Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Philosophy, in all its guises. => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on May 20, 2020, 04:18:14 PM
-
In a recent exchange about the ''illusion of self'' on another thread, The topic of existence was touched upon:
Person 1 :''I will ask you again. If the self is an illusion......what is it that is having the illusion?''
Person 2 :''That would be your (illusory) self that is subject to the illusion that it exists as a distinct ontological entity.''
The last statement was followed up by this further exchange:
Person 1: ''So something is having the illusion but that which has the illusion doesn't exist.
So it's illusions having their own illusions now.''
Person 2: ''it doesn't exist as a thing; it exists as an emergent phenomenon of mind. All mental phenomena are constructions of mind, that includes your sense of self.''
So does the self exist or not. On one hand the self is an illusion on the other hand it exists as an emergent phenomena.
Surely existent things are not illusion...and why has the person arguing for the illusion of self distinguished between the existence of things and the existence of emergent phenomena. Is there more than one state of existence?
What do posters think?
-
I am familiar with the idea of the illusion of the separate self, found in many religions. It is often linked to ego. I suppose some religions point to becoming selfless, but I don't know how this connects with meaning. It's often connected with love, as the barriers between self and other fall away, (maybe).
-
I am familiar with the idea of the illusion of the separate self, found in many religions. It is often linked to ego. I suppose some religions point to becoming selfless, but I don't know how this connects with meaning. It's often connected with love, as the barriers between self and other fall away, (maybe).
Would you say there is a difference between what a religionist might describe as illusion of self and say someone like Dan Dennett and Sam Harris. Who are coming from a scientistic angle?
-
So does the self exist or not. On one hand the self is an illusion on the other hand it exists as an emergent phenomena.
You missed a third option, prevalent on this very board.
That is, the self is a thing, a God created "soul" which resides outwith this physical universe, in a place with no time but nevertheless it pops in and out of spacetime in order to interrogate our neurons, looking to make decisions.
Are you dismissing that option?
-
You missed a third option, prevalent on this very board.
That is, the self is a thing, a God created "soul" which resides outwith this physical universe, in a place with no time but nevertheless it pops in and out of spacetime in order to interrogate our neurons, looking to make decisions.
Are you dismissing that option?
What is 'Thing' being or 'Thing' existence? How does it differ from the existence of say emergent properties?
What is a thing?
-
What is 'Thing' being or 'Thing' existence? How does it differ from the existence of say emergent properties?
What is a thing?
Good questions for Alan Burns as he has determined, absolutely that the soul is not an emergent property.
Are you dismissing his evidence?
-
Life is both real and an illusion at various levels, depending on our perception. At the obvious normal level, everything seems solid but at the atomic level everything is just empty space with elementary particles whizzing about. If we go further, we can talk of Fields and Strings.... Which of this is 'real' and which is 'illusion'?
But regardless of how real or illusionary the external world is....one reality that is undeniable is the one who experiences this 'illusion'.
That is why regardless of what we think of the external world, the Subject or Self is considered as the only reality. Like in a VR game...everything could be an illusion (just pixels), except the one who is experiencing it.
-
But regardless of how real or illusionary the external world is....one reality that is undeniable is the one who experiences this 'illusion'.
That is why regardless of what we think of the external world, the Subject or Self is considered as the only reality. Like in a VR game...everything could be an illusion (just pixels), except the one who is experiencing it.
So what does this "self" consist of? I don't mean what is it made of, but what does it include and exclude? Are memories and skills part of it? Is it the same as a mind? If we swapped selves between two people, what would go with the selves and what would stay with the rest of the mind and brain?
Same question to Vlad.
-
So what does this "self" consist of? I don't mean what is it made of, but what does it include and exclude? Are memories and skills part of it? Is it the same as a mind? If we swapped selves between two people, what would go with the selves and what would stay with the rest of the mind and brain?
Same question to Vlad.
These are not subjects where we can discuss with such precision. Everything is not Physics. And most things are still unknowns.
When you listen to people who have had NDE's...you will realize that people outside the body are very much the same as within the body. In fact the body and mind are just physical representations of what the person is.....just extensions.
-
So what does this "self" consist of? I don't mean what is it made of, but what does it include and exclude? Are memories and skills part of it? Is it the same as a mind? If we swapped selves between two people, what would go with the selves and what would stay with the rest of the mind and brain?
Same question to Vlad.
Gratitude to you for putting material and substance to one side. To consider exclusions and inclusions seems a good starting point.
Of course the ability to swap selves from one person to another like a download must be the goal of those who see the substrate of self as important or humans as just sophisticated computers
Now obviously a good deal would have to be transferred because part of self is the recognition of self. Too little transferred and one could not report how one felt about being in another body. So that may require memory. That could be testable by asking people who have very short term memory through injury or disease.
That could also be testable by asking people who have very short term memory if they still feel like themselves.
If the self is unique to a particular body then the non transferability of the self would leave the self as a special phenomenon as almost uniquely we would have information which could not be transferred. Where would that leave humans as computers or the view of self as another organ of the body?
-
Gratitude to you for putting material and substance to one side. To consider exclusions and inclusions seems a good starting point.
Of course the ability to swap selves from one person to another like a download must be the goal of those who see the substrate of self as important or humans as just sophisticated computers
Now obviously a good deal would have to be transferred because part of self is the recognition of self. Too little transferred and one could not report how one felt about being in another body. So that may require memory. That could be testable by asking people who have very short term memory through injury or disease.
That could also be testable by asking people who have very short term memory if they still feel like themselves.
If the self is unique to a particular body then the non transferability of the self would leave the self as a special phenomenon as almost uniquely we would have information which could not be transferred. Where would that leave humans as computers or the view of self as another organ of the body?
Humm... OK maybe I should have mentioned a swap. You started this thread about whether "self" was an illusion. I'm trying to get at what you think it is that isn't an illusion.
If you take away memory, skills, experience, personality, and so on, what is left? What is a pure "self"? Perhaps think about if you are a "self" when you are born? When you are conceived? At what point does a "self" start to exist?
-
These are not subjects where we can discuss with such precision. Everything is not Physics. And most things are still unknowns.
You've just made the claim that "...the Subject or Self is considered as the only reality." and you don't know where its boundary lies? Say all your memories were false, would your self still not be an illusion? What if you thought you had skills that you didn't? What if you were a Boltzmann brain (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain)?
-
So what does this "self" consist of? I don't mean what is it made of, but what does it include and exclude? Are memories and skills part of it? Is it the same as a mind? If we swapped selves between two people, what would go with the selves and what would stay with the rest of the mind and brain?
Same question to Vlad.
There is probably not one easy answer, but one way of looking at it is to separate who is doing the observing, the individual himself or an outsider and to choose different words to express it. The 'self' comprises the contents of the psyche/mind, no matter whether good, bad or ugly, and its association with the physical body. The individual may wish to predominantly identify with certain aspects of the mind/body e.g. physical prowess, intellectual ability, emotional nature etc. It can change over time. What they choose to present to the outside world is a selection of those traits which they wish to be seen as and this is their personality. There can be multiple personalities e.g. a different one may be used when confronting a child as to that when confronting an adult. What others see as predominant traits is what they view as the individual's character which may not wholly correspond to the presented personality especially if a nasty Mr Hyde slips out of a caring Dr Jekyl.
I doubt whether 'selves' could swap as body image and physicality would probably feature.
As regards the 'spiritual' Self, often spelled with a capital 'S', this is mostly seen to be the observing consciousness which needs to be freed from its attachments to (little 's') self considerations. Spiritual methods are usually dedicated to effecting this.
-
You've just made the claim that "...the Subject or Self is considered as the only reality." and you don't know where its boundary lies? Say all your memories were false, would your self still not be an illusion? What if you thought you had skills that you didn't? What if you were a Boltzmann brain (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain)?
Self is independent of memories and experiences. These things just happen to the Self. Self is Consciousness which probably has its own way of experiencing things and retaining memories. What it is and how it exists, in an objective sense, I have no idea.
People of science think that a brain is essential for Consciousness to exist. I don't think so. Consciousness is fundamental and is believed to exist everywhere. How the universal Consciousness extends into individual consciousness, we have no idea.
-
Self is independent of memories and experiences. These things just happen to the Self. Self is Consciousness which probably has its own way of experiencing things and retaining memories.
So it's independent of memories but retains memories? That's confusing. You said "Self is Consciousness", so what would pure consciousness include? You seem confused about memories. Does it include talents and ways of thinking? Is it the "self" that is good at music or bad at maths?
If it's just pure consciousness, how is your "self" different from mine?
What it is and how it exists, in an objective sense, I have no idea.
I'm not asking about what it's made of, I'm trying to get what part of people's experience is the "self". People seem to be making very confident assertions about something they seem to have a lot of difficulty defining.
-
Consciousness is fundamental and is believed to exist everywhere.
Evidence please - I see no evidence whatsoever that consciousness exists everywhere - or rather no more than a collection of individual consciousnesses.
How the universal Consciousness extends into individual consciousness, we have no idea.
Give that you've provided no evidence that 'universal consciousness' exists the notion of asking how it extends into individual consciousness is rather pointless don't you think.
-
So it's independent of memories but retains memories? That's confusing. You said "Self is Consciousness", so what would pure consciousness include? You seem confused about memories. Does it include talents and ways of thinking? Is it the "self" that is good at music or bad at maths?
If it's just pure consciousness, how is your "self" different from mine?
I'm not asking about what it's made of, I'm trying to get what part of people's experience is the "self". People seem to be making very confident assertions about something they seem to have a lot of difficulty defining.
I have already told you that this is not Physics. How do you expect to understand such abstract matters so completely and comprehensively when you don't know what an electron really is?
If you want to take a reductionist, materialistic view....that is fine. But once we accept that Consciousness is fundamental....it becomes the source and generator of the entire universe along with Life, evolution and all its complexities. How do you think that from our individual sensory perspective we can map out and comprehend why and how Consciousness works and extends itself?!
-
I have already told you that this is not Physics. How do you expect to understand such abstract matters so completely and comprehensively when you don't know what an electron really is?
An electron is an excitation of a quantum field that has a defined set of characteristics. You don't seem to be able to tell me anything at all about the what a "self" actually is. It's some vague part of our mental experience that includes memories but doesn't include them, is all I've learnt from you so far.
But once we accept that Consciousness is fundamental...
You're trying to tell me that something that you can't actually define at all or tell me where its boundaries lie, is "fundamental".
How do you think that from our individual sensory perspective we can map out and comprehend why and how Consciousness works and extends itself?!
I'm just asking what it is - not what it's made of or how it works, just what part of people's minds do you think is the "self" or consciousness.
-
An electron is an excitation of a quantum field that has a defined set of characteristics. You don't seem to be able to tell me anything at all about the what a "self" actually is. It's some vague part of our mental experience that includes memories but doesn't include them, is all I've learnt from you so far.
You're trying to tell me that something that you can't actually define at all or tell me where its boundaries lie, is "fundamental".
I'm just asking what it is - not what it's made of or how it works, just what part of people's minds do you think is the "self" or consciousness.
Consciousness is what you are born with. As a new born infant we don't have a mind or self awareness or Ego. All these things are built later. Consciousness or what we can call Unconscious processes, direct the development of the baby, building up its conscious mind, self awareness and other mental processes.
Consciousness is what remains when the mind is absent. This happens at the time of birth, can happen through dementia or even during meditative practices.
Consciousness is not just what we normally think of as wakefulness or the conscious mind that we are aware of. Consciousness consists of deeper layers that are normally called the Unconscious mind. It is generally believed by philosophers that Consciousness is like an iceberg. A major part of it lies below the surface and is more powerful than the conscious mind. This is the Unconscious mind.
It is generally now understood that our decisions are taken by unconscious processes before the conscious mind is even aware of it.
Coming to your question...the Self can be considered as the Unconscious mind that lurks behind the conscious mind and directs it. In other words, the conscious mind is just a projection of the Unconscious mind or the Self.
-
Self is Consciousness...
It is generally believed by philosophers that Consciousness is like an iceberg. A major part of it lies below the surface and is more powerful than the conscious mind. This is the Unconscious mind.
...the Self can be considered as the Unconscious mind that lurks behind the conscious mind and directs it.
So is "self" consciousness, unconsciousness, or both? That's just the most obvious question, so let's try to clear that up first.
-
Consciousness is what you are born with. As a new born infant we don't have a mind or self awareness or Ego. All these things are built later. Consciousness or what we can call Unconscious processes, direct the development of the baby, building up its conscious mind, self awareness and other mental processes.
Consciousness is what remains when the mind is absent. This happens at the time of birth, can happen through dementia or even during meditative practices.
Consciousness is not just what we normally think of as wakefulness or the conscious mind that we are aware of. Consciousness consists of deeper layers that are normally called the Unconscious mind. It is generally believed by philosophers that Consciousness is like an iceberg. A major part of it lies below the surface and is more powerful than the conscious mind. This is the Unconscious mind.
It is generally now understood that our decisions are taken by unconscious processes before the conscious mind is even aware of it.
Coming to your question...the Self can be considered as the Unconscious mind that lurks behind the conscious mind and directs it. In other words, the conscious mind is just a projection of the Unconscious mind or the Self.
I agree that the relationship between the conscious and unconscious aspects of our mind is extremely interesting. But what we are talking about here is highly complex neurobiology, that we are making leaps and bounds in understanding through the various strands of neuroscience. You might find this article interesting - read in particular the part on visual form agnosia.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02207-1
-
So is "self" consciousness, unconsciousness, or both? That's just the most obvious question, so let's try to clear that up first.
I thought that was clear. Consciousness in a general sense includes both the unconscious and the conscious minds. Self and Consciousness are treated as one and the same for discussions. Possibly Consciousness is an attribute of the Self. No point in splitting hairs on unknowns.
-
I agree that the relationship between the conscious and unconscious aspects of our mind is extremely interesting. But what we are talking about here is highly complex neurobiology, that we are making leaps and bounds in understanding through the various strands of neuroscience. You might find this article interesting - read in particular the part on visual form agnosia.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02207-1
Neural explanations of Consciousness are just not happening!
Check up on David Chalmers, Donald Hoffman and others...
Of course, the brain has a role in connecting the Unconscious mind with the Conscious mind and with perception, senses etc. But trying to explain consciousness entirely through neuroscience is not possible.
-
I thought that was clear. Consciousness in a general sense includes both the unconscious and the conscious minds. Self and Consciousness are treated as one and the same for discussions. Possibly Consciousness is an attribute of the Self. No point in splitting hairs on unknowns.
So the self is "Consciousness" and "independent of memories and experiences" (#13 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=17447.msg798113#msg798113)). Consciousness includes the conscious and unconsciousness minds but also Consciousness is what we're born with when "we don't have a mind" and "Consciousness is what remains when the mind is absent". Also "Self can be considered as the Unconscious mind that lurks behind the conscious mind and directs it" (#18 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=17447.msg798186#msg798186)).
Apart from being somewhat inconsistent, you seem to be saying that the self is something you're born with and it grows to incorporate all of the conscious and subconscious mind, except for the memories and experiences?
How do you separate the mind from its memories and experiences? All of this leads right back to my initial question, when you subtract the mind and get this minimal self, what part of the person does that actually include?
-
Neural explanations of Consciousness are just not happening!
Yes they are - did you actually bother to read the article.
Of course, the brain has a role in connecting the Unconscious mind with the Conscious mind and with perception, senses etc. But trying to explain consciousness entirely through neuroscience is not possible.
The brain doesn't just have 'a role' in these things - 'the mind', concsiousness and the unconscious mind do not exist without the brain. To use terminology we've been using on this MB recently - they are emergent properties of the brain (in combination with other physiological processes).
-
Neural explanations of Consciousness are just not happening!
Of course, the brain has a role in connecting the Unconscious mind with the Conscious mind and with perception, senses etc. But trying to explain consciousness entirely through neuroscience is not possible.
Assertions.
Check up on David Chalmers, Donald Hoffman and others...
The conjectures of a few philosophers and scientists do not become the unquestionable truth just because you like them. Also, you keep on citing different people whose views contradict each other, all you seem to care about is that they don't agree with the view that consciousness emerges from brain activity alone.
-
When we have a microscopic view, everything will seem a contradiction. The nose will seem a contradiction to the mouth and the mouth will seem a contradiction to the ear.....and so on. Nothing will fit in.
When we have a broader perspective...everything will fit in.
Cheers guys.
Sriram
-
When we have a microscopic view, everything will seem a contradiction.
What is a "microscopic view" in this context and why would it make anything contradictory?
The nose will seem a contradiction to the mouth and the mouth will seem a contradiction to the ear.....and so on. Nothing will fit in.
Why would any sort of view lead to these things being contradictory?
When we have a broader perspective...everything will fit in.
By "broader perspective" you appear to mean not actually thinking about it.
Don't look too closely or you'll see that it's nonsense!
-
When we have a microscopic view, everything will seem a contradiction. The nose will seem a contradiction to the mouth and the mouth will seem a contradiction to the ear.....and so on. Nothing will fit in.
When we have a broader perspective...everything will fit in.
Cheers guys.
Sriram
No Sriram - when we ignore evidence we will learn nothing. When we refuse to let go of our prejudged views in the face of evidence we will remain ignorant.
-
When we have a microscopic view, everything will seem a contradiction. The nose will seem a contradiction to the mouth and the mouth will seem a contradiction to the ear.....and so on. Nothing will fit in.
When we have a broader perspective...everything will fit in.
Cheers guys.
Sriram
http://www.wisdomofchopra.com
-
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2016/04/28/zoom-in-zoom-out/
-
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2016/04/28/zoom-in-zoom-out/
Have you ever actual met any scientists Sriram?
You do seem to have a peculiarly blinkered view on people in that profession. It is of course true that scientists will necessarily study a small part of something, as you might see it, in great detail. But that certainly does not mean they do not care about, nor understand the bigger picture. Usually it is because the bigger picture makes no sense until you understand the details.
And of course you also need to understand the details to be able to use knowledge to improve the world - you cannot build a bridge unless you understand the details of the materials you might use, the design and the requirement of that design (such as weight it is required to carry) - if you try to build that bridge without that knowledge it will collapse. You cannot develop cures for diseases without understanding the details of the disease process.
So you can post all you like your patronising tropes on scientists:
This is why, scientists, generally speaking, cannot be relied upon to contribute effectively to a Big Picture view of the world taking into account all its experiential and spiritual aspects. They will automatically limit themselves only to a microscopic view. This is an important conclusion we can draw.
I'd say that scientists have devoted themselves to addressing the biggest pictures of them all - the nature of the universe; the development of life and its evolution, the complex ecosystems of our planet, the incredible neurobiology of the human brain; the remarkable and complex behaviours of animal and plant species etc etc.
I am afraid that it is people whose world view is tunnel vision limited by the blinkers of a man made god who are really failing to get the big picture. To get the big picture you need to recognise that the universe does not revolve around people and that the notion of 'purpose' and 'meaning' are peculiarly human-centric concerns and have no 'big picture' value in universal terms.
-
Humm... OK maybe I should have mentioned a swap. You started this thread about whether "self" was an illusion. I'm trying to get at what you think it is that isn't an illusion.
I will put aside my suspicion that your question is just a ruse to shift the burden of proof from those saying it is an illusion.
It may or may not be an illusion but the evidence for it not being so is.
The self is the thing we can be most sure of
If it is an emergent property of matter then it isn't an illusion
It is an emergent property of processes but the processes offered do not necessarily result in the emergence itself.
If it is an illusion then there is an unavoidable question namely what is it that is being Illuded? If one can't say then concluding illusion is misplaced.
Finally for now. The idea that it is an illusion mainly protects materialism and reductionist.
-
I will put aside my suspicion that your question is just a ruse to shift the burden of proof from those saying it is an illusion.
It may or may not be an illusion but the evidence for it not being so is.
The self is the thing we can be most sure of
I haven't made the claim that the self is an illusion. We can't decide whether it's an illusion or not unless we can define what it is we're talking about. If it's the thing we can be most sure of, why do you and Sriram seem to be having so much trouble defining it?
Since you ignored the rest of my post, I'll try again:
If you take away memory, skills, experience, personality, and so on, what is left? What is a pure "self"? Perhaps think about if you are a "self" when you are born? When you are conceived? At what point does a "self" start to exist?
-
I haven't made the claim that the self is an illusion. We can't decide whether it's an illusion or not unless we can define what it is we're talking about. If it's the thing we can be most sure of, why do you and Sriram seem to be having so much trouble defining it?
Since you ignored the rest of my post, I'll try again:
If you take away memory, skills, experience, personality, and so on, what is left? What is a pure "self"? Perhaps think about if you are a "self" when you are born? When you are conceived? At what point does a "self" start to exist?
An answer of course if you take those things away you are skinning the onion, taking it apart layer by layer. Of course, in doing so you have done away with the onion or anything else you subtract from bit by bit.
I would say the self starts with awareness of the qualia.
Now I've answered your q's will you break the habit of a lifetime and answer one. Is the self real.....or an illusion?
-
An answer of course if you take those things away you are skinning the onion, taking it apart layer by layer. Of course, in doing so you have done away with the onion or anything else you subtract from bit by bit.
So you seem to be saying that the "self" is just the sum total of experience, memories, skills, plans, and so on that go on in the mind, rather than a distinct thing?
I would say the self starts with awareness of the qualia.
Which again blurs the boundaries. How aware? I'm fairly certain that a rock is not at all "aware of qualia" and that normal adult humans are, but what about and infant, a cat, a fish, a mosquito, or an amoeba? Do some things have more of a self than others? Is there a continuum from self to no self?
Is the self real.....or an illusion?
No.
To clarify, I think your question is a false dilemma, real and an illusion aren't the only options. Is the centre of an onion (to use your analogy) real or an illusion? I wouldn't use the word illusion with regard to the self for very much the same reason I wouldn't call the centre of an onion an illusion, it's just not a concrete thing in its own right.
-
So you seem to be saying that the "self" is just the sum total of experience, memories, skills, plans, and so on that go on in the mind, rather than a distinct thing?
Something intelligent could have memory and skills. intelligence does not mean awareness or consciousness or selfhood though and I am not sure whether an intelligence without selfhood can be said to have 'experience'
So there is the 'awareness' aspect of the self. That is probably the core of the self. The emergent thing that is irreducible in that the structures and processes from which the self emerges do not possess this 'self'
How aware? I'm fairly certain that a rock is not at all "aware of qualia" and that normal adult humans are, but what about and infant, a cat, a fish, a mosquito, or an amoeba? Do some things have more of a self than others? Is there a continuum from self to no self?
If Self is the emergent entity then there is a sheer divide between self and no self. How aware and any measurement of awareness is irrelevant then.
To clarify, I think your question is a false dilemma,
I disagree for the reason I've given.
real and an illusion aren't the only options
Then are you suggesting other ways of being?
-
An electron is an excitation of a quantum field that has a defined set of characteristics. You don't seem to be able to tell me anything at all about the what a "self" actually is.
That sounds like it's in the same league as saying ''I can add 1 and 1 but you can't explain quantum mechanics.''
-
What a ridiculous thing to say. That's in the same league as saying ''I can add 1 and 1 but you can't explain quantum mechanics.''
Idiotic non sequitur
-
Idiotic non sequitur
Oh goody, another nearly sane post to ignore.
-
Oh goody, another nearly sane post to ignore.
Ignore, yet another word you don't understand
-
Ignore, yet another word you don't understand
Have you got anything to say about the meaning of existence? If not why are you on this thread?
-
Have you got anything to say about the meaning of existence? If not why are you on this thread?
Shiny Shiny Mirror.
-
Shiny Shiny Mirror.
Could one of the moderators eliminate this derail?
-
Could one of the moderators eliminate this derail?
in what way is pointing out that you are using terms you appear not to understand a derail?
-
in what way is pointing out that you are using terms you appear not to understand a derail?
That, whatever it means, probably is a lot more significant to you than me since you are acting like a chap deserted on a desert island who has come to think of himself as King Neptune and for whom every shell on the beach is part of his crown jewels.
-
That, whatever it means, probably is a lot more significant to you than me since you are acting like a chap deserted on a desert island who has come to think of himself as King Neptune and for whom every shell on the beach is part of his crown jewels.
Take care
-
Take care
Oh dear, I'm outa here.
-
Oh dear, I'm outa here.
Look after yourself
-
I will put aside my suspicion that your question is just a ruse to shift the burden of proof from those saying it is an illusion.
It may or may not be an illusion but the evidence for it not being so is.
The self is the thing we can be most sure of
If it is an emergent property of matter then it isn't an illusion
It is an emergent property of processes but the processes offered do not necessarily result in the emergence itself.
If it is an illusion then there is an unavoidable question namely what is it that is being Illuded? If one can't say then concluding illusion is misplaced.
Finally for now. The idea that it is an illusion mainly protects materialism and reductionist.
The illusory quality is evidenced by the fact that it leads people to indulge false intuitions like after-life despite the fact there is no hard evidence or rationale for such things. The illusion consists in the intuition that the self is a fundamental independent entity rather than an emergent phenomenon of mind.
-
Oh dear, I'm outa here.
Indefinitely?
-
The illusory quality is evidenced by the fact that it leads people to indulge false intuitions like after-life despite the fact there is no hard evidence or rationale for such things. The illusion consists in the intuition that the self is a fundamental independent entity rather than an emergent phenomenon of mind.
Ah, now your talking like a Buddhist with his doctrine of Anatma.
-
Something intelligent could have memory and skills. intelligence does not mean awareness or consciousness or selfhood though and I am not sure whether an intelligence without selfhood can be said to have 'experience'
So there is the 'awareness' aspect of the self. That is probably the core of the self. The emergent thing that is irreducible in that the structures and processes from which the self emerges do not possess this 'self'
Okay, so we can add awareness into the mix of things that makes up the whole 'onion'. However, pure awareness cannot be a self, can it? If it were, how would your awareness/self differ from mine? How could we tell if there was only one spark of awareness that flipped from mind to mind, being aware of all the contents of each mind (including all the memories and other context) in turn*?
If Self is the emergent entity then there is a sheer divide between self and no self. How aware and any measurement of awareness is irrelevant then.
Don't know what you're trying to say. If awareness is digital (just present or not), what is the exact dividing line (normal adult humans through to amoeba)?
Then are you suggesting other ways of being?
Is the centre of an object, or centre of gravity to make it more exact, real or an illusion?
* Not original but I can't remember where I read it.
-
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2016/04/28/zoom-in-zoom-out/
From Sriram's web article:
This is why, scientists, generally speaking, cannot be relied upon to contribute effectively to a Big Picture view of the world taking into account all its experiential and spiritual aspects.
So let's try to understand who has the big picture nailed:
A. Spritualists who focus on purported human 'purpose' and the spiritual meaning of the human conscious and unconscious mind - noting that the human species exists on a single planet orbiting one of one billion trillion stars. And even in the context of that planet humans have been around for just 300,000 years (out of the universe's 13 billion year timeline).
or
B. Scientists focusing on understanding how the entire universe was formed, and developed over the past 13 billion years.
And think it is pretty clear who is really focusses on the big picture rather than being entirely human-centric, which is effectively totally irrelevant in a universe-wide context.
And that's before you add in the fact that scientists work on the basis of evidence rather than mere assertion and conjecture.
Sriram - if you really want to see the big picture, you need to start recognising that it isn't just all about you (and by you I mean humans).
-
From Sriram's web article:
This is why, scientists, generally speaking, cannot be relied upon to contribute effectively to a Big Picture view of the world taking into account all its experiential and spiritual aspects.
So let's try to understand who has the big picture nailed:
A. Spritualists who focus on purported human 'purpose' and the spiritual meaning of the human conscious and unconscious mind - noting that the human species exists on a single planet orbiting one of one billion trillion stars. And even in the context of that planet humans have been around for just 300,000 years (out of the universe's 13 billion year timeline).
or
B. Scientists focusing on understanding how the entire universe was formed, and developed over the past 13 billion years.
And think it is pretty clear who is really focusses on the big picture rather than being entirely human-centric, which is effectively totally irrelevant in a universe-wide context.
And that's before you add in the fact that scientists work on the basis of evidence rather than mere assertion and conjecture.
Sriram - if you really want to see the big picture, you need to start recognising that it isn't just all about you (and by you I mean humans).
How do you know that it isn't about us? :D
1. Take the Anthropic Principle....particularly the Participatory principle.
2. Take the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM and its need for observation ...and by implication, for consciousness.
3. Take the view of Reality proposed by some neuroscientists like Donald Hoffman....that Consciousness is fundamental. Other renowned scientists like Galileo and Max Planck also concur.
4. Reality is essentially subjective (the Tree in the Forest eg). Objective reality is just an illusion. In a VR game you can keep arguing about the nature of objective reality and evidence and so on and so forth. Ultimately, it is the subject that is the only reality.
-
I believe that Science through its discoveries has helped in an understanding of spirituality. A radical view, but true none the less.
Try this.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2019/10/19/science-helps-in-understanding-spirituality/
-
How do you know that it isn't about us? :D
Because we have existed for just a few million years, while the universe has been around for billions of years. Because humans live on one of one billion trillion stars.
Unless you take a completely human-centric approach, humans wouldn't even be noticed in a universe-wide consideration.
And Sriram - do you think it is 'all about us' (your assertions seem to indicate so) - in which case your views are remarkably arrogant and the ultimate in 'zoom-in' to use you own terminology.
-
I believe that Science through its discoveries has helped in an understanding of spirituality. A radical view, but true none the less.
Which is it Sriram - a belief or the truth. You seem very confused again.
By the way it is a belief, and one that isn't supported by evidence. Actually I'm not sure it is even a belief (which implies a kind of lofty importance) - frankly all it is is an opinion.
-
2. Take the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM and its need for observation ...and by implication, for consciousness.
Quite apart from everything else, this is factually incorrect. The Copenhagen interpretation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation) is not the same as the Von Neumann–Wigner interpretation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann%E2%80%93Wigner_interpretation) (aka "consciousness causes collapse"). From the wiki article on Copenhagen: "Although the Copenhagen interpretation is often confused with the idea that consciousness causes collapse, it defines an "observer" merely as that which collapses the wave function."
There is exactly zero evidence that consciousness plays any role in quantum mechanics.
-
The illusory quality is evidenced by the fact that it leads people to indulge false intuitions like after-life despite the fact there is no hard evidence or rationale for such things. The illusion consists in the intuition that the self is a fundamental independent entity rather than an emergent phenomenon of mind.
Several points here.
Can you indulge in an intuition? That sounds more like you indulging in onomatopoeia than them indulging in intuition.
False intuition. That's a matter of opinion isn't it?
Does believing in self lead to belief in the various caricatures of the soul you present?
Even if it did....is that Evidence that the self is an illusion?
You seem to have shifted the goal posts.
We now seem to be talking about not that the self is an illusion but the independence of the self is the illusion.
Is this an illusion or a mistake in understanding of an intellectual argument after all. Nobody is aware that they...the self...are an emergent property....who feels they are an emergent property.?Again an inappropriate use of the term illusion.
Does belief in the existence of the self lead to the belief in a soul that leaves the body at death and can commune with other souls that just happen to be around?
Not necessarily.
It could be argued biblically that rather than this free floating soul
the self dies and is then resurrected. God resurrects after the cessation of the self something that is totally his work and this rules out an ultimately independent soul. The self then being dependent for its existence on the will of God.
Since you have moved away from the self being an illusion the question is .....in what ontological framework can the self be said to exist?
-
Okay, so we can add awareness into the mix of things that makes up the whole 'onion'. However, pure awareness cannot be a self, can it? If it were, how would your awareness/self differ from mine? How could we tell if there was only one spark of awareness that flipped from mind to mind, being aware of all the contents of each mind (including all the memories and other context) in turn*?
Don't know what you're trying to say. If awareness is digital (just present or not), what is the exact dividing line (normal adult humans through to amoeba)?
Is the centre of an object, or centre of gravity to make it more exact, real or an illusion?
* Not original but I can't remember where I read it.
Awareness is the key here. So far self awareness has not been demonstrated as a necessary concomitant of intelligence.
And by awareness of the self we do not mean environmental awareness.
With regards centres of objects and centres of gravity being real or illusory I don't know but would love to hear your opinion. If illusory though I would have to ask what then is it that is having the illusion.
-
Awareness is the key here. So far self awareness has not been demonstrated as a necessary concomitant of intelligence.
And by awareness of the self we do not mean environmental awareness.
Okay, but awareness can't be a self for the reasons I stated. To get a self, you need awareness of all the other things in the mind, so, even in this rather simplistic analysis, the self is more of a relationship or construct rather than an actual thing or definable part of the mind.
With regards centres of objects and centres of gravity being real or illusory I don't know but would love to hear your opinion.
As I said, I reject the dilemma that there is only real or illusionary. A centre of gravity isn't real in the sense that it's an object in the world, but it has very real consequences.
-
Okay, but awareness can't be a self for the reasons I stated. To get a self, you need awareness of all the other things in the mind, so, even in this rather simplistic analysis, the self is more of a relationship or construct rather than an actual thing or definable part of the mind.
Who has ever been aware of being a relationship or a construct? And dare I add rather than a self?
You see. none of the related things or the individual bits of the construct possess this property of self. That is why we talk of a property previously not existent emerging.
Pursuing your line of non actuality and merely appearing, we are back to the question ''what is that is having the illusion rather than experiencing a property?
As I said, I reject the dilemma that there is only real or illusionary. A centre of gravity isn't real in the sense that it's an object in the world, but it has very real consequences.
It may not be real in the sense that it isn’t an object but that either means it is real in another sense or it isn’t real. What are you going to plump for?
-
Who has ever been aware of being a relationship or a construct? And dare I add rather than a self.
Which is why, in some ways, it can be considered to be an illusion, because it isn't what it seems to be.
You see none of the related things or the individual bits of the construct possess this property of self. That is why we talk of a property previously not existent emerging.
Yes.
Again,
Ensuing your line of non actuality and merely appearing we are back to the question what is that is having the illusion rather than experiencing a property’s?
You seem to think I'm really committed to this "illusion" description, which I'm not. Just by asking what's included in the self and what isn't, we've come to the conclusion that it can't really be defined like that, so, to an extent, it isn't quite how it feels like. I don't think that makes the whole thing an illusion - at least no more so than a centre of gravity.
It may not be real in the sense that it isn’t an object but that either means it is real in another sense or it isn’t real. What are you going to plump for.
What do you plump for? After all it's you who was keen to put things into neat categories.
-
What do you plump for? After all it's you who was keen to put things into neat categories.
I'm afraid I'm not falling for a ruse designed to satisfy the questionable desire of a public atheist to interrogate rather than answer questions themselves.
Does that desire come with a uniform and leatherwear?
-
I'm afraid I'm not falling for a ruse designed to satisfy the questionable desire of a public atheist to interrogate rather than answer questions themselves.
Does that desire come with a uniform and leatherwear?
Please leave your sexual fantasies out of it.
-
I'm afraid I'm not falling for a ruse designed to satisfy the questionable desire of a public atheist to interrogate rather than answer questions themselves.
Firstly, it's interesting that you want to concentrate on the semantics rather than the substance, and secondly, it's you who wanted me to put things in one of two categories that you'd come up with, and now you can't or won't do it yourself. That was the actual point I was making, that not everything fits neatly into those categories.
Does that desire come with a uniform and leatherwear?
Have you been hacking my webcam? :P
-
Firstly, it's interesting that you want to concentrate on the semantics rather than the substance, and secondly, it's you who wanted me to put things in one of two categories that you'd come up with, and now you can't or won't do it yourself. That was the actual point I was making, that not everything fits neatly into those categories.
Have you been hacking my webcam? :P
No pal. I said a few posts ago that if the self is an emergent property of brain function then it is a real thing.
I've said that the self is probably the thing we can be most sure of.
If as you say it is not real in the sense of being an object then there are only two options either it is real in some other sense or it is not. That you don't want to be pinned down to either is neither here nor there..... it changes naught. If you don't want to answer, that just speaks about you and nothing else.
-
No pal. I said a few posts ago that if the self is an emergent property of brain function then it is a real thing.
I've said that the self is probably the thing we can be most sure of.
If as you say it is not real in the sense of being an object then there are only two options either it is real in some other sense or it is not. That you don't want to be pinned down to either is neither here nor there..... it changes naught. If you don't want to answer, that just speaks about you and nothing else.
Emergent properties generally are not false, imaginary properties, in principle, they are real. Emergent phenomena of mind are real, ultimately, but they are illusory in the sense of a false intuition. For example, look at the screen in front of you; we all take it as undeniable that you are seeing the actual screen in front of you. However, this intuition is false, what is happening is you are having visual experience in your occipital lobe, at the back of your head. Your visual experience of the screen is a construction of mind based largely on memory, it is a fiction, a best guess construction that is good enough for its purpose. But we don't hesitantly look at things knowing we are having a proximate experience, we assume the experienced object to actually be the object. We commonly, and wrongly, take our inner representational experience to be the external objective reality. In this sense, I say emergent phenomenology of mind is real but with an illusory quality.
-
Emergent properties generally are not false, imaginary properties, in principle, they are real. Emergent phenomena of mind are real, ultimately, but they are illusory in the sense of a false intuition. For example, look at the screen in front of you; we all take it as undeniable that you are seeing the actual screen in front of you. However, this intuition is false, what is happening is you are having visual experience in your occipital lobe, at the back of your head. Your visual experience of the screen is a construction of mind based largely on memory, it is a fiction, a best guess construction that is good enough for its purpose. But we don't hesitantly look at things knowing we are having a proximate experience, we assume the experienced object to actually be the object. We commonly, and wrongly, take our inner representational experience to be the external objective reality. In this sense, I say emergent phenomenology of mind is real but with an illusory quality.
Reality exists at different levels differently. We cannot say which of them is the 'actual' reality.
But one thing is clear that objectivity is an illusion. In reality, all experiences are subjective....collective subjectivity. Like different people using different terminals to play the same game.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2019/11/04/reality/
-
Emergent properties generally are not false, imaginary properties, in principle, they are real. Emergent phenomena of mind are real, ultimately, but they are illusory in the sense of a false intuition. For example, look at the screen in front of you; we all take it as undeniable that you are seeing the actual screen in front of you. However, this intuition is false, what is happening is you are having visual experience in your occipital lobe, at the back of your head. Your visual experience of the screen is a construction of mind based largely on memory, it is a fiction, a best guess construction that is good enough for its purpose. But we don't hesitantly look at things knowing we are having a proximate experience, we assume the experienced object to actually be the object. We commonly, and wrongly, take our inner representational experience to be the external objective reality. In this sense, I say emergent phenomenology of mind is real but with an illusory quality.
Your example is one of how illusion exists in people’s experience. The thing is though we know what it is that is having the illusion. It is the self.
We are forced then to ask, in the case of the self itself, what is it which is having the illusion of self?
If we do not know what or even if there is something which can be said to experience an illusion, then any statement that the self is an illusion is baseless and all we are doing is taking the self and declaring it an illusion with no warrant.
If the self is an emergent property of brain function then I contend that there are no brain functions which are self aware and subsequently none that can have illusions.
If this is the case then either the self is not an illusion or something other than brains are having the illusion.
Since I see no candidates here it looks like the self is no illusion and my advice to those who disagree is......
Find what it is that is having the illusion.
-
Your example is one of how illusion exists in people’s experience the thing is though we know what it is that is having the illusion. It is the self.
We are forced then to ask, in the case of the self itself, what is it which is having the illusion?
If we do not know what or even if there is something which can be said to experience an illusion, then any statement that the self is an illusion is baseless and all we are doing is taking the self and declaring it an illusion with no warrant.
I don't understand your point.
I think I have made it clear that, in my view, objectivity is an illusion and that the Subject is the only reality.
-
I don't understand your point.
I think I have made it clear that, in my view, objectivity is an illusion and that the Subject is the only reality.
My point is that the self is not an illusion.
In terms of your view I think mine and yours are in agreement somewhat.
Sorry I was replying to Torridon My mistake.Many apologies.
-
My point is that the self is not an illusion.
In terms of your view I think mine and yours are in agreement somewhat.
Sorry I was replying to Torridon My mistake.Many apologies.
No problem... :) :)
-
No problem... :) :)
Thanks. I appreciated your reply to Torridon which is really productive to the debate.
-
Reality exists at different levels differently. We cannot say which of them is the 'actual' reality.
But one thing is clear that objectivity is an illusion. In reality, all experiences are subjective....collective subjectivity. Like different people using different terminals to play the same game.
I think I'd go along with that, with the exception that there probably is no such thing as the 'actual' reality since Einstein dispensed with Newton, there is no objective frame of reference
-
Your example is one of how illusion exists in people’s experience. The thing is though we know what it is that is having the illusion. It is the self.
We are forced then to ask, in the case of the self itself, what is it which is having the illusion of self?
..
That we use phraseology as the above, is evidence for how compelling the illusion of self is. We struggle to conceptualise the phenomenon of experience without introducing an 'experiencer' to make semantic sense. it's reminiscent of how creationists argue that creation implies a creator, ergo since stuff exists, therefore God. You also see similar with AB, and his oft-repeated claim that perception requires a perceiver. Both these claims fail as they imply an infinite regress. There is no 'experiencer' inside other than the emergent feeling of there being one and this feeling is created by our minds as a consequence of the way that our minds integrate senses of varying modalities into an apparently singular stream of conscious experience.
-
That we use phraseology as the above, is evidence for how compelling the illusion of self is. We struggle to conceptualise the phenomenon of experience without introducing an 'experiencer' to make semantic sense. it's reminiscent of how creationists argue that creation implies a creator, ergo since stuff exists, therefore God. You also see similar with AB, and his oft-repeated claim that perception requires a perceiver. Both these claims fail as they imply an infinite regress. There is no 'experiencer' inside other than the emergent feeling of there being one and this feeling is created by our minds as a consequence of the way that our minds integrate senses of varying modalities into an apparently singular stream of conscious experience.
What is it that is having the illusion though. All you seem to have succeeded in doing is suggesting that in some way a real self is somehow deluded about something.
Stop guffing on about creationists. I can point to loads of arguments from atheists about what they think the implications of things are but like creationism that has nothing to do with this.
There is no 'experiencer other than' means that there is an experiencer. That is the self.
So to recap. If the self is an illusion, what is it that is having the illusion since the brain functions from which the self emerges are incapable of experiencing illusions?
-
What is it that is having the illusion though. All you seem to have succeeded in doing is suggesting that in some way a real self is somehow deluded about something.
Stop guffing on about creationists. I can point to loads of arguments from atheists about what they think the implications of things are but like creationism that has nothing to do with this.
There is no 'experiencer other than' means that there is an experiencer. That is the self.
So to recap. If the self is an illusion, what is it that is having the illusion since the brain functions from which the self emerges are incapable of experiencing illusions?
Can't there simply be experience?
If that is so then what is experienced as 'I' - the first person perspective - is just another aspect of experience. There is no grounding subject that has an experience You don't own or control your experience. Nor are you found in the parts or the sum of your experience. There is no findable independent entity which is you.
Any appearance of self as something separate and foundational would therefore be deceptive - an illusion - but this is simply part of experience. The illusion may seem real, maybe more real than anything else. It is a real experience. And conventionally, of course, we can still speak and think in terms of selves and persons. It would be absurd not to - nominal selves do exist and function and they're no less significant to us for being only nominal.
-
I think I'd go along with that, with the exception that there probably is no such thing as the 'actual' reality since Einstein dispensed with Newton, there is no objective frame of reference
When you agree that all experiences are subjective and that objective reality is an illusion...why are you denying the existence of a Subject?
-
Any appearance of self as something separate and foundational would therefore be deceptive - an illusion
What is it then that is having the illusion since none of the brain functions involved can experience an illusion?
-
When you agree that all experiences are subjective and that objective reality is an illusion...why are you denying the existence of a Subject?
depends what you mean by 'Subject'. Everything has a subjective aspect, but if by 'Subject' you mean soul/spirit/self, then I don't think such a thing exists as an irreducible ontologically distinct part of the cosmos, rather it is an emergent phenomenon of mind, ie it is high order spatially and temporally derivative, not fundamental.
-
depends what you mean by 'Subject'. Everything has a subjective aspect, but if by 'Subject' you mean soul/spirit/self, then I don't think such a thing exists as an irreducible ontologically distinct part of the cosmos, rather it is an emergent phenomenon of mind, ie it is high order spatially and temporally derivative, not fundamental.
Is it just your aversion to religious and spiritual issues (the God phobia) that makes you think of such convoluted possibilities...?!
-
My point is that the self is not an illusion.
What is it then?
-
Is it just your aversion to religious and spiritual issues (the God phobia) that makes you think of such convoluted possibilities...?!
No, it merely follows from the observation that there is no cortical structure that houses a 'self' or a 'subject'. The sensation of there being an experiencer is really just an function of experience, as Bramble says.
-
What is it that is having the illusion though. All you seem to have succeeded in doing is suggesting that in some way a real self is somehow deluded about something.
Stop guffing on about creationists. I can point to loads of arguments from atheists about what they think the implications of things are but like creationism that has nothing to do with this.
There is no 'experiencer other than' means that there is an experiencer. That is the self.
So to recap. If the self is an illusion, what is it that is having the illusion since the brain functions from which the self emerges are incapable of experiencing illusions?
See Bramble reply #78, pretty much on the money, i think
-
See Bramble reply #78, pretty much on the money, i think
Bramble asks can't there just be experience'.
Even if there can be that seems irrelevant to the self and no explanation as to the awareness of experience.
It is a diversion. Also Bramble has to come back on what it is that is having the illusion.
Can there just be illusion without anything experiencing it?
Well no,
Which brings us all back to the question. If the self is an illusion.....what is it which is having the illusion.
-
What is it then?
It is an emergent property of brain function.
-
. There is no findable independent entity which is you.
I've found it and so have you. In fact it is a little hard to miss. Is it independent? Yes in the sense that none of the functions from which it arises possess the property.
-
It is an emergent property of brain function.
Ok.
Purely as a result of biological functions?
-
Bramble asks can't there just be experience'.
Even if there can be that seems irrelevant to the self and no explanation as to the awareness of experience.
It is a diversion. Also Bramble has to come back on what it is that is having the illusion.
Can there just be illusion without anything experiencing it?
Well no,
Which brings us all back to the question. If the self is an illusion.....what is it which is having the illusion.
if my toe is hurting, what is it that is experiencing pain ? Is it my toe ? Not that simple, is it. The sensation of pain is a qualia created by mind and projected to feel as if it is located in my toe. That proprioception function, mapping to body, is part of how the mind creates a phenomenological mirror to the physical body
-
No, it merely follows from the observation that there is no cortical structure that houses a 'self' or a 'subject'. The sensation of there being an experiencer is really just an function of experience, as Bramble says.
What is your view of the Unconscious mind that forms 90% of our Consciousness....but lies below the surface?
-
What is your view of the Unconscious mind that forms 90% of our Consciousness....but lies below the surface?
In a nutshell, it is all our 'memories' for want of a better word, that are not in focus in the current moment.
-
if my toe is hurting, what is it that is experiencing pain ? Is it my toe ? Not that simple, is it. The sensation of pain is a qualia created by mind and projected to feel as if it is located in my toe. That proprioception function, mapping to body, is part of how the mind creates a phenomenological mirror to the physical body
Yes, the question "what is it that is having the experience of X", presupposes the idea of dualism, that there is an experiencer and the experienced. So it's starting with the answer that it wants. Admittedly, dropping dualism feels weird for many people, but is also craved. But I suppose Alan's insistence on thinking having a thinker goes along the same tramline, of thinking that grammar, (subject, verb, object), is reality.
-
Ok.
Purely as a result of biological functions?
Why not?
After all as religion said centuries before Dougla Adam's likened us to puddles, we come from dust and we go to dust.
-
if my toe is hurting, what is it that is experiencing pain ? Is it my toe ? Not that simple, is it. The sensation of pain is a qualia created by mind and projected to feel as if it is located in my toe.
Projected where and onto what?
-
On to where it calculates your toe to be
-
Why not?
After all as religion said centuries before Dougla Adam's likened us to puddles, we come from dust and we go to dust.
I don't see why not but then I'm not the person staring that it is logical that the self exists in another (timeless) place and somehow visits our bodies, in this universe/spacetime to interrogate the brain in order to make real-time decisions.
What are your thoughts on that as a piece of logical thinking?
-
In a nutshell, it is all our 'memories' for want of a better word, that are not in focus in the current moment.
You seriously think the Unconscious mind, which is 90% of our consciousness....is just a store house of memories?
You do know that the Unconscious mind takes all decisions before our conscious mind is even aware of it. The Placebo effect is said to be because of the unconscious mind. Many spontaneous cures are said to be because of the unconscious mind.
According to David Eagleman....“The conscious you, which is the part that flickers to life when you wake up in the morning, is the smallest bit of what’s happening in your head….It’s like a broom closet in the mansion of the brain.”
-
You seriously think the Unconscious mind, which is 90% of our consciousness....is just a store house of memories?
You do know that the Unconscious mind takes all decisions before our conscious mind is even aware of it. The Placebo effect is said to be because of the unconscious mind. Many spontaneous cures are said to be because of the unconscious mind.
According to David Eagleman....“The conscious you, which is the part that flickers to life when you wake up in the morning, is the smallest bit of what’s happening in your head….It’s like a broom closet in the mansion of the brain.”
Yes, that is right. Unconscious mind is all mind bar the whatever is in focus in the current moment. I use 'memories' in the broadest sense, to include all your habits of mind, your prejudices, your motor skills, language skills, preferences, personality, all such things are 'stored', hence forms of memory.
-
Yes, that is right. Unconscious mind is all mind bar the whatever is in focus in the current moment. I use 'memories' in the broadest sense, to include all your habits of mind, your prejudices, your motor skills, language skills, preferences, personality, all such things are 'stored', hence forms of memory.
What I think is that the Unconscious mind and its enormous power is an indication of the Self hidden behind the Conscious mind.
It is the Self that takes all decisions but the conscious mind and the Ego have the impression that they are the players...when in fact they are just the horse that the Self is riding. They are just tools that the Self uses in its journey.
-
What I think is that the Unconscious mind and its enormous power is an indication of the Self hidden behind the Conscious mind.
It is the Self that takes all decisions but the conscious mind and the Ego have the impression that they are the players...when in fact they are just the horse that the Self is riding. They are just tools that the Self uses in its journey.
I am minded to make a distinction between an (unconscious) self and a conscious self.
The unconscious one I would equate to personality. A person's habits, their sense of humour, the dialect with which they speak, their political and religious views, their abiliity on the dance floor, and so on. Long term, persistent entrenched habits of mind and personality traits.
A conscious self I see as a phenomenological construction of mind created by the engine of human consciousness. That sensation of an incorporeal being resident somewhere inside the body though exactly where is hard to pinpoint, the recipient of perception, the moral agent apparently making choices; I think of it rather like the inflatable pilot in the movie Airplane!, something that appears to be in charge, but isn't, really. It is the software that is really running the plane and the software creates a virtual pilot and it is the virtual pilot, or conscious self, which we imagine as the experiencer of experience and to which we attribute agency and moral accountability.
-
I am minded to make a distinction between an (unconscious) self and a conscious self.
The unconscious one I would equate to personality. A person's habits, their sense of humour, the dialect with which they speak, their political and religious views, their abiliity on the dance floor, and so on. Long term, persistent entrenched habits of mind and personality traits.
A conscious self I see as a phenomenological construction of mind created by the engine of human consciousness. That sensation of an incorporeal being resident somewhere inside the body though exactly where is hard to pinpoint, the recipient of perception, the moral agent apparently making choices; I think of it rather like the inflatable pilot in the movie Airplane!, something that appears to be in charge, but isn't, really. It is the software that is really running the plane and the software creates a virtual pilot and it is the virtual pilot, or conscious self, which we imagine as the experiencer of experience and to which we attribute agency and moral accountability.
I would put it the other way around.
The Personality (body, mind, ego, awareness, name, learning....etc.) is the conscious mind. This is what gets created after birth through our life time. Personality is temporary...it gets created over time and it also dies. It gets affected by Alzheimer's, old age etc.
The Self is the Unconscious mind that acts behind the Personality. It retains whatever it picks up from the Personality.
The Self is that which learns and experiences through the Personality and then leaves the body-mind to continue its experiences in another body-mind.
Then...there is the Higher Self...which is another issue....
-
And there you have left the straight and narrow path of evidence based reasoning and wandered off into woo-land. Not going to be following you there.
-
I thought so.... :D
But we are beginning to narrow the gap...I can see that.
-
On to where it calculates your toe to be
The question as far as the topic is concerned is,is the pain real?
If it is not real then how can we describe anything detected by our senses real?
If pain is an illusion then we know what is having the illusion......the self, and we are back into the question of whether the self is an illusion etc.
Back to the toe. It is incorrect merely to say the pain is an illusion projected onto the toe. Information comes from the toe and emerges as the sensation of pain.
Many systems have arrived at pain being an illusion and have developed crackpot notions of alleviating it by attempting to control the mind.
-
I don't see why not but then I'm not the person staring that it is logical that the self exists in another (timeless) place and somehow visits our bodies, in this universe/spacetime to interrogate the brain in order to make real-time decisions.
And neither am I but because you were busting with the expectation that I would conform to your caricature of a christian you had to make the accusation anyway.
Typical.....yes
Stinking.....yes
Rabid......profoundly.
-
And there you have left the straight and narrow path of evidence based reasoning and wandered off into woo-land. Not going to be following you there.
It seems to me that you've come to the end of the vocabulary and conceptual framework you are allowed as an obedient materialist to use on the topic of the self and are now guffing on about the mind instead.
-
The question as far as the topic is concerned is,is the pain real.
If it is not real then how can we describe anything detected by our senses real?
If pain is an illusion then we know what is having the illusion......the self, and we are back into the question of whether the self is an illusion etc.
Back to the toe. It is incorrect merely to say the pain is an illusion projected onto the toe. Information comes from the toe and emerges as the sensation of pain.
Many systems have arrived at pain being an illusion and have developed crackpot notions of alleviating it by attempting to control the mind.
If you take paracetamol for your toe pain, that is a pharmacological intervention working on your brain, not on your toe. The sensation of pain is created by mind, but it doesn't manifest as pain in your brain like headache, it manifests as a pain in your toe. Hence the mind is projecting the pain back to the location of the toe. You don't even need to have toe to feel pain in it - amputees often report pain in the amputated limb, a phenomenon so common we have a medical name for it - phantom limb syndrome.
Which brings us back to the self, if pain is projected to a virtual toe that implies the virtual toe is a part of a virtual whole, or self. It's all part of the mind's mapping of its virtual body to its flesh body. So the question, is the self real, boils down to the same as, is the amputees painful missing foot real. It is real enough in the mind of the patient, but it is not there in any conventional sense of the word 'real'. We could almost say, his phantom pain is an illusion.
-
If you take paracetamol for your toe pain, that is a pharmacological intervention working on your brain, not on your toe. The sensation of pain is created by mind, but it doesn't manifest as pain in your brain like headache, it manifests as a pain in your toe. Hence the mind is projecting the pain back to the location of the toe. You don't even need to have toe to feel pain in it - amputees often report pain in the amputated limb, a phenomenon so common we have a medical name for it - phantom limb syndrome.
Which brings us back to the self, if pain is projected to a virtual toe that implies the virtual toe is a part of a virtual whole, or self. It's all part of the mind's mapping of its virtual body to its flesh body. So the question, is the self real, boils down to the same as, is the amputees painful missing foot real. It is real enough in the mind of the patient, but it is not there in any conventional sense of the word 'real'. We could almost say, his phantom pain is an illusion.
You seem to be equating real pain with phantom pain here so you can then say therefore the self is like phantom pain.
There are problems with this
Firstly the equation of pain with self.
Even if real pain is an illusion we know what it is that is having the illusion.
You have been unable to do that for the self.
Secondly there is your equation of phantom pain and real pain.
That is I would move an obvious conflation
Having erroneously classified all pain as phantom pain you then equate self with phantom pain.
I had hoped I was wrong about what you had done but the alternative would possibly be you not having equated real pain with phantom pain and just, as an act of preference and with no warrant chosen phantom pain as analogy to self.
-
You seem to be equating real pain with phantom pain here so you can then say therefore the self is like phantom pain.
There are problems with this
Firstly the equation of pain with self.
Even if real pain is an illusion we know what it is that is having the illusion.
You have been unable to do that for the self.
Secondly there is your equation of phantom pain and real pain.
That is I would move an obvious conflation
Having erroneously classified all pain as phantom pain you then equate self with phantom pain.
I had hoped I was wrong about what you had done but the alternative would possibly be you not having equated real pain with phantom pain and just, as an act of preference and with no warrant chosen phantom pain as analogy to self.
Seems to me you are struggling unnecessarily over this. Our minds create a phenomenological mapping of the physical body. You don't need to look at your left foot to know where it is. Think of that mapping as your inner self. It is real in the sense that all experience is real; on the other hand, it is not real in the sense that it is all in the mind.
-
Bramble asks can't there just be experience'.
Even if there can be that seems irrelevant to the self and no explanation as to the awareness of experience.
It is a diversion. Also Bramble has to come back on what it is that is having the illusion.
Can there just be illusion without anything experiencing it?
Well no,
Which brings us all back to the question. If the self is an illusion.....what is it which is having the illusion.
I've suggested that the sense of self is just an aspect of experience. If you can accept that the experience of a world is a VR representation created by the brain then it shouldn't be difficult to see how what we experience as selfhood is simply part of that representation. I'm not sure what additional kind of self you think must underpin experience or why you think it is necessary. If selfhood is part of a VR model then demanding that it must either be illusory or real is likely to be unprofitable.
I've found it and so have you. In fact it is a little hard to miss. Is it independent? Yes in the sense that none of the functions from which it arises possess the property.
If it arises from something how can it be independent?
-
Seems to me you are struggling unnecessarily over this. Our minds create a phenomenological mapping of the physical body. You don't need to look at your left foot to know where it is. Think of that mapping as your inner self. It is real in the sense that all experience is real; on the other hand, it is not real in the sense that it is all in the mind.
A retreat into vagueness here what you are portraying as a struggle is in fact me not commenting on non sequitur descriptions of brain function. .Descriptions which amount to hand waving.
On a thread about reality you commited the cardinal error of conflating real pain with phantom pain.
If you wish to demonstrate illusion you need to show what it is that is illuded. Just giving examples of illusion as analogy where we know what is illuded does not cut the mustard.
All it does is reveal what is an emergent property.
We agreed that these are often real.
Pain is an emergent property from bodily processes.
Phantom pain is brain function fooling the self into thinking an impossible pain is real.
If you are declaring the self as an illusion then it must be an illusion of real self....since phantom pain is an illusion of real pain.
-
I've suggested that the sense of self is just an aspect of experience. If you can accept that the experience of a world is a VR representation created by the brain then it shouldn't be difficult to see how what we experience as selfhood is simply part of that representation. I'm not sure what additional kind of self you think must underpin experience or why you think it is necessary. If selfhood is part of a VR model then demanding that it must either be illusory or real is likely to be unprofitable.
If it arises from something how can it be independent?
VR representations exist don't they? The mona lisa an old vr representation exists doesn't it.
What does the self represent? A self of course or something greater....if your analogy is a VR representation.
It is independent only in that it exists as a property not possessed by that from which it emerges.
-
because you were busting with the expectation that I would conform to your caricature of a christian
I'm fascinated Vlad.
Exactly what is my caricature of a Christian?
-
I'm fascinated Vlad.
Exactly what is my caricature of a Christian?
Read your own post.
-
VR representations exist don't they? The mona lisa an old vr representation exists doesn't it.
What does the self represent? A self of course or something greater....if your analogy is a VR representation.
It is independent only in that it exists as a property not possessed by that from which it emerges.
I never said the self doesn't exist, if that is what you are implying. I suggested it is merely an aspect of experience rather than a fundamental witness to experience and that it is unfindable under analysis. If you don't like this version others are available ;)
-
That has been one track in various meditation methods, look for the self. It often becomes ludicrous, like chasing your own tail. I think many people start going beyond the separate self, then who knows.
-
If people don't know how to switch from the objective to the subjective...they will be searching externally for themselves. ::)
-
Read your own post.
I did.
Nothing there but reporting of facts.
Facts? That is the caricature?
Is that a bad thing?
-
I did.
Nothing there but reporting of facts.
Facts? That is the caricature?
Is that a bad thing?
And what ''fact'' was your summary of Christian belief on the self which you assumed I shared but, to your obvious frustration I didn't, exactly?
-
And what ''fact'' was your summary of Christian belief on the self which you assumed I shared but, to your obvious frustration I didn't, exactly?
My summary of Christian belief on the self?
Where is that?
I think that you might be getting a bit muddled up there.
Not surprising as you are juggling a good few different subjects at once.
I don't hold that against you Vlad.
Maybe you need to take a step back and rethink?
You might notice that I do in fact agree with you on something!
Is that what is worrying you? :o
-
A retreat into vagueness here what you are portraying as a struggle is in fact me not commenting on non sequitur descriptions of brain function. .Descriptions which amount to hand waving.
On a thread about reality you commited the cardinal error of conflating real pain with phantom pain.
If you wish to demonstrate illusion you need to show what it is that is illuded. Just giving examples of illusion as analogy where we know what is illuded does not cut the mustard.
All it does is reveal what is an emergent property.
We agreed that these are often real.
Pain is an emergent property from bodily processes.
Phantom pain is brain function fooling the self into thinking an impossible pain is real.
If you are declaring the self as an illusion then it must be an illusion of real self....since phantom pain is an illusion of real pain.
Pain in a phantom limb is real pain in something that does not exist, this can only happen because the mind's mapping of physical body to internal 'self' is not always perfect, and that ongoing process of internal modelling maintains the illusion of self. Given you see the self as an emergent property of a body, that locates your position on this much closer to my position than to say Alan Burns. I see it as an emergent phenomenon which has the illusory quality that it feels like a thing when it is in fact a process, and the fact that most people who have ever lived think about themselves as two distinct things, person and body, is evidence of the power of the illusion.
-
Pain in a phantom limb is real pain in something that does not exist, this can only happen because the mind's mapping of physical body to internal 'self' is not always perfect, and that ongoing process of internal modelling maintains the illusion of self. Given you see the self as an emergent property of a body, that locates your position on this much closer to my position than to say Alan Burns. I see it as an emergent phenomenon which has the illusory quality that it feels like a thing when it is in fact a process, and the fact that most people who have ever lived think about themselves as two distinct things, person and body, is evidence of the power of the illusion.
Processes happen to and within objects not by themselves....
We cannot attribute all phenomena only to processes without considering the relevant objects.
-
Processes happen to and within objects not by themselves....
We cannot attribute all phenomena only to processes without considering the relevant objects.
Yes, the 'relevant object' would be the brain.
-
Yes, the 'relevant object' would be the brain.
But the brain didn't create itself. It is a product of stem cells...and DNA. There has to be a reason for DNA to form such a complex brain.
-
But the brain didn't create itself. It is a product of stem cells...and DNA. There has to be a reason for DNA to form such a complex brain.
It's called 'evolution'.
-
But the brain didn't create itself. It is a product of stem cells...and DNA. There has to be a reason for DNA to form such a complex brain.
You're wandering off topic I see. Brains are a product of evolution which in turn serves thermodynamic law by creating energetic dissipative structures of increasingly high order complexity thus increasing entropy over time.
-
You're wandering off topic I see. Brains are a product of evolution which in turn serves thermodynamic law by creating energetic dissipative structures of increasingly high order complexity thus increasing entropy over time.
It all comes back to 'intent'. Why?? Life, evolution, complexity....are all not chance occurrences. Couple it with the idea of Consciousness (Unconscious mind) ...and we have a clear case of directed development.....from within.
-
It all comes back to 'intent'. Why?? Life, evolution, complexity....are all not chance occurrences. Couple it with the idea of Consciousness (Unconscious mind) ...and we have a clear case of directed development.....from within.
Why do you think a purposive 'why' is a valid question in this context?
-
It all comes back to 'intent'. Why?? Life, evolution, complexity....are all not chance occurrences. Couple it with the idea of Consciousness (Unconscious mind) ...and we have a clear case of directed development.....from within.
You are assuming a purpose. It's a massive piece of begging the question.
-
It all comes back to 'intent'. Why?? Life, evolution, complexity....are all not chance occurrences. Couple it with the idea of Consciousness (Unconscious mind) ...and we have a clear case of directed development.....from within.
Circular reasoning. 'Intent' is a phenomenon of a brain.
-
Pain in a phantom limb is real pain in something that does not exist, this can only happen because the mind's mapping of physical body to internal 'self' is not always perfect, and that ongoing process of internal modelling maintains the illusion of self. Given you see the self as an emergent property of a body, that locates your position on this much closer to my position than to say Alan Burns. I see it as an emergent phenomenon which has the illusory quality that it feels like a thing when it is in fact a process, and the fact that most people who have ever lived think about themselves as two distinct things, person and body, is evidence of the power of the illusion.
Real pain in something that does not exist. Yes, that is good.
I agree also that we may be edging closer to two cigarette paper difference between our views.
It’s just this point about illusions and if you still hold to that you know what I am going to say next.
I think you have no real option other to admit that what is illuded is not the various brain functions which individually cannot have illusions or the self being illuded into thinking it is a self, that has always been the stupidity of illusion of self thinking, but rather a philosophy. But which one I don’t rightly know or whether it’s mine.
The trouble is though if this is the case where it is a conceptual framework that is being illuded, reification is going on. To disprove a real self in order to fit in with materialism something more arguably illusiory and non material is being considered as real.
OR you are now able to tell us what it is which is having the illusion of self.
-
Real pain in something that does not exist. Yes, that is good.
I agree also that we may be edging closer to two cigarette paper difference between our views.
It’s just this point about illusions and if you still hold to that you know what I am going to say next.
I think you have no real option other to admit that what is illuded is not the various brain functions which individually cannot have illusions or the self being illuded into thinking it is a self, that has always been the stupidity of illusion of self thinking, but rather a philosophy. But which one I don’t rightly know or whether it’s mine.
The trouble is though if this is the case where it is a conceptual framework that is being illuded, reification is going on. To disprove a real self in order to fit in with materialism something more arguably illusiory and non material is being considered as real.
OR you are now able to tell us what it is which is having the illusion of self.
The difficulty in describing the illusion of self owes to the fact that the concept is essentially, apparently, self-refuting, if you can forgive the pun. To experience an illusion implies an experiencer, ie a 'self'. This is why I prefer to say the self has an illusory quality. This i think is slightly more accurate as it recognises the self is a real thing (as a rock or play by Shakespeare is a real thing), but its nature is not how it seems (to itself) Hmmm.
-
The difficulty in describing the illusion of self owes to the fact that the concept is essentially, apparently, self-refuting, if you can forgive the pun. To experience an illusion implies an experiencer, ie a 'self'. This is why I prefer to say the self has an illusory quality.
But isn't that more a disorder often related to anxiety and when you are stressed?
I can see how it could be described informally as illusiory within a group of materialists, reductionists or eliminitaves
-
You are assuming a purpose. It's a massive piece of begging the question.
Yes... and why not? Why should you assume that there is no purpose?
Its all about which assumption we begin with.
If survival, reproduction and parental instincts are built into DNA ....there is a clear purpose. Survival itself is a purpose....
-
Circular reasoning. 'Intent' is a phenomenon of a brain.
Why is intent a phenomenon of brain? 'Survival' is a universal instinct present even in the simplest organisms. That is intent.
-
Why is intent a phenomenon of brain?
Because intention implies a purpose or plan.
'Survival' is a universal instinct present even in the simplest organisms. That is intent.
Nonsense. It's questionable whether you can call it "instinct" the simplest organisms but that organisms have characteristics that make them good a survival is explained perfectly by evolution. No intent needed.
-
Yes... and why not? Why should you assume that there is no purpose?
Its all about which assumption we begin with.
If survival, reproduction and parental instincts are built into DNA ....there is a clear purpose. Survival itself is a purpose....
I am not assuming no purpose. You are claiming there is one. You need to show evidence for that and your rambling assertion does nothing to do that. Indeed it illustrates that your thinking is ridiculously basic.
-
But isn't that more a disorder often related to anxiety and when you are stressed?
I can see how it could be described informally as illusiory within a group of materialists, reductionists or eliminitaves
Many aspects of perception, for instance, are illusory, eg optical illusions. Such things don't imply a disorder or some impairment, but rather they provide insight into how the mind actually works, which is often not how we would imagine it to work.
-
Many aspects of perception, for instance, are illusory, eg optical illusions. Such things don't imply a disorder or some impairment, but rather they provide insight into how the mind actually works, which is often not how we would imagine it to work.
Some, I think might see the mind as existing purely for the purpose of revealing how it works.
-
Why is intent a phenomenon of brain? 'Survival' is a universal instinct present even in the simplest organisms. That is intent.
We observe intentionality in enbrained creatures. How does such a phenomenon arise ? The claim that intentionality exists because it was intended is just self referential, it offers no route to real enlightenment. Better to try to understand things from first principles without resorting to circular reasoning which gets you nowhere.
-
We observe intentionality in enbrained creatures. How does such a phenomenon arise ? The claim that intentionality exists because it was intended is just self referential, it offers no route to real enlightenment. Better to try to understand things from first principles without resorting to circular reasoning which gets you nowhere.
All intent is driven by basic needs. Survival, reproduction and parental. Higher level needs are derived from these three.
These three needs are again driven by basic instincts that can be traced as far back as DNA itself. Nothing to do with brains.
The point is...why does DNA replicate? Why does life evolve? Why does complexity arise?
Science has no answers ...and to avoid extra-physical explanations, scientists dismiss such questions as irrelevant! It may take another generation, but this reluctance to move away from physicalism/materialism has to go. We have to move to higher levels of explanation. It will happen.....
-
The point is...why does DNA replicate?
Chemistry.
Why does life evolve?
Because it consists of replicators with variation and inheritance within an environment with limited resources, and it is therefore subject to natural selection.
Why does complexity arise?
Because of variation and selection.
Science has no answers ...
False.
...and to avoid extra-physical explanations, scientists dismiss such questions as irrelevant!
False.
It may take another generation, but this reluctance to move away from physicalism/materialism has to go. We have to move to higher levels of explanation. It will happen.....
It can only happen if there is some actual evidence. The science isn't going to change just because you really, really want it to.
-
All intent is driven by basic needs. Survival, reproduction and parental. Higher level needs are derived from these three.
These three needs are again driven by basic instincts that can be traced as far back as DNA itself. Nothing to do with brains.
The point is...why does DNA replicate? Why does life evolve? Why does complexity arise?
Science has no answers ...and to avoid extra-physical explanations, scientists dismiss such questions as irrelevant! It may take another generation, but this reluctance to move away from physicalism/materialism has to go. We have to move to higher levels of explanation. It will happen.....
There are provisional ideas in science, I already posted up one in #127, it is thermodynamics that mandates the drive to greater complexity - structures of high order complexity are better are better at dissipating energy than simple ones. Clearly ants (less complex) have not built high energy civilisations like humans (more complex). A universe in which your coffee cools down to the ambient room temperature is also a universe which will produce intentionality.
-
Its like saying...'I know how the computer works...but I don't know what its for'.