Any proof of the existence of a self?

[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.

Nick

And 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://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/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?