We need to talk about the meaning of existence

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[wigginhall]

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).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[Sebastian Toe]

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?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[Sebastian Toe]

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?

[Sriram]

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.

[Stranger]

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.

[Sriram]

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.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[Stranger]

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?

[Stranger]

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?

[ekim]

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.

[Sriram]

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?

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.

[Stranger]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Sriram]

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?! 

[Stranger]

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.

[Sriram]

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.

[Stranger]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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

[Sriram]

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.

[Sriram]

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.   

[Stranger]

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). 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).

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?

[ProfessorDavey]

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).