The Illusion of the Self

[amused]

If the Self is purely biochemical then it does open the possibility of re-programming a new you, which could be practical.

[charlou]

If the Self is purely biochemical then it does open the possibility of re-programming a new you, which could be practical.

ABC Radio National has excellent programs .. All in the Mind is one of them.

Here is an article about a woman who changed how her brain works through exercises she designed to improve her capacity to learn and understand concepts. Others are following her example.

If you don't get the links to the audio and transcript in your country I can quote the transcript here, if you like.

[JimC]

... As far as other animals, at least those with a reasonably developed central nervous system, I suspect their is something acting as a central decision-maker; the difference would be that they can't reflect on it, or attempt to analyse it, they just are it...

That was in response to a comment Rum made, but I wanted to use it as a point of departure.

Why wouldn't humans, being an animal, be any different from any other animal in that we simply are what we are? Why would we not simply be a physical entity with physical processes that play out according to the laws of physics in this universe? I don't inhabit my body, I AM my body, which includes a brain. If the interpretation of reality is an illusion, so what? It's a persistent illusion that can't be modified except through physical force, so it's as good as real.

As far as standard materialism, I'm with you 100%. However, it's no use pretending that there's not a fairly massive cognitive gap between us and the rest. I tried to make the point that central decision makers exist in vertebrates (and no doubt in some invertebrates), but they do not allow for reflective, recursive thought. This thread itself is an example of thoughts about thought...

[GrahamH]

... As far as other animals, at least those with a reasonably developed central nervous system, I suspect their is something acting as a central decision-maker; the difference would be that they can't reflect on it, or attempt to analyse it, they just are it...

That was in response to a comment Rum made, but I wanted to use it as a point of departure.

Why wouldn't humans, being an animal, be any different from any other animal in that we simply are what we are? Why would we not simply be a physical entity with physical processes that play out according to the laws of physics in this universe? I don't inhabit my body, I AM my body, which includes a brain. If the interpretation of reality is an illusion, so what? It's a persistent illusion that can't be modified except through physical force, so it's as good as real.

As far as standard materialism, I'm with you 100%. However, it's no use pretending that there's not a fairly massive cognitive gap between us and the rest. I tried to make the point that central decision makers exist in vertebrates (and no doubt in some invertebrates), but they do not allow for reflective, recursive thought. This thread itself is an example of thoughts about thought...

How does one tell if any animal has "reflective, recursive thoughts"?

Some animals show self awareness in a mirror test.
Some animals are tool-using problem solvers.
Some animals have very complex social relationships.

[JimC]

... As far as other animals, at least those with a reasonably developed central nervous system, I suspect their is something acting as a central decision-maker; the difference would be that they can't reflect on it, or attempt to analyse it, they just are it...

That was in response to a comment Rum made, but I wanted to use it as a point of departure.

Why wouldn't humans, being an animal, be any different from any other animal in that we simply are what we are? Why would we not simply be a physical entity with physical processes that play out according to the laws of physics in this universe? I don't inhabit my body, I AM my body, which includes a brain. If the interpretation of reality is an illusion, so what? It's a persistent illusion that can't be modified except through physical force, so it's as good as real.

As far as standard materialism, I'm with you 100%. However, it's no use pretending that there's not a fairly massive cognitive gap between us and the rest. I tried to make the point that central decision makers exist in vertebrates (and no doubt in some invertebrates), but they do not allow for reflective, recursive thought. This thread itself is an example of thoughts about thought...

How does one tell if any animal has "reflective, recursive thoughts"?

Some animals show self awareness in a mirror test.
Some animals are tool-using problem solvers.
Some animals have very complex social relationships.

I suppose I should have included the ability to discuss them with others of one's species...

That, I'm sure is unique to us.

I see the self-recognition stage as important, but a very early step indeed...

[mistermack]

Are memories and character constant throughout a single lifetime, mistermack?

No, I don't think so. I said "never the same from one second to the next" meaning never EXACTLY the same.
Obviously, memories and character remain very similar, barring accidents, but can't stay the same.

Anyway, memories get changed by false bits muscling in. If you remember something from long ago, and try to picture it, you start adding bits to flesh it out. I find that I do, anyway.

One of my very earliest memories, for some stupid reason, is leaning on an upstairs windowledge, watching my dad mow the lawn with a push mower.

I can't remember if he had hair, or was bald at the time, or if the grass was green, or dry and brownish.
But I see a full picture, my mind fills it in, I must be sub-consciously adding stuff that fits.

[mistermack]

If the Self is purely biochemical then it does open the possibility of re-programming a new you, which could be practical.

Well it IS already practical, to some extent. In that a massive head injury can cause a drastic personality change.

A partly different you is still a new you. It's not the old you. It's just based on the old you.

I suppose you could totally erase everything and start again. But you'd be bringing up a big baby.
Without the asset of a baby brain, so it would probably end up a mess.

[FBM]

Are memories and character constant throughout a single lifetime, mistermack?

No, I don't think so. I said "never the same from one second to the next" meaning never EXACTLY the same.
Obviously, memories and character remain very similar, barring accidents, but can't stay the same.

Anyway, memories get changed by false bits muscling in. If you remember something from long ago, and try to picture it, you start adding bits to flesh it out. I find that I do, anyway.

One of my very earliest memories, for some stupid reason, is leaning on an upstairs windowledge, watching my dad mow the lawn with a push mower.

I can't remember if he had hair, or was bald at the time, or if the grass was green, or dry and brownish.
But I see a full picture, my mind fills it in, I must be sub-consciously adding stuff that fits.

Yeah, I do the same thing. The older I get, the less sure I am that my memories are of real events or dreams. Body, mind, character, behavior...all of these things are Ships of Theseus, seems.

[FBM]

If the Self is purely biochemical then it does open the possibility of re-programming a new you, which could be practical.

Well it IS already practical, to some extent. In that a massive head injury can cause a drastic personality change.

A partly different you is still a new you. It's not the old you. It's just based on the old you.

I suppose you could totally erase everything and start again. But you'd be bringing up a big baby.
Without the asset of a baby brain, so it would probably end up a mess.

A year in a Buddhist monastery made big changes in my personality, character, behavior, etc. Daily mediation was a big part of that, but not all of it. My friends recognized my body and voice after I came out, but my behavior and affect were radically different.

[amused]

If the Self is purely biochemical then it does open the possibility of re-programming a new you, which could be practical.

Well it IS already practical, to some extent. In that a massive head injury can cause a drastic personality change.

A partly different you is still a new you. It's not the old you. It's just based on the old you.

I suppose you could totally erase everything and start again. But you'd be bringing up a big baby.
Without the asset of a baby brain, so it would probably end up a mess.

I was thinking more along the lines of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Brain where specific memories could be erased and new ones put in place. A similar concept shows up in Bladerunner when Tyrell talks about gifting the replicants with a past. (Based on a PK Dick story Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?)

The movie Total Recall also turns on the idea that people could buy virtual vacations or experiences that once placed in their mind are as good as real. (Based on a PK Dick story We Can Remember It for You Wholesale)

Earlier, the movie Brainstorm turned on the idea that memories could be off-loaded and recorded, and then played back to somebody else, creating a new copy of the memory in them.

Taken further, a very different 'you' could be constructed with enough programming of new memories, with deletion of old ones. It would require an incredibly detailed understanding and mapping of a customer's brain, but if it's just biochemistry, it's not out of the realm of possibility.

FBM - I guess I'm close to arguing that we are indeed our memories, in large part.

[amused]

Did I say something wrong?

[JimC]

Did I say something wrong?

Who is this "I" you speak of?

[rasetsu]

The self, like everything in consciousness, is a model. A model with consequences, consequents, and cosecants.



You can pun but you cannot hide. Hear me, oh Gautama Shakeyerbooty?

[amused]

The self, like everything in consciousness, is a model. A model with consequences, consequents, and cosecants.



You can pun but you cannot hide. Hear me, oh Gautama Shakeyerbooty?

[amused]

Or maybe...