Any proof of the existence of a self?

[LightningStrike]

. Thus, the base layer is non-dual - there is no subject-object notion.

Nick

The above statement is Intellectualism unless it is realised and lived every moment. If it is not lived every moment it is not the truth. You can't just see it once and then say "It is the truth there is no 'I'" you have to live it every moment. Otherwise you just confuse people.

 

[Nick227]

What does science have to say about subjectivity?

Well, I couldn't give an authoritative answer for the whole of science. I'm not a scientist though I enjoy reading about brain studies. What I'm trying to point out is that subjectivity does not mean that there is a self that is observing. The assumption is usually that there simply "must be" something watching. I imagine this is what led Descartes to formulate his famous model of the soul observing existence via the pineal gland. However, we've pulled the brain apart a great deal now and no such interface or similar jiggery pokery has been found. And if I really observe my own internal processing it can be seen that actually there really might not be a self after all.

What is a subject-object notion?

The sense of their being a subject - I, and, say, a table - that object.

Non-duality = There is a table
Subject-Object voiceover = I see the table.

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

If we say that consciousness is simple processing, not observation of processing, then subjectivity itself does not disappear. It's just that there is no longer anyone experiencing it. One machine takes snapshots via its perspective and via its circuitry. Another does the same job slightly differently.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

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.

Yup. No need for mysticism at all with consciousness or the self. Of course, just what substance finally is and how all this manifestation came about - to me that's still pretty mysterious.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

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.

Only if you do what Descartes did and assume the self is a priori. I think therefore I am presupposes I. But if we look at a brain, there's no I inside. Like Dan Dennett says it's an abandoned factory. We thought there was someone inside but there's not.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

The above statement is Intellectualism unless it is realised and lived every moment. If it is not lived every moment it is not the truth. You can't just see it once and then say "It is the truth there is no 'I'" you have to live it every moment. Otherwise you just confuse people.

I'm not saying there is no I. It would be a bit of a crazy statement to make. I'm saying there's no internal observer, that the intuitive model we usually make of brain function is wrong.

Nick

 

[LightningStrike]

Only if you do what Descartes did and assume the self is a priori. I think therefore I am presupposes I. But if we look at a brain, there's no I inside. Like Dan Dennett says it's an abandoned factory. We thought there was someone inside but there's not.

Nick

You are skipping between the subjective and the physical. The subjective is where the self is . Can you feel any emotion in there Nick, any sensation, how do you know what you are feeling? I assume you can feel your subjective state as you mentioned else where that you meditate.

 

[LightningStrike]

I'm not saying there is no I. It would be a bit of a crazy statement to make. I'm saying there's no internal observer, that the intuitive model we usually make of brain function is wrong.

Nick

Would you call the internal observer also the perceiver of subjectivity? And please do not refer to the brain when speaking of subjectivity, there is no brain in subjectivity. Can you feel your brain or is that just sensation.

 

[Nick227]

You are skipping between the subjective and the physical. The subjective is where the self is . Can you feel any emotion in there Nick, any sensation, how do you know what you are feeling? I assume you can feel your subjective state as you mentioned else where that you meditate.

Hi LS,

I'm not saying that feelings don't exist. I'm saying that they can only be ascribed to someone when one considers the whole body, the whole organism. The notion of experience exists only at this level. There is nothing inside the brain that is experiencing, even though for most it strongly feels as though there must be. Thus, Descartes had his cogito and his model of this soul experiencing life via the pineal. The belief is that most definitely there must be something inside that is experiencing. But, the reality is that we've looked and looked and it's not there. And, there is an explanation to account for the disparity.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Would you call the internal observer also the perceiver of subjectivity?

There is no "perceiver of subjectivity." There is no actual duality, no actual subject-object distinction in terms of our scientific reality. It is simply that evolution has caused the mind to believe that subject-object relationships exist because this helps to preserve life.

If a sabre-tooth tiger comes at me, I am more likely to survive if I consider myself as a being under threat than as the spectator of a body being eaten. In such a manner natural selection conditions us to develop mental selfhood. But natural selection cannot change the underlying natural of reality, and there is no actual dualism.

Nick

 

[I Ratant]

Well, I couldn't give an authoritative answer for the whole of science. I'm not a scientist though I enjoy reading about brain studies. What I'm trying to point out is that subjectivity does not mean that there is a self that is observing. The assumption is usually that there simply "must be" something watching. I imagine this is what led Descartes to formulate his famous model of the soul observing existence via the pineal gland. However, we've pulled the brain apart a great deal now and no such interface or similar jiggery pokery has been found. And if I really observe my own internal processing it can be seen that actually there really might not be a self after all.




The sense of their being a subject - I, and, say, a table - that object.

Non-duality = There is a table
Subject-Object voiceover = I see the table.



If we say that consciousness is simple processing, not observation of processing, then subjectivity itself does not disappear. It's just that there is no longer anyone experiencing it. One machine takes snapshots via its perspective and via its circuitry. Another does the same job slightly differently.

Nick

.
I bump my leg on the table.
I feel pain.
Both exist.

 

[jakesteele]

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.

Last night I dreamed I was a butterfly

Today I am a butterfly dreaming I'm a man

 

[LightningStrike]

Hi LS,

I'm not saying that feelings don't exist. I'm saying that they can only be ascribed to someone when one considers the whole body, the whole organism. The notion of experience exists only at this level. There is nothing inside the brain that is experiencing, even though for most it strongly feels as though there must be. Thus, Descartes had his cogito and his model of this soul experiencing life via the pineal. The belief is that most definitely there must be something inside that is experiencing. But, the reality is that we've looked and looked and it's not there. And, there is an explanation to account for the disparity.

Nick

You are talking in the third person and so avoid the first person. The first person is everyones reality.

 

[LightningStrike]

There is no "perceiver of subjectivity." There is no actual duality, no actual subject-object distinction in terms of our scientific reality. It is simply that evolution has caused the mind to believe that subject-object relationships exist because this helps to preserve life.

If a sabre-tooth tiger comes at me, I am more likely to survive if I consider myself as a being under threat than as the spectator of a body being eaten. In such a manner natural selection conditions us to develop mental selfhood. But natural selection cannot change the underlying natural of reality, and there is no actual dualism.

Nick

There is an intelligence in the body of which self/person/entity is a pathetic shadow. The body can look after itself fine.

If there is no perceiver of subjectivity in your experience, You must be unconscious of now. Which of course is not true. You are conscious of now.

Tell me Nick are you conscious of now. Now being the feelings in your body, the senses all together at once. If so what nonsense are you on about. I am making sense you are making non-sense.

 

[Nick227]

Tell me Nick are you conscious of now. Now being the feelings in your body, the senses all together at once. If so what nonsense are you on about. I am making sense you are making non-sense.

In actuality no one is conscious of anything. there is this brain, creating these pictures and feelings, and there is this other module doing a voice over that "I am experiencing" this. No one is conscious. Self is just an aspect of consciousness, not its recipient.

btw, i would suggest that it is meaningless to ask if someone is conscious of now. Consciousness is now.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

.
I bump my leg on the table.
I feel pain.
Both exist.

The leg exists, the table exists, the bump exists, and the pain exists.

Nick

 

[Trent Wray]

The leg exists, the table exists, the bump exists, and the pain exists.

Nick

So the concept they exist is real? Or do they exist even outside of the concept of existence?

I think your argument actually boils down to the: "if a tree falls in a forest, and there is no one around to hear it or see it, did it fall?" stuff.

Being aware the tree fell means that something in you is aware of the "idea" that the tree could fall. If you were not aware of it, it could fall right next to you and you wouldn't even know it, because you were unaware of the concept. Perhaps. Even if you saw it but had no ability to describe it, you are still aware of the concept ... it's just a concept without a label or name. Babies are aware of unnamed concepts.

Regardless, the above argument question about the tree falling is perhaps best represented with Schrodengers Cat. And an observer is needed to determine exactly what state the cat is in. Until the observer measures or sees the cat, the cat is in a state of superposition. Right?

So if this is true (if), what is the factor that determines which outcome will exist? The observer. And how do we "know" this? Because we are aware of it. We are aware of the concept of the scenario and the implications of it. We are aware of the observer and the observer's partial role.
Yes?

 

[I Ratant]

So the concept they exist is real? Or do they exist even outside of the concept of existence?

I think your argument actually boils down to the: "if a tree falls in a forest, and there is no one around to hear it or see it, did it fall?" stuff.

.
Can be determined.
Is there a tree fallen where there was a tree standing yesterday?
Can it become firewood/table to bump one's leg on?

Being aware the tree fell means that something in you is aware of the "idea" that the tree could fall. If you were not aware of it, it could fall right next to you and you wouldn't even know it, because you were unaware of the concept. Perhaps. Even if you saw it but had no ability to describe it, you are still aware of the concept ... it's just a concept without a label or name. Babies are aware of unnamed concepts.

Regardless, the above argument question about the tree falling is perhaps best represented with Schrodengers Cat. And an observer is needed to determine exactly what state the cat is in. Until the observer measures or sees the cat, the cat is in a state of superposition. Right?

.
The cat, by intent, is in the box.
Wondering about the state of the cat is extra. And mostly just plain silly to the extent the example is taken.
.

So if this is true (if), what is the factor that determines which outcome will exist? The observer. And how do we "know" this? Because we are aware of it. We are aware of the concept of the scenario and the implications of it. We are aware of the observer and the observer's partial role.
Yes?

.
Other than observing, and/or harvesting the tree, or opening the box, the observer does nothing to either.
Both exist (makes noise when it falls/until the air runs out) regardless of any observation.

 

[Dancing David]

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)

Now that is a more difficult concept and one that requires some parsing. I am not sure how much research has gone into the 'sense of a self', on one hand there is a lot of research into how the perceptions come about from the sensations, and some strange stuff about how senses interpenetrate, especially in the vestibular sense.

But as far as what constitutes a perceiver? Is it thought, is it meory?

It seems that a brief search is going to be overwhelming! I am not vetting these!

Extended social perception as a model of self perception:
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~johnlab/self.htm

And then I lost interest:

Sorry, I will read later:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=research+on+self+perception&as_sdt=400000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

 

[Dancing David]

Suprise I am agreeing with Nick227 in many ways, but not in others.

There is a body, all the experiences are of the body, however the brain is not empty.

 

[Nick227]

So the concept they exist is real? Or do they exist even outside of the concept of existence?

I think your argument actually boils down to the: "if a tree falls in a forest, and there is no one around to hear it or see it, did it fall?" stuff.

I don't think so. I'm looking more at this "self" thing. The assumption is that "I see the tree", but where actually is this is "I" that sees the tree? Is it the body? Are we really saying that the body sees the tree? I don't think so.

Now if you say that this "I" is just a process and not a tangible "thing" so to speak, and that you cannot investigate what "I" is beneath the level of the whole organism, or whole brain, then coolio, no problem. This leaves "I see the tree" with the "I see-ing" bit just as a figure of speech. Which to me is what it is.

Impressions of the tree form in various places inside the brain but there is no one there to see them. They are just there. Yet the brain has learned to create a voice-over - it creates "I see the tree." But this is just something it has learned. There is no tangible "I" that sees the tree in actuality.

The presence of thoughts tends to create the belief that there must be someone who hears the thoughts. Yes? It seems obvious and ridiculous to suggest otherwise. Utterly ridiculous. But when sensory consciousness remains but the amount of thoughts reduce then it can be clearly seen - there is no one there. It is only the presence of thinking that suggests this mental self - this thinker. Without the thoughts there is no one there.

Nick