Any proof of the existence of a self?

[biomorph]

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.

Its all processes, there's no subjective/objective claptrap.

there's no point in leaving out the brain etc. there isn't anything else..lol

there's those processes that we need to keep an eye on, like eating, and those we don't have to.

we only keep an eye on those processes we have to because otherwise we'd be dead, and our reproductive processes haven't been brought up over the last few mill years to not produce (or die before hand anyway).

Otherwise we'd not be here.

 

[biomorph]

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?

<offtopic>
None, no credance what so ever. what for?

now what?
</offtopic>

 

[Trent Wray]

<offtopic>
None, no credance what so ever. what for?

now what?
</offtopic>

I was wanting to know if anyone had ever contemplated the possibility of both answers being "correct" if you will. I was thinking about actually opening up a thread on it, but I'm pretty sure I could predict the pointlessness of it LOL

Some of the ideas behind the physics of light (I won't mention the q word) have mind-f***** me for awhile, the wave-particle duality and whatnot. I've had some ideas that my imagination runs wild with, and I was curious if others have as well. But I think it would probably be a wasted thread ...

*flips on topic switch*

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Here’s an interesting angle, from a TED-talk:

Daniel Kahneman reveals how our "experiencing selves" and our "remembering selves" perceive happiness differently.

In this case, he uses two sets of selves, but mainly in the sense of distinguishable perceptual patterns.

 

[LightningStrike]

Its all processes, there's no subjective/objective claptrap.

there's no point in leaving out the brain etc. there isn't anything else..lol

there's those processes that we need to keep an eye on, like eating, and those we don't have to.

we only keep an eye on those processes we have to because otherwise we'd be dead, and our reproductive processes haven't been brought up over the last few mill years to not produce (or die before hand anyway).

Otherwise we'd not be here.

Biomorph to demonstrate your above statement please describe your whole subjective condition this moment so I can correlate it in my experience, using words such as perception, sensation, feeling, thought, if you want to you can use love, truth, life or death aswell.
You are not allowed to use 'we' either obviously because you are 'I'. Please have a go at describing your inner reality (in the absence of a perceiver!) and that means no reference to the 5 external senses of sight, hearing etc. and certainly no mention of brains because they are not subjective..

Goodluck

 

[Dancing David]

Umm.... Cognito, ergo, sum? (I think, therefore I am).

.

Sum ergo cognito?

probably bad latin grammar.

 

[Dancing David]

Biomorph to demonstrate your above statement please describe your whole subjective condition this moment so I can correlate it in my experience, using words such as perception, sensation, feeling, thought, if you want to you can use love, truth, life or death aswell.
You are not allowed to use 'we' either obviously because you are 'I'. Please have a go at describing your inner reality (in the absence of a perceiver!) and that means no reference to the 5 external senses of sight, hearing etc. and certainly no mention of brains because they are not subjective..

Goodluck

You do know that perceptions are created by the brain ?

There is no perceiver, there is the brain and it manufacture the perceptions. You do not 'see' the 'sensations', about 1/3 of your brain makes then into the visual perception.

 

[Manopolus]

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?

The purpose of fiction is not to deceive, but rather, to expose a truth which cannot be fully explained properly without a story to describe it. The entertainment factor is secondary.

Then again, much of modern fiction is written purely for entertainment, but that's a different animal entirely.

Perhaps this could be "true" and "not true" at the same time. You don't need multiple dimensions.

 

[Nick227]

What is physical and psychological integrity, why is it evolutionarily favored, and how does a belief in the self reinforce it?

Physical integrity that the body stays relatively in one piece, that it doesn't eaten by wild animals or forget to eat or have sex. Whilst for sure there is much simple reactivity in our primal urges, also selfhood has developed through them and is extended in them.

Psychological integrity that the individual does collapse into mental chaos.

For me the latter more needs a self than the former.

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.

How much of your life can you manage without an "I"?

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.

I figure this sense of self arose as the brain developed. The two go hand in hand. Creatures lacking self-concept weren't favoured over those that had it. This is what I figure.

Nick

 

[I Ratant]

Most animals will take some effort to avoid dying.
Fight or flight, ya know.
Some appear to be both aware of dangerous situations, and unaware of others.
The innumerable flattened squirrels around here that failed basic boulevard crossing, for instance.
They'll run from a human on foot, but seem to not realize the danger in repeated crossings of the street, and ultimately become raven food.
The only raccoons I've seen locally in 30 years have been street-flattened.

 

[LightningStrike]

You do know that perceptions are created by the brain ?

There is no perceiver, there is the brain and it manufacture the perceptions. You do not 'see' the 'sensations', about 1/3 of your brain makes then into the visual perception.

I am talking perception not perceptions. I will have a go;

Perception is occuring, sensation is occuring in me, I know what is going on this moment in my subjective system. There is no brain here, that is only a concept generated by reflection on my memory. That is where the self lives in concept land and that is unreal. But the perception of it all, the perception of now... aren't you overlooking the obvious. I am not talking physical senses, I am pointing to the subjective perceiver and not the subjective perceived.

 

[Dancing David]

And that is certainly an illusion, it is a conflation of seperate events and not a unified entity, most of it is the persistence of memory.

But what I am saying that there is no 'perceiver', the brain is the parceptions. Wether you detect it directly or not.

 

[Trent Wray]

You do know that perceptions are created by the brain ?

There is no perceiver, there is the brain and it manufacture the perceptions. You do not 'see' the 'sensations', about 1/3 of your brain makes then into the visual perception.

I'm not being a devil's advocate, but is it well understood, in terms of neuroscience, where the "perceiver" actually is or exactly how it is manufactured? If so, do you have good references (I think this is the first time I've asked for references on this forum! LOL)

The purpose of fiction is not to deceive, but rather, to expose a truth which cannot be fully explained properly without a story to describe it. The entertainment factor is secondary.

Then again, much of modern fiction is written purely for entertainment, but that's a different animal entirely.

Perhaps this could be "true" and "not true" at the same time. You don't need multiple dimensions.

Great POV. hmm ....

And that is certainly an illusion, it is a conflation of seperate events and not a unified entity, most of it is the persistence of memory.

But what I am saying that there is no 'perceiver', the brain is the parceptions. Wether you detect it directly or not.

I think what LS is trying to say (I hope) is that perceptions could be the result of the various functions of the brain and the way data is processed ... but what about "perception" itself as a concept.

The idea of concept itself is an interesting one to me, because in order to identify things we label them. I am a human being, a specific human being named Trent, perhaps I have a self that falls under my umbrella term "Trent", etc etc. In this simple example, there are a couple of concepts that denote a collection of "stuff":

human being = collection of the physical properties (and possibly psychological properties) that make me a human being. DNA specifically can identify my species.

Trent = the unique expression of my genes and DNA to give the physical appearance I have, as well as my recognizable personality traits, etc etc

But human beings fall into a larger concept --- mankind. And trent can be described in terms of other related concepts as well .... self, conciousness, etc etc.

Usually, these concepts can be identified tangibly or through secondary evidence. For example, I am a human being (a concept), and I exist and you can see me. My personality is a concept that exists due to a complex system of factors that you cannot collectively see in their individual parts, but you can see as a whole represented through my actions, etc.

but if you go up the chain of concepts, you arrive eventually at a "grand concept". One could say that we all fit under the great umbrella term of "life" or "existence" or "universe" if you will. At the finite level, you also find concepts when going down the chain. electrons, protons, quarks, etc etc ..... maybe the Higgs-Boson, maybe strings vibrating and spinning, whatever.

But at what point do you "run out of concept" ? In other words, at what point are you at pure, raw, unused concept.

This is an idea that fascinates me .... because what if "stuff" itself exists as a result of "concept potential manifesting". And at first glance, anthropomorphizing this might make you think I'm talking about a creator or something. But perhaps it's our anthropomorphizing it that makes it sound spooky and "woosih" (like the 4th dimension idea used to be the "spirit realm", even though it's accepted it is "time itself", more or less).

What I'm saying is what if conciousness, at it's base level, isn't just a concept or a perception ... what if it is sort of like pure perception that hasn't formed a perception. It's a concept in it's raw, unrealized form. And what if, perhaps, this can be deteced (like an EMF can, or something). I'm not talking psychons and all that jazz .... where the concept itself has a purpose or intention. Again, that's anthropomorphizing it. It would be no different than a electron or any other "thing" that exists. If the Big-Bang has no "intention" and evolution has no "desire" ... then perhaps concept will be discovered somehow as particle of some sort, or a detectable field of some kind, that will be taken out of the realm of woo and metaphysical paranormal crap, and into an identifiable "thing" itself?

Anyway, just brainstorming ...

 

[Trent Wray]

Here’s an interesting angle, from a TED-talk:

Daniel Kahneman reveals how our "experiencing selves" and our "remembering selves" perceive happiness differently.

In this case, he uses two sets of selves, but mainly in the sense of distinguishable perceptual patterns.

Looks interesting thanx for the link

 

[AlBell]

And that is certainly an illusion, it is a conflation of seperate events and not a unified entity, most of it is the persistence of memory.

But what I am saying that there is no 'perceiver', the brain is the parceptions. Wether you detect it directly or not.

What is it that is deluded by illusion?

ps. Sorry to hear you have no "perceiver". Must be tough listening to all the conflicting advice available for choice.

 

[Nick227]

What is it that is deluded by illusion?

ps. Sorry to hear you have no "perceiver". Must be tough listening to all the conflicting advice available for choice.

There is no actual "perceiver", no actual "experiencer." This for me is pretty much comprehensively ratified by modern science. The brain processes. Consciousness is processing. On top of basic sensory processing - sounds, sights, etc - the brain overlays a narrative that creates a subject-object story of what's going on. Thus, the base layer is non-dual - there is no subject-object notion. On top of this base layer the mind does a voice-over, telling a story about an "I" that is "doing things." The brain is conditioned through evolution to do this because selfhood is inevitably favoured, but this doesn't mean that there is an actual experiencer. It's just a useful illusion it's learned to maintain.

Nick

 

[Manopolus]

On a purely devils advocate woo level... the soul is described by some as being not the brain, but the energy which flows through that brain. By the laws of physics, energy never simply ceases to exist. It goes SOMEWHERE. I've even heard of experiments suggested to determine where it goes, in what way, etc.

However, I assume it can be explained perfectly well chemically, and no mysticism need apply.

(added)

(oops, I'm cross-threading here, mixing up "self" and "soul" *sorry*)

 

[AlBell]

There is no actual "perceiver", no actual "experiencer." This for me is pretty much comprehensively ratified by modern science.

What does science have to say about subjectivity?

The brain processes. Consciousness is processing.

Now if we could just define consciousness.

On top of basic sensory processing - sounds, sights, etc - the brain overlays a narrative that creates a subject-object story of what's going on. Thus, the base layer is non-dual - there is no subject-object notion.

What is a subject-object notion?

My sense of subjectivity hasn't disappeared at "basic sensory processing - sounds, sights, etc".

On top of this base layer the mind does a voice-over, telling a story about an "I" that is "doing things."

Interesting contention, anyway, that doesn't seem to address what is happening in my awareness.

The brain is conditioned through evolution to do this because selfhood is inevitably favoured, but this doesn't mean that there is an actual experiencer. It's just a useful illusion it's learned to maintain.

Nick

Back to what is that "it's" suffering the illusion?

 

[LightningStrike]

There is no actual "perceiver", no actual "experiencer." This for me is pretty much comprehensively ratified by modern science. The brain processes. Consciousness is processing. On top of basic sensory processing - sounds, sights, etc - the brain overlays a narrative that creates a subject-object story of what's going on. Thus, the base layer is non-dual - there is no subject-object notion. On top of this base layer the mind does a voice-over, telling a story about an "I" that is "doing things." The brain is conditioned through evolution to do this because selfhood is inevitably favoured, but this doesn't mean that there is an actual experiencer. It's just a useful illusion it's learned to maintain.

Nick

How do you know this? In other words is it your knowledge of your self. Any concept you refer to to explain that there is no self is in the self is the self. Is that valid to deny the concept of self using the self itself to deny itself. Don't think about that.

 

[Trent Wray]

accidental post