Now there's no self either

[Lark]

It kind of reaches a point were I think that so called "science" needs to give me a break with the amount of things its telling me dont really exist:-

Most of us believe that we possess a self - an internal individual who resides inside our bodies, making decisions, authoring actions and possessing free will. The feeling that a single, unified, enduring self inhabits the body - the 'me' inside me - is compelling and inescapable. This is how we interact as a social animal and judge each other's actions and deeds. But that sovereignty of the self is increasingly under threat from science as our understanding of the brain advances. Rather than a single entity, the self is really a constellation of mechanisms and experiences that create the illusion of the internal you. We only emerge as a product of those around us as part of the different storylines we inhabit from the cot to the grave. It is an every changing character, created by the brain to provide a coherent interface between the multitude of internal processes and the external world demands that require different selves.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1780330073/ref=s9_newr_gw_g14_ir01?pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_s=center-4&pf_rd_r=141Q7QSPJVNXWFVATDCD&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=467128133&pf_rd_i=468294

I wonder sometimes if its just the seemingly unassailable cultural ascendency of ideas such as a vague, "feeble buddhism" or consumer friendly spirituality impinging upon serious theoretical scientific investigation.

It could just be some kind of madness.

 

[Munchies]

The "self" or EGO lieks to think it exists. It lieks to attribute characteristics to itself to enhance it's image. To go further, it finds identity with like minded people. And loves to take advantage the MBTI system to put everybody in a familiar box. But of course non of this leads to investigation of the self, and usually all judgments based on this foundation are only superficial speculation lacking depth.

 

[wildflower]

I wonder sometimes if its just the seemingly unassailable cultural ascendency of ideas such as a vague, "feeble buddhism" or consumer friendly spirituality impinging upon serious theoretical scientific investigation.

It could just be some kind of madness.

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.

 

[Mycroft]

Lark, I can't help but notice you're quite the fan of the argument from incredulity.

Even if it were true, in the grandest metaphysical sense, that the self is an illusion, at a practical, day-to-day level, what difference would it make? Why does the notion make you feel so threatened?

(I should mention that I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, but some people might be wondering the same thing, so it's a point worth considering.)

 

[Lark]

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.

Freud's tripartite personality is interesting because lots of others before and afterwards happened to be tripartite too, there's other tripartite aspects of most major religious or ideological theories too, like the god, jesus, holy spirit concept in Christianity. Sorry that's a digression but I thought about it recently quite a bit.

No, this is something further to the idea which croped up in a thread a while ago that scientists had put character beneath a microscope and it disappeared, the researchers are suggesting that we are all just a sort of organic automaton responding to external stimuli in bio-chemical fashion and the only "self" which could exist is that which exists in stories told by others or constructed by others. Thinking of the meme theory, which I dont like much, it seems that not only is God a viral idea/concept but so is individuality and pretty much everything else to boot.

I really dont like the direction this is all going in to be honest. Not to be too apocalyptic about it but it feels as though beneath it all there's something unconscious which is just undermining all certainty or certitude of a particular kind.

 

[Lark]

Lark, I can't help but notice you're quite the fan of the argument from incredulity.

Even if it were true, in the grandest metaphysical sense, that the self is an illusion, at a practical, day-to-day level, what difference would it make? Why does the notion make you feel so threatened?

(I should mention that I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, but some people might be wondering the same thing, so it's a point worth considering.)

I'm not trolling.

I'm not making any arguments from incredulity.

Incidentially, I think I know you from another site, on which I'm ignoring you, did you think that you could skip in here and I wouldnt?

 

[Mycroft]

Well, I've been on these forums for about two years longer than you have, so that would have been pretty proactive of me.

 

[wildflower]

No, this is something further to the idea which croped up in a thread a while ago that scientists had put character beneath a microscope and it disappeared, the researchers are suggesting that we are all just a sort of organic automaton responding to external stimuli in bio-chemical fashion and the only "self" which could exist is that which exists in stories told by others or constructed by others.

i read the one customer review for the book and he mentions a self that is socially constructed. edit: that is related to postmodernism. ok, it is a little different but social constructionist views are very similar to postmodernism.

I really dont like the direction this is all going in to be honest. Not to be too apocalyptic about it but it feels as though beneath it all there's something unconscious which is just undermining all certainty or certitude of a particular kind.

yes, postmodernism. (minus the unconscious something underneath it). while i haven't read derrida i have read a little about his ideas. i think he would be the go to guy here. i don't know if you are at all familiar with the whole emerging conversation in the church but it's based on postmodernism. i learned a bit about it thru that. now, we don't take it so far as to say there is no center or God but notions of absolute truth and certainty are definitely questioned and rightly so. truth isn't based on universal absolutes. truth is relational and based on faith. that doesn't mean there aren't any truths we can hang our hat upon but there is a lot more complexity and variety than the moderns would have us believe. postmodernism actually allows for faith whereas modernism does not. in that way it is much friendly than modernism to someone like you or me. if you read the link i posted that will give you a bit of perspective where this book you linked is probably coming from. there is a chart at the end of the article that sums it up nicely.

 

[Totenkindly]

Lark, I can't help but notice you're quite the fan of the argument from incredulity.

Even if it were true, in the grandest metaphysical sense, that the self is an illusion, at a practical, day-to-day level, what difference would it make? Why does the notion make you feel so threatened?

(I should mention that I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, but some people might be wondering the same thing, so it's a point worth considering.)

I don't think he's purposefully trolling; his values just don't seem to permit serious exploration of the idea, so the question is expressed in a loaded fashion. He also doesn't like the moral outcome of what not having a self might mean, since it can lead to abuse of humans by other humans. The topic itself of whether the 'self' exists, though, is worthwhile to explore.

As far as I can tell, the dissection of 'self' is a natural outcome of setting aside one's personal religious and philosophical values and searching for a physical "free will" mechanism vs a deterministic approach.... and that discussion has been happening a very long time, it's just that hardcore science is finally to the point where we can begin to explore those things on the biological level rather than just the philosophical. We're also possessing enough technological advancement at this point to begin extensively simulating AI and seeing how thinking ... or behavior that simulates conscious thinking... can be programmed. So it simulates a self but doesn't seem to just 'exist' as some sort of untethered consciousness, it's all generated as a byproduct of the machine and we perceive it as a self.

the self also seems to be a generated narrative of incoming data; prior determinations of what the "self" is become screening mechanisms by which to filter future data. so the self is self-reinforcing and in a sense self-generated. Our past decisions influence future and we are kind of "naturally creating" our concept of ourselves. But all those decisions seemed to be based on the past decisions (deterministically); it's quite the puzzler.

I'm not making any arguments from incredulity.

It certainly seems that way to me, so maybe you should actually reconsider, if only to understand how your posts can come across as such, rather than just simplistically denying the criticisms. The ability to deconstruct one's own arguments and beliefs is a good thing... although I guess your whole premise of this thread is you not liking having your premises (and in this case, the self) explored and challenged, so that it must somehow just be dismissed as another form of attack upon what the way of things should be and a degredation of culture. (just look at the sarcasm inherent in the title of this thread.)

Mycroft predates you by a wide margin, he's one of the original members of this site. I just haven't seen him around for awhile.

 

[Lark]

I don't think he's purposefully trolling; his values just don't seem to permit serious exploration of the idea, so the question is expressed in a loaded fashion. He also doesn't like the moral outcome of what not having a self might mean, since it can lead to abuse of humans by other humans. The topic itself of whether the 'self' exists, though, is worthwhile to explore.

As far as I can tell, the dissection of 'self' is a natural outcome of setting aside one's personal religious and philosophical values and searching for a physical "free will" mechanism vs a deterministic approach.... and that discussion has been happening a very long time, it's just that hardcore science is finally to the point where we can begin to explore those things on the biological level rather than just the philosophical. We're also possessing enough technological advancement at this point to begin extensively simulating AI and seeing how thinking ... or behavior that simulates conscious thinking... can be programmed. So it simulates a self but doesn't seem to just 'exist' as some sort of untethered consciousness, it's all generated as a byproduct of the machine and we perceive it as a self.

the self also seems to be a generated narrative of incoming data; prior determinations of what the "self" is become screening mechanisms by which to filter future data. so the self is self-reinforcing and in a sense self-generated. Our past decisions influence future and we are kind of "naturally creating" our concept of ourselves. But all those decisions seemed to be based on the past decisions (deterministically); it's quite the puzzler.



It certainly seems that way to me, so maybe you should actually reconsider, if only to understand how your posts can come across as such, rather than just simplistically denying the criticisms. The ability to deconstruct one's own arguments and beliefs is a good thing... although I guess your whole premise of this thread is you not liking having your premises (and in this case, the self) explored and challenged, so that it must somehow just be dismissed as another form of attack upon what the way of things should be and a degredation of culture. (just look at the sarcasm inherent in the title of this thread.)

Mycroft predates you by a wide margin, he's one of the original members of this site. I just haven't seen him around for awhile.

You're wrong on all accounts, I suggest you give some serious thought as to why, I could tell you but you're already defensive when it comes to ANYTHING which I post and all too easily project all kinds of things onto my posts and also, it has to be said, myself which are inaccurate, distortions corresponding to just how strongly you feel about certain topics.

 

[Mycroft]

Jennifer, his behavior seems like textbook trolling behavior from what I've seen: track down a controversial topic, present it in couched, inflammatory terms, and insult anyone who not so much as disagrees but merely points out fallacies. I suppose we can't discount the possibility that he's simply opinionated and overzealous, but overzealous people are generally interested in winning converts to their ideas, and he seems more disappointed when anyone agrees.

(That said, I haven't been as regular a contributor to these forums as I may like to be, so I have to acknowledge that I may not be seeing the full picture of his overall behavior.)

Anyway, I think you've hit the nail on the head regarding determinism and the self. I just don't see how the lack of a "self" could be a problem for society. The kind of people who are inclined to engage in dangerously hedonistic or sociopathic behavior (or both) aren't going to need scientific research to give them an excuse. Both types of behavior have a wanton disregard for standards built in.

 

[Jaguar]

We only emerge as a product of those around us as part of the different storylines we inhabit from the cot to the grave. It is an ever changing character, created by the brain to provide a coherent interface between the multitude of internal processes and the external world demands that require different selves.

I must be missing why anyone would find that "offensive" or even unusual.

 

[Totenkindly]

Anyway, I think you've hit the nail on the head regarding determinism and the self. I just don't see how the lack of a "self" could be a problem for society. The kind of people who are inclined to behave in dangerously hedonistic or sociopathic behavior (or both) aren't going to need scientific research to give them an excuse. Both types of behavior have a wanton disregard for standards built in.

I'd probably even go as far to say such people (the hedonist and the sociopath), due to their self-absorption, would be the ones having a hard time accepting the concept that perhaps the self is a subjective manufacture, since so much of their experience, will, and drive would be an extension of it. It would difficult for them to contemplate that self might not exist in the way they experience themselves. We do get the nihilists thrown in there, but I consider all three categories (as you suggest) to be already operating on that level rather than reaching it through some sort of misleading spiritual or philosophical bent.

 

[garbage]

The self and other related ideas, such as free will, are insanely useful constructs, whether or not they're "factual" or "scientifically accurate."

They get us into trouble at times, though--some, for instance, don't mind taking Welbutrin to stop smoking but would not think of taking it for depression; others understand physiological symptoms of depression, mania, and other disorders but cannot understand how they could possibly affect moods and decisions. We don't want to give up the illusion of control, because we must have responsibility and agency for our rules, laws, and mental models of how people operate to make much sense.

Who knows? If it's 'true' and when we're ready to embrace it, a lack of self could guide us toward a better way of thinking about ourselves, the world, and our place in it. That should be the end goal of all of our scientific inquiries, anyway.

 

[Totenkindly]

Who knows? If it's 'true' and when we're ready to embrace it, a lack of self could guide us toward a better way of thinking about ourselves, the world, and our place in it. That should be the end goal of all of our scientific inquiries, anyway.

Agreed. I think on a practical level, we all live as if we had a self, and we experience a self.

But it would be useful in scientific inquiry, by its nature, to start from scratch and not assume such things. When we're trying to understand how something works, assumptions lead right into error or close off avenues that need to be explored.

 

[erm]

How exactly are we living as if we have a self?

People live as if they are bodies and minds somewhat separate from other things, which is not what is being denied. The concept of the "self" as it means here doesn't seem relevant to day to day life at all. It only seems to come into play during abstract or metaphorical conversations (that don't seem very practical).

 

[wildflower]

The concept of the "self" as it means here doesn't seem relevant to day to day life at all. It only seems to come into play during abstract or metaphorical conversations (that don't seem very practical).

on the contrary, the concept of the self has vast implications for society. just look at our western, individualistic, consumer-oriented culture. we consume without really thinking about the ramifications of our actions. consider the planned obsolescence of electronics. where do we think all those old cell phones, computers, tvs, etc. go? they frequently end up toxically polluting china in a huge way. but of course we are either quite unaware of that or we don't want to think about it. on the other end we don't think much about the manufacture of those items and the labor conditions under which they were built. we just want our products cheap. when we are conceived of as an atomized self independent from others then we really don't consider how our actions affect others.

 

[Lark]

How exactly are we living as if we have a self?

People live as if they are bodies and minds somewhat separate from other things, which is not what is being denied. The concept of the "self" as it means here doesn't seem relevant to day to day life at all. It only seems to come into play during abstract or metaphorical conversations (that don't seem very practical).

The reason it concerns me is that it seems so reminiscent to two earlier battles in psychological research.

The behaviourist controversary and later some of the schools of cognitivism took up the batton, a feature of each theoretical offensive was to denigrate depth psychology, analysis, all Freudian or Jungian or other traditions of that kind as of no value other than perhaps literary or philosophical diversions.

I dont think that either of these disputes was unfortunate because of their attitude towards other theoretical schools or traditions per se but on each occasion the thesis which was being advanced was that human beings were/are organic automatons, not all that unique after all, there is of course implications or consequences for some of the debates around materialism/atomism vs. supernaturalism/theism/holism but that doesnt interest me so much as the potential for this belief that humans are "mere automatons" to become embedded and what the consequences of that will be beyond scientific and psychological investigations.

Research attitudes become social attitudes in all kinds of ways, with political, social and ethical implications. I find it curious and also ridiculous, in fact a real example of argument from incredulity, that being suspiscious of this whole project is so quickly linked with disordered egotism along the lines of sociopathy and narcissism. Perhaps the culturally myopic attitude toward self, that it is in all incarnations as akin to the opposite of and opposing of altruism, dies hard. Then again it could be simply a matter of demonising posters and trolling.

 

[Mycroft]

I'd probably even go as far to say such people (the hedonist and the sociopath), due to their self-absorption ...

Agreed.

Research attitudes become social attitudes in all kinds of ways, with political, social and ethical implications. I find it curious and also ridiculous, in fact a real example of argument from incredulity, that being suspiscious of this whole project is so quickly linked with disordered egotism along the lines of sociopathy and narcissism. Perhaps the culturally myopic attitude toward self, that it is in all incarnations as akin to the opposite of and opposing of altruism, dies hard. Then again it could be simply a matter of demonising posters and trolling.

Actually, the exact opposite: the common objection to theories or philosophies (determinism in particular) that cast doubt on the existence of self is that if we are not, in fact, free-willed "selves", why not act however we choose, without regard for moral implications or consequences? This is fallacious reasoning, a "slippery slope" fallacy. As I mentioned above, people inclined to engage in hedonistic or sociopathic behavior are going to do so, and will certainly not need the findings of science to prompt them along that path.

The more basic objection is that, even if we were to assume that everyone on earth would go on a murderous, drug-fueled rampage if it were proven beyond all doubt that the "self" is an illusion, this would have no impact on the truth of the matter. The objection is strictly a moral one.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

I didn't have to have any scientist specifically tell me this for me to come to this conclusion. It just seemed to reasonably follow from the fact that a human is made of an enormous array of different organisms (themselves atomic structures) that die and reproduce rapidly over time. How real could the self be?

Like-wise, there's a lot of determinism, cosmic/physical determinism that made free will a clearly questionable case.

As far as adaptability goes, a self-important, singular command center would seem to be a more effective approach to the colony that is a human body, so here we are.

EDIT: Based on another comment I 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.