it becomes apparent that free will is entirely illusory, at the end of the day; that this force of identification has created the whole human world and completely guides human destiny; and that nothing can be said about that from which thought arises. Of course these are just more thoughts.

What is the reality?

Non-duality, I guess. Everything looks the same but it is not happening to anyone!? Something like this.

Is this Great Magical Agent innate to the biological organism, or is it a force independent of the organism experiencing it?

I don't know.

The organism is merely driven to do things because it is unaware of the presence of the GMA. There is the assumption that the thoughts have identity and that they must be acted on. If awareness of the GMA arises then things will change.

I guess at some point either there are less thoughts, or more likely there is less reflection upon thought.

In Genesis, the serpent lures Eve into tasting the fruit of the Tree of knowledge of good and evil, the tree of dualistic knowledge, thereby bringing about the Fall. It's a perfect allegory for the phenomenon of identification. The serpentine GMA creates the experience of personal identity through somehow causing thoughts to be experienced as personalised. Thus objectivity and the world of duality, of "I/not I," arises.

It's just fine as evidence. In order to negate the evidence, you require a Great Magical Agent to account for the "illusion" of evidence.

If the apparent fact that other people behave in a certain way is adequate evidence for you, then that's your truth.

I mean human beings are self-reflective. We can think about thinking. Our brains function non-linearly, and we can both passively observe our thoughts and feelings and actively guide them toward specific actions.

Yes, I agree. Though I think this is an ideal state of affairs. I often find that there are beliefs that I'm (!) sure are mine and I (!) find I'm very attached to them. It's hard to passively observe! Thoughts come up and it's like...these are my thoughts!

Nick

 

[PixyMisa]

The organism experiences it, but this does not mean that it has personal identity, just because it experiences things.

No, but it directly explains the "limited self". The organism can tell the difference between things that happen to other organism (or inanimate objects) and things that happen to it. That implies that the "limited self", and the implication is born out by every test you can imagine. It's not an assumption, but a conclusion from observation and experiment.