• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Now there's no self either

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Mmmm... murderous drug-filled rampage.... isn't that what we've been waiting for all of our lives? Ah, the anticipation of the freedom to wreak havoc and leave my burning footprint upon the throat of the world!

Really, morality is unconnected to this kind of thing. It's like saying an atheist is prone to be a villain because he doesn't believe in some sort of dominating moral reality. Yet that's not how it typically plays out. Villains and heroes reside in all ranges of the spectrum of belief -- from the ultra-religious to the purely deterministic. I can have doubts about the validity of the self as an objective entity, but apparently it hasn't changed how I live; in fact, I find myself more compassionate and other-centered than at any other time in my life.

(for what that is worth.)

EDIT: Based on another comment I'd saw here, I find it very important to add that even if this scientific analysis and post-modernism both press one to question the concept of self, they are very different things, deeply lacking in commonality.

True. The mechanisms have different priorities, perspectives, and approaches to the world.
 

Siúil a Rúin

when the colors fade
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
14,037
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
496
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Haven't read the whole thread yet, but the concept of self as illusion makes sense to me. One way I've illustrated the concept of self is that it is like a reflective sculpture. Every detail about our physicality is the result of genetics combining with environment. There is nothing that exists outside the intermingling of those imposed forces. Psychologically we are built from the impressions of experience down to the detailed nuance of our language and accent, our mannerisms, our turns of phrases, and facial expressions. These are not independently invented, but combined from a myriad impressions. Our ideas are an amalgamation of other ideas and narratives presented to us. The manner in which we are able to process any ideas comes from the language taught us, the systems of problem solving, and the interactions with the physics of the concrete world which we react to.

If there is an independent self what is it? How is it defined and made distinct from everything which has made it? You can extend this question to that of a tree. What is a tree? Is it that moment in time when it possesses the form of a trunk with branches and leaves? Does it include the time it grew from a seed or the process of decay? Is it still a tree fallen half rotten, half living on the ground from which new saplings have sprung? Where does one tree end and the next begin? A tree is an object defined by an arbitrarily selected span of time found in a process of growth and decay that intermingles throughout a forest.

We perceive the world in boundaries. There are seven colors in the rainbow, eleven pitches in the chromatic scale, minutes and hours, and yet this is only an illusion since the light spectrum, sound waves, and time are each a continuum. This too is what the self is - it is the tree for a portion of the cycle from which it emerges, self is the minute marked in time, the color named red, the pitch named A.
 

erm

Permabanned
Joined
Jun 19, 2007
Messages
1,652
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5
when we are conceived of as an atomized self independent from others then we really doesn't consider how our actions affect others.

The "atomized self" affects others, as does the "absence of self". Why would there be anymore reason to consider the effects we have on others if this type of self doesn't exist?

It'd be interesting to see a functional difference between the self and no self, in this context. Seems like two different subjective views of the same object. One view has made an abstract category called the self, the other points out that it's abstract.

Even with a ghostly soul, or a Cartesian Theater viewer, the self constructed from it is still abstract. As with any object constructed from a plurality.

Research attitudes become social attitudes in all kinds of ways, with political, social and ethical implications.

Yes this is true, and vice versa. There's something I've been struggling to put my finger on in this area.

It's the idea that you can give a mechanical description of anything. Mundane things, souls, magic, energy and such, literally anything real or fictional you can imagine can be described in terms of its functions. This mechanical description seems to change things for people, and cause confusion, even though you are literally listing the traits an object has by describing it functionally/mechanically.

One example is free will (the metaphysical kind, not merely one's ability to act on mental volition). People start to say things like "you are controlled by your hormones", when of course the mechanical description was treating the hormones as part of you, a functional description of you. So "you are controlled by part of you" is effectively the same. "These hormones can be manipulated", which again fits perfectly with "you can be manipulated", yet it's suddenly a kind of mind control detrimental to free will (how is it more relevant to free will than anything else affecting or "manipulating" you, as constantly happens every second?). This is the reason why I await a description of an observable difference between metaphysical free will and the lack of it.

There are many other examples, but this is something I'm still clarifying mentally.
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
while i haven't read more than the quote you posted i don't think it is referring to a buddhist notion so much as a postmodern view of having many selves that are created by our various circumstances or life stories. this is a fascinating read about 4 various notions of the self: selfhood. there is the modern view of the independent self, people in community, the dialogical self, and the multifaceted postmodern selves. i think there is probably an element in each of these theories that is true and i think it is neither nature or nurture but both.

in psychology there are some really interesting things happening with internal family systems therapy or similar types like ego state, etc. it is the idea of not having one inner self (or inner child) but many inner selves. some of the thinking is based on systems theory and the complexity and multiplicity of things including our brains. in these types of therapy there is still one core personality, like freud's ego, but there are other personalities that have arisen due to various life circumstances. even freud propounded a multiplicity of selves with his id, ego and superego. basically, it's all about modern vs. postmodern views of life and the self/ves.

Thanks. You don't take definitions for granted. The more people do, the more we may as well be speaking different languages.
 

Mycroft

The elder Holmes
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
1,068
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
Mmmm... murderous drug-filled rampage.... isn't that what we've been waiting for all of our lives? Ah, the anticipation of the freedom to wreak havoc and leave my burning footprint upon the throat of the world!

:ninja:
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
Mmmm... murderous drug-filled rampage.... isn't that what we've been waiting for all of our lives? Ah, the anticipation of the freedom to wreak havoc and leave my burning footprint upon the throat of the world!

:banana:

Really, morality is unconnected to this kind of thing. It's like saying an atheist is prone to be a villain because he doesn't believe in some sort of dominating moral reality. Yet that's not how it typically plays out. Villains and heroes reside in all ranges of the spectrum of belief -- from the ultra-religious to the purely deterministic. I can have doubts about the validity of the self as an objective entity, but apparently it hasn't changed how I live; in fact, I find myself more compassionate and other-centered than at any other time in my life.

Watchmen. :D
 

Rasofy

royal member
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
5,881
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Now you're looking for the answer. But you won't find it because of course, you're not really looking. You don't really want to work it out. You want to be fooled.
 

wildflower

New member
Joined
Jul 8, 2011
Messages
317
The "atomized self" affects others, as does the "absence of self". Why would there be anymore reason to consider the effects we have on others if this type of self doesn't exist?

my initial sense was this book was coming from the postmodern notion of having multiple selves rather than no self. looking at the author's blog where he does mention more buddhist notions of no self it looks like he may be talking about something different than i was thinking. i'm not totally sure where he ends up and maybe he is even saying having multiple selves is ultimately the same as no self? what i was saying is that when those of us living in the west are raised to see ourselves as primarily autonomous beings it can lead us to have less of a focus on others and the consequences of our actions. i wasn't denying that those actions exist, quite the contrary. i'm not sure at all what the no self idea would be like functionally.

It'd be interesting to see a functional difference between the self and no self, in this context. Seems like two different subjective views of the same object. One view has made an abstract category called the self, the other points out that it's abstract.

abstract or that it doesn't exist even abstractly (nonmaterially)? yeesh, this discussion is making my no self hurt. ;)

One example is free will (the metaphysical kind, not merely one's ability to act on mental volition). People start to say things like "you are controlled by your hormones", when of course the mechanical description was treating the hormones as part of you, a functional description of you. So "you are controlled by part of you" is effectively the same. "These hormones can be manipulated", which again fits perfectly with "you can be manipulated", yet it's suddenly a kind of mind control detrimental to free will (how is it more relevant to free will than anything else affecting or "manipulating" you, as constantly happens every second?). This is the reason why I await a description of an observable difference between metaphysical free will and the lack of it.

similar to how we say something is a mental experience, like mental illness, rather than a physical experience as if our brains aren't a part of our bodies? i remember someone once explaining to me the difference between a physical and psychological addiction. he said a physical addiction is characterized by physical symptoms like tremors, etc but if there are only nonphysical symptoms like a craving then it is considered a psychological addiction. so, if it's in your head, so to speak, it's not physical. but our heads (brains) are part of our bodies so color me confused.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Watchmen. :D

Well, that's hilarious since the sullying of heroes such as in Watchmen has come up before in discussions with these particular participants.

Now you're looking for the answer. But you won't find it because of course, you're not really looking. You don't really want to work it out. You want to be fooled.

Abracadabra.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
[MENTION=7280]Lark[/MENTION]: what is it exactly that you disagree with about this conclusion? The way I read it, it's not that the term "self" is meaningless, it's that the concept of self as a single entity is predicated on slippery premises. It doesn't mean there is no such thing as "self" -- the term clearly describes something or we wouldn't use it all the time.
 

Skip Foreplay

New member
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
35
MBTI Type
ENxP
I am a fan of Dennett's view of self. I believe he produces better work on the mind than any other living philosopher.

He uses the analogy of a little man sitting in the middle of our head pulling levers. That's the way most people view the self. It's a sort of modern-cartesianism, I guess you could say.

He proposes that, largely because we have evolved in parts and in whole through logarithmic systems, our experience of the mind is similar. I'll sum it up briefly, but I won't argue for it. Dennett argues for it well, and I recommend reading him if you find my explanation interesting. We experience almost nothing per moment, but we experience many moments. That which does not exist needs no explanation, and a holistic experience of our surroundings does not exist, which is evident through even momentary introspection - you didn't realize a single item in your room until you read this sentence. I haven't read him in a while, and I really shouldn't botch a nice idea. Would anybody care to add?

I have slowly progressed, through exposure to more and more philosophy and through introspection, into an understanding of the self that is passive, rather than the almost universally accepted notion of activity. I do not have a body, but I am one. There are reasons that bodies behave how they do, and even medicine and the baby-science psychology have revealed most of this. How this translates into my noticing, or experiencing, is a mystery about which we do not even have broad strokes about what questions to ask in order to find the answer. We are farther than far away from that kind of understanding. I guess the idea of 'self' is an okay analogy for now, but taking it as reality is a leap in logic that I would never be willing to make.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
I guess the idea of 'self' is an okay analogy for now, but taking it as reality is a leap in logic that I would never be willing to make.

You know I dont understand that.

I know that Dennett's work, what I've read of it, is generally around a central atheistic perspective, I dont think he endorses Cartesianism but rejects it, so instead of saying you have a body but are a body is affirming an essential materialistic unity, so there is no spirit and no consciousness or mind independent from the body. Descarte wasnt writing like that when he came up with the idea of the "internal navigator" self, which was essentially similar to the idea of a soul or consciouness not restricted to the body in existence.

What is it about the idea of self which is passive? What's meant by that? I find it curious that atheists wouldnt assert the self, I dont know why anyone would from a research or objective position seek to advance thesis which reject the existence of the self but it seems fashionable among those which have an attachment to buddhism.

This also seems to be linked to meme theoy in an unfortunate fashion, so that people have no self beyond a meme which they have "self" constructed, or which has been constructed by others about them, see to me there are basic logic or psycho-linguistic fails in even trying to reason yourself into that position, how can you come up with that thesis without the language of self?

It also is again, repeated, the biological automaton thesis of behaviourism and then cognitivism, that we're all just one remove from apes (and in saying so is underestimating the consciousness or intelligence of apes usually) as opposed to simply having a common origin.

If the behaviourist and cognitivist perspectives are correct, that we are all just automatons, then I wonder how or why culture and memes could originate anyway unless by some miracle which is something else which is not useful as research criteria.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
[MENTION=7280]Lark[/MENTION]: whats so scary about us all being biological automatons?

I think I am one, at least.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
[MENTION=7280]Lark[/MENTION]: whats so scary about us all being biological automatons?

I think I am one, at least.

Good for you.

You wrongly suppose my objection to the idea is premised upon fear, its not the first time your anti-theist prejudices have fogged your posts.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
Good for you.

You wrongly suppose my objection to the idea is premised upon fear, its not the first time your anti-theist prejudices have fogged your posts.

Okay let me rephrase: what is your philosophical objection to humans being biological automatons?

I am more curious than prejudiced, although I won't deny being emotionally invested in my own worldview.
 
Top