We need to talk about the meaning of existence

[Sebastian Toe]

Oh dear, I'm outa here.

Indefinitely?

[ekim]

The illusory quality is evidenced by the fact that it leads people to indulge false intuitions like after-life despite the fact there is no hard evidence or rationale for such things. The illusion consists in the intuition that the self is a fundamental independent entity rather than an emergent phenomenon of mind.

Ah, now your talking like a Buddhist with his doctrine of Anatma.

[Stranger]

Something intelligent could have memory and skills. intelligence does not mean awareness or consciousness or selfhood though and I am not sure whether an intelligence without selfhood can be said to have 'experience'
So there is the 'awareness' aspect of the self. That is probably the core of the self. The emergent thing that is irreducible in that the structures and processes from which the self emerges do not possess this 'self'

Okay, so we can add awareness into the mix of things that makes up the whole 'onion'. However, pure awareness cannot be a self, can it? If it were, how would your awareness/self differ from mine? How could we tell if there was only one spark of awareness that flipped from mind to mind, being aware of all the contents of each mind (including all the memories and other context) in turn*?

If Self is the emergent entity then there is a sheer divide between self and no self. How aware and any measurement of awareness is irrelevant then.

Don't know what you're trying to say. If awareness is digital (just present or not), what is the exact dividing line (normal adult humans through to amoeba)?

Then are you suggesting other ways of being?

Is the centre of an object, or centre of gravity to make it more exact, real or an illusion?

* Not original but I can't remember where I read it.

[ProfessorDavey]

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2016/04/28/zoom-in-zoom-out/

From Sriram's web article:

This is why, scientists, generally speaking, cannot be relied upon to contribute effectively to a Big Picture view of the world taking into account all its experiential and spiritual aspects.

So let's try to understand who has the big picture nailed:

A. Spritualists who focus on purported human 'purpose' and the spiritual meaning of the human conscious and unconscious mind - noting that the human species exists on a single planet orbiting one of one billion trillion stars. And even in the context of that planet humans have been around for just 300,000 years (out of the universe's 13 billion year timeline).

or

B. Scientists focusing on understanding how the entire universe was formed, and developed over the past 13 billion years.

And think it is pretty clear who is really focusses on the big picture rather than being entirely human-centric, which is effectively totally irrelevant in a universe-wide context.

And that's before you add in the fact that scientists work on the basis of evidence rather than mere assertion and conjecture.

Sriram - if you really want to see the big picture, you need to start recognising that it isn't just all about you (and by you I mean humans).

[Sriram]

From Sriram's web article:

This is why, scientists, generally speaking, cannot be relied upon to contribute effectively to a Big Picture view of the world taking into account all its experiential and spiritual aspects.

So let's try to understand who has the big picture nailed:

A. Spritualists who focus on purported human 'purpose' and the spiritual meaning of the human conscious and unconscious mind - noting that the human species exists on a single planet orbiting one of one billion trillion stars. And even in the context of that planet humans have been around for just 300,000 years (out of the universe's 13 billion year timeline).

or

B. Scientists focusing on understanding how the entire universe was formed, and developed over the past 13 billion years.

And think it is pretty clear who is really focusses on the big picture rather than being entirely human-centric, which is effectively totally irrelevant in a universe-wide context.

And that's before you add in the fact that scientists work on the basis of evidence rather than mere assertion and conjecture.

Sriram - if you really want to see the big picture, you need to start recognising that it isn't just all about you (and by you I mean humans).

How do you know that it isn't about us? 

1. Take the Anthropic Principle....particularly the Participatory principle.

2. Take the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM and its need for observation ...and by implication, for consciousness.

3. Take the view of Reality proposed by some neuroscientists like Donald Hoffman....that Consciousness is fundamental. Other renowned scientists like Galileo and Max Planck also concur.

4. Reality is essentially subjective (the Tree in the Forest eg). Objective reality is just an illusion. In a VR game you can keep arguing about the nature of objective reality and evidence and so on and so forth. Ultimately, it is the subject that is the only reality. 

[Sriram]

I believe that Science through its discoveries has helped in an understanding of spirituality. A radical view, but true none the less. 

Try this.

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2019/10/19/science-helps-in-understanding-spirituality/

[ProfessorDavey]

How do you know that it isn't about us? 

Because we have existed for just a few million years, while the universe has been around for billions of years. Because humans live on one of one billion trillion stars.

Unless you take a completely human-centric approach, humans wouldn't even be noticed in a universe-wide consideration.

And Sriram - do you think it is 'all about us' (your assertions seem to indicate so) - in which case your views are remarkably arrogant and the ultimate in 'zoom-in' to use you own terminology.

[ProfessorDavey]

I believe that Science through its discoveries has helped in an understanding of spirituality. A radical view, but true none the less.

Which is it Sriram - a belief or the truth. You seem very confused again.

By the way it is a belief, and one that isn't supported by evidence. Actually I'm not sure it is even a belief (which implies a kind of lofty importance) - frankly all it is is an opinion.

[Stranger]

2. Take the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM and its need for observation ...and by implication, for consciousness.

Quite apart from everything else, this is factually incorrect. The Copenhagen interpretation is not the same as the Von Neumann–Wigner interpretation (aka "consciousness causes collapse"). From the wiki article on Copenhagen: "Although the Copenhagen interpretation is often confused with the idea that consciousness causes collapse, it defines an "observer" merely as that which collapses the wave function."

There is exactly zero evidence that consciousness plays any role in quantum mechanics.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The illusory quality is evidenced by the fact that it leads people to indulge false intuitions like after-life despite the fact there is no hard evidence or rationale for such things. The illusion consists in the intuition that the self is a fundamental independent entity rather than an emergent phenomenon of mind.

Several points here.
Can you indulge in an intuition? That sounds more like you indulging in onomatopoeia  than them indulging in intuition.

False intuition. That's a matter of opinion isn't it?

Does  believing in self lead to belief in the various caricatures of the soul you present?

Even if it did....is that Evidence that the self is an illusion?
You seem to have shifted the goal posts.
We now seem to be talking about not that the self is an illusion but the independence of the self is the illusion.

Is this an illusion or a mistake in understanding of an intellectual argument after all. Nobody is aware that they...the self...are an emergent property....who feels they are an emergent property.?Again an inappropriate use of the term illusion.

Does belief in the existence of the self lead to the belief in a soul that leaves the body at death and can commune with other souls that just happen to be around?

Not necessarily.
It could be argued biblically that rather than this free floating soul
the self dies and is then resurrected. God resurrects after the cessation of the self something that is totally his work and this rules out an ultimately independent soul. The self then being dependent for its existence on the will of God.

Since you have moved away from the self being an illusion the question is .....in what ontological framework can the self be said to exist?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Okay, so we can add awareness into the mix of things that makes up the whole 'onion'. However, pure awareness cannot be a self, can it? If it were, how would your awareness/self differ from mine? How could we tell if there was only one spark of awareness that flipped from mind to mind, being aware of all the contents of each mind (including all the memories and other context) in turn*?

Don't know what you're trying to say. If awareness is digital (just present or not), what is the exact dividing line (normal adult humans through to amoeba)?

Is the centre of an object, or centre of gravity to make it more exact, real or an illusion?

* Not original but I can't remember where I read it.

Awareness is the key here. So far self awareness has not been demonstrated as a necessary concomitant of intelligence.

And by awareness of the self we do not mean environmental awareness.
With regards centres of objects and centres of gravity being real or illusory I don't know but would love to hear your opinion. If illusory though I would have to ask what then is it that is having the illusion.

[Stranger]

Awareness is the key here. So far self awareness has not been demonstrated as a necessary concomitant of intelligence.

And by awareness of the self we do not mean environmental awareness.

Okay, but awareness can't be a self for the reasons I stated. To get a self, you need awareness of all the other things in the mind, so, even in this rather simplistic analysis, the self is more of a relationship or construct rather than an actual thing or definable part of the mind.

With regards centres of objects and centres of gravity being real or illusory I don't know but would love to hear your opinion.

As I said, I reject the dilemma that there is only real or illusionary. A centre of gravity isn't real in the sense that it's an object in the world, but it has very real consequences.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Okay, but awareness can't be a self for the reasons I stated. To get a self, you need awareness of all the other things in the mind, so, even in this rather simplistic analysis, the self is more of a relationship or construct rather than an actual thing or definable part of the mind.

Who has ever been aware of being a relationship or a construct? And dare I add rather than a self?
You see. none of the related things or the individual bits of the construct possess this property of self. That is why we talk of a property previously not existent emerging.
Pursuing your line of non actuality and merely appearing, we are back to the question ''what is that is having the illusion rather than experiencing a property?

As I said, I reject the dilemma that there is only real or illusionary. A centre of gravity isn't real in the sense that it's an object in the world, but it has very real consequences.

It may not be real in the sense that it isn’t an object but that either means it is real in another sense or it isn’t real. What are you going to plump for?

[Stranger]

Who has ever been aware of being a relationship or a construct? And dare I add rather than a self.

Which is why, in some ways, it can be considered to be an illusion, because it isn't what it seems to be.

You see none of the related things or the individual bits of the construct possess this property of self. That is why we talk of a property previously not existent emerging.

Yes.

Again,
Ensuing your line of non actuality and merely appearing we are back to the question what is that is having the illusion rather than experiencing a property’s?

You seem to think I'm really committed to this "illusion" description, which I'm not. Just by asking what's included in the self and what isn't, we've come to the conclusion that it can't really be defined like that, so, to an extent, it isn't quite how it feels like. I don't think that makes the whole thing an illusion - at least no more so than a centre of gravity.

It may not be real in the sense that it isn’t an object but that either means it is real in another sense or it isn’t real. What are you going to plump for.

What do you plump for? After all it's you who was keen to put things into neat categories.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What do you plump for? After all it's you who was keen to put things into neat categories.

I'm afraid I'm not falling for a ruse designed to satisfy the questionable desire of a public atheist to interrogate rather than answer questions themselves.

Does that desire come with a uniform and leatherwear?

[Nearly Sane]

I'm afraid I'm not falling for a ruse designed to satisfy the questionable desire of a public atheist to interrogate rather than answer questions themselves.

Does that desire come with a uniform and leatherwear?

Please leave your sexual fantasies out of it.

[Stranger]

I'm afraid I'm not falling for a ruse designed to satisfy the questionable desire of a public atheist to interrogate rather than answer questions themselves.

Firstly, it's interesting that you want to concentrate on the semantics rather than the substance, and secondly, it's you who wanted me to put things in one of two categories that you'd come up with, and now you can't or won't do it yourself. That was the actual point I was making, that not everything fits neatly into those categories.

Does that desire come with a uniform and leatherwear?

Have you been hacking my webcam? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Firstly, it's interesting that you want to concentrate on the semantics rather than the substance, and secondly, it's you who wanted me to put things in one of two categories that you'd come up with, and now you can't or won't do it yourself. That was the actual point I was making, that not everything fits neatly into those categories.

Have you been hacking my webcam? 

No pal. I said a few posts ago that if the self is an emergent property of brain function then it is a real thing.

I've said that the self is probably the thing we can be most sure of.

If as you say it is not real in the sense of being an object then there are only two options either it is real in some other sense or it is not. That you don't want to be pinned down to either is neither here nor there..... it changes naught. If you don't want to answer, that just speaks about you and nothing else.   

[torridon]

No pal. I said a few posts ago that if the self is an emergent property of brain function then it is a real thing.

I've said that the self is probably the thing we can be most sure of.

If as you say it is not real in the sense of being an object then there are only two options either it is real in some other sense or it is not. That you don't want to be pinned down to either is neither here nor there..... it changes naught. If you don't want to answer, that just speaks about you and nothing else.

Emergent properties generally are not false, imaginary properties, in principle, they are real.  Emergent phenomena of mind are real, ultimately, but they are illusory in the sense of a false intuition. For example, look at the screen in front of you; we all take it as undeniable that you are seeing the actual screen in front of you.  However, this intuition is false, what is happening is you are having visual experience in your occipital lobe, at the back of your head.  Your visual experience of the screen is a construction of mind based largely on memory, it is a fiction, a best guess construction that is good enough for its purpose.  But we don't hesitantly look at things knowing we are having a proximate experience, we assume the experienced object to actually be the object.  We commonly, and wrongly, take our inner representational experience to be the external objective reality.  In this sense, I say emergent phenomenology of mind is real but with an illusory quality.

[Sriram]

Emergent properties generally are not false, imaginary properties, in principle, they are real.  Emergent phenomena of mind are real, ultimately, but they are illusory in the sense of a false intuition. For example, look at the screen in front of you; we all take it as undeniable that you are seeing the actual screen in front of you.  However, this intuition is false, what is happening is you are having visual experience in your occipital lobe, at the back of your head.  Your visual experience of the screen is a construction of mind based largely on memory, it is a fiction, a best guess construction that is good enough for its purpose.  But we don't hesitantly look at things knowing we are having a proximate experience, we assume the experienced object to actually be the object.  We commonly, and wrongly, take our inner representational experience to be the external objective reality.  In this sense, I say emergent phenomenology of mind is real but with an illusory quality.

Reality exists at different levels differently. We cannot say which of them is the 'actual' reality. 

But one thing is clear that objectivity is an illusion. In reality, all experiences are subjective....collective subjectivity. Like different people using different terminals to play the same game. 

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2019/11/04/reality/

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Emergent properties generally are not false, imaginary properties, in principle, they are real.  Emergent phenomena of mind are real, ultimately, but they are illusory in the sense of a false intuition. For example, look at the screen in front of you; we all take it as undeniable that you are seeing the actual screen in front of you.  However, this intuition is false, what is happening is you are having visual experience in your occipital lobe, at the back of your head.  Your visual experience of the screen is a construction of mind based largely on memory, it is a fiction, a best guess construction that is good enough for its purpose.  But we don't hesitantly look at things knowing we are having a proximate experience, we assume the experienced object to actually be the object.  We commonly, and wrongly, take our inner representational experience to be the external objective reality.  In this sense, I say emergent phenomenology of mind is real but with an illusory quality.

Your example is one of how illusion exists in people’s experience. The thing is though we know what it is that is having the illusion. It is the self.

We are forced then to ask, in the case of the self itself, what is it which is having the illusion of self?

If we do not know what or even if there is something which can be said to experience an illusion, then any statement that the self is an illusion is baseless and all we are doing is taking the self and declaring it an illusion with no warrant.

If the self is an emergent property of brain function then I contend that there are no brain functions which are self aware and subsequently none that can have illusions.

If this is the case then either the self is not an illusion or something other than brains are having the illusion.

Since I see no candidates here it looks like the self is no illusion and my advice to those who disagree is......

Find what it is that is having the illusion.

[Sriram]

Your example is one of how illusion exists in people’s experience the thing is though we know what it is that is having the illusion. It is the self.

We are forced then to ask, in the case of the self itself, what is it which is having the illusion?

If we do not know what or even if there is something which can be said to experience an illusion, then any statement that the self is an illusion is baseless and all we are doing is taking the self and declaring it an illusion with no warrant.

I don't understand your point.

I think I have made it clear that, in my view, objectivity is an illusion and that the Subject is the only reality.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't understand your point.

I think I have made it clear that, in my view, objectivity is an illusion and that the Subject is the only reality.

My point is that the self is not an illusion.

In terms of your view I think mine and yours are in agreement somewhat.

Sorry I was replying to Torridon My mistake.Many apologies.

[Sriram]

My point is that the self is not an illusion.

In terms of your view I think mine and yours are in agreement somewhat.

Sorry I was replying to Torridon My mistake.Many apologies.

No problem...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No problem...

Thanks. I appreciated your reply to Torridon which is really productive to the debate.