The Illusion of the Self

[amused]

...

... If you read the thread, you'll see that it's about shattering the illusion of absolute knowledge about individual identity.

"We are each an individual snowflake.... just like everybody else."

I accept that I'm an animal that operates according to physical processes that are largely the same in everybody else. The primary difference is the set of memories that I carry.

The conventional definition of a Self is one who is identical from birth to death. Memories accumulate, fade, get distorted, some are fictions, etc. I can't see how Self = memories. Not that that's what you're claiming, just that it's a common refuge for a lot of people when confronted with this dilemma.

That seems like a flawed definition of Self then. As the TAM video earlier showed, the early childhood brain isn't even fully wired. So the physical mechanism for experience isn't fully there. Later in life that brain degrades, so again the physical mechanism is lost. Other environmental factors affect the body, and all the while experience changes our perception. I can't see how there is anything permanent that could remain identical over a lifetime.

[FBM]

If you read the thread, you'll see that it's about shattering the illusion of absolute knowledge about individual identity.

Pretty ambivalent either way on this atm, so just curious .. why shatter that illusion?

If you're satisfied with illusion, don't bother with it.

That's not a helpful response to my question. I am rather interested in the why, actually.

Why would anybody seek to see beyond illusion and discover that the illusion is just that? Peek behind the curtain? Look inside the atom? Build a bigger telescope and figure out how we got here? Very simply that some people aren't satisfied with illusions. If you are, go for it. Nobody's judging you for it.

...

... If you read the thread, you'll see that it's about shattering the illusion of absolute knowledge about individual identity.

"We are each an individual snowflake.... just like everybody else."

I accept that I'm an animal that operates according to physical processes that are largely the same in everybody else. The primary difference is the set of memories that I carry.

The conventional definition of a Self is one who is identical from birth to death. Memories accumulate, fade, get distorted, some are fictions, etc. I can't see how Self = memories. Not that that's what you're claiming, just that it's a common refuge for a lot of people when confronted with this dilemma.

That seems like a flawed definition of Self then. As the TAM video earlier showed, the early childhood brain isn't even fully wired. So the physical mechanism for experience isn't fully there. Later in life that brain degrades, so again the physical mechanism is lost. Other environmental factors affect the body, and all the while experience changes our perception. I can't see how there is anything permanent that could remain identical over a lifetime.

Exactly. The conventional definition is deeply flawed. It's useful, but that doesn't mean it's accurate.

[amused]

I accept that I'm an animal that operates according to physical processes that are largely the same in everybody else. The primary difference is the set of memories that I carry.

ayep

"I AM my body" works ... but aren't I also my environment?

And yet isn't it also possible for me to behave autonomously, even uniquely (creatively, ethically) given some thought?

Intriguing stuff ..

I've considered the proposal that, no, we can't act autonomously because our every action is driven by the sum total of what we are just prior to making what appears to be a free will decision. It's possible that that is what is happening, but even then, so what? If that's the physical reality that we live in, then it's as good as real, again.

[FBM]

I accept that I'm an animal that operates according to physical processes that are largely the same in everybody else. The primary difference is the set of memories that I carry.

ayep

"I AM my body" works ... but aren't I also my environment?

And yet isn't it also possible for me to behave autonomously, even uniquely (creatively, ethically) given some thought?

Intriguing stuff ..

I've considered the proposal that, no, we can't act autonomously because our every action is driven by the sum total of what we are just prior to making what appears to be a free will decision. It's possible that that is what is happening, but even then, so what? If that's the physical reality that we live in, then it's as good as real, again.

Newtonian physics is as good as real for practically every human endeavor, so why did Einstein keep looking at it? He wasn't satisfied with "as good as real," I'd guess. I don't know for sure there are any practical advantages to knowing that the Self is illusion, but I've run across a very old set of arguments that the conventional concept of Self is deeply flawed, and I want to know if there is a better concept. Can we ever get to absolute knowledge of reality? I don't know. But it seems to me that the best approach is to keep looking instead of just saying, 'Well, this feels good, so I'll stop looking here.'

[charlou]

I accept that I'm an animal that operates according to physical processes that are largely the same in everybody else. The primary difference is the set of memories that I carry.

ayep

"I AM my body" works ... but aren't I also my environment?

And yet isn't it also possible for me to behave autonomously, even uniquely (creatively, ethically) given some thought?

Intriguing stuff ..

I've considered the proposal that, no, we can't act autonomously because our every action is driven by the sum total of what we are just prior to making what appears to be a free will decision. It's possible that that is what is happening, but even then, so what? If that's the physical reality that we live in, then it's as good as real, again.

hayeah ... I guess I make a distinction between autonomy and free will agency.



FBM, not sure but I get the impression you're making assumptions about what I might be willing to consider/accept?

[charlou]

But it seems to me that the best approach is to keep looking instead of just saying, 'Well, this feels good, so I'll stop looking here.'

Ah .. well, I'm certainly not saying that. As I said, quite the contrary. I just don't believe we'll ever achieve absolute knowledge about reality, so in that sense, our understanding (call it illusion if you prefer) is only ever as good as it gets.

[amused]

I accept that I'm an animal that operates according to physical processes that are largely the same in everybody else. The primary difference is the set of memories that I carry.

ayep

"I AM my body" works ... but aren't I also my environment?

And yet isn't it also possible for me to behave autonomously, even uniquely (creatively, ethically) given some thought?

Intriguing stuff ..

I've considered the proposal that, no, we can't act autonomously because our every action is driven by the sum total of what we are just prior to making what appears to be a free will decision. It's possible that that is what is happening, but even then, so what? If that's the physical reality that we live in, then it's as good as real, again.

Newtonian physics is as good as real for practically every human endeavor, so why did Einstein keep looking at it? He wasn't satisfied with "as good as real," I'd guess. I don't know for sure there are any practical advantages to knowing that the Self is illusion, but I've run across a very old set of arguments that the conventional concept of Self is deeply flawed, and I want to know if there is a better concept. Can we ever get to absolute knowledge of reality? I don't know. But it seems to me that the best approach is to keep looking instead of just saying, 'Well, this feels good, so I'll stop looking here.'

I'm not suggesting that we stop looking, but I think the search is more likely to be useful if we get down to the basic physics of our body's operation, including that part we call a brain. Which is why I'm intrigued by Sam Harris' work, since he's a neuroscientist, I think that's where we'll find more useful data.

[FBM]

I'm not suggesting that we stop looking, but I think the search is more likely to be useful if we get down to the basic physics of our body's operation, including that part we call a brain. Which is why I'm intrigued by Sam Harris' work, since he's a neuroscientist, I think that's where we'll find more useful data.

Indeed. And the neuroscience to date strongly indicates that there's no ghost in this machine, nor a homunculus. Nor even free will. http://books.google.co.kr/books?id=4OPY ... ns&f=false

[charlou]

Yep, neuroscience.

The Selfish Gene once again comes to mind ... so to speak ...

[FBM]

But it seems to me that the best approach is to keep looking instead of just saying, 'Well, this feels good, so I'll stop looking here.'

Ah .. well, I'm certainly not saying that. As I said, quite the contrary. I just don't believe we'll ever achieve absolute knowledge about reality, so in that sense, our understanding (call it illusion if you prefer) is only ever as good as it gets.

So we should stop looking and asking questions about the things that capture the attention of our brains? You can, if you like. Most people are uncomfortable with challenging questions. No biggie. But I need questions to keep me occupied until this body falls apart. Good, difficult and challenging questions. Even uncomfortable ones. Especially uncomfortable ones.

[charlou]

Um ... what part of I'm not saying that didn't you read?

night.

[amused]

I'm not suggesting that we stop looking, but I think the search is more likely to be useful if we get down to the basic physics of our body's operation, including that part we call a brain. Which is why I'm intrigued by Sam Harris' work, since he's a neuroscientist, I think that's where we'll find more useful data.

Indeed. And the neuroscience to date strongly indicates that there's no ghost in this machine, nor a homunculus. Nor even free will. http://books.google.co.kr/books?id=4OPY ... ns&f=false

Well, I could have told you that a long time ago.

Once you get there, then sure, there's a lot of neuroscience yet to be explored. Carry on by all means. On a practical level, I don't know that it helps me to know that certain parts of my brain are interacting with other parts to create my perception of a given situation. How could I use that to improve my life?

[FBM]

Like I said above, I'm not sure there is a practical use for this argument. But I study and try to figure out a lot of things just out of curiosity and for fun, which is a practical use in itself, if you think about it. It's a different sort of pleasure, I suppose.

[Svartalf]

entertainment is not practical?

[FBM]

"...which is a practical use in itself, if you think about it."