The Illusion of the Self

[surreptitious57]

There is a logical fallacy here which is unassailable and it is this. One cannot objectively reference the self, since by definition, it is a composite of all subjective interpretations of one's environment. Science can partially get round this by referencing neuron transmissions within the brain. But that does not tell an observer what one is thinking or feeling. So the very tool that requires objectivity in understanding the natural world, namely the brain, is also the reference point for our subjective interpretation of all we sense, from birth to death. This paradox is probably never going to be solved, and which is why any logical attempt at discussing this is less than optimum.

There is also another paradox which is this: all subjective sense experience is real for the observer, even though it varies from individual to individual. To make matters even more confusing it does so on two distinctive levels, the actual experience itself, and the subjective interpretation of that experience. This leads to another paradox, namely that everything we subjectively experience is not real in and of itself, rather an interpretation of it. Maybe the self therfore at a very basic level is just that, an interpreter of reality. Maybe absolute reality is beyond us. What I find interesting is how this has to be really thought about to be understood, even though the actuality of it is apparently automatic. Now I have no idea if all this is necessarily true but it is my interpretation of it nonetheless.

[Hermit]

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.

That question is a bit too quick for me, I'm afraid. Would you please expand on what you mean with your last sentence?

Take your time. I am in need of oblivion right now, which I normally seek to attain with some sleep. Back in a couple of hours, or so.

[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.

That question is a bit too quick for me, I'm afraid. Would you please expand on what you mean with your last sentence?

Take your time. I am in need of oblivion right now, which I normally seek to attain with some sleep. Back in a couple of hours, or so.

Mathematics, for example, is metaphysical, but based on necessary inference. Unless I'm wrong, of course.

[JimC]

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.

That question is a bit too quick for me, I'm afraid. Would you please expand on what you mean with your last sentence?

Take your time. I am in need of oblivion right now, which I normally seek to attain with some sleep. Back in a couple of hours, or so.

Mathematics, for example, is metaphysical, but based on necessary inference. Unless I'm wrong, of course.

I think metaphysics is both broader and vaguer than mathematics. It asks basic questions such as "Why is there anything" or "What does it mean to ask questions"

Mathematics systematically investigates patterns...

[Hermit]

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.

That question is a bit too quick for me, I'm afraid. Would you please expand on what you mean with your last sentence?

Take your time. I am in need of oblivion right now, which I normally seek to attain with some sleep. Back in a couple of hours, or so.

Mathematics, for example, is metaphysical, but based on necessary inference. Unless I'm wrong, of course.

Ah. Mathematics is in the last analysis based on real world experience to me, then abstracted and then extrapolations follow. "One apple and one apple" becomes "x + x". Four apples becomes "x * 4" or 2x * 2". Other observations lead to pi, and so on.

[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.

That question is a bit too quick for me, I'm afraid. Would you please expand on what you mean with your last sentence?

Take your time. I am in need of oblivion right now, which I normally seek to attain with some sleep. Back in a couple of hours, or so.

Mathematics, for example, is metaphysical, but based on necessary inference. Unless I'm wrong, of course.

Ah. Mathematics is in the last analysis based on real world experience to me, then abstracted and then extrapolations follow. "One apple and one apple" becomes "x + x". Four apples becomes "x * 4" or 2x * 2". Other observations lead to pi, and so on.

Ah. Cool. We agree on that. The abstraction is when it becomes metaphysics.

[Hermit]

The abstraction is when it becomes metaphysics.

OK, I seem to begin to understand what you mean. Metaphysics is to me something ultimately disconnected from experience, something out there in the ontological sky the way Plato held the existence of "essentials" to be, without which we could not form any ideas whatsoever. His was the top-down version of philosophy. Without an ontological "one", "justice", "love" for example, we could never form mathematical concepts, or those pertaining to law or empathy, according to him. That is metaphysics to me.

My vaguely formed concept of the self, or the illusion of the self for that matter, is not metaphysical in the platonic sense. To me, whatever the self is or is not, is ultimately grounded in the material world.

[FBM]

The abstraction is when it becomes metaphysics.

OK, I seem to begin to understand what you mean. Metaphysics is to me something ultimately disconnected from experience, something out there in the ontological sky the way Plato held the existence of "essentials" to be, without which we could not form any ideas whatsoever. His was the top-down version of philosophy. Without an ontological "one", "justice", "love" for example, we could never form mathematical concepts, or those pertaining to law or empathy, according to him. That is metaphysics to me.

My vaguely formed concept of the self, or the illusion of the self for that matter, is not metaphysical in the platonic sense. To me, whatever the self is or is not, is ultimately grounded in the material world.

Cool. Then we're on the same page, after all. Plato had his head up his ass on the thing with "Forms."

[surreptitious57]

Mathematics, for example, is metaphysical but based on necessary inference.

Mathematics is a complete abstraction that is also paradoxically the language of reality.

[JimC]

Mathematics, for example, is metaphysical but based on necessary inference.

Mathematics is a complete abstraction that is also paradoxically the language of reality.

But it is an abstraction generated by rational entities that have evolved from the said reality...

Maybe it shows that we have a better connection with the true nature of the universe than some would award us...

[FBM]

Agreed. That's part of what I meant by "necessary inference."

[Hermit]

The abstraction is when it becomes metaphysics.

OK, I seem to begin to understand what you mean. Metaphysics is to me something ultimately disconnected from experience, something out there in the ontological sky the way Plato held the existence of "essentials" to be, without which we could not form any ideas whatsoever. His was the top-down version of philosophy. Without an ontological "one", "justice", "love" for example, we could never form mathematical concepts, or those pertaining to law or empathy, according to him. That is metaphysics to me.

My vaguely formed concept of the self, or the illusion of the self for that matter, is not metaphysical in the platonic sense. To me, whatever the self is or is not, is ultimately grounded in the material world.

Cool. Then we're on the same page, after all. Plato had his head up his ass on the thing with "Forms."

Perhaps. I would not want to sully mathematics by saying it is metaphysical, but then I may just be semantically anal in this context.

Actually, I'm not! Don't fucking even imply that mathematics is in any way metaphysical. Not even by qualifying it with "but based on necessary inference".

With that, I better fuck off for a while, lest I really go to pieces in public again.

[JimC]

The abstraction is when it becomes metaphysics.

OK, I seem to begin to understand what you mean. Metaphysics is to me something ultimately disconnected from experience, something out there in the ontological sky the way Plato held the existence of "essentials" to be, without which we could not form any ideas whatsoever. His was the top-down version of philosophy. Without an ontological "one", "justice", "love" for example, we could never form mathematical concepts, or those pertaining to law or empathy, according to him. That is metaphysics to me.

My vaguely formed concept of the self, or the illusion of the self for that matter, is not metaphysical in the platonic sense. To me, whatever the self is or is not, is ultimately grounded in the material world.

Cool. Then we're on the same page, after all. Plato had his head up his ass on the thing with "Forms."

Perhaps. I would not want to sully mathematics by saying it is metaphysical, but then I may just be semantically anal in this context.

Actually, I'm not! Don't fucking even imply that mathematics is in any way metaphysical. Not even by qualifying it with "but based on necessary inference".

With that, I better fuck off for a while, lest I really go to pieces in public again.

The wild end of abstract mathematics certainly starts to cozy up to metaphysics, when we start to consider transcendental numbers or uncountable infinities...

[FBM]

There is a logical fallacy here which is unassailable and it is this. One cannot objectively reference the self, since by definition, it is a composite of all subjective interpretations of one's environment. Science can partially get round this by referencing neuron transmissions within the brain. But that does not tell an observer what one is thinking or feeling. So the very tool that requires objectivity in understanding the natural world, namely the brain, is also the reference point for our subjective interpretation of all we sense, from birth to death. This paradox is probably never going to be solved, and which is why any logical attempt at discussing this is less than optimum.

There is also another paradox which is this: all subjective sense experience is real for the observer, even though it varies from individual to individual. To make matters even more confusing it does so on two distinctive levels, the actual experience itself, and the subjective interpretation of that experience. This leads to another paradox, namely that everything we subjectively experience is not real in and of itself, rather an interpretation of it. Maybe the self therfore at a very basic level is just that, an interpreter of reality. Maybe absolute reality is beyond us. What I find interesting is how this has to be really thought about to be understood, even though the actuality of it is apparently automatic. Now I have no idea if all this is necessarily true but it is my interpretation of it nonetheless.

I agree and I think both Hume and the Buddha would agree with you. What interprets the sensory input is not a single, discrete entity (a homunculus or soul), but a dynamic exchange of several organs within the brain. One cannot, as far as I know, step outside subjective experience, but solipsism leads to its own absurdities. For me, the only rational conclusion is that phenomena are conditionally connected, but what we commonly call our Self doesn't match the definition (vernacular) that we assign to it. Thus, the illusion.

[FBM]

The abstraction is when it becomes metaphysics.

OK, I seem to begin to understand what you mean. Metaphysics is to me something ultimately disconnected from experience, something out there in the ontological sky the way Plato held the existence of "essentials" to be, without which we could not form any ideas whatsoever. His was the top-down version of philosophy. Without an ontological "one", "justice", "love" for example, we could never form mathematical concepts, or those pertaining to law or empathy, according to him. That is metaphysics to me.

My vaguely formed concept of the self, or the illusion of the self for that matter, is not metaphysical in the platonic sense. To me, whatever the self is or is not, is ultimately grounded in the material world.

Cool. Then we're on the same page, after all. Plato had his head up his ass on the thing with "Forms."

Perhaps. I would not want to sully mathematics by saying it is metaphysical, but then I may just be semantically anal in this context.

Actually, I'm not! Don't fucking even imply that mathematics is in any way metaphysical. Not even by qualifying it with "but based on necessary inference".

With that, I better fuck off for a while, lest I really go to pieces in public again.

In that case, I won't ask you where 2 is. Or pi. Or the square root of a negative number.