Soul

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Could you tell us where your self is located, exactly ?

At the moment in the chair in front of the TV watching Ben Hur.

[jeremyp]

What an arseclenchingly scientistical question.

It wasn't a question.

What other way apart from science do we have for determining if anything is real?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It wasn't a question.

What other way apart from science do we have for determining if anything is real?

Science has trouble with the self which is the one thing we actually really know.
So firstly it is disabled in any suggestion that it can determine ontology.

Since science makes no final ontological declaration it is of no use in ontological argument.

Sorry.

[jeremyp]

Science has trouble with the self which is the one thing we actually really know.

Do we really know it?

So firstly it is disabled in any suggestion that it can determine ontology.

Why?

Since science makes no final ontological declaration it is of no use in ontological argument.

If you can't test your ideas, you can't tell if they are right or wrong. If you can test your ideas, you are doing science.

Sorry.

Why? What have you done?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do we really know it? Why?If you can't test your ideas, you can't tell if they are right or wrong. If you can test your ideas, you are doing science.

I have nothing against that.
It seems to have its limitations though. It cannot seem to demonstrate one's self. A thing which is perhaps the most obvious real thing one can experience.

[Sebastian Toe]

I have nothing against that.
It seems to have its limitations though. It cannot seem to demonstrate one's self. A thing which is perhaps the most obvious real thing one can experience.

And it is so real for everyone that we all have exactly the same explanation for it.........don't we?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And it is so real for everyone that we all have exactly the same explanation for it.........don't we?

If you are saying Toe, that you don't think you are for real...the whole world can agree on that.
Ha ha ha.

[Sebastian Toe]

If you are saying Toe, that you don't think you are for real...the whole world can agree on that.
Ha ha ha.

Can you prove I'm not real?
Ho ho ho!

[Dicky Underpants]

I have nothing against that.
It seems to have its limitations though. It cannot seem to demonstrate one's self. A thing which is perhaps the most obvious real thing one can experience.

Well, Hume and the Buddha didn't think so.

[Nearly Sane]

Well, Hume and the Buddha didn't think so.

in part because the idea that the self experiences itself as Vlad seems to suggest doesn't really make much sense.

[wigginhall]

Yes, I don't get how the self is obvious, really.  Still, no doubt Vlad will elucidate.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

in part because the idea that the self experiences itself as Vlad seems to suggest doesn't really make much sense.

So what is doing the experiencing and what is the experience? What is it that experiences the illusion?

[Nearly Sane]

So what is doing the experiencing and what is the experience? What is it that experiences the illusion?

I didn't use the word illusion but what you missed is that your first two questions highlight the problem I pointed out. If the self is some how experiencing the self then you have created a dualistic infinite regression.

That is of course added to your begging the question  that other experiences all the same.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I didn't use the word illusion but what you missed is that your first two questions highlight the problem I pointed out. If the self is some how experiencing the self then you have created a dualistic infinite regression.

That is of course added to your begging the question  that other experiences all the same.

Now you've got me searching the web for dualistic infinite regression (hey umtiddly umtiddle eye....).
Infinite regression? I can see a charge of circularity but infinite regression sounds utter wank.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, I don't get how the self is obvious, really.  Still, no doubt Vlad will elucidate.

Really? Who do you have your cheques made out to?

[Nearly Sane]

Now you've got me searching the web for dualistic infinite regression (hey umtiddly umtiddle eye....).
Infinite regression? I can see a charge of circularity but infinite regression sounds utter wank.

  Your position works like this. You claim experience of the self as the basis of the claim, and yet you claim that it the self that is experiencing the self. This creates the duality. If the self is also a thing that is defined by being experienced then the dualustic self needs to be experienced etc etc

[SteveH]

  Your position works like this. You claim experience of the self as the basis of the claim, and yet you claim that it the self that is experiencing the self. This creates the duality. If the self is also a thing that is defined by being experienced then the dualustic self needs to be experienced etc etc

"There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them." George Orwell.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

  Your position works like this. You claim experience of the self as the basis of the claim, and yet you claim that it the self that is experiencing the self. This creates the duality. If the self is also a thing that is defined by being experienced then the dualustic self needs to be experienced etc etc

Only the self needs to experience itself.
A duality is not an infinite regression is it.

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

Take the example of a String. It is supposed to be the smallest part of what we are and everything else is. If the atom is as big as the solar system, the String is said to be as big as a tree. It is so small that no one can hope to see or even know what it is. It is probably some form of energy wriggling around like a rubber band. 

This String is believed to vibrate in 11 dimensions to generate various elementary particles which then form more complex particles like protons, particles then form atoms of elements, which form compounds, which then form cells and organisms, which then form humans and others. The String is the most fundamental aspect of Nature that we currently are able to theorize. The String is the only thing that really exists, everything else is only its transformation and an illusion.  If it stops vibrating, the universe could simply disappear in a jiffy.

Imagine the String is conscious, what will it be aware of?  Will it think of itself as a human or as a bacteria or as a  hydrocarbon or as an atom or as an electron or quark?  Or will it think of itself as a String?

We can imagine its Consciousness projecting itself into all its physical transformations. It will be conscious as a human, as a bacteria, as an atom, as an electron and also as itself. Its consciousness will be different at different levels.

The idea of the soul or Self is similar, philosophically.

Cheers.

Sriram

[torridon]

Really? Who do you have your cheques made out to?

Agreed, a superficial schema would be sufficient for anyone looking to a career in banking.  Or accountancy.

[jeremyp]

Hi everyone,

Take the example of a String. It is supposed to be the smallest part of what we are and everything else is. If the atom is as big as the solar system, the String is said to be as big as a tree. It is so small that no one can hope to see or even know what it is. It is probably some form of energy wriggling around like a rubber band. 

This String is believed to vibrate in 11 dimensions to generate various elementary particles which then form more complex particles like protons, particles then form atoms of elements, which form compounds, which then form cells and organisms, which then form humans and others. The String is the most fundamental aspect of Nature that we currently are able to theorize. The String is the only thing that really exists, everything else is only its transformation and an illusion.  If it stops vibrating, the universe could simply disappear in a jiffy.

Imagine the String is conscious, what will it be aware of?  Will it think of itself as a human or as a bacteria or as a  hydrocarbon or as an atom or as an electron or quark?  Or will it think of itself as a String?

We can imagine its Consciousness projecting itself into all its physical transformations. It will be conscious as a human, as a bacteria, as an atom, as an electron and also as itself. Its consciousness will be different at different levels.

The idea of the soul or Self is similar, philosophically.

Cheers.

Sriram

I'm sorry but that makes no sense whatsoever.

[wigginhall]

Really? Who do you have your cheques made out to?

Argumentum ad pronouns, I suppose.

[Nearly Sane]

Only the self needs to experience itself.
A duality is not an infinite regression is it.

Your first sentence ignores the issue with what something experiencing itself means. It also appears to add into some claim that the logical issues with the idea are somehow dealt with by assertion of necessity.

Your second sentence then contradicts your first, though this is in part because you have no coherent position on this. It also appears to create a strawman since I wasn't saying a duality equals an infinite regress. And in doing so, ignores that the inifinite regress was caused by one of your contradictory positions you have taken in this discussion, i.e. the dualist one of a separate self somehow experiencing a different separate self.
This would necessitate the regression by your logic as that self would need another self etc etc and so on ad infinitum.


And all of that is ignoring your overall lack of definition and the basic problems with any of your contradictory positions have with science and others experiences 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Your first sentence ignores the issue with what something experiencing itself means. It also appears to add into some claim that the logical issues with the idea are somehow dealt with by assertion of necessity.

Your second sentence then contradicts your first, though this is in part because you have no coherent position on this. It also appears to create a strawman since I wasn't saying a duality equals an infinite regress. And in doing so, ignores that the inifinite regress was caused by one of your contradictory positions you have taken in this discussion, i.e. the dualist one of a separate self somehow experiencing a different separate self.
This would necessitate the regression by your logic as that self would need another self etc etc and so on ad infinitum.


And all of that is ignoring your overall lack of definition and the basic problems with any of your contradictory positions have with science and others experiences

You need to layout how self awareness involves infinite regress. You make the mistake of positing a separate self experiencing a different self. No one else has done that and it isn't self awareness.

[Nearly Sane]

You need to layout how self awareness involves infinite regress. You make the mistake of positing a separate self experiencing a different self. No one else has done that and it isn't self awareness.

I've now 'laid it out; a couple of times that the infinite regress is based on one of you contradictory positions on this. Why are you ignoring that? Your dualist position of a one thing  experiencing another leads to that.

Your non dualist position doesn't make sense in that a thing experiencing itself, and that thing being undefined and contradicted by current science in the extremely basic way you refer to it, contradicts the normal use of the word experience, and you haven't made any attempt to justify that other than a nonsensical assertion of necessity.