Atheists, do you subscribe to the idea of the illusion of self?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Atheists. Do you subscribe to the idea of the illusion of self. If so why............ if not why not?

[Shaker]

For many years I've read and continue to read a lot of material predicated on the idea that a self is illusory, much of it Buddhist (the concept of anatta - no-self - is central to Buddhism, for example).

I'm not at all sure that I buy into it, as interesting as it is - it's perfectly reasonable to accept that in each of us there's a constellations of likings and dislikings, attitudes, behaviours, habits and whatnot that makes us recognisably us and not somebody else, because that somebody else will have a different set of those things. A self is as good a word as any to call it - there are others, if you prefer them. I think a lot of the talk about self being illusory is based on a simple misunderstanding between illusory and temporary - everything that we are is temporary. We weren't here at one point and won't be here at another point. That doesn't make it somehow unreal in the here and now; that makes it transient. Unreal and fleeting are not synonyms.

[Sebastian Toe]

Atheists. Do you subscribe to the idea of the illusion of self.

Do you?
If so why............ if not why not?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do you?
If so why............ if not why not?

No......because there is always the question of what is it that is having the illusion.

What better way of avoiding any form of self responsibility than dissolving yourself into non existence?

How about you?.......or the illusion of you?

[Shaker]

What better way of avoiding any form of self responsibility

Say that God commanded it via sacred scripture.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Say that God commanded it via sacred scripture.

Come again?

[Shaker]

You asked:

What better way of avoiding any form of self responsibility than dissolving yourself into non existence?

I replied that the better way of avoiding any form of self responsibility according to the time-honoured traditions of theism is to say that your actions are commanded by God, either through an interpretation of sacred scripture or for the really bold, a claim of direct divine revelation.

In other words: nothing to do with me, squire - orders is orders and this comes straight from the top.

There's no greater dodge of personal responsibility than saying your actions are commanded by the Creator itself, is there?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You asked:
I replied that the better way of avoiding any form of self responsibility according to the time-honoured traditions of theism is to say that your actions are commanded by God, either through an interpretation of sacred scripture or for the really bold, a claim of direct divine revelation.

In other words: nothing to do with me, squire  - orders is orders and this comes straight from the top.

Yes there are people like that....and we could also consider the logical conclusions of having a morality which is at the level of liking marmite or not liking it....in other words, a matter of mere taste.

However I think there are theisms in which the theist takes the uttermost responsibility and guilt.

I find in atheist apologetics that two contradictory caricatures are touted. The miserable sinner type and the God/devil made me do it type.

From my point of view, self responsibility vanishes in atheism in moral relativism or the more recent mere cog in a bigger thing (evolution or society) and illusion of self. So those excuses as well as religion contribute to a widespread avoidance of self responsibility. I particularly suffer it as a motorist..........but I guess you take full responsibility for everything like a good boy.

[Shaker]

However I think there are theisms in which the theist takes the uttermost responsibility and guilt.

That's a matter for psychology and psychiatry.

I find in atheist apologetics that two contradictory caricatures are touted. The miserable sinner type and the God/devil made me do it type.

If

Yes there are people like that

is true then it's no caricature.

The miserable sinners bit comes straight out of the Book of Common Prayer. Caricature?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's a matter for psychology and psychiatry.

If

is true then it's no caricature.

In your hands Shaker you make it typical and widespread and that's why it's a caricature.

So guilt is a psychological aberration then.
I guess that confirms your sociopathy.

[Shaker]

In your hands Shaker you make it typical and widespread and that's why it's a caricature.

The Book of Common Prayer has Christians declaring that they are miserable offenders and that there is no health in them. Pretty sure that that document is more widespread than my opinions.

So guilt is a psychological aberration then.
I guess that confirms your sociopathy.

Not for the first time and surely not for the last you seem to be relating your own opinions rather than responding to anything I've written.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The Book of Common Prayer has Christians declaring that they are miserable offenders and that there is no health in them.

The Book of Common Prayer? I thought that was from ''The God Delusion'' by Richard Dawkins.

[Shaker]

Nope. Very definitely the BCP.

[Rhiannon]

The Book of Common Prayer? I thought that was from ''The God Delusion'' by Richard Dawkins.

Get a grip.

[torridon]

Atheists. Do you subscribe to the idea of the illusion of self. If so why............ if not why not?

There is no ontological basis for a self. 

There cannot be a master neuron in a brain, corresponding to 'me'.  Rather, a self is something emergent, a composite thing, an ephemeral thing, a transient thing, a collection of fairly persistent qualities and tendancies; it vanishes every night when we go to sleep, and is eroded irreversibly by dementia. More accurately, it is a sense, like a sense of balance, or a sense of right and wrong; it depends for its integrity on optimal brain functioning, on memory persistence and on the fidelity of cell replication.  But it doesn't feel like that; it feels as if there is a person inside, and it feels as if that person is a thing in its own right, and that is why it is illusory - there is no ontological basis for a self, it is not a thing, it is a feeling of selfhood, of identity, of individuality aggregated up from underlying characteristics and integrated into a seeming unitary whole by (largely left-hemispheric) brain function.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There is no ontological basis for a self. 

There cannot be a master neuron in a brain, corresponding to 'me'.  Rather, a self is something emergent, a composite thing, an ephemeral thing, a transient thing, a collection of qualities and tendancies; it vanishes every night when we go to sleep, and is eroded irreversibly by dementia. More accurately, it is a sense, like a sense of balance, or a sense of right and wrong; it depends for its integrity on optimal brain functioning, on memory persistence and on the fidelity of cell replication.  But it doesn't feel like that; it feels as if there is a person inside, and it feels as if that person is a thing in its own right, and that is why it is illusory - there is no ontological basis for a self, it is not a thing, it is a feeling of selfhood, of identity, of individuality produced (largely) by left-hemispheric brain function.

Where this falls down for me is that it doesn't adequately outline how and why what you describe as an illusion of self is actually different from an actual self.

Again we have the problem of what it is that is having the feeling...that is something that must be of great sophistication.

Also when we talk of illusion we are talking of an illusion of things which exist.

I'm finding it hard to look on the term illusion as being anything but a melodramatic touch in a reductionist narrative.

[jeremyp]

Where this falls down for me is that it doesn't adequately outline how and why what you describe as an illusion of self is actually different from an actual self.

Hark to the sound of Hell freezing over. I actually agree with Vlad.

I'm finding it hard to look on the term illusion as being anything but a melodramatic touch in a reductionist narrative.

Normal service has been resumed.

[torridon]

Where this falls down for me is that it doesn't adequately outline how and why what you describe as an illusion of self is actually different from an actual self.

Again we have the problem of what it is that is having the feeling...that is something that must be of great sophistication.

Also when we talk of illusion we are talking of an illusion of things which exist.

I'm finding it hard to look on the term illusion as being anything but a melodramatic touch in a reductionist narrative.

Has any neuroscientist identified a self using brain imaging ?

In neuroanatomy, is there a cortical structure where the self resides ?

Ancient peoples identified the heart as where the soul resides; now we regard that as a quaint and romantic notion; the heart is actually a pump.

What we do have is a unique collection of characteristics and memories, all of which have their own measure of persistence over time.

If you argue for an actual self, you'd have to be able to point to it, say what it is made of, where it is located.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ancient peoples identified the heart as where the soul resides; now we regard that as a quaint and romantic notion; the heart is actually a pump.

What we do have is a unique collection of characteristics and memories, all of which have their own measure of persistence over time.

If you argue for an actual self, you'd have to be able to point to it, say what it is made of, where it is located.

You describe a self thus:
a self is something emergent, a composite thing, an ephemeral thing, a transient thing, a collection of fairly persistent qualities and tendancies; it vanishes every night when we go to sleep, and is eroded irreversibly by dementia.

How is the above a description of an illusion of self rather than a self?

You talk about the emergent and yet use reductionist methodology to state this:

Has any neuroscientist identified a self using brain imaging ?

In neuroanatomy, is there a cortical structure where the self resides ?

The self is an emergent property or it is not a property. You might be right you might be wrong but the above is reductionist.

If you go down that line you might as well say that the brain is an illusion because it is emergent from a group of tissues.

[Stranger]

Atheists. Do you subscribe to the idea of the illusion of self. If so why............ if not why not?

I don't think we really have enough understanding or evidence to be sure. Vlad: that was in English not Vlad speak - I did not just say I was a dogmatic agnostic.

It could well be that the word illusion will turn out to be debatable anyway: Dennett, for example, uses the analogy of a centre of gravity - which is a well behaved and important part of physics but isn't actually a thing as such. Is a centre of gravity an illusion?

[torridon]

You describe a self thus:
a self is something emergent, a composite thing, an ephemeral thing, a transient thing, a collection of fairly persistent qualities and tendancies; it vanishes every night when we go to sleep, and is eroded irreversibly by dementia.

How is the above a description of an illusion of self rather than a self?

You talk about the emergent and yet use reductionist methodology to state this:

Has any neuroscientist identified a self using brain imaging ?

In neuroanatomy, is there a cortical structure where the self resides ?

The self is an emergent property or it is not a property. You might be right you might be wrong but the above is reductionist.

If you go down that line you might as well say that the brain is an illusion because it is emergent from a group of tissues.

A brain exists in any normal sense of the word; we can weigh it, measure it, dissect it. Not so with a self.  A self is comprised of many underlying component characteristics. Say I have a love of marmite, and also I have a fear of heights; these things are part of what makes me, me.  Does a fear of heights exist ?  Well, there are primary neural correlates for the constituent characteristics of personhood.  Our technology might not quite be up to it yet, but in principle we would be able to use scanning technology to observe my love of marmite and my fear of heights, but there is no primary neural correlate for the self. A feeling of self is something created on the fly as part of the fabric of conscious experience.

A quick thought experiment to flesh this out a bit : recall the last time you made a decision.  Say the last time you were thirsty and were deciding whether to have a cup of tea or a cup of coffee.  Put that moment of decision making under a microscope. How it feels is somewhat analogous to a court, where there are competing claims and a judge presiding over the case. He listens to both respondents and adjudicates, wisely, we hope.  That's how it feels and that judge is the self or person within us; it is the executive wielding his power.  But in reality brains do not make decisions like that.  There is no judge in the inner courthouse of our mind, there are only competing desires, each rival desire has its own neural correlates and a moment of decision occurs when one circuit manages to gain precedence over the other circuit.  That we feel there is a single point of authority and experience and volition is really an illusion, 'we' only find out about what decision occurred after the event; it is like a piece of flattery that helps to empower a sense of agency and independence.  There cannot be a master neuron adjudicating in the brain - if there were then the master neuron would need its own brain with which to dispense wisdom and make choices.

[wigginhall]

Some good posts here.   You could call the self a psychological construct, that is, I think I have a self.   However, as torridon outlines, dementia seems to show its decay. 

Buddhism has complicated ideas about the self, but a fairly common one is that there is no separate self.   This is a bit like the idea that there is no agent. 

[ekim]

No......because there is always the question of what is it that is having the illusion.

What better way of avoiding any form of self responsibility than dissolving yourself into non existence?

How about you?.......or the illusion of you?

The 'self' probably boils down to what you primarily identify with.  Some identify much with their physical body and devote themselves to demonstrating a physical presence by developing its appearance.  Some identify with an energetic body and indulge in exercise, sport, adventure.  Some identify primarily with their intellect and use it to build a body of opinion.  Some identify with their emotions.  I would guess that usually it is a combination of all in varying degrees.  It is illusory in the sense that its makeup changes over time.  The self you identified with as a seven year old is not likely to be the same as when a thirty year old.  The idea in many religions is to dis-identify with what drives the self centred, self willed individual and identify more with a consciousness free from those constraints.  It's not about avoiding anything but more about being free from self driven interests.  I don't know if you are a Christian, but Jesus' way was not to indulge in self interest or self preservation when his trial and death was imminent but to surrender to his God's will.  It is the self and its dodgy covering the personality which creates much conflict in the world.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

A brain exists in any normal sense of the word; we can weigh it, measure it, dissect it. Not so with a self.

But you have said that a self can decay. What did you mean by that if not in the sense of a body, organ or faculty decaying?

[torridon]

But you have said that a self can decay. What did you mean by that if not in the sense of a body, organ or faculty decaying?

That is what happens with dementia; a build up of proteins in the brain affecting cognitive function which frequently has the outcome that the individual loses his sense of self, they no longer know who or what they are.  Physical brain decay is also the corresponding mind decay.  With other psychiatric conditions like xenomelia and dysmorphic disorders people sometimes believe that a limb is not theirs, it belongs to someone else, and sometimes resort to self-amputation to get rid of it.