The Illusion of the Self

[charlou]

I will petition staff to remove all non-substantive posts to Spam and Trash.

I'll just be scrolling by them.

[rasetsu]

About a dozen people posted while I was composing this; you may have been ignored, thusly.

I think you got that there pony tied up a little tight to the post, doncha, son? Perhaps if you could distill that into a list of 316 do's and don'ts that we have to follow to participate in this thread?



For what it's worth, given the content in the OP, I see an idea in search of a mechanism. To say that X or Y might happen by some unexplained mechanism, is, to me, a lot of hand waving. I'm reminded of the scene in the movie Speed where the bus comes to a gap in the road where the freeway ramp had yet to be completed, and they have to somehow get the bus to jump the gap. I don't think this fellow's bus has enough speed to come anywhere close to jumping the gap.

For what it's worth, while I am only beginning my researches into the area, it is in the doctrine of Anatta (that there is no-self) that I feel the Buddha most likely erred. Rum recently asked me about a particular individual's reinvention of themselves along typical Buddhist lines involving Anatta and Sunyata, and what I thought of that interpretation. Unfortunately, not able to get to my reading on Anatta, I asked Rum what his specific questions were, only to find he didn't have any. Anyway, as noted, the doctrine of Anatta is unfamiliar to me, and until I do my due diligence, all I can say is that I have a hunch.

I won't pretend to have read your thread, GrahamH, in any depth, other than to note that it seemed to be a form of simulation theory [of theory of mind], excepting that all such "ideas" are ultimately simulations or models, somewhat akin to the way Dennett's Intentional Stance functions. Matter of fact, it's not clear whether you and he have competing views, or whether they are bosom buddies.

For my own part, I'm dismayed by this individual's amalgam of galloping category errors and hand waving, I think that, fundamentally, he is, for lack of a better way to describe it, "facing in the right direction." I see similar things, though I hazard we come at them from radically different perspective. He, apparently from the perspective of psychology, and myself primarily from computational and biological neuroscience, albeit rather speculative notions.

Oh, one final note. I get sick of people saying that because something happens in the brain, it is therefore not an objective phenomenon. That it occurs between the ears is not an adequate criterion for partitioning subjective and objective where the two intersect; to partition them as he does leads me to wonder if he doesn't conclude that there is no objective fact about anything that occurs in the brain, and that's surely wrong. If one wanted to stretch the point, I could readily assert that the real world does not exist — anything we might attach the referent "the real world" to is ultimately an abstracted model which possesses none of the properties the thing it supposedly represents possesses, and there is no way to get those properties into thought. This too, has its value pedagogically, but if we're trying to understand what we are referring to as the real world, it's fundamentally unhelpful to say that because the referring model only exists from a perspective, that there is nothing objective about it, and therefore it's illusory and subjective. For one, because I believe there are finer gradations to be resolved here, and for two, flattening it out this way erases distinctions regardless of kind. (Anyway, I didn't quite hit my mark here, but perhaps I or someone else can fill in the missing bits here later.)

Where am I? Almost totally lost. Some of my ideas in this area I regard as proprietary, that may have value which would be eliminated if I freely shared them. (And the lines aren't always clearly drawn.) One Idea I had today which I'll dump into the kitty is one I had while reading Sam Harris' Free Will for a discussion group this evening. Compatibilist or Libertarian, or even Determinist, start with the proposition, "I have free will," and attempt to add legs to that puppy. However, I've noticed in myself and others, 99% of the focus in answering the question centers on the meaning of the term 'free will'. Almost wholly neglected is the fact that even once you have a concept of free will (or its absence) that you find satisfactory, you still have to fill in the placeholder held by the pronoun 'I' — specifically, do you have a concept of the 'I' that even matches your concept of free will. I might even go so far as to suggest that many arguments about 'free will' are actually cloaked differences about the nature of the 'I'; few people dispute the core argument of determinism, more dispute what determinism has to do with a specific conception of the 'I'. (Does this apply to the centrality of ethical considerations circling the free will question? I don't know, I'm just spitballing here.)

[FBM]

I will petition staff to remove all non-substantive posts to Spam and Trash.

I'll just be scrolling by them.

We shouldn't have to. That's the purpose of the General Serious Discussion and Philosophy sub-forum. Witty asides and comments that do not contribute to the discussion of the OP are inappropriate here. I hope we don't have to continue discussing this. While it could prevent further derails, it's not addressing the OP directly.

[JimC]

Most of us have had the experience at one time or another of feeling like an actor in a play. By that, I mean the sensation of standing outside the actions and thinking of the current "agent in charge", at least to a degree, or for a brief moment. I don'y treat this feeling in any mystical sense, but as an example that our cognitive processes are not always a tightly unified whole. The variation in states of consciousness demonstrated both by drugs and meditative techniques further confirms the death of the dominant ego as the only true picture of human mentality. It is a healthy thing to peer beneath the bonnet of the cognitive engine from time to time.

Having said that, I will praise the "active conscious agent" delusion as a very effective tool for dealing with the real world. As long as you don't think it's all there is...

It's effectiveness isn't the question for me. It evolved and almost certainly aids survival. But the evolution of the consciousness was in favor of what aided survival, not was the most accurate description or understanding of the way things really are. An illusion can sometimes be more efficient in immediately attaining a certain goal than a prolonged and detailed analysis.

What about my question, though? What is the actual referent when someone says "I" was born and "I" am this or that, and "I" will die?

Although effectiveness is not the be all and end all for me, I find it interesting... Our mental abilities, such as they are, are not either "god-given" nor are they gateways to some sort of ultimate mystical truth, once the dross of everyday life is somehow removed.

To me, they are imperfect, but clever mechanisms to establish a reasonable connection with a real and objective reality, and to thrive in it... Part of that involves an inevitable self delusion. I like the idea of trying to fool this self-delusion process, at least from time to time; if nothing else, it gives a certain perspective...

However, ultimately, my loyalty is to the struggles of the scientific method to slowly but surely develop a consistent model for how the universe actually works, rather than how we might like it to be. In this context, I'm not too worried about whether the "I" that is a transient part in this long-term process actually exists or not...

[GrahamH]

I won't pretend to have read your thread, GrahamH, in any depth, other than to note that it seemed to be a form of simulation theory [of theory of mind], excepting that all such "ideas" are ultimately simulations or models, somewhat akin to the way Dennett's Intentional Stance functions. Matter of fact, it's not clear whether you and he have competing views, or whether they are bosom buddies.

Something like simulation. See also Confabulation Theory

Thinking is a phylogenetic outgrowth of movement. Multicellular animals began moving about 580 million years ago. The fitness benefits of purposeful movement rapidly drove the development of nervous systems. Soon, a new design possibility emerged: the elaborate neuronal machinery already developed for controlling movement could be applied to brain tissue itself. In particular, discrete brain structures, modules, emerged that could be controlled exactly like individual muscles. By manipulating these modules in properly coordinated 'movements' (thought processes), information processing (specifically, cognition vision, hearing, planning, reasoning, language, movement and thought process selection and inauguration, etc.) could be carried out – further amplifying animal competitive success and diversity. The purpose of each module is to describe one attribute that an object of the cognitive universe may possess. This description takes the form of activating one of a large number of symbols (each a small collection of specialized neurons) within the module. An individual axonal knowledge link (of which the average human adult possesses billions) unidirectionally connects a source symbol in one module with a second meaningfully co-occurring target symbol in a second module (a la Hebb). A module receiving knowledge links from symbols on other modules can be commanded to 'contract' (confabulate) yielding a single active conclusion symbol; namely, the symbol having the highest level of summed incoming knowledge link excitations. Mathematically, confabulation maximizes cogency (the conclusion selected is that which is most supportive of the truth value of the symbols supplying input excitation); which is the specific generalization of Aristotelian logic upon which all animal cognition is based. Multiconfabulation, in which multiple modules gradually confabulate, while mutually communicating via knowledge links, allows the parallel application of vast numbers of relevant knowledge links. Every time a module reaches a conclusion, action commands axonally connected from that conclusion (these learned connections are termed skill knowledge) are instantly launched. Action commands cause all non-reflexive and non-autonomic behavior (movement processes and thought processes). The extreme power of thought derives mostly from these last three factors: the massive parallel application of knowledge, the interoperability of knowledge links across attributes, and the context-sensitive triggering of new behaviors many times per second.

[FBM]

Although effectiveness is not the be all and end all for me, I find it interesting... Our mental abilities, such as they are, are not either "god-given" nor are they gateways to some sort of ultimate mystical truth, once the dross of everyday life is somehow removed.

To me, they are imperfect, but clever mechanisms to establish a reasonable connection with a real and objective reality, and to thrive in it... Part of that involves an inevitable self delusion. I like the idea of trying to fool this self-delusion process, at least from time to time; if nothing else, it gives a certain perspective...

However, ultimately, my loyalty is to the struggles of the scientific method to slowly but surely develop a consistent model for how the universe actually works, rather than how we might like it to be. In this context, I'm not too worried about whether the "I" that is a transient part in this long-term process actually exists or not...

Again, we're not talking about nihilism. Saying the Self is an illusion isn't saying that there is nothing. And the OP isn't about the superiority of reason or the scientific process. It's about finding the actual, demonatrable referent to the personal pronouns "I", "me", "you", etc, when they are meant to refer to an entity who was born and is identical (think "identity) to the entity that dies. What is it?

[JimC]

Although effectiveness is not the be all and end all for me, I find it interesting... Our mental abilities, such as they are, are not either "god-given" nor are they gateways to some sort of ultimate mystical truth, once the dross of everyday life is somehow removed.

To me, they are imperfect, but clever mechanisms to establish a reasonable connection with a real and objective reality, and to thrive in it... Part of that involves an inevitable self delusion. I like the idea of trying to fool this self-delusion process, at least from time to time; if nothing else, it gives a certain perspective...

However, ultimately, my loyalty is to the struggles of the scientific method to slowly but surely develop a consistent model for how the universe actually works, rather than how we might like it to be. In this context, I'm not too worried about whether the "I" that is a transient part in this long-term process actually exists or not...

Again, we're not talking about nihilism. Saying the Self is an illusion isn't saying that there is nothing. And the OP isn't about the superiority of reason or the scientific process. It's about finding the actual, demonatrable referent to the personal pronouns "I", "me", "you", etc, when they are meant to refer to an entity who was born and is identical (think "identity) to the entity that dies. What is it?

Well, given that that actual being has changed both chemically and in many other ways, the straightforward conclusion is that the I is, in one sense, a convenient descriptor of the sentient being that occupies the changing biological shell, and, in another sense, the determined grasping for continuity that an active cognitive agent requires to survive the toils and tribulations of a hostile world...

[FBM]

Well, given that that actual being has changed both chemically and in many other ways, the straightforward conclusion is that the I is, in one sense, a convenient descriptor of the sentient being that occupies the changing biological shell, and, in another sense, the determined grasping for continuity that an active cognitive agent requires to survive the toils and tribulations of a hostile world...

A certain philosopher, Mark Siderits, iirc, uses very similar terms. I'll have to find those books to make sure, but something very like "convenient fiction" and "empty designator."

[Atheist-Lite]

I won't subscribe to the main argument but this idea of the self is a little dated now. Buddhism rejected the notion thousands of years ago. I'm not a Buddhist but during my youthful 'search' phase I came across the idea. Found it appalling at first then gradually came round to the notion. I don't view recent science as anything more than a catch-up on what I accepted twenty five years ago. There is no self. Everything is a mental construct and although the conscious self awareness of experience appears to reveal a consistent reality it is illusion, a poor biased cartoon of the objective reality beyond our senses.

[FBM]

@ rasetsu: First of all, sorry in advance if I didn't get your intended meaning perfectly, but I hope I can say something helpful. The Buddhist concept of anatta isn't nihilist. It doesn't claim that nothing exists or that what happens in your brain isn't real. In fact, from what I've garnered from Buddhist philosophers (Western), reality for Buddhism is synonymous with the subjective experience. Illusions are real...illusions. Misperceptions. Like an optical illusion that makes you think the wheel is turning when it's not.

There is something there that's causing a mirage to look like water, but when you go over there and look, there's no water. In this way, the concept of anatta is saying, roughly, that we assume that there's something real that we refer to when we say things like, 'I was born in x year, and I am that same person now, I will be that person when I die.' But if you use modern scienctific tools to analyze what there actually is to a human being, physically, the referent for the pronoun 'I' (in the context of the hypothetical statement I provided connoting a discrete, enduring entity) hasn't been found. Ship of Theseus thing. It's really simpler than my poor efforts at presenting it make it seem. Concisely put, there's no immortal soul and no homunculus. It aids survival for us to believe in a Self, but when we actually apply skeptical inquiry into it, we haven't been able to find it. Something exists, things are happening in a connected, conditional or sort-of causal way, but we haven't been able to find a discrete entity that resides therein. As far as I know.

Sorry if this is clumsy. I'm working on my ability to express my ideas more effectively.

[JimC]

FBM wrote:

There is something there that's causing a mirage to look like water, but when you go over there and look, there's no water. In this way, the concept of anatta is saying, roughly, that we assume that there's something real that we refer to when we say things like, 'I was born in x year, and I am that same person now, I will be that person when I die.' But if you use modern scienctific tools to analyze what there actually is to a human being, physically, the referent for the pronoun 'I' (in the context of the hypothetical statement I provided connoting a discrete, enduring entity) hasn't been found. Ship of Theseus thing. It's really simpler than my poor efforts at presenting it make it seem. Concisely put, there's no immortal soul and no homunculus. It aids survival for us to believe in a Self, but when we actually apply skeptical inquiry into it, we haven't been able to find it. Something exists, things are happening in a connected, conditional or sort-of causal way, but we haven't been able to find a discrete entity that resides therein. As far as I know.

This resonates with my thinking in this area...

And with things I've read about some interesting experiments in perception, and the internal brain processes that accompany decisions...

[Hermit]

The so-called self starts off as a biological organism that is totally incapable of differentiating between itself and the external world. That is to say, we have no hint of a self within us at the time of our birth. This soon changes. Initially that is due to sensory perception. Then come social influences. We start off as tabula rasa, but what is written on us is circumscribed by circumstance. The scope is predicated by where we are born, and when. That is what makes the self in each of us. I don't think it is at all useful to seek an explanation of the self on a metaphysical (...not the same river... and all that) level.

[Svartalf]

I think therefore I am.
Even if I exist only in my own mind, I exist, that is enough...
You folks, though, might just be figments.

[JimC]

The so-called self starts off as a biological organism that is totally incapable of differentiating between itself and the external world. That is to say, we have no hint of a self within us at the time of our birth. This soon changes. Initially that is due to sensory perception. Then come social influences. We start of as tabula rasa, but what is written on us is limited by circumstance. The scope is predicated by where we are born, and when. That is what makes the self in each of us. I don't think it is at all useful to seek an explanation of the self on a metaphysical (...not the same river... and all that) level.

I dont think it's a tabla rasa, rather a dynamic entity pre-programmed to avidly devour certain categories of sensory input, so as to efficiently adapt to the hominid world de jour...

[FBM]

Just a quick question, Hermit. Do you use "metaphysical" here in the vernacular connotation or the philosophical one? If you mean it in the vernacular, I'm right with you. If you mean it as conclusions based on necessary (not speculative) inference, I'm not so sure.