Real God

[wigginhall]

Just saw this thread, and I thought that some Eastern religions actually collapse the distinction between 'within' and 'without', so there is no location.   In the famous phrase, there is no up.   Advaita seems like this, but then an advaita teacher that I read tends to say that nothing has ever happened!  (Tony Parsons, not the novelist).  But this is the complete dissolution of familiar landmarks, so not even 'God' makes sense.   All a long way from ordinary life, but some people want to go a long way.

Maybe this is a bit like panentheism, not sure. 

[torridon]

The Self is also an illusion though, in all likelihood

An illusion for whom?!

That's an illustration of how deeply ingrained, how compelling, the illusion is.  It is scarcely possible to talk about such things without language that assumes the illusion.

So...once again. An illusion for whom?

And once again, the phrasing of the question presupposes there is a 'person' to be illuded.  Which is of course entirely reasonable in daily life. It is near impossible to describe what is meant by 'self' with any sort of clarity or precision and in a way that suits all contexts.  If I take, as a working definition, a sense of self to mean a sense of inner singularity, personal continuity, agency and perception, then I would say that there must be an illusory aspect to this in the same way there is an illusory aspect to all conscious experience, in that it is all cerebral fabrication of some form that we implicitly take for real.  Thus for example I am looking at my screen right now and I accept unquestioningly that my vision of the screen actually is the screen I am looking at.  But of course it is not, my sense of sight is a neurological phenomenon happening at the back of my skull but the experience is so sublimely compelling that I trust that my sight of the screen actually is the screen itself. And suppose I reach out to touch the screen to confirm what my eyesight tells me, my sense of touch is another component of the overall immersive sensory illusion of conscious perception. It feels like my finger is touching the screen, but actually the sensation of touch is something fabricated in brain and cunningly back-projected through some sort of reverse proprioception to make it feels as if it is the finger which is experiencing touching. 

The sense of self in particular is a component of the overall fabrication that comes as a package under the umbrella of conscious experience, and to my mind there are telling pointers that illustrate the work that goes on behind the scenes to produce this feeling; for example we often look to disorders as a way to illuminate the nature of 'normality' and we find there are schizophrenics that sometimes lose their sense of self, and for instance, when they move an arm, they have the compelling belief that someone else is moving it, not them. This is a case where the sense of self is compromised or underfunctioning through pathology. Another pointer to the divided inner self is the fact that we experience cognitive dissonance, born of the defacto observation that all mammals in essence have two brains that are joined together by a tiny amount of connective tissue, and in human psychology, this often manifests as a tension between two ways of thinking - one intuitive, directly experiential way, and on the other hand, an abstract, logical way of thinking, which might very crudely be portrayed as underlying the tension in human society between religion and science.   Pointers such as these suggest to me at least that much of the work that the brain does in generating conscious experience is to do with the homogenising and calibrating and harmoniously integrating disparate and often warring underlying components into a seemingly single point of focus, perception and volition, and this taken together with the persistence of individual memory over time thanks to faithful cell replication, we have an enormously powerful and compelling sense of self, of individuality, of personhood.

[ekim]

The Self is also an illusion though, in all likelihood

An illusion for whom?!

That's an illustration of how deeply ingrained, how compelling, the illusion is.  It is scarcely possible to talk about such things without language that assumes the illusion.

So...once again. An illusion for whom?

And once again, the phrasing of the question presupposes there is a 'person' to be illuded.  Which is of course entirely reasonable in daily life. It is near impossible to describe what is meant by 'self' with any sort of clarity or precision and in a way that suits all contexts.  If I take, as a working definition, a sense of self to mean a sense of inner singularity, personal continuity, agency and perception, then I would say that there must be an illusory aspect to this in the same way there is an illusory aspect to all conscious experience, in that it is all cerebral fabrication of some form that we implicitly take for real.  Thus for example I am looking at my screen right now and I accept unquestioningly that my vision of the screen actually is the screen I am looking at.  But of course it is not, my sense of sight is a neurological phenomenon happening at the back of my skull but the experience is so sublimely compelling that I trust that my sight of the screen actually is the screen itself. And suppose I reach out to touch the screen to confirm what my eyesight tells me, my sense of touch is another component of the overall immersive sensory illusion of conscious perception. It feels like my finger is touching the screen, but actually the sensation of touch is something fabricated in brain and cunningly back-projected through some sort of reverse proprioception to make it feels as if it is the finger which is experiencing touching. 

The sense of self in particular is a component of the overall fabrication that comes as a package under the umbrella of conscious experience, and to my mind there are telling pointers that illustrate the work that goes on behind the scenes to produce this feeling; for example we often look to disorders as a way to illuminate the nature of 'normality' and we find there are schizophrenics that sometimes lose their sense of self, and for instance, when they move an arm, they have the compelling belief that someone else is moving it, not them. This is a case where the sense of self is compromised or underfunctioning through pathology. Another pointer to the divided inner self is the fact that we experience cognitive dissonance, born of the defacto observation that all mammals in essence have two brains that are joined together by a tiny amount of connective tissue, and in human psychology, this often manifests as a tension between two ways of thinking - one intuitive, directly experiential way, and on the other hand, an abstract, logical way of thinking, which might very crudely be portrayed as underlying the tension in human society between religion and science.   Pointers such as these suggest to me at least that much of the work that the brain does in generating conscious experience is to do with the homogenising and calibrating and harmoniously integrating disparate and often warring underlying components into a seemingly single point of focus, perception and volition, and this taken together with the persistence of individual memory over time thanks to faithful cell replication, we have an enormously powerful and compelling sense of self, of individuality, of personhood.

This is the confusion which results from using the word 'self'.  Sriram has entered into western New Age speak where the terms Higher Self (with a capital 'S') and lower self (small 's') are used.  It might have been better if he had used the Hindu words Atman and Ahamkara and explained the difference.  What you have elaborated upon is roughly what ahamkara represents, which we might call ego.  Sriram is probably talking about Atman, 'that' which is realised when identification with ahamkara ceases and conceptualisation ceases.

[Sriram]

The Self is also an illusion though, in all likelihood

An illusion for whom?!

That's an illustration of how deeply ingrained, how compelling, the illusion is.  It is scarcely possible to talk about such things without language that assumes the illusion.

So...once again. An illusion for whom?

And once again, the phrasing of the question presupposes there is a 'person' to be illuded.  Which is of course entirely reasonable in daily life. It is near impossible to describe what is meant by 'self' with any sort of clarity or precision and in a way that suits all contexts.  If I take, as a working definition, a sense of self to mean a sense of inner singularity, personal continuity, agency and perception, then I would say that there must be an illusory aspect to this in the same way there is an illusory aspect to all conscious experience, in that it is all cerebral fabrication of some form that we implicitly take for real.  Thus for example I am looking at my screen right now and I accept unquestioningly that my vision of the screen actually is the screen I am looking at.  But of course it is not, my sense of sight is a neurological phenomenon happening at the back of my skull but the experience is so sublimely compelling that I trust that my sight of the screen actually is the screen itself. And suppose I reach out to touch the screen to confirm what my eyesight tells me, my sense of touch is another component of the overall immersive sensory illusion of conscious perception. It feels like my finger is touching the screen, but actually the sensation of touch is something fabricated in brain and cunningly back-projected through some sort of reverse proprioception to make it feels as if it is the finger which is experiencing touching. 

The sense of self in particular is a component of the overall fabrication that comes as a package under the umbrella of conscious experience, and to my mind there are telling pointers that illustrate the work that goes on behind the scenes to produce this feeling; for example we often look to disorders as a way to illuminate the nature of 'normality' and we find there are schizophrenics that sometimes lose their sense of self, and for instance, when they move an arm, they have the compelling belief that someone else is moving it, not them. This is a case where the sense of self is compromised or underfunctioning through pathology. Another pointer to the divided inner self is the fact that we experience cognitive dissonance, born of the defacto observation that all mammals in essence have two brains that are joined together by a tiny amount of connective tissue, and in human psychology, this often manifests as a tension between two ways of thinking - one intuitive, directly experiential way, and on the other hand, an abstract, logical way of thinking, which might very crudely be portrayed as underlying the tension in human society between religion and science.   Pointers such as these suggest to me at least that much of the work that the brain does in generating conscious experience is to do with the homogenising and calibrating and harmoniously integrating disparate and often warring underlying components into a seemingly single point of focus, perception and volition, and this taken together with the persistence of individual memory over time thanks to faithful cell replication, we have an enormously powerful and compelling sense of self, of individuality, of personhood.

I am not talking of the sense of individuality that we have. That is the ego and conscious self awareness.  Observing oneself is also due to the ego sense.

I am talking about the final observer....beyond self awareness.  Even nothingness is experienced by something. That is the Self.

Just as all kinds of experiences generated by the computer always require an observer and user....all illusion and experience in life also require a subject...a Self.

[Sriram]

This is the confusion which results from using the word 'self'.  Sriram has entered into western New Age speak where the terms Higher Self (with a capital 'S') and lower self (small 's') are used.  It might have been better if he had used the Hindu words Atman and Ahamkara and explained the difference.  What you have elaborated upon is roughly what ahamkara represents, which we might call ego.  Sriram is probably talking about Atman, 'that' which is realised when identification with ahamkara ceases and conceptualisation ceases.

Where does new age come into this? The word ..'Self' has been used in all english translations since the 19th century. Please read Vivekananda (talks of little self) or Dr.Radhakrishnan.

Its not about words or language.   The word atman (soul) is very appropriately translated as 'Self' because that's what it is. Some westerners might confuse the idea of 'Self' with the idea of 'self awareness'...which is a mistake.

When people say....'I die and my soul goes to heaven'......this is obviously a mistake.  Your soul is YOU....it is not some appendage.  'My body dies and I go to heaven' ...is more correct.  Identifying ourselves with the atman or soul or spirit is the fundamental point here. 

[torridon]

And once again, the phrasing of the question presupposes there is a 'person' to be illuded.  Which is of course entirely reasonable in daily life. It is near impossible to describe what is meant by 'self' with any sort of clarity or precision and in a way that suits all contexts.  If I take, as a working definition, a sense of self to mean a sense of inner singularity, personal continuity, agency and perception, then I would say that there must be an illusory aspect to this in the same way there is an illusory aspect to all conscious experience, in that it is all cerebral fabrication of some form that we implicitly take for real.  Thus for example I am looking at my screen right now and I accept unquestioningly that my vision of the screen actually is the screen I am looking at.  But of course it is not, my sense of sight is a neurological phenomenon happening at the back of my skull but the experience is so sublimely compelling that I trust that my sight of the screen actually is the screen itself. And suppose I reach out to touch the screen to confirm what my eyesight tells me, my sense of touch is another component of the overall immersive sensory illusion of conscious perception. It feels like my finger is touching the screen, but actually the sensation of touch is something fabricated in brain and cunningly back-projected through some sort of reverse proprioception to make it feels as if it is the finger which is experiencing touching. 

The sense of self in particular is a component of the overall fabrication that comes as a package under the umbrella of conscious experience, and to my mind there are telling pointers that illustrate the work that goes on behind the scenes to produce this feeling; for example we often look to disorders as a way to illuminate the nature of 'normality' and we find there are schizophrenics that sometimes lose their sense of self, and for instance, when they move an arm, they have the compelling belief that someone else is moving it, not them. This is a case where the sense of self is compromised or underfunctioning through pathology. Another pointer to the divided inner self is the fact that we experience cognitive dissonance, born of the defacto observation that all mammals in essence have two brains that are joined together by a tiny amount of connective tissue, and in human psychology, this often manifests as a tension between two ways of thinking - one intuitive, directly experiential way, and on the other hand, an abstract, logical way of thinking, which might very crudely be portrayed as underlying the tension in human society between religion and science.   Pointers such as these suggest to me at least that much of the work that the brain does in generating conscious experience is to do with the homogenising and calibrating and harmoniously integrating disparate and often warring underlying components into a seemingly single point of focus, perception and volition, and this taken together with the persistence of individual memory over time thanks to faithful cell replication, we have an enormously powerful and compelling sense of self, of individuality, of personhood.

I am not talking of the sense of individuality that we have. That is the ego and conscious self awareness.  Observing oneself is also due to the ego sense.

I am talking about the final observer....beyond self awareness.  Even nothingness is experienced by something. That is the Self.

Just as all kinds of experiences generated by the computer always require an observer and user....all illusion and experience in life also require a subject...a Self.

I'm not sure what you would mean by 'final observer'; I'd suspect it is your 'final observer' that I would identify as the illusion. Can you identify any characteristics for this final observer, or any evidence that it exists ? Eastern religions as well as western religions have evolved incorporating the intuitive assumption that experience requires an experiencer and there must be something, a person, a soul, a self, inside us who is in receipt of experience and is making purposeful choices. I think all religions and all traditional ways of thought are probably fundamentally and profoundly flawed in this respect because they have all bought into this ubiquitous and compelling cognitive illusion that there is a 'person' inside us, whereas I am unaware of any research that actually validates this intuition. What we have evidence for, is that a sense of self arises in waking higher animals, to a particularly rich form in humans. Claims that go further than that, further than this sense being like all other senses, a cunning neurological phenomenon, require justification.

[Sriram]

I'm not sure what you would mean by 'final observer'; I'd suspect it is your 'final observer' that I would identify as the illusion. Can you identify any characteristics for this final observer, or any evidence that it exists ? Eastern religions as well as western religions have evolved incorporating the intuitive assumption that experience requires an experiencer and there must be something, a person, a soul, a self, inside us who is in receipt of experience and is making purposeful choices. I think all religions and all traditional ways of thought are probably fundamentally and profoundly flawed in this respect because they have all bought into this ubiquitous and compelling cognitive illusion that there is a 'person' inside us, whereas I am unaware of any research that actually validates this intuition. What we have evidence for, is that a sense of self arises in waking higher animals, to a particularly rich form in humans. Claims that go further than that, further than this sense being like all other senses, a cunning neurological phenomenon, require justification.

I may not be able to explain more than I have done already. But let me try once more.

Take an infant child...just a few days old. Is the child self aware?  It can shake its hands and legs , smile, cry etc...but does it know that it exists.  No....it doesn't!  Self awareness has to be learnt between the age of one and two. Its a 'program' that has to be uploaded as it grows.  Self awareness is not automatic from the day of ones birth.

However, even though the infant does not know of its existence...it still exists. There is a consciousness....that exists within the tiny body observing and acting even without self awareness. That is the Self. 

Just imagine yourself as a one day infant and you'll know what the Self is.

[torridon]

I'm not sure what you would mean by 'final observer'; I'd suspect it is your 'final observer' that I would identify as the illusion. Can you identify any characteristics for this final observer, or any evidence that it exists ? Eastern religions as well as western religions have evolved incorporating the intuitive assumption that experience requires an experiencer and there must be something, a person, a soul, a self, inside us who is in receipt of experience and is making purposeful choices. I think all religions and all traditional ways of thought are probably fundamentally and profoundly flawed in this respect because they have all bought into this ubiquitous and compelling cognitive illusion that there is a 'person' inside us, whereas I am unaware of any research that actually validates this intuition. What we have evidence for, is that a sense of self arises in waking higher animals, to a particularly rich form in humans. Claims that go further than that, further than this sense being like all other senses, a cunning neurological phenomenon, require justification.

I may not be able to explain more than I have done already. But let me try once more.

Take an infant child...just a few days old. Is the child self aware?  It can shake its hands and legs , smile, cry etc...but does it know that it exists.  No....it doesn't!  Self awareness has to be learnt between the age of one and two. Its a 'program' that has to be uploaded as it grows.  Self awareness is not automatic from the day of its birth.

However, even though the infant does not know of its existence...it still exists. There is a consciousness....that exists within the tiny body observing and acting even without self awareness. That is the Self.

Yes, a tiny infant, whilst awake, has conscious experience, but is not self aware yet. The same is probably true for the vast majority of creatures outwith humankind.  Nothing in that observation however validates the notion of something separate 'inhabiting' the infant's body though as opposed to conscious experience as a neurological phenomenon that arises and disipates in higher brains under hormonal regulation.

[ekim]

This is the confusion which results from using the word 'self'.  Sriram has entered into western New Age speak where the terms Higher Self (with a capital 'S') and lower self (small 's') are used.  It might have been better if he had used the Hindu words Atman and Ahamkara and explained the difference.  What you have elaborated upon is roughly what ahamkara represents, which we might call ego.  Sriram is probably talking about Atman, 'that' which is realised when identification with ahamkara ceases and conceptualisation ceases.

Where does new age come into this? The word ..'Self' has been used in all english translations since the 19th century. Please read Vivekananda (talks of little self) or Dr.Radhakrishnan.

Its not about words or language.   The word atman (soul) is very appropriately translated as 'Self' because that's what it is. Some westerners might confuse the idea of 'Self' with the idea of 'self awareness'...which is a mistake.

When people say....'I die and my soul goes to heaven'......this is obviously a mistake.  Your soul is YOU....it is not some appendage.  'My body dies and I go to heaven' ...is more correct.  Identifying ourselves with the atman or soul or spirit is the fundamental point here.

Yes that's about the time of the beginnings of New Age speak in the West.  During that era, Helena Blavatsky and Annie Besant and her protégé Jiddu Krishnamurti formed the Theosophical Society and the claim was that Krishnamurti was the new Messiah and incarnation of Buddha.  Ideas that a New Age was about to blossom started to be introduced and began to gain momentum around the 1960's with an influx of Indian Gurus.

On this site, discussion is very much about words and language which is why there is confusion about the ideas of 'Self', 'self', 'soul' and 'spirit' etc. but good luck with your efforts to convince others.

[Sriram]

Where does new age come into this? The word ..'Self' has been used in all english translations since the 19th century. Please read Vivekananda (talks of little self) or Dr.Radhakrishnan.

Its not about words or language.   The word atman (soul) is very appropriately translated as 'Self' because that's what it is. Some westerners might confuse the idea of 'Self' with the idea of 'self awareness'...which is a mistake.

When people say....'I die and my soul goes to heaven'......this is obviously a mistake.  Your soul is YOU....it is not some appendage.  'My body dies and I go to heaven' ...is more correct.  Identifying ourselves with the atman or soul or spirit is the fundamental point here.

Yes that's about the time of the beginnings of New Age speak in the West.  During that era, Helena Blavatsky and Annie Besant and her protégé Jiddu Krishnamurti formed the Theosophical Society and the claim was that Krishnamurti was the new Messiah and incarnation of Buddha.  Ideas that a New Age was about to blossom started to be introduced and began to gain momentum around the 1960's with an influx of Indian Gurus.

On this site, discussion is very much about words and language which is why there is confusion about the ideas of 'Self', 'self', 'soul' and 'spirit' etc. but good luck with your efforts to convince others.

It may be New Age for the west...because it is something new. For us, it is plain old Hinduism.

Vivekananda had nothing to do with theosophy and he was one of the first to speak about Hinduism and Yoga in the west (1893). He talks of the Self.  Even Max Muller translations of the Upanishads (1879) contain 'Self'' for Atman.

The problem on here is not with words. Its with regarding mechanisms as an end in themselves. Its the confusion of processes and mechanisms with the cause. 
 

[Sriram]

I'm not sure what you would mean by 'final observer'; I'd suspect it is your 'final observer' that I would identify as the illusion. Can you identify any characteristics for this final observer, or any evidence that it exists ? Eastern religions as well as western religions have evolved incorporating the intuitive assumption that experience requires an experiencer and there must be something, a person, a soul, a self, inside us who is in receipt of experience and is making purposeful choices. I think all religions and all traditional ways of thought are probably fundamentally and profoundly flawed in this respect because they have all bought into this ubiquitous and compelling cognitive illusion that there is a 'person' inside us, whereas I am unaware of any research that actually validates this intuition. What we have evidence for, is that a sense of self arises in waking higher animals, to a particularly rich form in humans. Claims that go further than that, further than this sense being like all other senses, a cunning neurological phenomenon, require justification.

I may not be able to explain more than I have done already. But let me try once more.

Take an infant child...just a few days old. Is the child self aware?  It can shake its hands and legs , smile, cry etc...but does it know that it exists.  No....it doesn't!  Self awareness has to be learnt between the age of one and two. Its a 'program' that has to be uploaded as it grows.  Self awareness is not automatic from the day of its birth.

However, even though the infant does not know of its existence...it still exists. There is a consciousness....that exists within the tiny body observing and acting even without self awareness. That is the Self.

Yes, a tiny infant, whilst awake, has conscious experience, but is not self aware yet. The same is probably true for the vast majority of creatures outwith humankind.  Nothing in that observation however validates the notion of something separate 'inhabiting' the infant's body though as opposed to conscious experience as a neurological phenomenon that arises and disipates in higher brains under hormonal regulation.

Since you seem to agree that self awareness is different from basic consciousness...that's a beginning.  Self awareness and conscious mind are related. They are connected to the ego sense.

Before these processes start...the baby is already conscious  and is able to do lots of basic things. You may try to explain it through brain mechanisms....but that is not enough.  Mechanisms do not explain everything. Just as computer mechanisms do not explain our posts and writings. 

Another way of looking at the Self is through the  'unconscious' mind.

Even when an infant is not self aware and the conscious mind is not yet 'installed'.....it already has the unconscious mind working full time....storing up memories...preparing responses and so on.  The unconscious mind is part of the Self that already exists before the conscious mind.

[ekim]

Where does new age come into this? The word ..'Self' has been used in all english translations since the 19th century. Please read Vivekananda (talks of little self) or Dr.Radhakrishnan.

Its not about words or language.   The word atman (soul) is very appropriately translated as 'Self' because that's what it is. Some westerners might confuse the idea of 'Self' with the idea of 'self awareness'...which is a mistake.

When people say....'I die and my soul goes to heaven'......this is obviously a mistake.  Your soul is YOU....it is not some appendage.  'My body dies and I go to heaven' ...is more correct.  Identifying ourselves with the atman or soul or spirit is the fundamental point here.

Yes that's about the time of the beginnings of New Age speak in the West.  During that era, Helena Blavatsky and Annie Besant and her protégé Jiddu Krishnamurti formed the Theosophical Society and the claim was that Krishnamurti was the new Messiah and incarnation of Buddha.  Ideas that a New Age was about to blossom started to be introduced and began to gain momentum around the 1960's with an influx of Indian Gurus.

On this site, discussion is very much about words and language which is why there is confusion about the ideas of 'Self', 'self', 'soul' and 'spirit' etc. but good luck with your efforts to convince others.

1.   It may be New Age for the west...because it is something new. For us, it is plain old Hinduism.

2.   Vivekananda had nothing to do with theosophy and he was one of the first to speak about Hinduism and Yoga in the west (1893). He talks of the Self.  Even Max Muller translations of the Upanishads (1879) contain 'Self'' for Atman.

3.   The problem on here is not with words. Its with regarding mechanisms as an end in themselves. Its the confusion of processes and mechanisms with the cause.

1.   Yes, that is why I was suggesting that you kept to Hindu terms and  clarified them according to your understanding.  As regards 'New Age', I believe it was partly related to a belief that the Kali Yuga was ending and that Kalki was imminent, for some it corresponded to Armageddon and the arrival of Jesus and for others the dawning of the Age of Aquarius and a universal shift and expansion in consciousness.  So you can see how relatively quickly things can become confused rather than clear.
2.   I wasn't associating Vivekananda with theosophy but if he used 'Self' as a best fit English word for Atman he would no doubt have explained its meaning to an audience that would have had other preconceived ideas.
3.   Well, we'll see.  Good luck anyway.

[Sriram]

1.   Yes, that is why I was suggesting that you kept to Hindu terms and  clarified them according to your understanding.  As regards 'New Age', I believe it was partly related to a belief that the Kali Yuga was ending and that Kalki was imminent, for some it corresponded to Armageddon and the arrival of Jesus and for others the dawning of the Age of Aquarius and a universal shift and expansion in consciousness.  So you can see how relatively quickly things can become confused rather than clear.
2.   I wasn't associating Vivekananda with theosophy but if he used 'Self' as a best fit English word for Atman he would no doubt have explained its meaning to an audience that would have had other preconceived ideas.
3.   Well, we'll see.  Good luck anyway.

I think I have explained it sufficiently. The more we try to describe the Self and analyse it the more we objectivise it.

The Self is the subject...the final observer...its the 'you'.  That's it. 

[torridon]

I may not be able to explain more than I have done already. But let me try once more.

Take an infant child...just a few days old. Is the child self aware?  It can shake its hands and legs , smile, cry etc...but does it know that it exists.  No....it doesn't!  Self awareness has to be learnt between the age of one and two. Its a 'program' that has to be uploaded as it grows.  Self awareness is not automatic from the day of its birth.

However, even though the infant does not know of its existence...it still exists. There is a consciousness....that exists within the tiny body observing and acting even without self awareness. That is the Self.

Yes, a tiny infant, whilst awake, has conscious experience, but is not self aware yet. The same is probably true for the vast majority of creatures outwith humankind.  Nothing in that observation however validates the notion of something separate 'inhabiting' the infant's body though as opposed to conscious experience as a neurological phenomenon that arises and disipates in higher brains under hormonal regulation.

Since you seem to agree that self awareness is different from basic consciousness...that's a beginning.  Self awareness and conscious mind are related. They are connected to the ego sense.

Before these processes start...the baby is already conscious  and is able to do lots of basic things. You may try to explain it through brain mechanisms....but that is not enough.  Mechanisms do not explain everything. Just as computer mechanisms do not explain our posts and writings. 

Another way of looking at the Self is through the  'unconscious' mind.

Even when an infant is not self aware and the conscious mind is not yet 'installed'.....it already has the unconscious mind working full time....storing up memories...preparing responses and so on.  The unconscious mind is part of the Self that already exists before the conscious mind.

Yes, the development of mind and consciousness mirrors brain development thus a baby develops simple consciousness long before it develops the level of sophistication marked by self awareness.  If you roll the developmental clock back further you get to a point where there is no viable brain as yet and at this point there is no mind, no consciousness and no 'self'. These things develop over time, and towards the end of life, they often deteriorate over time too.

[Sriram]

If you role the clock back you come to a point when there is no self awareness....no thoughts....no mind even. But the operating system is still on. And something is making things happen inside the DNA ...and the brain. That is  Life.... and that is the Self.

You might be satisfied attributing it to some automatic molecular process....but I find it impossible. 

[torridon]

If you role the clock back you come to a point when there is no self awareness....no thoughts....no mind even. But the operating system is still on. And something is making things happen inside the DNA ...and the brain. That is  life.... and that is the Self.

We already have a word for that - life, the same process by which acorns grow into oak trees.  Calling that 'Self' is confusing and misleading as there is no development of any individuality at that point, it is a developmental biological process.

[Jack Knave]

Hi everyone,

The 'real' God is within. Our higher nature or our higher self is the real God.....but we need to journey all over the world to realize that the Truth is at home.

Cheers.

Sriram

Bloody hell, a short OP by Sriram!!!

It's called archetypal psychology.

[Sriram]

If you role the clock back you come to a point when there is no self awareness....no thoughts....no mind even. But the operating system is still on. And something is making things happen inside the DNA ...and the brain. That is  life.... and that is the Self.

We already have a word for that - life, the same process by which acorns grow into oak trees.  Calling that 'Self' is confusing and misleading as there is no development of any individuality at that point, it is a developmental biological process.

Yes...you have a word...'Life'....but what is it?  You are satisfied attributing 'life' to molecular mechanisms and processes.  I think of 'life' as a base principle....as an attribute of Consciousness. This is the Self.....what we are fundamentally.   

[torridon]

If you role the clock back you come to a point when there is no self awareness....no thoughts....no mind even. But the operating system is still on. And something is making things happen inside the DNA ...and the brain. That is  life.... and that is the Self.

We already have a word for that - life, the same process by which acorns grow into oak trees.  Calling that 'Self' is confusing and misleading as there is no development of any individuality at that point, it is a developmental biological process.

Yes...you have a word...'Life'....but what is it?  You are satisfied attributing 'life' to molecular mechanisms and processes.  I think of 'life' as a base principle....as an attribute of Consciousness. This is the Self.....what we are fundamentally.

We observe base laws and processes which in themselves have no sentience or intelligence; there is no sentience in the inverse square law for instance. If we take all base laws in combination, complex phenomena such as intelligence and consciousness can arise in extremely rare circumstances. There is probably a principle somewhere (if there isn't, I'll claim it as Torridon's First Law ) that states that the degree of intelligence/sentience is proportional to it's spatial/temporal rarity. We could portray this as higher laws emerging from fundamental base laws, or we could say that the higher laws are fundamental and base laws are constituent parts of that, which is your preference.  That seems to be taking the rare exception and making that the norm, the yardstick by which all else is measured.  That looks like a tendency born of the anthropocentrism and human exceptionalism which have coloured all the world's traditional religions.  Hmmm

[Outrider]

There is probably a principle somewhere (if there isn't, I'll claim it as Torridon's First Law ) that states that the degree of intelligence/sentience is proportional to it's spatial/temporal rarity.

I think that's pretty much just standard distribution - in a general distribution, rarer occurrences are more likely to be further apart than more common occurrences.

O.

[torridon]

There is probably a principle somewhere (if there isn't, I'll claim it as Torridon's First Law ) that states that the degree of intelligence/sentience is proportional to it's spatial/temporal rarity.

I think that's pretty much just standard distribution - in a general distribution, rarer occurrences are more likely to be further apart than more common occurrences.

O.

If there exists a means to calculate complexity across all domains then we could take that tool, calibrate it's scale by measuring the complexity of a human brain, perhaps an ant brain and perhaps a hydrogen atom, we could then use that calibration to extrapolate across the estimated size of the universe to predict the incidence of various forms of life; it would be like a top down version the Drake Equation.

[Outrider]

There is probably a principle somewhere (if there isn't, I'll claim it as Torridon's First Law ) that states that the degree of intelligence/sentience is proportional to it's spatial/temporal rarity.

I think that's pretty much just standard distribution - in a general distribution, rarer occurrences are more likely to be further apart than more common occurrences.

O.

If there exists a means to calculate complexity across all domains then we could take that tool, calibrate it's scale by measuring the complexity of a human brain, perhaps an ant brain and perhaps a hydrogen atom, we could then use that calibration to extrapolate across the estimated size of the universe to predict the incidence of various forms of life; it would be like a top down version the Drake Equation.

And, like the Drake equation, we'd need to find a few dozen examples of life on other planets in order to calibrate the estimates... at which point it wouldn't be redundant exactly, but it would lack some of the impact

O.

[Udayana]

There is a short article in this (or last) weeks New Scientist on the evolution of consciousness for group, as opposed to individual, survival. Reminds me of EO Wilsons work on altruism in social species. It does seem to be something useful that has evolved, not only a random side effect of brain complexity.

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

It would also be relevant to compare the idea of the Higher Self and Self Realization.... to the idea of 'Born Again' that some Christians believe in.

Jesus is believed to have said in the NT......  'Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.'  This was taken as being Born Again through baptism and the grace of the Holy Spirit.

Jesus was perhaps referring to changing ones identification from the Lower Self to the Higher Self.  That is the way it appears to me.

Cheers.

Sriram
   

[torridon]

I think many christians would take issue with that; the experience of being 'born again' is about transformation following an encounter with the Holy Spirit; the language of being 'reborn' indicating that a completely new person arises replacing forever the original person. It is often claimed that this transformation comes unexpectedly out of the blue, not in response to 'searching', and is fully and only truly explicable in terms of God's grace, ie it is nothing whatsoever to do with self development, self realisation or human worthiness.