The Illusion of Self

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Quite apart from the phenomenological issues thrown up by neuroscience and biology, I think the idea of a unitary self is also problematic in purely psychological terms.

Of course and there are magisteria which seek to address the unitary self if but in recognising it e.g. Freudianism, Trinitarianism.

[wigginhall]

But not as much as modern atheism and antitheism which you seem to utterly love.

Trolling again, Vlad. 

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

#1

Not long ago we would have considered the idea of driverless cars laughable science fiction.  Driverless Uber taxis are now a reality on the streets of Pittsburgh and they are being rolled out in San Francisco.  Sriram is fond of using car/driver analogy to illustrate the relationship between body/soul.  I'll suggest we can use the Uber model to understand why the concept of illusory self is truer. ...

This may have been your intention Torridon, but I would ask you to consider that your analogy provides more support for the counter argument (summed up in Sriram’s #2, also Alan Burns’ #3) than it does for you. It illustrates that something is responsible for the transition car with driver to driverless car and that the something is external to the system. As such, it's actually a good argument for design!

It appears to me that you are trying to solve the problem of a gain by using what applies when there is an increase. An increase doesn’t have to have an external influence, a gain does. The philosophical arguments used against possible sources for the gain (e.g. the regression arguments) seem to be accepted without question, yet Sriram’s #536 on the Karma thread illustrates a fundamental flaw with them.

Anoher issue caused by trying to dismiss external influences for the gain is that it is not supported by observational evidence
•   Increase: Something complex can come from something less complex if the ability to do so is there at the start, .e.g a plant growing from a seed.
•   Increase: Something complex can come from something less complex if the increase comes at the expense of something else, e.g. in Chemistry the order from disorder that takes place in the transition liquid->solid occur because heat energy is given up and the molecules giving up their dynamism
•   Gain: Something complex can come from something less complex if there is an external influence, e.g. the order from disorder in the patterns seen in sand dunes have the external influence of the wind.

I would suggest that the transition car with driver to driverless car is a gain, not an increase. Because there is not an acknowledgment of the external influences required for this gain, another problem is created, which Emergence-The Musical mentioned in #20; the approach becomes circular.

[wigginhall]

Quite apart from the phenomenological issues thrown up by neuroscience and biology, I think the idea of a unitary self is also problematic in purely psychological terms.  Ask me what my favourite music is, and one day I might respond 'Bach'; on another day I might say 'Motorhead'.  How do you reconcile that.  Try playing them together,  the result is awful.  Thing is, there is no single self even in psychological terms; rather we are host to a continuous flux of bubbling under competing interests, desires and fears, which are continuously rising to the surface while others subside. I can only give a psychological description of 'me' that is valid at that moment in time.  Over time, tendencies and habits change; this is consistent with a materialist account in which constant change is a given, but not with some primal ontologically pure separate self.

Fascinating stuff.  Dealing with it in therapy shows some of the problems, partly to do with lack of consistency, as you say, and incoherence really of the personality.   Of course, people try to be consistent, and coherent, but in the old phrase, the repressed leaks all over the place, or people have to drink and do drugs, to deal with it.  In the end, we have to accept the incoherence.

[torridon]

#1

This may have been your intention Torridon, but I would ask you to consider that your analogy provides more support for the counter argument (summed up in Sriram’s #2, also Alan Burns’ #3) than it does for you. It illustrates that something is responsible for the transition car with driver to driverless car and that the something is external to the system. As such, it's actually a good argument for design!

It appears to me that you are trying to solve the problem of a gain by using what applies when there is an increase. An increase doesn’t have to have an external influence, a gain does. The philosophical arguments used against possible sources for the gain (e.g. the regression arguments) seem to be accepted without question, yet Sriram’s #536 on the Karma thread illustrates a fundamental flaw with them.

Anoher issue caused by trying to dismiss external influences for the gain is that it is not supported by observational evidence
•   Increase: Something complex can come from something less complex if the ability to do so is there at the start, .e.g a plant growing from a seed.
•   Increase: Something complex can come from something less complex if the increase comes at the expense of something else, e.g. in Chemistry the order from disorder that takes place in the transition liquid->solid occur because heat energy is given up and the molecules giving up their dynamism
•   Gain: Something complex can come from something less complex if there is an external influence, e.g. the order from disorder in the patterns seen in sand dunes have the external influence of the wind.

I would suggest that the transition car with driver to driverless car is a gain, not an increase. Because there is not an acknowledgment of the external influences required for this gain, another problem is created, which Emergence-The Musical mentioned in #20; the approach becomes circular.

Somewhat off topic,  I was not looking to turn this into another thread on information and complexity.  Just briefly, are you claiming that increase in complexity as exemplified in the Darwinian tree of life is not possible ?

[Enki]

Fascinating stuff.  Dealing with it in therapy shows some of the problems, partly to do with lack of consistency, as you say, and incoherence really of the personality.   Of course, people try to be consistent, and coherent, but in the old phrase, the repressed leaks all over the place, or people have to drink and do drugs, to deal with it.  In the end, we have to accept the incoherence.

My wife got the photo album out yesterday to show someone who expressed an interest,and I was looking at early photos of various people, including me at around the time we got married. Interestingly, I regarded the person in the photograph(although it obviously bore some resemblance to me as I am now) as quite  a separate person. I share the memories and experiences of course, but the overall feeling was that I was looking at someone distinctly different in many respects. I was reminded of the scene in the Shawshank Redemption where Morgan Freeman considers his former self as an entirely different character whom he would advise  not to take the course of action he did, if he could only go back in time.

[Sriram]

Dismissing magic places both the evolution of humans and the evolution of human creations such as cars within the natural order, ok, we agree on that.  So that is not a valid basis to dismiss the analogy.

Of course everything is natural. Whether it fits into what little we understand of the natural world...is another matter altogether. 

Magic is always a subjective term..an impression. Nothing more. What may seem as magic to you wouldn't be magic to the  magician.  So...nothing is magic in an absolute sense.

But that does not mean that you would be able to understand it all in terms of your current foundation.

[wigginhall]

My wife got the photo album out yesterday to show someone who expressed an interest,and I was looking at early photos of various people, including me at around the time we got married. Interestingly, I regarded the person in the photograph(although it obviously bore some resemblance to me as I am now) as quite  a separate person. I share the memories and experiences of course, but the overall feeling was that I was looking at someone distinctly different in many respects. I was reminded of the scene in the Shawshank Redemption where Morgan Freeman considers his former self as an entirely different character whom he would advise  not to take the course of action he did, if he could only go back in time.

Great example.  A lot of shocks in life happen when we realize how much we have changed, hence the mid-life crisis and adolescence.  I no longer want to live with mum and dad, and then, big shock, I no longer want to live with my wife, or do the same job, or whatever. 

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

#54

Somewhat off topic,  I was not looking to turn this into another thread on information and complexity.

Except that is what your analogy relies on, therefore I have to address the concept at the top level, rather than getting bogged down in the detail.

Just briefly, are you claiming that increase in complexity as exemplified in the Darwinian tree of life is not possible?

and briefly, I see things happening top-down, not bottom up. Variation can then come from what already exists, and increases can occur because the ability for them to happen already exist (more in my #52). What you refer to as increase in complexity are in my opinion gains in complexity, therefore an external cause is needed.

Therefore, returning to the subject of your opening post, I see the self as a property for which the cause is external, rather than internal, because it is a gain for the system, not an increase. Your analogy illustrates that, because the transition car with driver to driverless car has an external cause, ironically, the self!

[Sriram]

Quite apart from the phenomenological issues thrown up by neuroscience and biology, I think the idea of a unitary self is also problematic in purely psychological terms.  Ask me what my favourite music is, and one day I might respond 'Bach'; on another day I might say 'Motorhead'.  How do you reconcile that.  Try playing them together,  the result is awful.  Thing is, there is no single self even in psychological terms; rather we are host to a continuous flux of bubbling under competing interests, desires and fears, which are continuously rising to the surface while others subside. I can only give a psychological description of 'me' that is valid at that moment in time.  Over time, tendencies and habits change; this is consistent with a materialist account in which constant change is a given, but not with some primal ontologically pure separate self.

There is nothing problematic about a unitary self.  All changes (whatever they may be) happen to something. Changes don't happen by themselves in a vacuum. What changes? Who changes?   It is always something that changes.

Changes are like the clothes we change or the hair style we change. They all happen to YOU.   There is a constant subject to whom all development and change happens. You can call it what you want.

The issue of what Hinduism and Jainism and Buddhism consider as non-self...is a different matter altogether. This relates to what I have discussed many times.

There is a constant Higher Self that watches and guides. There is a Lower Self (the individuality) that undergoes changes and eventually gets eradicated. It is this self that appears real  but after a stage gets eliminated. After this the Higher Self is free. So...there is a Self that is constant and eternal and there is a self that is changing and which eventually disappears. 

The secret teachings in all religions teach the same thing. This is secular spirituality.

[wigginhall]

Long live the Assertatron!

[torridon]

...
and briefly, I see things happening top-down, not bottom up. Variation can then come from what already exists, and increases can occur because the ability for them to happen already exist (more in my #52). What you refer to as increase in complexity are in my opinion gains in complexity, therefore an external cause is needed.

Therefore, returning to the subject of your opening post, I see the self as a property for which the cause is external, rather than internal, because it is a gain for the system, not an increase. Your analogy illustrates that, because the transition car with driver to driverless car has an external cause, ironically, the self!

OK, So, for example the first increase in complexity was the formation of atomic matter from the pre-existing plasma when the universe was but a few hundred thousand years old. Was that a gain, and if so, what is the external input ?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

OK, So, for example the first increase in complexity was the formation of atomic matter from the pre-existing plasma when the universe was but a few hundred thousand years old. Was that a gain, and if so, what is the external input ?

At this stage, I have to say that I don't know. I don't know enough about the subject (yet) to comment either way.

[torridon]

There is nothing problematic about a unitary self.  All changes (whatever they may be) happen to something. Changes don't happen by themselves in a vacuum. What changes? Who changes?   It is always something that changes.

Changes are like the clothes we change or the hair style we change. They all happen to YOU.   There is a constant subject to whom all development and change happens....

There you go contradicting your own assertion.  You cannot go claiming that changes happen to a subject and one sentence later you are asserting a constant subject.  Either the subject is changed by experience or it isn't, you can't have it both ways.

I would endorse what Enki says above, we are changed constantly through interaction.  Nothing and nobody is an island, hermetically sealed off from the rest of the cosmos. We change our environment and the environment changes us.  This is consistent with my OP describing a virtual self as that is merely a projection from a constantly changing brain.
 

There is a constant Higher Self that watches and guides. There is a Lower Self (the individuality) that undergoes changes and eventually gets eradicated. It is this self that appears real  but after a stage gets eliminated. After this the Higher Self is free. So...there is a Self that is constant and eternal and there is a self that is changing and which eventually disappears. 

The secret teachings in all religions teach the same thing. This is secular spirituality.

All very nice, but this Hindu philosophy is not derived from modern standards of evidence.  By contrast, I'm trying to put across a way of understanding these things that is authentic, true to the evidence.

[torridon]

At this stage, I have to say that I don't know. I don't know enough about the subject (yet) to comment either way.

OK, give an example of a gain where you are on more familiar ground.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

OK, give an example of a gain where you are on more familiar ground.

As you started this thread to deal with self, some properties of human beings:
- gender
- consciousness / self-awareness
- senses
- reproductive ability, especially the complementary roles involved in sexual reproduction

Explain any of these with A and then the question is, what is the explanation for A? Evolution says B.
What is the explanation for B? Evolution says C
What is the explanation for C? Evolution says D
...

Regress back far enough and you have a something from nothing scenario, the ultimate example of how the problem of what clearly needs an external influence is disguised; what exists (nothing) being the cause of that which emerges (something).

[Gordon]

Regress back far enough and you have a something from nothing scenario, the ultimate example of how the problem of what clearly needs an external influence is disguised; what exists (nothing) being the cause of that which emerges (something).

This is a doozie since it invokes multiple fallacies: ignorance, incredulity and begging the question for starters. Well done you.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

This is a doozie since it invokes multiple fallacies: ignorance, incredulity and begging the question for starters. Well done you.

Ok Gordon. It's a big planet. Give me one example of anywhere in the world I can go to observe something being caused by nothing. Then I'll lose my incredulity. Fair enough?

Until then, I'll stick to my understanding of Newton's laws and observations from the natural world...

[Nearly Sane]

Ok Gordon. It's a big planet. Give me one example of anywhere in the world I can go to observe something being caused by nothing. Then I'll lose my incredulity. Fair enough?

Until then, I'll stick to my understanding of Newton's laws and observations from the natural world...

Shifting the burden of proof, ignoring the problem of induction, and special pleading. House!

[Gordon]

Ok Gordon. It's a big planet. Give me one example of anywhere in the world I can go to observe something being caused by nothing. Then I'll lose my incredulity. Fair enough?

Until then, I'll stick to my understanding of Newton's laws and observations from the natural world...

You really don't understand fallacies, else you wouldn't have compounded your original fallacy-fest by adding some more.

[wigginhall]

I can observe something contiguous to something else, and then discover the lively sentiment in my mind, that the first causes the second.   Now what?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gordon,

You really don't understand fallacies, else you wouldn't have compounded your original fallacy-fest by adding some more.

Be nice too if he'd finally grasp that evolution has nothing to do with the where the first stuff came from.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Shifting the burden of proof, ignoring the problem of induction, and special pleading. House!

Any positive assertion carries a burden of proof. Can you get more specially plead than an infinite chain of derived power?...i'm not sure you can.

[Nearly Sane]

Any positive assertion carries a burden of proof. Can you get more specially plead than an infinite chain of derived power?...i'm not sure you can.

since I haven't made any such claim, this is you lying again.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spoof,

Any positive assertion carries a burden of proof. Can you get more specially plead than an infinite chain of derived power?...i'm not sure you can.

And he finishes off with a straw man - we have the royal flush of logical errors. Top marks!